Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive355

209.254.12.73 (talk · contribs) and Sheng Long

209.254.12.73 (talk · contribs) seems to be a good editor otherwise. However, with Sheng Long, he insists on removing maintenance tags from the article and removing it to a fancruft-filled version that was previously nominated for an AfD. He's been blocked on multiple occasions for this, and now his strategy seems to be waiting a few weeks before reverting the page. Is there anything that can be done about this short of longer blocks? JuJube (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that one's a little odd. I have left a note on the user's talk page requesting politely that he listen to the warnings he's been given about this. I do not know if this will forestall longer blocks, but I'm not sure what else to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Noodles75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism only account. Latest edit today. Not current, so not eligible to be reported on AIV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit does not appear to be vandalism, although some of the others do. I don't think any admin action is necessary here as he has had a couple warnings over the last few days, but no final warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, content to watch, but isn't a Template:uw-vandalism3 as given here a final warning ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytona2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alethiophile

User self identifies as 13 years old and provides lots of real world info (School, hometown, DOB etc). Can someone check if this is appropiate and deal with accordingly? Exxolon (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it pending further discussion. See this for more info. Prodego ^talk 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

His userbox indicates he was born in 1993, that means he isn't 13 (okay, he's 14, but still...) Corvus cornix_talk 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Oldspammer

Oldspammer (talk · contribs)

I'm going on holiday in 16 hours, so don't expect much response from me. However, this user - who Ive had dealings with in the past - seems absolutely incapable of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. He's an altmed type, and not very civil about it either. For instance, in response to one person pointing out that he's citing studies that deal with dental treatments as evidence for blood treatments, he says:

An Alzheimer's patient might believe your argument that electroporation of the blood (BE) is completely unrelated to electroporation of other fluids because they have lost the abilities for judgement, reasoning, and higher level thinking.

He also claims that altmed is being repressed, and inevitably is promising and useful:

"Alternative medicine is any promising medicine that has not been adopted by and is not used by mainstream medicine, or has been shunned or suppressed by big pharma for political and trust (as in anti-trust monopoly) reasons."

And why is there no evidence of their usefulness?

Other examples of debunking involve drug trials where 1/100th to 1/16th of the effective dosage is used in the drug to be debunked. Even then the submitted results were tampered with so that no positive effects were tabulated, nor found their way in the observation summaries. Their conclusions were forgone: drug to be debunked is ineffective against disease. How surprising?

Other blood treatments have probably been conducted in a similar shoddy fashion to elicite the desired outcomes for the people funding the scientific studies.

...That's right, there's a conspiracy of fraud against them all.

These examples are pretty typical of him; frankly, I don't think he's able to write in an NPOV manner. I'm not sure what should be done, but surely something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What should be done with him? Let him talk. We don't block people for making bad arguments. What he said does not amount to libel. DGG (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was just talk, yes, but he also is a major force for the creation of bad and biased articles on fringe subjects. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The most immediate issue appears to be disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). - Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We dealt with that fine--an ed. moved the excessive comments to a talk page. I see he is not the only one saying keep at that AfD. DGG (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was just that AfD, fine, but it's not. It's just that it was a convenient nucleus to set out some of the problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may, as someone who's interacted with Oldspammer in the past... His focus is on very specific topics: "blood electrification" and Robert Beck, an entrepreneur associated with same. He's had real difficulty with basic policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I've tried to help here, but these issues are coupled with a readiness on Oldspammer's part to assign anyone who disagrees with him or cites policy to the vast conspiracy to suppress the truth about blood electrification. Recently, canvassing has been an issue as well ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc) - though Oldspammer has denied that these posts constitute canvassing, and continued posting to a highly selected audience, albeit in less inflammatory terms ([5], [6]).

The question of what to do is interesting. I agree with DGG that we don't block people for making bad arguments. Prolonged editing contrary to policy is a bit tricky. In this case, Oldspammer's edits are limited to a small series of articles. I think the best approach is to continue working with him and deal with these articles as we would any other - apply notability criteria, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I think the more editors work on these articles, the better, since my experience has been that Oldspammer is either not understanding basic Wikipedia policy or is unwilling to follow it. But a block would be somewhat harsh, based on what I've seen so far. A few more paranoid attacks on other editors as members of a pharma-FDA conspiracy, or more blatant canvassing, might change my mind. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Other highlights include constant reference to a Big Pharma-FDA conspiracy ([7]), fact-tagging another editor's AfD comments: [8], and this canvassing gem, which I'd missed earlier: [9]. Again, I'm not arguing for a block, necessarily, but the problem goes well beyond a few bad arguments at AfD. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think mentorship would help him? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah. He's a man with a mission, and mentoring won't change that. I don't think a block is necessary. As long as they don't cross over into tendentiousness, contrary editors serve a purpose in motivating other to make sure that our sources are top-notch and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Have a great holiday, Adam. When you get back you will find that Wikipedia is still here and there will still be things that need fixing. These things may or may not involve particular altmed editors and articles attracting same, but that is true if you didn't have a break. :~) Happy Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And see you when I'm back! Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently

Thread restored here since this is not a dead or solved issue, but was archived during a holiday pause. -- Fyslee / talk 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He's barely edited in the intervening time, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to continue this thread. ^Avruchtalk 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think there was good reason. I am in the process of composing the next entry. -- Fyslee / talk 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't imply assuming you are right - in the absence of continued edits from Oldspammer that are disruptive, there appears to be no reason to repost this thread. WP:AN/I is not the place to continue a content dispute, and we should give Oldspammer the benefit of the doubt that in the almost month since this thread was previously completed he has had time to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. That is WP:AGF. ^Avruchtalk 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It means that you give me a chance to show that I know something about this that you may not know, and know this editor better than you may know him. You did not do that and I find your actions (the stale tag and your comments here) quite offensive. Don't be so quick on the trigger finger. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldspammer (talk · contribs) has manifestly not become more policy-compliant - recently, he has shifted to the Royal Rife article, insisting we base it on self-published promotional websites and issuing a blanket rejection of any PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed medical journals (because, don't you know, PubMed is linked to "the owners of the Federal Reserve System, Oil money, European aristocracy, Citigroup, media run by moguls, and so on, many of whom are involved in the pharmaceutical, chemical industries, cancer therapy industry, and involved in the US educational system via endowment grants via the tax exempt foundations." I wish this were atypical, but it's absolutely not, and the talk page has turned into Conspiracypedia. On the other hand, he has been editing rarely, and not at all in the last few days, so I don't know how urgent the issue is. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting example of his conspiracy theories is provided in a message to the now banned User:John Gohde. ("Birds of a feather.....") It is applied to editors right here, not just factors outside of Wikipedia. This example shows intent to carefully and deliberately game the system, and Gohde developed the plot even further and this evidence resulted (among other things) in him getting banned. It also reveals that we are dealing with an editor who won't be able to AGF, and thus will be incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. IOW he is unsuited to this environment and will only be a burden and a continued source of disruption. I think the original statement that he is "absolutely incapable of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE" can be extended to WP:AGF.

Added to all this, the belief in such conspiracy theories (to the degree this user obviously believes in them) renders the believer incapable of trusting V & RS, and thus an aversion to using them becomes manifest, and a strong tendency to favor highly unreliable conspiracy theory sources will lead to using them here, instead of V & RS. So many serious faults in one editor can spell nothing but trouble. He is a walking recipe for disaster, and we have been feeling its consequences here for some time. He has the zeal of John Gohde, but not the finesse, which makes it easier to spot the problems, and hopefully make expeditious action easier to take when necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about conspiricy theories true or false/ Everthing needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But we should not be talking about John Gohde behind his back, being that he cannot defend himsel, and he will be back within one year. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. No reason not to discuss John Gohde just because he got himself banned (mutiple times) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As you like, but WikiPedia has more important thing to talk about than one user. Remember WP:POINT. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who' s dealt with him quite a lot after having Royal Rife brought to my attention by the article on it - which he created - being criticised in a major blog (Respectful Insolence] if I'm not mistaken), I'm going to have to agree with Fyslee and Mastcell - this user has consistently shown himself unable to not only to misunderstand NPOV, but to be unable to understand WP:RS, promoting self-published web sources, patents (with and quotemining from 70 year old publications, while rejecting Pubmed-indexed sources, as Mastcell describes above. He also has a tendency to take what a source says, then make claims (referenced to the source), that go well beyond what the source said, e.g. claiming that having been awarded a patent proves that all claims listed in or related to that patent are true. In the article's text. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong blog. this is the correct link. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Fyslee, if you took my comments personally. It seems unnecessary, still, to bring this to AN/I given that Oldspammer has made 5 edits to articlespace since December 13th (out of maybe 15 edits outside of userspace total since the last AN/I thread died out). Outside of an accusation of a specific disruptive policy violation we don't need to rehash this again at this time. He has a very fringe POV obviously as it relates to altmed (primarily the work of that Beck guy, and his own experiments on himself) but a strange content POV isn't an AN/I issue IMHO. ^Avruchtalk 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Discussion is better. I am not "bring[ing] this to AN/I", since it was already here and was archived before it was settled. His POV isn't the main problem, it is his (in)ability to adapt to the editing conditions here, both in article and talk space. His track record indicates he is incapable of doing so and instead of going even further with RfC/U and RfArb, this AN/I is one way to bring attention to a problematic editor so others can keep an eye on him, since these inabilities will constantly plaque everything and everyone around him. Due diligence and all that.... -- Fyslee / talk 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pvtpepperjack has a strange first edit

To whom it may concern, I was in the process of welcoming new users at the user creation log and noticed something strange. Please see this edit from User:Pvtpepperjack. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say usual vandal editing start. Viridae^Talk 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. He just said "burger king sucks". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a kid. I've deleted his userpage. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IP: 209.217.75.171

209.217.75.171 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of a permabanned user, is back from a one-week block. Can we get another block on this please? See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#2008_section_break for more background. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for 1 month. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Londonlady (talk · contribs)

I fixed her request at WP:CHU and looked over her contribs and user talk page. She claims that she needs to change her name for "safety online". However, she also wanted - and this is the part that concerns me - to have her contribution history, almost all of it the posting of gossip to Daniel Craig, completely deleted from the account once renamed. I informed her of the privacy policy and am assuming good faith, but IINM, there was another user (now banned - her name escapes me, but I believe it started with "Tweety") who wanted the same done and was disruptive in doing it. I'm a bit concerned that this may be another iteration of that user. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should do it. Her contribution history is tiny, today and yesterday only. No evidence of disruption, plus she says she is being stalked. I don't think we should assume she is a sock, but take her request at face value. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Since Parachute (the name she wanted) is taken, I asked her to choose another name so as not to wait a week. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

POV warrior

Navalcrowd1 (talk · contribs) has been inserting some extremely POV edits at Miroslav Filipović [10] [11] and Magnum crinem [12]. Warned twice now, and continued after final warning. Can someone block this guy? AniMate 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He does not mind editing others' comments either as can be seen at User talk:Jagoda_1. --Ubardak (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some very unacceptable behavior, but it does not look like there has been any editing whatsoever since their final warning (which occurred at 05:59 UTC and again at 06:13 UTC). Their last edit was at 05:58 UTC. Please let us know if it happens again - a block would certainly be warranted at that time. — Satori Son 15:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An odd phenomenon

Raume.DE AF (talk · contribs) has been tagging articles as unreferenced at quite an impressive speed for someone who made his first edit about 20 minutes ago. I left him a nice welcome note, but I'd like someone to check and make sure this isn't a bot or some hidden problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on his page: 'Thank you, but your suggestions are entirely useless. The articles I am tagging mostly date back 2-3 years or more without sources and need to be identified. Go away.' Um...Yeah. HalfShadow (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear what's going on there. He's most recently been tagging bios of Iranian academics, most of which are weakly sourced. But he's not doing it blind; he's making more or less reasonable edits to some of the articles. It's not vandalism and it's not a bot. --John Nagle (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a checkuser, the user may be doing some pretty good edits. But the user is showing signs of experience at an early stage. Rgoodermote  13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that checkuser is needed here. He could just as easily be a long-time IP contributer who recently registered for one reason or another. Also, use of sockpuppets for different tasks is actually entirely allowed by WP:SOCK. He is doing nothing that is against the rules here, even if this is a sockpuppet account. He was a bit rude in his response, but so what? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of that, but I had my doubts. Most long time IP contributors will add that to their userpage as to make sure that everyone knows they can trust the user, this is mostly a conclusion based of my time doing vandal patrolling I noted that a lot of the user pages I reverted the oens who were made by long time Ip contributors mentioned their IP. As for the experianced user, I don't doubt that the user may be a sock of an experianced user they have every right to hide the master from us if they do not want to be associated with certain tasks. Just out of curiousity I am going to ask the user. Rgoodermote  14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspecting a user of evil intent based on "signs of experience at an early stage" is what got us into a recent mess. Have we forgotten this so soon? —Random832 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In honesty I don't remember, but to keep this from turning into a Highschool Drama I will drop the conversation...but I am still curious. Rgoodermote  14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Start by editing with a reasonable degree of competence and get accused of sockpuppetry, start by editing incompetently and get warned or blocked for screwing pages up. there's a name for this kind of situation. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the worst before given a chance...I think there is an essay on Wikipedia that talks about this type of situation.Rgoodermote  14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking request

Please see the talk page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. Someone please blank both the front and back of this and protect the talk page as well? This kid will never be notable enough for WP, based on this nonsense. If not possible, or no one is willing to do this, then I will MFD the AFD for BLP reasons. Lawrence Cohen 07:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done (although an MFD of an AFD would be amusing because of the unwanted attention it would bring). east.718 at 07:13, January 16, 2008

Yeah, that was just my being POINTy to make sure something happened. Thanks Mattinbgn for blanking it. Would anyone object while we're on the topic to just delete the AFD? Let this kid get out of our Googlejuice completely. He's gonna have nonsense following him from all the web hits over this without us helping. Lawrence Cohen 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Damnatio memoriae is not usually how we operate around here. east.718 at 07:17, January 16, 2008

Not even for BLP with minors? At the absolute least can we delete and recreate it as a protected page to nuke the history and BLP vios there? Lawrence Cohen 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a blanked and protected deletion debate, not an article. As far as I know, an AfD has been deleted only once, and that was in exceptional circumstances. By the way, Google doesn't crawl wikispace. east.718 at 07:29, January 16, 2008

Blanking is sufficient, deletion would be Damnatio memoriae. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to leave all the BLP violations against a minor in the editing history? Deleting and recreating it as a blank AFD protected forever is the correct course under BLP. Lawrence Cohen 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The sysop protections on both the AFD and it's talk are also both set to expire. I'm requesting that per BLP for a non-notable minor we:

1. Delete the page/salt
2. If someone really insists on the page existing for some reason, delete it, and remake it with all the BLP vios gone from history.
3. Then indef protect both.
4. Blank this whole section after we're done so Google doesn't crawl the kid here. Honestly...

Lawrence Cohen 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not censored, and you cannot argue that what you are proposing is anything less than censorship Fosnez (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying we should censor this page, per WP:BLP, a core policy, to protect a minor. Lawrence Cohen 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no "inappropriate commentary" in this AfD, apart from some frivolous name calling, which is hardly "inappropriate commentary" (Which infact has already been quoted by the press, so blanking it because of the mention of the word "Dickhead" is hardly a good reason.) I fail to see how your censorship of this AfD, that infact is only HARDLY covered by the BLP policy can help to "protect" this minor at all. The position held here by those calling for a blank is basically that of a "Wont someone think of the children??". A position that treats people under 18 as kids and the moment they turn 18 are expected to be fully fledged adult. Corey was drinking as an adult, he was taking drugs as an adult ("I was off my face") and may be charged as an adult. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and drinks like a duck, its a duck. Therefore he can be treated like an adult here as well. Putting your hands over your eyes and ears and creaming he's a minor!! in big bold letters is not going to change the fact that for all intensive purposes he was acting as a very irresponsible adult and is being treated like one by the international media. We should treat him like one as well. Fosnez (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Greetings, with full respect to Mattinbgn, as he is only doing his job, I would like to request the unblanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. Reasons given by Mattinbgn are Now that he has been charged, even news sources have stopped using his name and blanking his face - but this is not the case, the most recent article, which actually links directly to the AfD in question still clearly has his face visable and uses his full name. Fosnez (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't care how outside tabloids hurt minors. We don't hurt them here. Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - not the most recent story. Check [13] for just one example of how the real world is handling it. We should be equally cautious, especially given the contempt of court provisions we could be violating. Orderinchaos 09:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to be in contempt of court when the court hasn't ordered you to do anything, and Australian law doesn't apply to Wikipedia. If you're going to be encouraging an action, at least get the basis correct. --Carnildo (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting the AfD be un-blanked. News media around the world is linking to the AfD and now it's not going to be there for readers to see? What BLP violations is there in the AfD anyway? I could understand the article but not the AfD. It just doesn't make sense. ALLSTARecho 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editors attacked him there. The actual news site quotes Wikipedians calling him a "dickhead". How does Wikipedia benefit from hurting this child? Lawrence Cohen 07:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that we are protecting him are worthless Lawrence Cohen, he will always exist in Google News and will always exist in Wikipedia's history. Removing his article page, and then the Afd as you have suggested just guaranteed that he does not have a neutral record of these events. The page can AND WAS protected to prevent vandalism. Fosnez (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because other sources exist on the child doesn't mean Wikipedia should add to the offence. At least in Victoria his face is now blurred and his name suppressed on the television news. -- 07:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

This isn't a Victorian website. Fosnez (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming we are bound by Victorian laws. This is a courtesy I feel we owe a minor. If the State feels they have an obligation, what does that say to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The state doesn't write articles on Wikipedia. ALLSTARecho 07:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no "inappropriate commentary" in this AfD, apart from some frivolous name calling, which is hardly "inappropriate commentary" (Which infact has already been quoted by the press, so blanking it because of the mention of the word "Dickhead" is hardly a good reason.) I fail to see how your censorship of this AfD, that infact is only HARDLY covered by the BLP policy can help to "protect" this minor at all. The position held here by those calling for a blank is basically that of a "Wont someone think of the children??". A position that treats people under 18 as kids and the moment they turn 18 are expected to be fully fledged adult. Corey was drinking as an adult, he was taking drugs as an adult ("I was off my face") and may be charged as an adult. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and drinks like a duck, its a duck. Therefore he can be treated like an adult here as well. Putting your hands over your eyes and ears and creaming he's a minor!! in big bold letters is not going to change the fact that for all intensive purposes he was acting as a very irresponsible adult and is being treated like one by the international media. We should treat him like one as well. Fosnez (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask that this please be deleted per BLP. I don't know of any Wikipedia:Damnatio memoriae, and have never heard anyone even say this before on here. Wikipedia can and does erase history all the time with Oversight, or deletion and selective restoration. Lawrence Cohen 07:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that deletion would be going too far. The page has already been protected indefinitely (well almost, until 07:27, January 16, 2038) and the note that states that the unblanked version is available in the history has been removed, I don't really see any point than going any further. I agree with Matt on this one, blanking is necessary, and this is a perfect example of when to courtesy blank. The AfD has already been cited in 2 (3?) news articles with quotes from established editors calling the kid a "dickhead"; we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Spebi 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the benefit to us of leaving the edit history with BLP vios against a minor accessible? Lawrence Cohen 07:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very surprised how conservative Wikipedia is - granted that now Corey has been arrested - leaving me to wonder why the big bold brave guardians of public safety aren't out looking for senior figures in drugs syndicates, white collar embezellers, people ripping thousands off the tax payers via tax or welfare fraud, people planning racist terrotist violence or people perpetuating domestic violence on family members and partyers - public comments have a legal implication

- but the case itself is of tremendous relevance in terms of media cultures, teen cultures, celebrity and even a sort of bogan media jamming. What other middle class kid could attract more attention than Wall Street or George Bush to be the most requested download on CNN?

TEEN party pest Corey has been a top-rating US news story as the tale of his riotous Narre Warren party amused and shocked global audiences.

On a busy news day where Republican US presidential hopefuls contested the Michigan primary, President George W Bush visited the Middle East and Wall St suffered a large fall, the story about a Melbourne teenager wild night topped them all.

American ws giant CNN said the story about the party - organised by 16-year-old Corey - while his parents were away on a Queesnsland holiday - was the most downloaded on its website today Herald Sun Melbourne

Corey is a real part of world culture today and therefore Wikipedia should document it - he is out there in the media - if you can think of a way to turn the article into an issue rather than a biography - and therefore avoid naming a minor that would solve the impasse

I think this decision to delete the article speaks more of conservatism, ignorance and blocking the circulation of information than protecting a minor and there should be more complex thought around this debate

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the action of deleting,blanking, and salting. Now since this article is stepping into a legal minefield, involves a minor, and is clearly against WP:BLP we should be seeking the input from the Foundation prior to any reversal of the actions as ultimately they will be the ones bearing any burden from further actions. Gnangarra 09:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gnangarra. Especially now the papers in Australia are starting to say things like "The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons" one after the other. Orderinchaos 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, agree with above. Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe this is off-topic, or off-the-point, but the actual AfD was mentioned on at least four radio stations here in Northern England. Not sure how useful this is, but there was a link to the debate (now removed) on two station websites suggesting to people to "save the MySpace kid", inciting possible single-purpose voters. But since AfD is not a vote anyway, it wouldn't have counted.

I have to agree, the courtesy blanking was the best thing in this situation. At least the girl who did a similar thing in England does not (yet) have an article on her --Solumeiras ^talk 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is why this one became so big, when these sort of out-of=control parents-not-at-home police-battle parties are not uncommon things - even the 500 estimated attendees was not particularly unusual. One once happened at a neighbour's place and idiots were throwing broken bottles at real live people who had the misfortune to live next door. Orderinchaos 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MFD

{{editprotected}} Posting here as both AFD and AFD talk are protected. I need an admin to please updated the AFD with the MFD message for:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

I am very disappointed that some care more about process and keeping history lying around than BLP. Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Name legally suppressed in Australia

Can we please have an admin who is willing to exercise some common sense and decency please just BLP delete this all? Read here. The legal minor now faces child pornography charges in Australia. If there was any claims that I was overreacting on BLP here, it appears now that I wasn't after all. I would do this myself if I had the tools, but cannot. Is any admin willing to do the right thing under BLP here? Lawrence Cohen 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Even that is not enough. I suggest going straight to WP:OVERSIGHT and e-mailing the oversight list. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I've read the courtesy blanked AfD, and I can't see any references to child pornography. I got the impression from what you were saying that people here on Wikipedia are making that link. As far as I can see, you are the only one to have made that link. Did the article, AfD, or DRV ever mention this? I've now read around some news stories, and it seems the police are throwing the book at him regarding what happened at the party. How various newspapers report that is proving interesting (varying from "child pornography charges" to "taking photos of girls at the party."). Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason: happened well after the end of the AfD. (One of the hazards of writing about trendy things seconds after they occur...) Orderinchaos 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Brought up on the MFD of the AFD. It was a recent development. He's a living minor charged with a crime--do we have many articles on those? Or pages? Theres no need for us to retain this. Lawrence Cohen 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the big deal about what was said at the MfD. Courtesy blankings should be enough here. The article is gone and should stay gone. The other teenager interviewed by the police has successfully remained anonymous (at least by comparison), which suggests that the only reason the name of the original one is known is because he became famous before the charges were brought, and there is enough information out there now for people to put 2 and 2 together when reading about this. It's a bit like the news stories in the UK. Celebrity XYZ was involved in such-and-such an incident. Police have stated that a 45-year-old man was arrested at the scene", or "Police have stated that a 45-year-old man is helping them with their enquiries". Everyone knows who they are talking about, but there is a degree of formal anonymity provided anyway. I agree that him being a minor does make things different. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the offending content from the MfD and emailed Oversight. I have no idea what happens from here, especially when the same claim is made here at AN/I! Can we all be careful please. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

His Name is NOT legally suppressed in Australia

His name is suppressed only when speaking about the charges that have been filed against him that do no relate to the party (I'm allowed to say that because I havn't specified what charges - Don't tase censor me bro)

The is clearly demonstated by the week in review article on News.com.au . There is also an entire page dedicated to his media coverage and linking off to other stories. Fosnez (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole area is a complete farce when it comes to reporting restrictions.

Consider this story from the BBC news website The victim "cannot be named for legal reasons", yet everybody knows who the victim is because a couple of months earlier, when the girl was missing, the press was full of stories about her being missing, and naming Studabaker as the suspected abductor! Even the most cursory search would tell you the name of the victim. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a bizarre situation here in Perth once where a repeat offender (aged 14) who was so major as to get the laws changed by his offences (including mowing down a woman and child with a stolen vehicle) kept repeat offending well into his adult years and due to various restrictions noone could mention he was the same guy who committed the juvenile offences even though they were of exactly the same character, and some press did all but mention it. Orderinchaos 13:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requrst to block anon user

User 217.39.132.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constantly reverts pages without joining in debate. Can this account be blocked? --MJB (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User has not made any edits for an hour and also has had no warnings posted to their talk page. No value now in a short block I'm afraid. I suggest you try to engage them in dialogue regarding their edits first. Pedro :  Chat  16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They're actually both in breach of WP:3RR. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP may have been, but I interpret User:Maxburgoyne's efforts at good faith atempts to try to get some discussion going whilst reverting perceived vandalism - granted perhaps s/he could have used better edit summaries and I wish they'd tried the IP's talk page. Blocking an IP an hour after the final edit for 3RR is punative, not preventative. Pedro :  Chat  16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have left uw-3rr1 on IP's talk page, and I agree with MJB's WP:AGF. Some discussion is required here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This appears to be a content dispute. MJB, your did the right thing by starting a conversation at Talk:Hereford#Request for Consensus: Welsh Name (copied from Shrewsbury but same debate). If a consensus emerges and someone continues to edit war against it, then please report to WP:3RR. But please don't continue to edit war yourself, either. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should i just quit?

• I dont get how this works but this is it.[14] this fellow has been warned after he insulted me in albanian,greek and the english language and puts words in my mouth all the time.He didnt stop nor apologised but continued the above and disrupted and vandalised pages while erasing references and any secondary or primary sources that didn't agree with his dogma of reality.I have been called a racist "names" and many other "names" and a horde of albanian editors and sockpuppets that may or may not be related to him.My page has been attacked many times.I use proper sources extensively and its pointless since people with a dogma ignore evidence and assault,vandalise,disrupt,spam and troll at my page and the pages i edit with sources and references that took me many hours to find and verify.I study days to make my maps and improve constantly to the best of my ability and the sourced advice of other editors all the time.I want my user and talk page protected and something to be done for all the horde of fanatics that just growl and spoil pages for no reason other their dogma on things.Megistias (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Replying on user talk. Friday (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone please ban this known sockpuppet to admins.[15]"you promise you will accept that and not start sockpuppeting again" name BurraMegistias (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a moment, no, Burra (former "Dodona") is currently under a supervised resocialisation scheme, as it were. On the off-chance that he might learn to contribute halfway constructively (or, if that fails, that he might at least learn to understand and accept why.) He's not the guy who was insulting you with that user page vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Medistias, you prepare a list of all the users and IP's who have been bothering you, I will consider the evidence, and if appropriate, file a request for checkuser or suspected sock puppet report. Jehochman ^Talk 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please - I for one had not been aware of that userpage vandalism spree from the Swedish IPs. Those must be traceable to one user I have in mind; if that's him, he's out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[16]see his endless lies and trolling at the end of the page.this is driving me crazy .Is he 13 years old?I cant take this .talk pages are being filled by pointless unsourced blobs of texts copy pasted by Albanian nationalistic sites.Megistias (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This post makes you look more disruptive than the other editor. I think you should take a break and when you return, be careful to preserve decorum. If you are being trolled you need to remain absolutely calm, or else you just encourage them to continue abusing you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

i am taking a break this is getting to me.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, we are dealing with several problematic users here. Can somebody please whack Taulant23 (talk · contribs) with a good heavy Salmo macedonicus? Note this is the same guy who was also the object of an image copyright complaint today on the WP:AN and is now kindling the fires in the brawl with Megistias. Utterly inappropriate behaviour there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Taulant23 of the discretionary sanctions (bah, I hate that phrase), so next time he breaks the rules the sanctions proper may be applied. With relish. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: China

_{relisted to create more discussion — nat.utoronto 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)}
China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've had to reprotect the protect after a string of edits and reverts by socks of a banned user. Since Alison has made it clear that a IP range block will have too much collateral (i.e. half a city), I felt that full protection (currently set at indefinite) and was that most viable and realistic option to go as there was more sock edits and edit warring than good contributions. I would just like to see what sysops and editors think about my actions in this situation. nat.utoronto 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are two major ISPs involved and there would be far too much collateral damage. This editor creates a half-dozen socks per IP, lets them sleep then moves on to another IP. They're very dynamic and all we can do is checkuser each of the socks that appears and catch as many sleeper ones as we can. The checkuser cases have turned up literally hundreds of socks & basically, everyone is getting worn out on the guy. I endorse full protection at this time - we can review the situation ongoing and try trial unprots - Alison ^❤ 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports? Or are you not permitted to reveal the IPs? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, (and this is what I've heard, Alison can correct me if I'm wrong...) Checkusers are not to reveal the IP addresses as that would be in violation of the Privacy Policy. nat.utoronto 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Largely correct, yes. Section 5 of the privacy policy re. release of IP information may apply but the idea is to release as little personally identifying information as possible, really. At this point, if rangeblocks are to follow, and after what - 13?? - RFCU reports, I will probably be releasing coarse IP information to allow /18 rangeblocks to be applied. It's gone on long enough now - Alison ^❤ 05:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might, why not try the Cplot method? it worked on that guy. just hand out /16 AO ACB blocks and send account creation request to unblock-en-l. it seems to be very effective without harming current users. β^_command 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS make them {{checkuserblock}} for 6 months. β^_command 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But Alison, and other Checkusers, and members of the foundation that know the IP can complain to the ISP. These really avoidant situations only crop up every six months or so. We really should have some method of talking to an ISP to get their customer to conform to the ISPs Terms of Service. In SMTP, ISPs do not want to be on blacklists and their abuse departments deal with it. Wikipedia's size should give it some clout there when we need to take such a drastic action. Additionally, templates that users see about collateral damage might suggest users complain to their ISP (Why am I blocked from editing Wikipedia because you can't control other users?") SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Seek a RfC ({{RFCmedia}}), this is not an ANI issue SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, Wikipedia lists this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The rationale behind this title has been that because the film was released outside the U.S. under this title, and that it is based on a British novel, that the article's title should reflect the title of the British film and book. There have been ongoing conflicts regarding this issue and there is currently no consensus.

The naming conventions state that when naming an article of this nature, users are to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers". This film was released in the United States (population 300 million) as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The film was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (combined population approx. 100 million). Therefore, there are nearly 200 million English readers who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and only about 100 million who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, there should be no argument: the title of the article at the present time direclty conflicts with Wikipedia policy, and should be redirected immediately to the correct title.

Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being brought up on ANI? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because all other efforts to draw attention to the issue have been interrupted by cultural war and lack of participation from third-party editors and administrators. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam's objection is correct. But just to address the issue briefly, check this out. Where there is a difference in national varieties of English, we should always favour the one that most closely relates to the article, if such a thing exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this should go to dispute resolution, not the incidents noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Adam amd Heimstern. Also, since there are redirects for the "Sorcerer's Stone" version, so what is the problem? BTW, under what title was it released in India? Or the rest of the world? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I look at it, it looks like dispute resolution is already in progress, and that it's showing consensus for Philosopher's Stone. Is this some effort to overturn that? The admin noticeboard is not a place to complain that the community is wrong, you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Admins do NOT have any authority in this area. We only have the ability to take action on the behavior of users, NOT on content disputes. If there is an open edit-war, and massive 3RR violations or incivility or other disruption, we can help. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the only place to go. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am preemptively closing this discussion. Seek proper Dispute resolution, with all due respect, this isn't it. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PETA

Could we have a few more people watching this? I was skimming this after reading a news report on them, and found a fairly blatant BLP violation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:BLPN. people there are usually more adept at dealing with BLP violations than the general population of admins. The addition appears sourced, but I question its relevence. Seek outside help through the above link. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, inserting irrelevant attacks, particularly as the sources for that commentary on this critic of PETA come from... PETA, seems to be a violation of the BLP policy. But I'll bring it up there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

207.165.37.101

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a month

User 207.165.37.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making multiple nonconstructive edits and has had multiple warnings. He has been blocked before. I suggest he be permanently blocked. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by me for a month. IPs aren't blocked indefinitely, except under certain circumstances. Acalamari 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block a sockpuppet of an indefblocked user

Resolved

 – all obvious sockpuppets have been blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An obvious sockpuppet needs blocking. Liist5 (talk · contribs) has been posting blatant vandalism [17], [18], etc. etc. for which I warned him. The response was this [19]. Then, I noticed he posted what amounts to a confession to being a sockpuppet of an indefblocked user on his own userpage [20]. Please block this obvious sock and the other currently unblocked obvious sock. [21] Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Did you get Liist2 (talk · contribs) too? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, User:Spartaz did. Thank him... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just good tag teaming that's all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? He's created a huge sock army. [22], [23], [24]. It goes all the way up to 12. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NawlinWiki got those. I will investigate if there are any more... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like NawlinWiki got all the obvious ones. The matter is probably closed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User QPRben

Resolved

 – sock blocked, 24 hours for IP, main account block extended

• QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User QPRJack was recently temporarily blocked for breaking the 3RR, after nearly a month where they refused to enter into any discussion about their edits all of which were virtually the same edit over and over on the article List of hooligan firms. I had tried, numerous time, to explain to them that to add a firm to the list, that the firms name needs to be mentioned in the source being used to verify the firm. Unfortunately, QPRJack chose not only to ignore all my messages, which included offers of help, but also kept adding the firm back in, each time with an invalid source (as both myself and other users kept pointing out to them was invalid). These edits were reverted by a number of other users including myself over the weeks. And in the end the result was QPRJack being temporarily blocked. I realise that I (or any of the other users who were involved) should have at the time brought the matter here much sooner. Today the new user QPRben has started editing in exactly the same manner as QPRJack, (and also today the IP user 82.45.213.208) and both would appear it seems to be one and the same person as JackQPR. I am not sure how long the block was for and whether it is still in place. It does seem though as if these three users are all one and the same person, and if the block is still in place then they are evading the block. But regardless, even if the block has run its course, QPRben has reverted three times already today with the same edit yet again and this time I am bringing it here straightaway. I have left the last edit in place so as not to continue what could be perceived as an edit war. And I would request that an Admin looks into this please?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dealt with - see resolved tag above. BLACKKITE 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to deletion restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion copied over to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deletion_restrictions_for_pages_with_long_histories. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, thank goodness someone finally got around to implementing this limit! A good side-effect will be that talk pages and user pages with more than 5000 revisions will need to be properly debated (well, the talk pages debated at least) and then deleted, rather than deleted on the quiet with a "right to vanish" request. As a matter of interest, if there is a need to delete revisions of a large page, or the whole page, how should we do this? Request it somewhere? Have a "Requests for bigdelete access" process to rival "Requests for rollback" in pointlessness? Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone have a list of how many pages have more than 5000 revisions? Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BEANS, keep the list quiet for a while? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it wise to go creating a list of easy targets. Woody (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If only there was some way to decide what the community thinks of this new user right... EconomicsGuy (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, can anyone delete pages with more than 5000 revisions? When this is needed, what should be done? I've heard somewhere that oversight is less server intensive, but I don't think oversight should be used purely because it is the only option for removing (eg. libellous) revisions from a page history for pages with 5000+ revisions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated reverts of MOSNUM by User:Omegatron

I have been advised this is a better place to make a report regarding repeated reverts made by User:Omegatron.

• 1st revert: 11:35, 16 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:52, 16 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:50, 16 January 2008

Recently, someone pointed out on my talk page Omegatron made a change to MOSNUM. Upon investigation his change does not have consensus. The change was undone and I placed a request on Omegatron's page to not make changes until he had consensus. Since then Omegatron has claimed I've been edit warring when actually it is him who has been edit warring to try to make sure his changes (without consensus) stay on MOSNUM. My justification for reverting him is that he has failed to demonstrate consensus. I have checked that last two months of his edit history and nowhere has he once discussed those changes he made to MOSNUM. The diffs of his changes clearly show changes in the content of the guideline which go above and beyond simple "tidying up", for example he removed completely the phrase starting with "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor...." and he also changes that part starting with "There is no consensus..." to have a different meaning by including extra terms. Even though he has not reverted more than twice, so far, he is well aware of the 3RR rule and should know better than try to make substantive changes on guideline talk pages without building consensus. Also the user had made several bad faith and untrue accusations in his edit here and also also attempted to misrepresent and bully by throwing around threats about "blocking". In summary, as explained above, he has failed to show any recent discussion over the past two months where he has tried to build consensus for any changes to WP:MOSNUM binary prefixes. Fnagaton 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the edit history (especially the diff itself) and my comments on the talk page. Fnagaton is reverting all of my edits en masse, including little changes to sentence structure, just to be antagonistic.

He's been consistently disruptive on this issue, and I believe that a block is justified at this point, but I obviously can't do it or I will be an "involved admin". — Omegatron 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you are trying to misrepresent the facts. Your threats and bullying are obvious and you deserve to be blocked for trying to push your edits onto MOSNUM without consensus. I would remind you that you are rapidly approaching 3RR for revert my change to put that section of MOSNUM back to how it was for last last few months at least. I am not reverting your edits to be "antagonistic" I am reverting your edits because your edits are wrong. Fnagaton 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that section in MOSNUM was stable for several months until his change. I've given him a chance. He can try to show where he has recently built consensus for his changes to MOSNUM or he can stop editing MOSNUM. If he continues to show bad faith by making his changes then that will show he deserves to be blocked. Likewise if he can show the diffs from the period over the last two months where he negotiated to make those specific changes to that section of MOSNUM then I'll admit I'm wrong and revert the changes myself. However I'm not wrong, I checked his edit history for the last two months. ;) Fnagaton 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, God, not this nonsense again. I thought we had dealt with this issue a year ago by saying to just leave the damn prefixes alone and go with whatever the article creator did, and have the style page reflect that. It is clear that there is no consensus at all for forcing the binary prefixes into Wikipedia. IEC isn't God, and the standard on Wikipedia is to follow common usage. I think that Omegatron's edits are a prelude to attempting to force binary prefixes again, which will start another major edit war. *** Crotalus *** 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The present version of the style page seems to express a preference for the pre-IEC usage, rather than letting the article creator choose. It says "when in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor". This leaves the door open for a later editor to claim there is no doubt, the article should be changed to the pre-IEC usage. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It clearly states "There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other,...." and "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor." The present wording was written as a group effort (between both camps) via the talk page, trying not to put one view over the other (the previous version had been completely pro-IEC). If anything, it was the previous version that did the opposite of what you're worried about - it was being used by editors to change all existences of pre-IEC usage to IEC, regardless of any lack of consensus by an articles major contributors. It resulted in disruptive editing practices, and a particular person being banned for said practices. The rule since the current version was written has been if the article was originally written in IEC or pre-IEC, leave it. If it was changed from one or the other without consensus, put it back in the original state. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think everyone's grown very sick of this frenzy of unpleasantness that Fnagaton has brought to MOSNUM. I can't even bear to go there. The place is in dysfunctional chaos. Calling Omegatron "disruptive" is rather galling. It's all just so aggressive and I wish it would stop. Tony (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The unpleasantness at WT:MOSNUM is the result of many editors. Tony1 has not been least among them, as Fnagaton has pointed out here: "You see when warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Think what you like, and carry on your personal campaign against my contributions to MOS, but my belief remains that the current mess at MOSNUM has been caused by a band of aggressive editors who appear to disregard several of WP's pillars. Tony (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the trouble is caused "by a band of aggressive editors who appear to disregard several of WP's pillars", but it's a band engaging in civil war: the aggression and the disregard exist on both sides of the issue. (And yes, Fnagaton is often aggressive; but not as much as you are. Still, you are both more constructive than Omegatron.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Robby Cook

Wikipedia User:Robby Cook has vandalized my Wikipedia user page. He has a past history of vandalizing Wikipedia, as evidence on his discussion page. I was hoping some action could be taken regarding this, potentially a ban or something similar. Thank you very much! — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No edits for six months, edits before that weren't wonderful, picked on you as the last person to warn him, nasty vandalism back at you. I think Wikipedia can live without him. Permablocked. Review by others welcomed as usual. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User creation log

• There are a lot of accounts being created in quick succession. Something stinks. JuJube (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been off-air for about an hour, so there's a backlog of people wanting to get on. So saying that, a glance at the log shows it's busy, but not that busy. I've seen a full page of the log each minute in the past, and that was just "very busy", rather than "stinking". ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See here and look at the entries around 23:40 on 16 January 2008. Whether this is more than usual I don't know. When would this be sufficient grounds for a checkuser investigation, if ever? Maybe check the contribs - if the account is created and then does nothing for months, it could be a sleeper sock. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the average of the past 5 minutes is about 8 per minute. That's about normal for this time of the day. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just 'cause I briefly broke the 'pedia? — Scientizzle 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we won't hold it against you. Although we might make you clean out an image backlog somewhere, just to make sure you're really sorry ;o) ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe tomorrow, when I'm less gun-shy about the delete button... — Scientizzle 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

JuJube - see above. I thought the same until I checked the time stamp. The crash meant only log entries were showing for a while. Pedro :  Chat  00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nude picture of celebrity

Resolved

Although we had some fun guessing who this person might be.

I just noticed a nude picture of a celebrity reverted from their article. What do we do with such images? There is a possibility it is genuine, but I suspect it is photoshopped because the play in question probably didn't let people take photos. In any case, it lacks source information and I doubt the celebrity in question would really want it on their article. I can identify the image but would prefer to delete it first. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I suspect it's a hoax, but if not, it most probably won't be free, and therefore should have a source and a rationale. I'd personally say invoke BLP on this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, deleting. Did you manage to identify what I was talking about? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Now people can see from my deletion logs what the image was. I really can't get the hang of WP:BEANS. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't actually, but just taken a look now. I've got to say, I'm fairly sure it's a hoax!! I'm also a little upset it's not Maria Sharapova :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not hard to figure out ;-) A fully nude image isn't necessary anyway - the play publicity photo is pretty close, and gets the point across. (Guessed without looking in any logs, hah!). _{Agreed on Maria Sharapova... or Meghan Fox!}^Avruchtalk 00:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point to WP:HOTTIE, and the only casual mention of nude pictures. Maybe time for a policy change there? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So "celebrity" + "nude" + "play" was enough. Yeah, I guess it would have been! Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you remember when they were stageing the graduate about what 8 years ago in london.Geni 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a lot more disappointing than I'd expected...Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. My first guess was that the subject might be Julie Andrews. (Anyone else old enough to know why?) -- llywrch (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no I am not. Viridae^Talk 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SOB. (I am obviously old enough.) Horologium (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i thought you were calling me a son of a bitch for not being old enough to know what the mention was - only later when MarnetteD posted that I realised that was the name of the play/film. Viridae^Talk 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. I knew I should have wikilinked that... :) Horologium (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There were nude scenes in Mary Poppins (film)? :-) Seriously, which Julie Andrews play are you thinking of? (Quick, before the thread is closed down for trying to act like this is the Reference Desk!) Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm old enough too. She had started to break out of her sweetheart image in 10 where whe was far hotter than Bo Derek and followed that performance up with the film S.O.B. mentioned above. Wow the 80's were along time ago. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I wish I was wrong but I get the feeling that my letching is all for nought when I discovered that it may in fact be that of a young man :( --WebHamster 02:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Benfeing

I am concerned that the above user (Benfeing) is deliberately ignoring the policy on copyright and is refusing to engage in dialogue as regards any copyright issues. From self-explanatory posts at his/her Talk page and this log it is apparent that a number of images have been uploaded with dubious copyright status - most are marked "self-made" in a possible attempt to avoid detection. Perhaps more worryingly, this article was speedied for obvious copyvio and then recreated a few days later in exactly the same form - despite messages left on the user's talk page and also a response to his/her query by User:Rudget who effected the speedy. Please could an admin look into this user's conduct and consider a possible interim block if the copyvio activity and deletion of tags (without cause) continues? Dick G (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a stern warning on the user's talk page. The user in question has been made aware that further copyvios will result in a block. If he does it again, let the admins know, and it will be taken care of... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, will keep any eye open. Cheers Dick G (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Precious_Roy/sockproblems

Englandrules left a comment on Jimbo's page regarding problems with User talk:Precious_Roy/sockproblems being potentially abusive and in violation of WP:CIVIL. As I'm no longer a regular contributor, I could not recall the proper details of how this problem can be dealt with, but it looked to be chatter to me, and hence fairly quick to deal with. I then received more information from the user on my talk page [25], asking me to help further. Could someone please look into the history of this case and exactly what is going on here? Thanks. LinaMishima (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check the notes on the problem user's page, and talk to User:JzG for some more details on this particular issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's why I posted here, as I suspected it would be complicated. Turns out Guy is already onto this. Better to look into something and find it baseless than to not look into at all. I think this is as resolved as it can be for now. LinaMishima (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured content has disappeared

Portal:Featured content and pages such as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates are blank. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The portal is visible for me, but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates is not, but it is still there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&action=history . Viridae^Talk 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it's related, but can someone try to unblank Cattle? I've been trying, rollback isn't working, and the history shows, but the revisions don't work. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is related, same style of blank page (following rollback) Viridae^Talk 03:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

?? Try not using rollback. Worked for me. Franamax (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, when I went the the version I needed for a manual revert it was completely blank, didnt even have the cattle header. Viridae^Talk 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had the same experience. Everything seems fine now though. --Melburnian (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's that rouge guy? I propose placing blame there. :) Franamax (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please place the the appropriate message on his talk - he's a good guy and thankfully sees the funny side :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full

Got this message today on an article-space edit:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may
 indicate a bug in the software. 
The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden)
from within function "Revision::insertOn". 
MySQL returned error "1114: The table 'text' is full (10.0.0.235)".

Wikipedia really was full; the recent change log showed no article edits for some time, although image uploads and new user signups continued.

MySQL correctly handles full tables. New transactions that need space will be rejected, and the database remains intact. So this just blocks all editing temporarily. --John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Known DB problems - Transient issues, should be resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See above, re: the section "Apologies everyone..." Scientizzle deleted the sandbox, and the fit hit the shan... Kinda funny when you look at it all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Full?? Arghhh!! What happened to WP:PAPER?. Quick, delete all the articles about things more than a hundred years old, that should free up some space.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer deleting the articles about everything newer than 20 years old. It'd free up more space, too. --Carnildo (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got extra articles lying around about every TV episode ever... ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Naughty naughty. What about all the tax related articles? will anyone miss them?--Jac16888 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as we keep this one, all the rest can go as far as I care... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I blame the random IPs. It's always the random IP's fault. HalfShadow (talk)

I made Wikipedia "full" with my itchy trigger-finger?! I'm bringing this site to its knees! — Scientizzle 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You do know that deleting pages won't clear the database? They stay in there. Not even oversighting would remove it, it just gets moved around. --Chris 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, we know. It was a joke, obviously its not really full, its just the sites being a bit buggy tonight/this morning--Jac16888 (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block.

I indef blocked User:Westgatemall for reporting Kuru as a vandal and forging User:Dysepsion's signature. As it was the first and only edit, I bring it here for review. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good block. There's no way it's a newbie, and no way it's an accident. Troll. Antandrus (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. This is part of a larger problem. See this difs as well: [26]. SOmeone has something out for Kuru... Also saw some questionable Dysepesion stuff too. MIght have been this, I didn't check it out deeper. This should be looked into further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page history, someone's been trolling him for a while. I like revert, block, ignore for handling this type. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-Creation of Corey Delaney

Greetings, I was original of the now deleted Corey Delaney. The (now blanked) AfD resulted in deletion due to WP:ONEEVENT. Now however, in a news article written today (which only go on to affirm the subject's notability, and that we are alowed to use his name), has shown that he is not notable only because of this event, but also of other events related to the party and the media attentino afterwards. These include a hosting role on Australian's Big Brother reality TV show, running an underage club in Melbourne and hosting his own under 18s event.

Other issues raised by editors are that according to Victorian Law we cannot write about him. This is clearly demonstrated and spoken about in the same newspaper article:

Other developments in this story cannot be reported for legal reasons.

So we are quite within our rights to write an article on this person. We can pretty much guarantee that he is not going to disappear overnight, so it is best that we establish a neutral article on him now, that people reading all the sensationalist stuff in the media can use as a reference of truth.

Let the dabate begin... Fosnez (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DRV is over there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but because there is talk of blanking the last Deletion review because of incorrect asumptions of legal issues, It is best it is spoken about here. Fosnez (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, DRV is the place to discuss this. You may be confusing DRV with AFD or MFD. Easy to do, what with all of the random letters being thrown about... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• A DRV on this is still up and running. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the deletion review has never been blanked. Daniel (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

IP: 24.27.201.77

Resolved

Over the last three days this address has apparently vandalised the pages for Pickett's Charge, John Buford, Ulysses S. Grant, Fort Sumter, and List of American Civil War battles. I was wondering if someone could look into this.Mstuczynski (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gave 24.27.201.77 (talk · contribs) his/her first vandalism notice at the respective talk page. In the future, keep track of the edits and apply the necessary notices to the talk page. If it continues, report it to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to comment myself. User needs to be warned first, and for IP's, it needs to be shown that either a) the IP is currently vandalising or b) the IP is likely static and shows a long history of abuse. Neither of these holds. If you catch the IP in the act of vandalising again (like as its happening) warn with a level 3 or 4 warning, and report to WP:AIV if they continue... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry all. I'm new here. Thanks for the help.Mstuczynski (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review

Homocion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding his own material into Ice-nine and Cat's Cradle. While there might be something worth including in his contributions (though I don't think so), he has persisted in adding the same poorly-written essay to the articles in spite of warnings. I've reverted and blocked his IP when he logged out to revert for the (I think) seventh time. I would welcome other opinions about how or whether we could turn this editor around. I would be reluctant to block or to revert again myself and have tried reasoning with them to no avail. --John (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty clear... It unequivocally says "don;t do it". This block seems justified. If the behavior continues, I don't see why an indef block would be out of the question. He has been given ample opportunity to communicate and refuses to do so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New process for pages with over 5000 revisions

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deletion_restrictions_for_pages_with_long_histories

The software has just now been changed so that it won't let non-developers delete anything that has over 5000 revisions. If there's a page with a BLP violation or some other emergency (like the virus put in the sandbox that caused this latest incident) that needs deleting, then until developers can be contacted and they handle it, someone with oversight needs to be contacted and the page oversighted. Deletion of such a page stalls the system, while oversighting doesn't. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What page will ever be deleted that has over 5000 revisions that we would need a new bureaucratic process for it? The deletion of the sandbox will never happen again (oversight will more useful in the situation, anyway). If something of such a size ever needs to be deleted, it will likely be an oversight issue, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When United States was deleted, new processes were added. I am sure when the next big deletion comes around, a new process will be made after that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about a "new bureaucratic process". I am talking about a new added step for an admin to follow when that admin decides he wishes to delete a page. Add to the old process "if the page does not delete possibly due to having over 5000 revisions, contact someone with oversight to oversight the page". That's all. No bureaucracy. Simply an added bit of data for any admin who is trying to delete a page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Obviously, that's going to be an extremely rare occurrence but good info to have nonetheless. — Satori Son 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in progress

Assistance required at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. User:Dilip rajeev, persistent offender, and two anonymous IP editors (one using a Microsoft IP address and one from India) -all of which I suspect are one and the same user has/have been engaged in an attempt to introduce changes against the consensus, to an article which has recently attained good article status. I suspect Dilip is behind all three reverts in an attempt to circumvent the three revert rule. Note that Dilip works for Microsoft in India and employs the same flippant and aggressive style editing blatantly in favour of Falun Gong, and the same commenting style in edit summaries. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong may possibly be relevant here: it's arguable that this article may come under the "article probation" remedy. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've banned Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) from Falun Gong, Persecution of Falun Gong, and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for 3 months. I've also softblocked the IPs he was using to revert-war (which contained, amongst other things, a very obvious copyvio used for original synthesis). Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look?

Sorry, I'm off wikipedia now for a few hours, but I just came across this, which might need someone to take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingsjohn. AndyJones (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its somewhat problematic, but it looks like he;s learning. He's creating new articles now rather than overwriting the old ones. That the new articles get speedied as "spam" is another issue, but in the interest of WP:BITE and WP:AGF I am inclined to let this stand for a little while. I warned him AGAIN (this time about Spam). If this continues, please let the admins know that it has not stopped, but as for know I say let him continue to learn, with a VERY short leash... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bojan Krkić

Resolved

Bojan Krkić

This article is constantly being vandalized. Is there some way to revert it and lock it so that no edits on it are made for the time being? I'm not too familiar with the process here. Alireza Hashemi (talk)

Hi there,

YOU can revert it yourself, by clicking on history and then undoing to the last stable version.

To get it protected, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask there.

Hope that helps, if not leave me a message!

Bluegoblin7 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarsaparilla blatantly violating WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE

Resolved

Look at her userpage and contributions: Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs)

Here's a recent one. [27] Also, aside from her own edits, it's important to see the final product she signed off on. [28] Also, here's another great page she recently created. [29] No matter what country you live in, there clearly is no genuine political debate over private highways anymore than there is over public toilets. Tossing unnecessary politics in there as a justification to toss in a CATO reference is not acceptable behavior. The term "theistic rationalism" seems to be a POV fork of Objectivism, that is, specifically it's one rogue Objectivist's original research about the religious views of the Founding Fathers of America. Her attempts at regularly attempting to get pages supportive of Libertarianism featured (something I helped her with myself) suggests she's using Wikipedia as propaganda, something I refuse to help her with. I made this charge in the past under a poor assumption of bad faith, then apologized for it. She never commented on my claim, either way, whether, "I assure you, I'm a good editor!" or "You're a jerk for assuming bad faith!" Silence on such things is the sure sign of a troll.

From what I've seen now -- and I think a careful review of her contributions will confirm -- the bad faith allegation is justified. I don't request anything in particular -- just that the admins here give it a look.

As a specific example, see my own talk page:

• And why "POV" instead of "biased"?

Anyone want to tell me the difference, there? Any members of the Libertarian cabal that engage in personal attacks shall be ignored. If you are strongly pro-Libertarian or anti-Libertarian to the point that you think it will affect your better judgment, please do not respond. Zenwhat (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a page on theistic rationalism because I went on Facebook yesterday, saw that an acquaintance of mine was listed as a "theistic rationalist," and I noticed there was no wiki page on it. So, I did some cursory research to find out what it was and created a stub. Please quit calling me "she" by the way; I guess people assume I'm female because my username ends in an "a," so if I ever change my identity I suppose the next one will be "The He-Man of Capitalism" or something. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but I get called a she because of the ending "a" in my username all the time (and I've had this name for about ten years or so). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should change it to Sarsaparille? But "-lle" endings still sound feminine. Sarsaparillo? Then people will think I wandered here from the Spanish Wikipedia, though. I could go the Italian route and change it to Sarsaparilli. What about Sarsaparillu? Sarsaparilly? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits look fine. Theistic rationalism could obviously use a lot more information and references, but that edit to Private highway has references and avoids weasel words. And what's wrong with "He-Man of Capitalism"? Natalie (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when does stuff on Facebook fit the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V? Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Sarsparilla is explaining how he saw "theistic rationalism" on Facebook, and then decided to write an article on it, because Wikipedia did not have one. I can't see anything inappropriate with the edits, Zenwhat, so it is clear that you should have assumed good faith first, instead of spending this time trying to get someone in trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I nominated Chocolate Thai for deletion and was somewhat successful, since the stuff was removed and merged into Cannabis. I notified Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) of my intention to delete his article Theistic rationalism, since he said he created the article after seeing the term on facebook and he used one source for it, which was blatant original research.

He seems to have retaliated (violating WP:POINT) by creating the article Chocolate chai, then making a snide remark on my page about how (paraphrase) "I guess it's too late to include information about chocolate thai." Despite being an admin, he is a single-purpose account to push Libertarian ideology. Within about a day of pointing this out here, he announced his intent to sell his account on eBay, in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Zenwhat (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea Sarsaparilla is an admin. He's certainly not a SPA either. You should perhaps read that link you posted. Leithp 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was? My mistake. He is, however, an SPA. See his contribs and his user page. Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat has no concept of what a POV pusher or single purpose account is. He accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being POV pushing SPAs, myself included, then can't provide any evidence to support the claim. For a laugh, see his current arbcom request and evidence page where he makes the comment "I was blocked by admin User:AuburnPilot, who has engaged in the same contentious editing of articles on Austrian economics, Libertarianism, and Market anarchism." You'll note I've never edited any of those pages, but I suppose that isn't relevant. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Sasparilla's edits. They are referenced, and the new article, while small, is also quite well referenced now and simply needs expansion. Zenwhat seems to be trying to misuse policy to win a content dispute. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my interpretation as well. Leithp 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin communication and archiving talk pages

Resolved

This admin User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me has an extraordinarily long talk page that precludes easy communication when he makes actions that require comment from other editors. Not just the length, but the processing time, makes it hard to check the status of issues. Should it not be a convention that communication with admins be made as easy as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 January 2008

Perhaps suggest the SqueakBox solution. There were complaints about the length of his talk page as well, and he compromised to keep one page of all of his conversations, and his talk page with only the most recent discussions. I believe he trancluded his talk page to the "All page", so he has the very latest talk plus his discussions from the past all in one place without inconveniencing people trying to contact him. Although I'm not sure he can be forced to do much. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a little note on his talk page. Maybe he just forgot to archive it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) The first step is always to ask. I don't see that MickMacNee has actually asked Clown to please archive. Most people will, if asked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked on the 10th of January, he has edited since. I don't understand the transclusion bits, sorry. It's a pain to keep going back to check things as he gets talk changes regularly so watching doesn't help. I would think you can't force anyone to do anything on WP, but there are policies about communication, especially for admins, and talk pages are the method of communication. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't Sleep has been asked previously to archive, I found a comment from someone who said that they actually can't load his page when using dial-up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact I have found 4 requests, on the 23 Aug 07, 26 Sep 07, 26 Dec 07 and then Mick Macnee's on the 10th Jan 08. DuncanHill (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Provisionally archived. Note that CSCWEM hasn't edited since the 11th. ^Avruchtalk 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He has been active today, with no acknowledgement of the issue. If all he wants to do is prat around vandal fighting and ignore his talk page then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to close out Afd's, the fallout of which still hasn't been resolved yet. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Transhumanist practicing to be an admin in AFD

Resolved

he is putting in closing comments ending his comments by saying he is practicing to be an admin [30] [31][32]. I personally have never seen this before and I find it strange and somewhat disruptive. Posting a conclusion before the debate is over seems like it would deter and influence participation. Ridernyc (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't semi-close debates. Either he closes them or he doesn't. Leaving them "half-open" with a recommendation for an admin isn't very useful, as an admin still needs to do the work. Anyway, being an admin isn't rocket science, it doesn't need insane amounts of "practice". Kusma (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that today in the LGBT couples AfD and thought it was odd. People shouldn't be practicing closes in the actual AfD. I've since removed it. If I'm out of line, I'm sure someone will tell me. ALLSTARecho 09:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah you're fine. :) Agreed that one should either close them or not. Non-admin closures can be done when uncontroversial, otherwise they should leave them to admins and use their vote to offer a policy-based opinion. Orderinchaos 10:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That gives me an idea. Thank you for the feedback. The Transhumanist 10:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the sandbox in future, as I said on your talk page, please. You can copy the entire discussion to a sandbox (or your own userspace) and close dummy discussions to your heart's content. Neıl ☎ 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That'll work. Thank you. The Transhumanist 11:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine for people to close AFD's , even if they're not admins. Unanimous keeps are easy, anyone can do those. No consensus can be tricky, get a bit of a feel for it. If you also want to close as "delete", make sure you have an admin around for you who can do the actual deletions. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let admins do it. And you don't really need admin practice. Everyking (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? So how can you know someone will be a good admin then? I'd prefer to make a stint at AFD mandatory, instead. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible socks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoffman (Saw)

Resolved

 – Rutherfordjigsaw, Fantasy Entertainment and Morton Christopher confirmed as socks, all 3 have been blocked.

WP:RFCU says "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppets did not affect the outcome of the vote" comes to ANI. As I closed the discussion as "delete" anyway, the socking didn't affect the outcome, so I'll post this here for discussion. A few of the "keep"er's editing history looks very similar ([[Rutherfordjigsaw (talk · contribs), Fantasy Entertainment (talk · contribs), and (maybe) Morton Christopher (talk · contribs). Is it even worth doing anything about? Neıl ☎ 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: Considering they all voted keep, they are likely to have some similar interests re: the Saw movies. I don't see anything more in the contribs history than that. It is rare (though not unheard of) for a user to be so sophisticated as to use 3 sockpuppet accounts with the frequency that these 3 are used. It doesn't match the pattern of a standard sockpuppet scenario as far as I can tell. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite. All three accounts have similar interests, yet they all re-appear within 7 minutes of each other to make a single agreeing edit on that AfD. One account hadn't edited for six days, one for over a month and the third since last September. If they're not socks, they're almsot certainly meatpuppets. The duck says "quack". BLACKKITE 13:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also from that AfD, I'd be tempted to look at User:Fiduch as well. BLACKKITE 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Or they are friends who sent eachother an IM message that said "d00d, someone is deleting an awesome article and you need to help out..." Annoying canvassing, but not something to drag out checkuser over... Or you may be right, but I'd err on the side of AGF if this is the ONLY evidence we have. I could be swayed by something more concrete, but I haven't seen anything yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But much as I'd like to AGF, I doubt it. BLACKKITE 14:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this behavior myself during the AFD, and found this thread from a few months ago. Once again, it's not concrete proof, but it shows that this isn't the first time there has been suspected foul play. I'd say it's very likely they are meatpuppets. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on that report and this report, you may have enough for a Checkuser request. I'd say go for it. Without that, not much admins can do here without something more than this, however.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth uncovering incidents of disruptive sock puppetry, including vote stacking, because left unchecked, the user may cause further trouble. Also, there may be additional unidentified socks related to this user performing other mischief. Our purpose is to prevent and deter trouble. "No harm done" in the AfD this time doesn't mean we should ignore this. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case Checkuser is the appropriate place, under criterion G. Sockpuppetry is a fairly unambiguous no-no, where as in some of the numerous AfD debates the usual suspects have lined up on each side pretty quickly - thus the meatpuppet tag could be slung rather widely. If placing on suspected socks page is only going to result in more speculation it is a waste of time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested - [33]. Neıl ☎ 11:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All 3 confirmed and blocked. Neıl ☎ 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

58.107.180.9

Resolved

 – blocked, referred to AIV

I am reporting 58.107.180.9 for leaving this comment on my talk page, "Riverlame, if you want to create a website about academia and never having sex and all that related shit, I'm sure you have the capacity too. Were you beaten in high school by metal fans or something? Do you consider michael buble to be more academic? You are a faggot, fuck off and die in a gutter yuppie scumbag, before I beat you!" -RiverHockey (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IP has not edited in 12 hours. Block not needed unless they do it again. If it happens again, IMMEDIATELY report it at WP:AIV and a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Caveat) RiverHockey, in the future, instead of posting the verbatim comment here (I understand the reason WHY, and the value of actually SEEING the words here, but rest assured that someone will look if you...), please post a link to the DIFF that introduced the inflamatory content / message. (This would be akin to the idea of, instead of bringing the fire into the room for us to know that there's a fire over there, just let us know that there's a fire over there. Someone will look at it, be assured. Edit Centric (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - The IP was blocked today, 24-hour duration, by admins. Edit Centric (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He was upset and had a hissy-fit about my comments on the page Talk:Reign in Blood. Either way since registration is not necessary for wikipedia, it will just continue on with another ip address. -RiverHockey (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User Dudesleeper

Resolved

 – referred to dispute resolution

Dudesleeper after 'conceding' days ago the result of the discussion behind the article Accelerate (R.E.M. album) when he has to give up on erasing half of the article, has restarted without even answering to complaints to erase such parts of the article like a crazy, refusing to give up to what was decided before. I urge you to block him, it has become stressing to revert his edit. Eyesbomb 16 january 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. It takes two to tango. Consider taking this to dispute resolution, such as WP:RFC and WP:3O. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Both parties to this dispute have been asked on their talk pages to attempt resolution before making further edits to this article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't between just two parties. It would have been prudent for you to have a quick read of the article's talk page before taking Eyesbomb's above words as gospel. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many parties it is. Edit-warring is A Bad Thing. Jaw-jaw, not war-war. The person who talks most and most civilly takes the higher ground. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any more of these phrases to share? They're very good. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a whole stock of aphorisms, each one more valuable than the last. I just hope you're keeping notes, coz there's gonna be a test. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have rarely found sarcasm to be useful on this page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) This issue is currently being addressed in article talkspace, and hopefully will reach resolution there. If not, it gets elevated. Let's give this a try. Edit Centric (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies everyone...

Resolved

Closed this. Admin was kind enough to notify us. Brought the fish. Others have supplied the chips. All done!Pedro :  Chat  23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Lesson learned, seafood eaten. — Scientizzle 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to, er....? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying you locked up the server longer than I did earlier? Should I take this as a challenge, maybe? John Carter (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He deleted the Wikipedia:Sandbox which crashed the servers, which shut down Wikipedia for half an hour. A well deserved Trout. ;) Woody (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. User talk:Scientizzle#Wikipedia:Sandbox. I was trying out this whole "rogue" thing... — Scientizzle 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stunning work dude! Not only that but Recent Changes just showed logs - I was on the point of coming here to report that an external bot was swamping us with new accounts when I double checked the dates/times...... and then couldn't edit anyway! Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. A developer has now put in a patch to stop us from doing it again! Woody (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. I was wondering what had happened to Wikipedia. I remember something similar happening when a rouge admin decided to delete WP:VFD (raise your hand if you remember when it was called VfD). It's a bit worrying that a single admin can (unintentionally) bring the project to its knees for a significant period of time. How would people feel about a software restriction on deletion, wherein regular admins would only be able to delete articles with fewer than n revisions, where n is some number in the (say) low thousands?

  Are there uintended consequences to such a modification? Any comments? Support? If there is support, is there someone versed in the ways of Bugzilla who could make the appropriate feature request? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's already been done; the limit is 5,000 revs. east.718 at 23:32, January 16, 2008
    • Yep, that was the patch I was talking about. See WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 16#Deletion restrictions for pages with long histories. Woody (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hear that, Scientizzle? Yours may not have been the most spectacularly server-killing page deletion in the history of the project, but at least you got to be the last one to do it. -- Vary | Talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess that means I'll have to trick a developer into renaming OrphanBot if I want to set a new record? --Carnildo (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I raise my hand not only as someone who can remember this, and also the deletion of VFD and its consequences, but as the person who effected the name change from VFD to AFD, renaming quite a large number of project namespace pages. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Scientizzle, for letting those of us who had absolutely no idea that one could crash the entire joint by doing something like that know not to do it! *doesn't let his mouse go near the delete button around big pages* Tony Fox (arf!) 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Your name shall go down in history. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for being understanding and showing good humor about my FUBARification of the 'pedia. I've joined Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and I love the friendly ribbing that I'm getting on my talk page. — Scientizzle 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dev said: "server couldn't handle the transaction, didn't reach slaves", other dev said, "setting to 5000 initial max", third dev said "no one yet has bigdelete access now". _→AzaToth 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we name the change as the Scientizzle Fix, for future references to the new limitation? -- DS1953 ^talk 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't know what in the future might be better qualified for that name. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to periodically rename the sandbox so it never has 27zillion revisions? It may need to be oversighted or deleted from time to time... oh, and where do I sign up to request bigdelete? ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is done, I suggest making the name based on the month and year, or just year. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Too funny. Yet I was suffering from withdrawal. LOL.  :) •Jim62sch• 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

bigdelete access will not be given, I think. If it borks the servers, then it borks the servers no matter who does it. Instead, request oversight/developer intervention depending on circumstances. Yes, it probably makes sense to do that (or something similar) to the sandbox. I suggested keeping only the last (say) 1000 revs, and letting older ones drop silently, but that's unworkable, IIRC. Instead, a one-time deletion to get a blank slate followed by daily deletion and recreation should be fine. Think twice before doing this though, as there may be consequences you and I haven't forseen. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but is that why I wasn't able to log on last night for about half an hour and got an HTP 500 error? Well, at least the other wiki sister projects were working, so I logged onto Commons for about an hour, and did some work there, so if this hadn't happened, I wouldn't have. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting daily deletion of the sandbox. I am suggesting daily (or weekly) renaming (moving) of it to an archive scheme so that edits to it don't build up against the same history... I don't think deleting and undeleting at the same name will do anything helpful at all. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why do we even want to do that? What purpose does renaming it serve? What purpose does separating the edit history into chunks serve? The sandbox is raked regularly by 'bots, including mine. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I got an idea. How about we create a sandbox on our userspace by ourselves. --  Boogster  Go!  02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Resolved

I was personally attacked on a discussion board here. I removed it and warned the user who promptly reinserted the attack and then inserted a threat along with it here. --Asams10 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any personal attacks there, I see constructive criticism and dialogue. What specifically do you object to? Woody (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call the first comment a personal attack; the second one is slightly less civil, but nothing egregious I'd say. Metros (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alyeska (talk · contribs) now informed of the thread. Woody (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it may have been a bit heated, but it does not violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Maybe just talking with the user about it is the best solution? Tiptoety ^talk 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you were not personally attacked. I gave constructive criticism given your hostile behavior towards people who disagreed with you. That you immediately reported a single post by me as being a personal attack feels like continued hostile behavior on your part. As others are also noting, you are coming across as hostile and abrasive. You really need to calm down. Alyeska (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Both comments are appropriate. Half your comments in this section are unnecessarily hostile or insulting. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Someguy1221. Your response to a guy who chose to bring issues he had with the new version, in order to gain consensus with you, about improving your edits. Instead, you were, at the best, overly sarcastic, but realistically, that was a completely hostile response. I see nothing about Alyeska's comments to you that any of a few hundred good editors and admins wouldn't haver said to you either. Heck, I would've been a lot more blunt about it. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a criticism, not a personal attack. Develop a thicker skin. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wenocur

Resolved

 – see thread down below

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While reviewing edits by newbies, I ran across this series of edits. Given the allegations of sockpuppetry made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur, the fact that the Amelia account was created after User:Alfred Legrand was blocked, the acknowledged COI listed here and the improbability of a newbie stumbling across a blocked user sandbox page, this may bear some scrutiny. Pairadox (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I started to dig into this, but was rapidly overwhelmed. Looks like a significant sockpuppet ring going back to at least early 2006. See related discussions and pages at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#User:Alfred Legrand: Disruption and sockpuppetry User:Oberst/MathStatWoman Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MathStatWoman Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MathStatWoman As this is not really my area of expertise, I’m not sure what the best course of action is. Easiest next step is an RFCU for evading block, but, based on the results, the possibility of a community ban is significant at this point. Thoughts? — Satori Son 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Isn't there an RFCU for this guy you can add it to and relist it the RFCU as open? I'd say the guy is already community banned (which is simply the refusal of anyone to reverse an indef block) but it doesn't do much to sockmasters. All socks should be posted to the RFCU and blocked by an admin clerk or by someone here at AN/I. Avruchtalk 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculus....Bizzare...Strange

Resolved

 – AfD relisted to generate more discussion to reach consensus. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I found no way other than coming here. I had nominated Bombilla & Gourd Mate Tea for deletion a week ago. Seven days have past, but no vote is posted till now in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombilla & Gourd Mate Tea. Bizzare situation.....needs attention. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've relisted the AfD to todays log. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like it was properly included in the log, so it was visible... and it was properly sorted... I dunno, it looks like it just fell through the cracks. Bizarre indeed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

soft on vandalism?

Resolved

 – Rollback removed, discussion continues

"As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."

I'm guessing admins don't have a throttle, and vandals certainly don't have a throttle, what's going on here?--Heliac (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not clear what is your question? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What action are you trying to perform? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback has a throttle, vandalism doesn't. How am I supposed to keep up with all the anonymous vandals out there who insert "SH*T, FU*K, etc" into articles if I can't rollback more than 10 or 11 edits per minute?--Heliac (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I must confess to on occasion having the fleeting urge to throttle a spammer. Wow, never did more than 3 reverts per minute myself. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know but since you seem to be rolling back stuff which quite obviously isn't vandalism, it seems quite a good move to me e.g. Rollback a legitimate DRV comment or this removal of "Mark McCandless you are wrong this is not based on a true story" or this correction of tense and plenty more besides. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He also rolled back your comment here, which I rolled back again. Heliac, I wonder whether you should have the rollback permission at all. Kusma (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is clearly abusing it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove his rollback permission if I see him make one more bad revert. Kusma (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing his rollback permission now, rollback is already a controversial subject and we don't need users abusing it and making it worse for the users who use it appropriately. If he has already show abuse, then just remove it. Tiptoety ^talk 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have removed it right away too. Notice, he was originally declined rollback, although it was for an unrelated reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a process for rollback removal yet. I'm trying to use the "warn before removal" approach (similar to "warn before blocking") as it doesn't seem to be very urgent. Fortunately rollbacks are throttled, so the potential harm isn't that great. Kusma (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more or less a in-formal process here, along with that i would like to quote a section from WP:RFR: "By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation," Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All bad reverts, and these are just from the past 100 edits: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Easy come, easy go. I've revoked rollback for this user. east.718 at 16:46, January 17, 2008

(I know its redundant know), but here is my summary from going through his use of rollback just today: Legitimate comment from an IP (obviously an un logged in user), Legitimate comment from an IP (in your AN/I thread no less), Legitimate comment from an IP about your use of rollback, minor format change by an IP, Seemingly helpful info from an IP, the removal of vandalism by an IP (which your rollback re-added), A spelling correction by an IP, a Legitimate edit by an IP, the removal of talk page comments from the article by an IP, the addition of a reference by an IP, a Legitimate DRV comment by an IP, repeated addition of seemingly helpful material by an IP, a minor grammar fix by an IP, A well-meaning comment from an IP, and a Constructive addition from an IP. I count 5 legitimate uses of rollback, out of 23 total. Pastordavid (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Tiptoety ^talk 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What worries me the most - check this - the very first screen of the user's edits. His very first edit was to give himself "admin-like RC patrol tools", and included undoing spelling corrections (amidst some useful anti-vandalism reversions). This is a pattern going back to 2006 - why on *earth* was this user given rollback to begin with? Orderinchaos 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised at this and this, which were both followed by block warnings (and in the case of the first user it was the first warning which they were given). Hut 8.5 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And thus the problem with rollback makes itself apparent... Look, if people want admin tools, they should go through RFA like anyone else. We shouldn't cherry pick which tools to give which people. Either people are trustworthy or they aren't... case in point here... This is clear, misuse (either through abuse or neglect) of the tools in this one case is rampant; this user should have rollback removed. Other users should also be taken on a case by case basis at this point. I am displeased with the system, but we have it now, so we might as well deal with it fairly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this user was perhaps just using the tool as a means of racking up a high number of edits in a short period of time for statistical purposes, maybe preparing a case for himself in a possible RFA. Clearly misguided but a possibility nontheless. SWik78 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no way I'm going to have a group of people complain for days about me not having written a FA, me having nominated an article for deletion, me having offended an inclusionist 7 months ago or anything else like that just to have rollback. If that's how it's going to be then I'd prefer not to have rollback and forget about reverting vandalism since I'm stuck on IE for now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let the debates start again. Tiptoety ^talk 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"...if people want admin tools, they should go through RFA like anyone else." How about 'No'? Someone nominated me for adminsip and you literally lined up around the block to take turns shitting on me. HalfShadow (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Or let's learn from this without judging everyone based on one incident. Let's make WP:RFR policy or at least a guideline. Right now it's neither of those things and telling users to use Twinkle is not an option for some people even if they wanted to. RfA is overkill - what about simply asking those who want it to have another user in good standing support their request. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback isn't really an "admin tool". It's a slightly faster method of doing something that every user can do. Other "admin tools" (deletion, protection etc) aren't like that. --Hut 8.5 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Directed at HalfShadows comment) Excuse me, please remmber WP:CIVIL, those comments where in no way personal attacks on you, but instead constructive comments to help you better your contributions. The statement made above shows why users !voted oppose. Please do not bring your anger here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the tool as such, as noted by Hut 8.5 there are at least some poor reverts/undo's before the issuing of rollback, and also as noted access to twinkle etc. To me the problem can be summed up in his post here, OMG I can only do 10 rollbacks a minute, vandalism isn't a game where a "highscore" is being sought nor is it some game of cops and robbers. As far as I can see issuing rollback isn't a great idea, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

82 has a point (and Redvers climbs on his favourite hobbyhorse again): the misuse of automated editing tools now includes rollback. And the apparent fact is that New Page and Recent Changes "patrollers", especially (sorry) the younger and newer members of our community, see these "patrols" as some sort of MMORPG, with "points" to be earned, the "next level" to be achieved and a feeling of victory and success when "the baddies" are blocked or hounded out of the 'pedia. But these baddies include good-faith editors and newbies. Those are the people being driven out. I've become very distrustful of AIV reports, with good reason: a game of "racking up the warnings" is often played, bouncing someone out within 2 or 3 (sometimes poor, sometimes misguided, sometimes very bad) edits. And admins are guilty here too, blocking on an AIV report without researching deeply - as I find often as I come back from checking edits, find "good faith but misjudged" all over them and an indef block applied. I used to complain (off-wiki, for the sake of non-drama), until I got a reply containing the words "Mind your own business". So now I don't bother at all. But I don't see how the 'pedia is being improved through all this, I really don't. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I view many of these automated tools with a wary eye for just that reason. I see no shortage of editors as Redvers described- many of them are recognizable by the "not an admin but want to be" userboxes they sport. Less automation and more actual communication would be a step in the right direction. Friday (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I say every time this comes up: Blame the users misusing the tools, not the tools for being misused. Just because a few users make an ass of themselves when they use the tools is not a reason to forbid capable users from using them. For every bad revert or tagging with Twinkle that causes drama, there are probably a hundred or more good ones that no one notices. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Although it's worth noting that these hundreds of good edits rarely or never result in people leaving or being blocked on flimsy grounds. But the bad edits very often do. <rhetorical>Is there a good ratio of automated edits to lost editors? 100:1? 1000:1? 10000:1?</rhetorical> ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I share Redvers's favourite hobbyhorse (ie. endorse his comments on automated tools), and also endorse this removal of rollback for gross misuse. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Demote admin User:Y

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please comment on the simultaneous WP:AN thread, rather than here. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Demote admin User:Y --Koreanjason (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not forum shop. Thank you. Kusma (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted the notice in the wrong board. It should have been posted here. It's too late to move the discussion now. So I post a link here. I do not forum shop. Thank you. --Koreanjason (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be generating enough discussion over there; only problem seems to be you don't like what others are telling you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about generating more discussion. I do not forum shop. I posted it on the wrong noticeboard. It should have been posted here. I post a link to that discussion here. I'm getting repetitious here, but I don't have any choice since you ignored my post above. And since when could you read my mind and see whether I like something or not? Please don't post any more comments here. If you want to participate, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Demote admin User:Y and post there, not here. --Koreanjason (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot read your mind, seriously. Which is why I said the "...problem seems to be...". Please don't misconstrue what I say. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AN is actually the right place - this is to report incidents, not to discuss more broad conclusions (although the distinction often and regularly blurs). Orderinchaos 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AN is the wrong place. This is the right place. See this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Report all incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks) on the subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you may do so there. --Koreanjason (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the conversation is going there. It is unwise to split the conversation into too parts. No compelling reason to do so. I say we close this one down, and redirect all interested parties to continue the conversation at WP:AN. They notice is here now, anyone interested can comment THERE, to keep it all in one place.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Resolved

 – Blocked 56 hours by Oxymoron83. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

199.212.26.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continuing to vandalize Centennial College (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GreenJoe (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please report at WP:AIV. Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Souljaboyd224

Resolved

 – User warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Souljaboyd224 made a personal attack against a person who does not appear to be a Wikipedia editor here in the Wikipedia talk:Copyrights page. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just vandalism. I've given the user a warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Situation at Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album) needs additional admin input

Resolved

I have tried to warn the people editwarring over this article to a) work together and b) stop "trying" to get each other "banned" (read the comments left on the talk page). Apparently, my warnings are falling on deaf ears. Can someone please read over this talk page and make any comments as necessary... I'd hate to see users blocked for incivility here, but it is getting close to that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's give this process a chance to work before we look towards admin action. I'll pop over to that page, and try to mediate things a bit... Edit Centric (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I've been trying to get them to use Mediation, but no avail... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now recruiting: the upcoming troll army

Resolved

 – old news. Nothing to see here. Move along. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The recruiter (talk · contribs) is advertising on a few User talk pages.[57] Dunno how serious. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Old news. Check the dates. He was blocked in October, 2007. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes, I remember blocking that one. Acalamari 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He's Jim, dead.

No. Wait a sec... HalfShadow (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Habittruth (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked already--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This user needs to be blocked immediately. Please check his contribs. SWik78 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked, request an unblock, and that was denied. We already got him. Thanks for bringing it here though. Keep up the good fight! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by User:WebHamster

Resolved

WebHamster (talk · contribs)

• [58] -- personal attack/incivility

• [59] -- user created new MfD nomination in blatant violation of WP:POINT

• [60] -- personal attack/incivility/just plain inappropriate remark at MfD

• [61] -- personal attack on the user's opponents at the MfD.

• [62] -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack

• [63] -- user's refusal to assume good faith

• [64] -- this was a response to my warning the user about WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

• [65] -- another response to AGF/civility warning, after I took the matter to the user's talk page.

• [66] -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

As you can see, I attempted to warn User:WebHamster about violating AGF/CIVIL/NPA, but he only became more belligerent when I did. I'm just wondering if an admin could issue a polite yet stern warning to the user, imparting to him that his comments are indeed in violation of policy and inappropriate, and that he should try harder to keep a cool head. This might have the most positive effect coming from an admin who hasn't been a participant in the userbox debate in which these incidents occurred. Thanks in advance for your attention here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:44, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned about civility. The monkey nuts thing was a tad over the line. If this is a concern, please report it at WP:WQA, which is designed to handle EXACTLY this kind of thing. If problems continue in this vein, let us know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually hoping for a more broad warning about all these comments, rather than just regarding the one, but if that kind of request belongs at WP:WQA I'll take it there. Thanks again though. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:03, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to make a second plea for admin intervention here. If you look at these diff's I think you'll agree that a warning should be issued regarding all these incidents, and that with the way the user has responded to warnings in the past, that anything short of a stern authoritative warning from an admin won't accomplish much. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:08, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

They've been warned. Trouts all around next time you two otherwise fine users decide to get in a minor scrap like that. east.718 at 20:27, January 17, 2008

Request for block: 160.7.155.176

Resolved

 – user blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The user 160.7.155.176 (talk · contribs) has had multiple warnings and continues to vandalize Catapult. User has never contributed and is vandalism only. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV. If you report it there you get faster blocks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Capoeira toques

Resolved

 – appears to be fixed

The page Capoeira torques seems to have had its images depicting the rhythms deleted on all but one of the sub headings. Being a completely unexperienced Wikipedia editor, I didn't roll back changes, and I have no idea where to find the images that were removed. Could someone please look into this issue, since the rhythms are the subject of the page, and the loss of the notation reduces the quality of the page. Also, I seem to remember the key for the musical notation as being before the initial subheading (which is a logical place). Posted below is hopefully a link to the Capoeira toques page, showing the deletion of the images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capoeira_toques&diff=prev&oldid=184390123]

82.22.66.15 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems it's getting handled. Pete St.John (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete removal etc.

Resolved

 – Does not require atention. CM (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Charles Matthews (talk · contribs), Nicolas Psaume, and ambiguous claims of public domain from possibly self published source.

I added a to Nicolas Psaume,[67] and posted a note to the original contirbutor.[68]. The original contributor then removed the speedy delete and added an assertion of public domain source.[69]. I cautioned this user that as an original contributor he should not remove the speedy delete.[70]. The user acknowledged knowing the rules, but has not restored the speedy delete.[71]. The article may be public domain, but it was copied from a possible unreliable source that also claims copyright. See clearly states Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight. I do not believe the wikipedia article was copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 per assertions, but instead copied from a self-published web site that simultaneously claims copyright and reprint from public domain source.

It is requested that a disinterested admin look at the public domain status of the entry at Nicolas Psaume, and also caution the original contributor against removing speedy delete tags. Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The website it comes from states where the original published source is. Putting a copyright notice on that site isn't necessarily incompatible with the text itself being PD, you can copyright many creative works including the layout etc. of your website. As an arbitrator I doubt Charles needs too much reminder of policy on these things, but I'm sure he also doesn't have a problem with review of his actions. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the claim of public domain is clearly in good faith, as is the removal of the speedy delete. However, I also think that following the correct procedure for removing the speedy delete via {{hangon}} and {{catholic}} is much preferred, and not much of a hardship on the original contributor or wikipedia in general. The use of {{hangon}} avoids even the remotest appearance of conflict of interest. Cagey Millipede (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the copy on Wikisource. It appears the legit PD version is exactly the same as the version "Kevin Knight" claims copyright on. So Mr. Knight's claim doesn't seem to have any validity. --W.marsh 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg/ChrisG nyc compromises anonymity

Resolved

 – Oversighted per request.

Beneath the hat is a content dispute. Below the hab is a privacy violation report. ^Avruchtalk 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the above is not really why I am posting on the incidents noticeboard. In his last comment on the talk page at Talk:Michael_Bloomberg#External_links, Chris revealed the confidential identity of UniteForMike.com member Citizen Ben, Wikipedia user ILikeBloomberg (after saying "whose name I will not mention" in a previous comment, no less), as part of a personal vendetta due to a stalled collaboration between our two websites. This is in violation of Wikipedia:Privacy. I would like to have that name removed from the talk page and edit histories. --Michael White^T·C 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, at this time I would not like to be considered an official representative of UniteForMike.com. I am acting as an individual in this matter. --Michael White^T·C 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed, e-mail sent to oversight-l, warning left on ChrisG nyc's talk page. Get to the point more quickly next time, man! ^Avruchtalk 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, I guess I wanted to give adequate background, but I suppose this is not the dispute resolution page, so I shouldn't have. --Michael White^T·C 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, just good to get to that stuff as quick as possible. Oversighted by FloNight. ^Avruchtalk 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Threat by IP to Jackie Speier

Resolved

 – Blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Please see this DIFF on the article Jackie Speier. I believe that Jimmy Wales has said in the past that we need to take statements like these made on Wikipedia very seriously, so I would appreciate it if an Admin more knowledgeable in these matters (which I am not, and not an Admin), would promptly do something about this. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

I dont think that is a serious threat. Viridae^Talk 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This DIFF by an anon ip - * 96.242.14.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is probably from the same user. Please indef block, whether or not you think the threat is serious, threats of violence are serious. This woman is currently a political candidate for Congress and the matter should not be taken lightly. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Blocked Indef. Let's not draw too much attention to it, although you may well want to notify User:Mike Godwin - Wikimedia legal counsel - (or I will if you wish). WP:RBI may be the best here to stop drama. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef, both the ip and the user that both made the threats? Can you please report this to Mike Godwin (talk · contribs), that would be best. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Can't indef an IP. User is indef blocked. ^Avruchtalk 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)IP blocked for 72 hours. Mr.Z-man 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like IP resolves to New Jersey, anyway. ^Avruchtalk 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec)No, we don't block IP's indef. (generally). If they vandalise again they'll get a short block. And I noticed I accidently blocked 1 year for the account, but I doubt it matters. I'll e-mail Mike. Pedro :  Chat  23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be best to change the block to indef for Pitbullrgud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Are you seriously expecting them to make the same edit next year? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just think that due to the nature of the threats made, they should blocked indef. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

(Unindent) Blocking is preventative, not punishment. ^Avruchtalk 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Even with threats of this nature? Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes, what would be the point of any punishment we could deliver? ^Avruchtalk 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that people who make death threats shouldn't be blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that? Of course not. The user is blocked for a year, and the IP is blocked for a brief but appropriate period of time. What else would you like done, and to what purpose? ^Avruchtalk 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An indef block of the user account. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to be indef but Pedro's finger slipped off his mouse and it was a year instead. The user probably already has a new IP address, but we won't be seeing this edit from this account again. Job done 'nuff said. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility in AfD renomination

Resolved

 – AfD Closed

Otto4711 (talk · contribs) had renominated the article Towel-Headed Man for deletion a day after it was closed as no consensus yesterday. Otto4711 has since engaged in uncivil comments with editors who commented that the renomination was far too soon.[73][74][75][76] --Farix (Talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I closed it (non-admin) and advised that it be moved to a merge discussion (on the talk page). ^Avruchtalk 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes those comments are a bit "heated" but i think that talking with the user after they have had some time to cool down may ultimately be the appropriate thing to do. Tiptoety ^talk 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, everyone who's worked at XfD has seen this user's deletionism. Do not worry. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[review/Log/2008 January 16&diff=184973059&oldid=184937264|wow] cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – There is definitively no AN/I issue here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay. There's good-faith copyright paranoia, and there's disruption. This appears to be the latter.

Over the past month or so, this user has been editing two sets of articles. One set is his normal scope of Irish football teams, the other is Doctor Who images. From the RfC:

1. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 28#Image:Fear_Her.jpg
2. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 7#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg
3. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 15#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg
4. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 18#Image:Theemptychild.jpg
5. Wikipedia:Images and media for_deletion/2007 December_28#Image:Remembranceofthedaleks.jpg
6. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 30#Image:2.0.Christmas Invasion.jpg
7. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 1#Image:Mondasplanet.jpg
8. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 2#Image:Voyageofthedamned.jpg.E2.80.8E
9. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 5#Image:Ninth Doctor.jpg
10. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 7#Image:Slitheen.jpg
11. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 7#Image:Worldwarthreewho.jpg
12. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 7#Image:Theemptychild.jpg
13. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 10#Image: Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg

He's been warned twice to lay off the Doctor Who images in particular. He's showing no effort at all to: a) improve the articles, and b) focus on images outside Doctor Who (believe me, WPDW's use of fair use media is a lot lower than other projects). A recent discussion is just simply another in a long line of egregious misinterpretation of NFCC, disruption, assumption of bad faith, and trying to override established consensus regarding the images. Can we get a topic ban on this user? It's detracting from time that the WikiProject can spend time actually improving articles. Will ^(talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant forum shopping. There is an open RfC here.--Addhoc (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. An interesting fact: RfC/U has been dead for two years. Will ^(talk) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears Addhoc is properly referring to this very current one: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua. Thus, I am marking this as resolved. — Satori Son 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, can you expand on how this is disruptive? I guess I'm not terribly familiar with the background (or the RfC) so can you elaborate for others like me on how a topic ban would be appropriate? Just from what you wrote, it looks like he is focusing on deleting the Doctor Who images and the Doctor Who project wants him topic banned. I'm sure there is much more to it, so can you put it on display? ^Avruchtalk 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole project. I'd rather see him topic-banned because it's sliding into disruption (he's only nominating Doctor Who images) that's occupying the time of quite a few of the project's most active editors. Will ^(talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. The nominations are well within policy. As long as I am an admin in this place, there will be no sanctions against those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Dispute resolution is already underway elsewhere. — Satori Son 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not resolved. I know there's dispute resolution, I certified the RfC. But requests for user conduct are useless beyond universal assumption of bad faith. And re: Fut.Perf: I'd be fine if he was nominating images outside of WPDW's scope, but he's not. I don't think he'd get away with it if it was anything other than fair use images. Will ^(talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing wrong with that. If there's a big mess to clean up, one reasonable strategy is to choose one limited area to clean up systematically first, to establish something like a precedent. Dr. Who is presumably one of our better covered and better watched series, so the chances for something like an informed, tightened-up set of standards of fair use usage to emerge from such a set of discussions may be much better there than elsewhere. And given the hostility that image patrolling unfortunately triggers among the fans, I have a lot of understanding if a patroller chooses to step on the toes of only one fan crowd at a time and not a dozen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clean-up. Clean-up would be fixing the rationales instead of nominating them under tenuous reasons that have been rebutted time and time again. Will ^(talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If I hear this "fix the rationale instead" argument one more time, I think I'm gonna puke. How difficult is this to understand: you can't "fix" a fair use rationale if you believe the use itself is wrong. Writing a fair use rationale entails making the claim that the image is necessary for whatever it's doing in the article. Fasach Nua couldn't possibly write such a rationale, as long as he is subjectively not convinced it is necessary. Unless you demand he should become a liar, that is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He already is. I don't see a free alternative for the image of the Fourth Doctor and his extra-long scarf. Will ^(talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to retract this very serious personal attack, which will absolutely not be tolerated in this forum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack. He cites they fail NFCC#1 on a lot, which says "no free alternative". Last I checked, most people don't have the power to hire million-pound special effects studios and very prolific actors. Either he's lying, or he hasn't read the policy. Other nominations suggest the former. Will ^(talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where I've seen him use NFCC#1, it was in saying an image could be replaced by text. But in any case, I really don't like to be giving NPA warnings to a fellow admin like to some edit-warring n00b, but still, I seriously recommend you disengage from this dispute for a while, because if you conduct it in this style, it will not end well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that a fair use image must be included. Fair use images are antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia, and allowed under an EDP only in circumstances where an image is necessary for a particular article and no other image is available. That may possibly be the case here, but disagreement between editors isn't an issue for AN/I. Its an issue for dispute resolution, which is already taking place. ^Avruchtalk 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Avruch is exactly right: this is a fair use dispute that is not appropriate for ANI. I have removed the struck-through "Resolved" template since Will disputes it, but I still do not see any matter that requires admin action. — Satori Son 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've been told that a) your arguments aren't worth the database space, b) there are worse offenders, and c) fix problems a) and b), but you don't, it's a very strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Will ^(talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but if there are specific instances of policy violations on the part of Fasach Nua that warrant blocking or other admin intervention, please provide diffs. Otherwise, this is simply a heated disagreement over the proper intrepertation and implementation of United States copyright law (a matter on which legal professionals themselves disagree every day). You need to find a decision or compromise which is supported by community consensus, something for which ANI is an extremely poor venue. — Satori Son 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two things happening here:

• The WP:WPDW editors like to have a single image per episode article, and justifies that infobox style by claiming that it does not voiolate fair-use policy. Per the project page: We should generally limit ourselves to one screenshot per page, to safely stay within the bounds of fair use. Fasach Nua sees them as bending that policy somewhat, and is challenging the need for an image-per-article standard. This is a valid disagreement, in my opinion.
• User:Fasach Nua admittedly uses WP:POINT behaviour too often to advance his position (not just on DW articles), which obviously does not sit well with other experienced editors.

A true resolution to this issue requires action on both points. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have closed this thread because nothing presented here has demonstrated a need for continued AN/I attention - clearly there is a dispute here (as in many places) regarding the non-free content policy and its application. This dispute is properly the province of an RfC or a discussion on the appropriate policy page, and nothing is served by repeatedly bringing it back to AN/I as if it were a conduct issue. ^Avruchtalk 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion of Firestar's Quest

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone delete this please, the author is continually removing the speedy tag. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is dead, time to manufacture some problems.

Resolved

Ok kids, get to it! Where is all the drama?! ^Avruchtalk 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at some of the arbitration cases if you want drama... :\ Horologium (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The only active one I was following closely... Its primary source of disputatiousness was protected! (Ok, not a word, still...). ^Avruchtalk 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) if you really want to step in it... Pairadox (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll chance my arm - delete - Avruch is entirely right. Rarely should articles be composites of other articles, and definitely not on a inflammatory subject as this. I don't see the benefit of merging the pages at all, as they're summaries of the "main pages", and there's the topic of where the article will redirect to once its done. Will ^(talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to bring over the cat... bibliomaniac15 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you can always go up this page (there are a few threads with no comment). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plenty waiting down here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it admin's. I bet you could have every backlog cleared in an hour. Maybe--Jac16888 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is dead, time to write some articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles --Iamunknown 03:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the oft-neglected CAT:TWU. Definitely a backlog here (don't know why its not a on the backlog list). Pastordavid (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That does come up pretty rarely, seems like an easy thing to clear, just make sure the user is indef'd, not suspected of sockpuppetry, and bang, its gone. Come on all you admins, show us what we pay you for.--Jac16888 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, just wrote an essay on this topic, funny you should mention it ... :) Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We could also use any bored admin's attention over at Template:Did you know/Next update. The box is a very sad and neglected shade of red. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Bored admins? There's a contradiction of terms for ya.03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Well it looks like ANI just got two customers, hop to it! :) Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This one still has some steam. ^Avruchtalk 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor652

Resolved

 – user blocked

I've put a level-4 stop warning on User Talk:Editor652. Constant modification of statistics for South American countries, without sources. Multiple messages from multiple editors telling him that he has to source his changes, multiple reversions to multiple articles. He seems to sincerely believe in his numbers, but is wholly unwilling to back them up with references.Kww (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Betacommand is running a script on his account that automatically adds a<references /> tag to articles that don't have one. Unfortunately his script doesn't check for templates that list references, such as {{reflist}}, {{footnotes}}, {{refs}}, etc., and thus he's been adding lots of duplicate reference lists. Yesterday I warned him about this but due to a communications problem at his end he was not aware of new messages on his user talk page, and eventually I had to block him. Eventually I unblocked him on the condition that he stopped adding duplicate reference lists. Today he's using the script again, and has added more duplicate lists. Again, I've tried contacting him on his talk page asking him to either stop using the script or amend it to check for existing reference lists. His most recent edits, since that request, seem to be abiding by it, but given yesterday's communication problems I've asked for confirmation that he has amended the script, and I've received none. My instinct is to block him until he confirms the script has been fixed or that he's checking his edits carefully (as otherwise I, or someone else, will need to check every edit he makes) but that does seem a bit harsh so I'd value a second opinion.

There's also another issue here, around whether he should apply for a separate bot account for this script - after all, the bot application process is there precisely to stop this kind of thing happening. Waggers (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand already has a bot account, User:BetacommandBot. BJ^Talk 11:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the script he (or she, I shouldn't assume) is using is on their main user account, not BetacommandBot. The script has not been approved - if they want to use it, shoudldn't they apply for a new bot account, in addition to BetacommandBot? But this is besides the point - my real question is what to do about Betacommand's current behaviour. Waggers (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't be running a script from his main account like this in the first place, he should get approval for this. I don't want to do a block myself only because I probably won't be available to follow up on it soon. Grandmasterka 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It looks at though Beta has slowed down on the edits to do them in small batches and the latest ones that I have looked at all appear good. I presume he will be going back to fix the ones that were wrong. BLACKKITE 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I temporarily blocked since it appears script edits are still being made. If Betacommand bothers to communicate regarding this, please anyone feel free to unblock. If one chooses to run scripts from a non-bot account, one takes the risk of bot blocks on that account if it malfunctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Though not specifically about adding reference tags, Betacommand has had problems with being unresponsive to people's concerns over his automated scripts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. ArbCom found specifically that he was dismissive of others concerns over his automated editing,
    • Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals: "Betacommand was generally unresponsive to the above editors, ignoring many, giving curt replies to others and generally failing to adequately address the editorial concerns being raised."
    • Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks: "A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's username blocks...Betacommand made no apparent direct response to any of the above editors."
    • Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions: "A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's image deletions...Betacommand made no apparent direct response to any of the above editors"
  • It should also be noted that Betacommands judgement over the use of automated tools was brought into question by this RFAR:
    • The link removal was conducted inappropriately: "Betacommand's removal of external links was conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment for the following reasons...1) he used an automated tool to edit with bot-like speed from an account that did not have a bot flag 2) his automated tool was still under development and made large numbers of mistakes ..."
    • History of poor judgment: "Several past incidents demonstrate that Betacommand has a history of poor judgment"
  • This is hardly an emerging or new problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for the hard work Betacommand has performed around here. Most of what they do is thankless grunt work, and they are a net asset to the project. But Jayron32 is correct that their unresponsiveness and "unsatisfactory communication" has been a significant issue for some time. And this reply, while continuing to use the defective script, seems to be more of the same. Again, I would like to thank Betacommand for everything they do for the project, but I also insist that they be more considerate and reactive in the future. — Satori Son 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Jayon leave your personal dislike for me out of this. Waggers, this is not a bot, its a tool similar to AWB. When you brought up this yesterday I promptly fixed it. There was another issue about the footnotesmall template that was found today. Due to the fact that it uses double template encoding, it was throwing my tool off. I have since fixed that.Satori Son, reguarding your diff, I was unable to fix it at that exact moment and that I added it to my todo list before I would run it again. is what I had ment by that comment. I do not knowing use a defective tool, I thought I had fixed it, and had for all the involved templates except for the footnotesmall due an issue with it haveing a template within a template. β^_command 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (although I don't think Jayron32 expressed any "personal dislike" for you). That makes sense. Thanks for fixing the problems and for following up here. I think we can move on. — Satori Son 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal info in edit summary

Resolved

Can an admin possible remove this <redacted> personal info in this edit summary? From the looks of it, it's a kid at school who entered their, or a classmates' home address. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aecis is taking care of it right now. — Satori Son 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work! Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post links to material containing personal information. Please follow the instructions at WP:RFO instead. --Deskana (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

unappropriate emails

Resolved

According to a help desk post here there is a user sending emails to users who identify as female asking them to look at his naked pictures. There is no telling how many more contributors he is planning to email. Arthena^(talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef-blocked, e-mail disabled. I don't know, other people over at the helpdesk seemed to be more willing to give him just a warning and so on, but this guy seems to have come here only for that purpose anyway and had no useful contributions. We don't need people like that here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Resolved

Checks over time reveal these blocked IP addresses to no longer be Tor nodes.

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

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

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

Thanks, Mercury at 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked all except for 88.42.221.180, which was not tagged as TOR in the first place. east.718 at 18:34, January 18, 2008

88.42.221.180 is still an open HTTP proxy. east.718 at 18:44, January 18, 2008

My mistake, don't know why my stuff included that IP. Mercury at 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, nice sig. :) Mercury at 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, I realize now that it isn't one person talking to themselves, as I originally thought.  :-) Keeper | 76 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using ANI bandwidth for requests that do not require community discussion, can these go to individual administrators? I am happy to unblock IPs sometimes if you bring them to me, or you can pick one of the administrators who has placed the block. If you prefer, you could create a page in your userspace to list IPs that need unblocking and ask a few administrators to watchlist that page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all discussions at ANI require discussion, but according to the scope, "require the intervention of administrators". I want this process I'm doing to be ultra transparent. So if its all the same, I'll would like to continue posting sections here. Additionally, after 24h of no comments, it will be gone anyway. No bandwidth issue I think. Regards, Mercury at 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got a somewhat radical suggestion - How about you make a subpage in your userspace, "User:Mercury/Non-Tor IPs for unblocking", and whenever it's not empty, have {{unblock}} on the page. —Random832 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would work, I'll just change the target page, and post to a subpage, the unblock template would allow transparency. I'll do that. Regards, Mercury at 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One last thought - Now that I look at it, the template looks awkward for this, maybe use Category:Requests for unblock (same cat as the template) instead? —Random832 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of using IPvandal, you could use a template with an unblock link to list the names. —Random832 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created {{IPunblock}}. —Random832 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll use it. I have another run I'm going to do later, some more IP's should have met their random test threshold and be ready for posting. I'll try it your way. Regards, Mercury at 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Romania#Approval poll

Resolved

Could a neutral admin please close this? It was supposed to expire yesterday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Downwiz2

Resolved

 – User blocked indef

Could a user please look into the actions of User:Downwiz2.

There is vandalism here [77], here [78], here [79], and

Personal attack here [80]

Unsourced attack statements here [81]

Editing of another user's statement to change meaning here [82]

It appears that they have been warned twice on their behavior here [83] and here [84] and has engaged in other TE behavior, that while not prohibited, is not the best way to resolve an issue.

MBisanz ^talk 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bradeos Graphon blocked them indef. [85] 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceNT (talk • contribs)

California School of Culinary Arts Pasadena

Resolved

 – page deleted

I have concerns with this article, but a series of IPs continue to delete the tags (notability, advert and orphan), without explaining and without addressing any of my concerns. Am I over-reacting to this pattern of vandalism? One named editor User:JLG1010 who is participating is also expanding articles on other for-profit schools (which may or may not be owned by the same conglomerate) to the point that I think they violate db-spam, but he/she is not an SPA in the traditional sense; and JLG now appears to have a sock-puppet or meat-puppet, User:Lee26, who also specializes in expanding for-profit schools' articles to spammy proportions! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The common thread in all cases is the affiliation of the schools in question to Career Education Corporation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Before coming here, did you leave comments on the talk pages of the relevent IPs and Usernames? One of them has a redlinked talk page at this point. I would recommend talking to these users and explaining your position in plain terms. Don't use the UW-warning templates, simply leave a civil note "Hey, I noticed you did yada yada yada to the article, and I disagree with those changes, can we discuss the matter on the talk page" or something like that. At least make an effort to work collaboratively, as these users may be unfamiliar with the myriad conventions at Wikipedia. If, after multiple attempts to get them to work at the talk page and arive at consensus there, they patently refuse to take up the discussion, then other options, such as protection or blocking may be taken up. But at least TRY to work it out with them first. You may be surprised by the positive response you receive... Or maybe not, but you can't tell till you try.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this school is remotely notable. Take it to WP:Afd, and if gets deleted, problem solved--Jac16888 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It contains the word "school" in the title, therefore it is notable. --Carnildo (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedied A7, no assertion of notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Fathom SEO's Career Education Corporation spam on Wikipedia (permanent link) This is a very large effort to PR-control our articles with multiple single purpose accounts making hundreds of edits.

As for warnings and learning our conventions, Jayron, you're right and that's something about which I'm always sensitive. I was worried about us getting all BITEy, so I checked. It turns out that collectively, this SEO firm has received tons of them, so I have little sympathy. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

user at 71.252.205.96

Resolved

 – Warning given. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has been adding nonsense to Transformers articles. For instance adding plot that never happened to the story, and fake voice actor names to characters. It's clearly a stealth attempt to vandalize dozens of pages. I just reverted a bunch of his edits, can someone warn them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you do it yourself - see WP:WARN for instructions. Waggers (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reblock User: Bluemarine?

Resolved

 – well, not so much... but there's nothing to do here, like he said. —Random832 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is at arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. Take it up there with one of the clerks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, could someone please consider reblocking User: Bluemarine? He persists in attacking other editors despite many reasonable efforts and blocks to curb such behaviors. Latest attacks here. Benjiboi 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• He is already indefinitely blocked, and thereby restricted to his talk page. His personal attacks have been reverted, and if he continues, the page will be protected. He is currently the subject of this arbitration case. Addhoc (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Should we protect his userpage? If he is willfully using it to attack others wouldn't that be appropriate?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of reverting, you could have refactored, replacing "moron" with "person", for example. Removing a question that asks who keeps removing questions seems an action that is likely only to inflame the situation. Reversion isn't the only tool in the toolbox, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The revert was by Eleemosynary, not Jayron32, however the idea is worthwhile. Also, I'm slightly nervous about protecting the page of someone who is the subject of arbitration, for various reasons, including giving the appearance of silencing dissent. Addhoc (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) As the "moron" in question, I fully support total reversion of intemperate remarks. Sanchez was already under an indef-block, as a result of incivility (see the RFC and the Arbcom case for well over 100 documented instances), and it's unlikely that he will be unblocked. Sanchez has demonstrated a complete inability or total unwillingness to operate within the confines of Wikipedia's collaborative atmosphere (he has a rather severe battleground mentality), and despite approximately 30 warnings, continues to issue rude, defamatory, personal attacks and generally unhelpful commentary. Horologium (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, he is mad about some of his bank accounts being compromised, and if this is truth I wouldn't really blame him, so I have tried to establish communication with him, after all protection is not always the answer. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI there is speculation that this latest claim, like that of his being victimized at Columbia University doesn't, as of yet, have any evidence to support it. There was, however, a recent portion of an email posted (and later removed) that suggests that his email account may have been compromised. I wish him no ill will but encourage caution and an "eyes wide open" stance. Benjiboi 14:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There is a very real chance that his e-mail account was hacked (more of the drama that has accompanied this case), but it remains to be seen if his bank accounts have been accessed. If he chooses to submit some type of documentation to the arbitration committee (which I would encourage), he would be using some method other than his talk page (or his apparently compromised e-mail account). While he is far from the most intemperate talk-page soapboxer in this issue, he's not contributing anything other than fuel for the fire on the talk page, so there is no real reason to allow him access to it. The arbitration case is still in the evidence stage, so he has time to send appropriate information to the clerk as necessary. Horologium (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daemonia Nymphe

Resolved

 – restored to userspace, no further admin action required at this time.—Random832 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure if this is the right place but the article on Daemonia Nymphe had been deleted due to copyright issues. I tried to write a new article but it got deleted/locked again. Could somebody please explain problem as I would like to continue work on the article. --Karsten Sill (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karsten. The article was deleted under our criteria for speedy deletion by Sandstein (talk · contribs), for "not asserting the notability of the subject". As the stub article did mention the band has released four albums, I'm not sure a speedy deletion was appropriate, and a salting definitely wasn't, as the only other deletions were 1) for a copyvio and 2) for a terrible little stub that asserted nothing. This one was different and I'm not sure it warranted a speedy deletion and salting (locking). I've let Sandstein know you raised this point here and suggested he undelete the article. If he doesn't, you may need to take this to Deletion Review. Neıl ☎ 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I am seriously planning on adding more content to this article. --Karsten Sill (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! You may like to consider making a draft version, at User:Karsten Sill/Daemonia Nymphe. Neıl ☎ 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Neil. I've undeleted the article and moved the contents to User:Karsten Sill/Daemonia Nymphe. Karsten, you're free to work on it there and move the article back to Daemonia Nymphe once the article meets the standards of WP:BAND. Also, feel free to ask me for any questions. Sandstein (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New messages bar

Resolved

 – No admin action required

User TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny

Resolved

 – User warned, again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny repeatedly copies and pastes material from IMDb. I went to the page to leave a warning and discovered that the user had already been warned about this. Warnings for other violations are also on the user's talk page. Perhaps a temporary block is in order? Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the user made a couple constructive edits since the previous warning was given, I think it would be best to give one more, clear, final warning. I've done so here and made it clear that the next time will result in a block by a sysop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! --Melty girl (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Axeman 10

Resolved

Brought this here as I have no idea what to do. I reverted one edit originally by said user: [88]. I left him/her a warning: [89]. I came back a while later to find the user had left me a message explaining his rationale: [90] (I counted it as a personal attack and left him a warning) - In the message he promises to get a different I.P. address and a new account if he is blocked. I go over to his talk page to give him a warning for his personal attack (Here: [91]) and find an I.P. (Most likely himself) did this: [92]. I'm wondering what to do... Did I do the right thing? Did my warning escalate the situation? I found his original AC/DC edit to be quite obscure and thus perceived it as vandalism; so I believe my warning to him was appropriate. Any thoughts/suggestions/decisions upon the I.P./account would be appreciated. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the original edit was vandalism. I guess that really is the proper name, although I don't know how the user knows from the image that is what they are preforming. As far as the IP edit, I removed it and left a (bv) vandalism warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The original edit looks like a good faith edit and the IP User:Axeman 10 received the highest level warning for it, no wonder they were angry. RMHED (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP received no warnings except for adding this to a user page. That deserves a bv warning, as it is blatant vandalism. The logged in user though, did make a good faith edit, and did receive an "only warning". I would ask the issuer to apologize and remove that warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've received a second personal attack from the user: [93] (Btw the 156.34x I.P. is removing the attack) - He's stepped over the line now, surely? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the warning that I gave him for the AC/DC edit. (And I will apologise immediately.) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, but I do see that the user is making personal attacks against you. So much for good faith users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Re-start indent) - Okay, I've removed the warning and apologised. I'm not really offended by anything that he has said so there's no real harm done. Just as long as his original AC/DC edit was actually constructive, I don't mind. I guess I'll just have to keep an eye out for him. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Review my block of 69.250.142.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – I guess. 3 people agree with the block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has persistently engaged in personal attacks against other editors, has made racial comments, used inflammatory edit summaries, has made several less than productive edits in his/her time here (appears to be a static IP) and has generally been aggressive and belligerent with other users. I have thus blocked this IP for a month. A glance at his contribs and talk page should make it very clear that this user has been doing this consistently for three months, despite numerous warnings (will provide diffs if required - but it should be pretty self-explanatory).

As I have had (minor) dealings with 69.250.142.218 in the past, I would appreciate your input on this matter. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Entirely deserved it.... No problem with this block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. A well-deserved time-out. Bencherlite^Talk 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JesseCortanno

Resolved

 – Block considered correct judgement in situation. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this user (JesseCortanno (talk · contribs)) a few moments ago (mainly for his username, but also because he's making the same edits as the person in this this CU), stating harassment and, more importantly, attempted impersonation of me. I have since declined his unblock; could another admin weigh in? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant sockpuppets edit war tags off articles; an administrator (amongst others) reverts; then minutes later another new account, whose username just happens to resemble said administrator's, appears and continues the same pattern of edits. Hmm. That's not suspicious at all. – Steel 01:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User is clearly a sockpuppet of the other accounts, and trying to evade a block. The edits are identical as the other accounts. Blocking was the right move here. Name or not, the user is attempting to evade a block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment

I'm not even sure how I ended up at this article, but I did. At any rate, cranky Toronto Maple Leafs fans (I would presume, since they have reasons to be cranky) have been vandalizing the article frequently over the past week. It appears they don't like the ownership! The vandalism is coming from both registered and IP accounts, so I was hoping that it could be protected for a week or so, until the Maple Leaf situation resolves itself. Of course, maybe Leafs fans are going to be cranky for a long time, since their team is a bit weak this year!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Four edits in the last few days probably don't warrant protection, a team's article being vandalized when they are performing badly is a rather comon event, just take a look at the history of the New York Yankees. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually edit sports articles, except the Los Angeles Kings who apparently are so pathetic no one really cares one way or another, that I don't know what constitutes a lot of vandalism. Yeah, I can imagine that the NY Yankees or Boston Red Sox would be loads of fun to watch. Edits probably constitute, "Jeter sucks," followed by "no he doesn't", which is followed by, "Epstein sucks cause he didn't sign A Rod." I think I'll stick to contentious articles in Creationism. Less passion there.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson

I disgrace what claim by Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs) that some sections in 2006 Asian Games is not notable. See the differences: [94] and [95]. He claim that the section with dead link is not notable. According to WP:NOTE #General notability guideline, a fact must include with reliable sources, so i don't know what he claim about dis-notability in an article. Also, according to WP:REF, a dead link should be fix rather than remove. His claim is way out of line, because as i refer to most Olympic page, the similar section existing without any problem. So, what all in this?

I have state for various time in article talk page, but he didn't take care of this and claim he is right in all of this, so i need the help to solve this matter. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have left an idea on the article's talk page which might provide a solution. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems he didn't care at all, and just keep reverting, anyway can solve this problem? --Aleenf1 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Advice re third opinion & preserving the status quo left on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)