Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358

Requesting an opinion

I don't know how significant only a threat to ban instead of an actual block or ban is, or whether this is the right place, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite has threatened to ban me, somebody that has been editing Wikipedia for years without one single temporary block, simply because I was asking somebody civilly if he was serious about something he has said.

User:SqueakBox has accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user here, and says he'll abstain from editing Wikipedia any longer if I'm not (literally he betted his "right to edit"). I then ask him on his talkpage if he's serious about that, and within a minute User:Ryan Postlethwaite not only deletes my question from SqueakBox's talkpage but even threatens to perma-ban me for it. Not reading his message or checking talkpage history within that minute, I put that question back once because I see nothing wrong with it, and it is immediately erased again.

As for the "canvassing" issue User:Ryan Postlethwaite refers to, that was because a very heated and active AfD was closed, obviously very controversially so when looking what its Deletion Review is turning into now, and nobody was informed at that time at all that a Review had been opened so I told the people that had been involved.

You can see a number of more threats on my two talkpages (User_talk:TlatoSMD and User_talk:Tlatosmd, creating two accounts was an accident years ago) which all directly relate to my interaction with User:SqueakBox, in fact all relating to me trying to tell him in a civil manner his behavior on Wikipedia is constantly disruptive, flaming, and generally unacceptable and intolerable both in talking to other editors and in constant edit warring, even repeatedly against admins, without any consensus in his favor, an issue where I have at least 20 people having encountered him for months agreeing with me, or that I told other people civilly he ought to get a formal warning from an admin. See also the fact he has been blocked several times for his behavior before. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You tried to tell one of our editors (SqueakBox) to leave, I reverted you and you asked him once again. That is harassment, and given you had just been warned for canvassing for the DRV, you should have realised you were on very thin ice. I explained to you that harassment is a banable offence, and I also said I would block you if you continued. We discuss disputes here, we don't try and make people leave the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Ryan Postlethwaite have been notified of this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak has name-called, harrassed, and not been blocked (since November). There's something wrong with a WikiWorld that will ban someone at the first "problem" and yet allow these personal attacks by another to go unchecked. At this time, the worst ones are a few weeks old (I think), but what kind of precedence does that set? I agree with TlatoSMD and was likewise blocked thrice in 24 hours with minimal warning (the admin and I have come to an understanding since), but when I've been editing since 2005 without even a complaint, I think such an action is easily a personal affront. That said, I want to reiterate that the admin involved in my issue and I have resolved the situation (both of us were over-zealous due to external events, as both of us have admitted). See WP:DTTR for the same sort of mentality that "we" should all have for long-standing editors in not only templates, but in warnings and discussions. WP:AGF would demand no less. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Ban him? I said I'd block him, I merely mentioned that harassment was a banable offence, I have no power to ban anyone of my own accord. Sometimes warnings have to be given, he's just had one for canvassing, then he went to SqueakBox's talk page, that's when he had to know what he was saying had to stop. However long someone has been here for, it gives them no right to ask another editor to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on VigilancePrime's blocks so nobody will suspect us of nepotism, but I endorse his opinion about SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is indeed a bannable offense, but if there is no harassment taking place, saying so is at best a non-sequitur and at worst a threat. If you considered his actions to be harassment, you could have explained that a bit more clearly. —Random832 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that SqueakBox first said, "I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user." Albeit this was likely in jest and not words of a serious nature, I don't see anything wrong with TlatoSMD responding in like. Besides, if TlatoSMD is indeed not a sock of a banned user, then SqueakBox should be careful saying stuff that he did. If he can make such a statement on ANI, why can't the target of his accusation respond in a similar manner? It's quite reasonable to respond to an accusation of this sort on the editor's user page. Lastly, if my memory serves me right, SqueakBox has previously asked or pressured several editors to leave the project. Thus, I'm not sure what all this brouhaha is about. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to make a big stink out of either of those comments. Squeak and Tlato should both consider themselves warned. As long as they don't escalate everything will be fine. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving TlatoSMD's methods aside (which in this case, however well-provoked, I disagree with), I see that SqueakBox did wager his right to edit on his assertion that Tlato is a sock of a banned user. I used to defend Squeak; Once he unmasked himself on my talk page by making vicious and untrue attacks on me, my tolerance for him ended. Squeak is the editor who's brought me closest to quitting this project. The honorable thing for him to do would be to have Tlato checkusered and, if Tlato isn't the sock of a banned user, make good on his wager. Whether he does the honorable thing is his own concern, not mine, not TlatoSMD's. --SSBohio 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As the checkusers say "Checkuser is not for fishing." In other words, he'd have to present them with a banned user and TlatoSMD and say "Are these the same?" ^Avruchtalk 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He did specifically present banned users BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as accounts he suspected me to be a sockpuppet of. Maybe being compared to somebody called Voice of Britain might even be an unwilling compliment as English isn't even my native language. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Mango, the "big stink", as you call it, was about the warning made by Ryan. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps created by User:Talessman

Hy, I'm not sure if this the correct place for this, but here it goes. I'm hereby reporting the following incidents and requesting some neutral assistance. In a laudable effort User:Talessman created several maps about the historical nations in wide geographical areas (western and eastern hemisphere, Mediterranean area and Near East). Afterwards he added them into several articles. However his maps are simply unfitting for several articles as they simply show a too wider area. The subjects of many articles (the country in question) is many times hidden among all the other ones and barely perceptible. The maps are also not focused upon the countries in question. If one removes the maps Talessman re-adds them again and again. I believe that he takes any opposition against the maps way too personally (they are his maps in the end). Flamarande (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I add the maps to articles where there are no existing maps of that nation/culture/people, or when the existing maps fail to show information about neighbors, or other nations that interacted with the article's subject. Some of the original maps were challenged because they showed the entire Eastern Hemisphere. So I cropped them to show the Near East, or Asia, during those time periods. That allowed readers to at least see the subject, and when they click on the map thumbnail they can get more info. If they don't want that info, then they don't have to click on the map. Most editors like the maps, some have grudges against them. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a grudge against them in general, Srnec does. When a legitimate grievance is given, and I am given the opportunity or ability to "fix" the maps to make them better for the article, I'm happy to do so when given time. The Byzantine Empire article is an excellent example. I could do the same for the articles Flamarande is talking about, but it will take time. For now the existing (already scaled-down) maps will have to do. Showing "too much information" isn't a crime; it enhances the articles by showing readers who the article subject's neighbors were, giving reader better information not otherwise presented in articles. There's no reason to delete them from the articles, especially when there is no other map available, or when the existing maps don't show relevant information. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition there's edits like this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this guy took it upon himself to delete legitimate content from a page about me, saying that he is "cleaning up" the page. How did he clean it up? He deleted relevant information about who I am. I'm not just a political activist, I'm also a historian that actively contributes to Wikipedia. I've been told by local news organizations that they did check this page when researching info about me. Therefore it should be accurate. I don't embellish or make anything up, just clarify or make easier to read. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined, on the map issue, to lean partially on the side of including them. If NO OTHER map exists, they don't seem to be particularly harmful. If you think a better map needs to be made, do it yourself. If better maps do exist, and consensus exists to replace his map with a more appropriate one, that is fine. THAT BEING SAID, the WP:3RR rule is firm. Multiple reversions are not to be tolerated, and regardless of which side is "right", participating in revert wars merits an instant block, even if you are reverting to the "right version". So, stop removing or re-adding the images until consensus can be reached. If the two sides in this arguement cannot reach it amongst themselves, seek further comment by using dispute resolution venues such as requests for third opinion and requests for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as there are indeed OTHER valid maps, the maps made by Talessman are largely not needed. He is including his own maps in dozens of articles everywhere. Just take a look at Domain of Soissons and at History of the Basque people (look at the history page of the second article - I'm simply not savvy enough to show it). There are plenty of users who remove his maps arguing that the maps are simply too large and what does Talesmann? He just re-adds them ad nauseam. Flamarande (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-add them or some other people do. The maps were made to show information that I couldn't find, even when looking on Wikipedia. How many articles fail absolutely to mention who their subjects neighbors or trade partners were? Reading many of the articles on Wikipedia, I walked away with NO understanding of who their neighbors were, what actual territories they ruled, etc. There are only a few editors who remove the maps, and there are a few who add them. But just deleting them off of an article b/c it has "too much info" is wrong, it deprives the readers of legitimate and helpful information, and it is unnecessary. The maps should be left on articles where they show the subject nation. Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talessman has stated that he added maps to articles for which *there were no maps*, that is acceptable and improves the project. We encourage original pictures as an exception to original research. On the issue of articles for which there *are* other maps, the specific map to use, should be taken to the Talk page of that particular article to achieve consensus. On the issue of notability of Lessman himself, it's not relevant to this heading, and the article has already been tagged and we'll see what process concludes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, where Thalesman adds his hemisphere map to an article about the Gepids, although a local map was already there. Very inappropriate, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is using an old example from when I was first learning how to edit Wikipedia. Funny how he doesn't use the current version of the page, which also contains one of my maps at a more zoomed-in version. Notice the difference between the two maps; they both show different kinds of info and both are relevant to the article, even enhancing it. Why is that inappropriate or bad? Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of these maps are simply not useful or informative even when they are the only maps available and so are counterproductive. They are often too large in scale and too simplified of complex situations. Especially the Dark Age maps. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, you say here they aren't useful or informative, yet on other articles you complain that they are too informative. I provide sources on each map's sourcepage. Yes they are large in scale - they cover a wide area and they give a lot of information. But they show relevant and helpful information to the readers of the articles. They aren't imposing, and they link to a larger view of the map which allows the reader to see the subject and its neighbors, trading partners, etc. Since when has providing relevant information at the readers' convenience been a crime on WIkipedia? Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point, that Wjhonson has left above... This is a case of an issue that needs to be taken up on an article-by-article basis and established by consensus on the article's talk pages, and not here. If you can't reach a consensus or compromise on your own, then bring it up at requests for comment and ask someone else to help solve the problem. If the map is added, and then removed don't add it back. Take it to the talk page and discuss it out. Also, don't remove the map from articles where no alternative exists, unless there is a good reason, and if it is removed, please be prepared to have a detailed explanation as to why it should be removed, and leave said explanation on the talk page. Again, if the two of you can;t reach a compromise, use dispute resolution to involve a neutral third party to help solve it. This thread is all heat and no light. Unless someone has violated policy, such as WP:3RR, this is not the place to report it. WP:ANI is not the place to win arguements or resolve disputes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for more points then. He's still editing his own article, adding sources that don't support the claims being made. I've explained here why the sources aren't acceptable, yet he's edit warring and making claims of vandalism and harassment. The AfD is looking like a snowjob, so it might be best just to purge the article sooner rather than later? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a map issue, however asside from the reverting of unwanted edits, you seem to be the top contributor on the article (Thomas Lessman) ^[1]. (related 65.69.227.28, 24.255.216.148). If your Bio survives Afd, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a regular content dispute. Thomas Lessman needs to recognize that if his maps are removed, and reasons for the removal are given on talk, he cannot just add them back, he has to address the issues raised. From there, it's just Wikipedia:Dispute resolution like for everyone else. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. If someone has valid reasons to remove something (in this case the enormous maps, but texts and boxes are also included) one shouldn't simply ignore the fact and re-add the material again, again, and again. I understand this (it is one of the basics of Wikipedia), but Talessmann doesn't seem to understand this policy/philosophy. Flamarande (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this attack image, Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg‎, uploaded by Talessman. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack image, it is a legitimate flyer distributed at an event of the organizaion the article was based on. It's being discussed on the image's talkpage now and is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talessman, Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself as you did here. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained why I did that, and hadn't realized I had broken a wiki-rule. That is being discussed now on my user talk page and on the image's talk page. Again, it is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread should be on a talk page somewhere aiming for developing consensus, it's content related and nothing admins can do in this situation. Orderinchaos 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A parting comment on my part: it's important to note that Talessman has put a lot of work into improving Wikipedia. Yes, he may or may not be stubborn and yes, he may or may not have handled arguments over maps the right way. And I sure didn't like the image I cited above. Nevertheless, to me, his good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia far outweigh any problems discussed here and I hope a way can be found to work all this out. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently now I (and others) should be blocked from editing Million Dads March Network on the basis of us "trolling around and vandalizing or attacking". My sole edit to the article was this where I removed the outrageously POV word of "atrocities" in relation to divorce/custody situations. Trolling? Vandalizing? Attacking? None of the aforementioned, and I had no intention of making further edits to the article either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I wouldn't worry about it or take it personally. It's clear to everyone else that you did not vandalize the article and that "atrocities" had to come out. Nobody is going to block you or protect the article at this point. Jayron gives some good advice elsewhere on this page.--A. B. ^(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I love me some drama.

Please review a block

I am posting this here at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. I hope that I can get some help on this matter.

Dear NewYorkBrad,

I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.

Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Wikipedia, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.

Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.

I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent. Rosencomet (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, you'll find information about meatpuppets here. — Scientizzle 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful links: Vittala (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium — Scientizzle 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The operative definition of "meatpuppet" has been expanded greatly in the last few years - it used to mean "someone who's obviously a sockpuppet, but has an explanation that can't be disproven" (i.e. the "roommate"), now it means "anyone who communicates with and/or agrees with anyone else on something that I don't like". —Random832 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse lifting the indef block. Guy seems to have acted a little hastily here. Yes, the contributions to the AFD discussions showed the signs of "meatpuppetry", but coming to help out a friend is hardly an instablockable offense. At worst, this user showed poor understanding of how Wikipedia works, and such problems should be met with help, not insta-blocking. This is a clear case of biting the newbie. No one even attempted to investigate or even talk to this user. A note on the talk page could have gone a long way towards addressing this. Heck, a block notice wasn't even left, leaving the user with no way to even know how to request an unblock. I say unblocking is the proper course of action now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Random832, that's a completely inappropriate comment. Please remain civil. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? You actually think that Random's comment is in any way "uncivil" or "inappropriate"? I dearly hope this is some joke that I am not comprehending. --Iamunknown 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. His incivility, if it could be called that, was directed at an ill-defined word, not any one person. Overuse of a term denigrates its value in describing what it originally set out to describe. Orderinchaos 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess; he's someone you know, either in real-life, or online, and you talked to him (or in a forum he was party to) what you were doing on Wikipedia. He agreed with you, as friends are so wont, and decided that he should throw in his two cents as well. You didn't request him to chip in, but he went ahead and did it. It's a borderline situation, but since the intentions were honorable, I think we can show some lenience here and unblock. Just be aware that in the future, it might be a good idea to go your seperate ways on-Wiki, for the sake of propriety. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. But whoever unblocks should be someone with the time to "coach" a bit, because otherwise this user will probably wind up right back in trouble. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems an unreasonable request. There is no evidence that this user needs much coaching; the block in itself, if it hasn't scared them off, has shown them that what they have done is probably wrong. They appear to want to edit articles; there should be no assumption of bad faith here because there is so little evidence to go on. Unblock them, leave a mea culpa, leave a welcome template, and leave them alone is my recommendation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory, you're right that the block should have set them straight, but without a block notice or message of any kind ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll keep an eye on them for a couple of days. If no one objects in the next hour or so, I plan to unblock them. Speak now or forever hold your piece. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked this user. The above discussion seemed to be heading that way, and no one has advocated for keeping the block in place. I will keep an eye on them. I have left a friendly message on the talk page, and if the user becomes a problem (I don't expect this) I will clean up my mess... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalkerish

Ntarantino21 (talk · contribs) - does this User's editing remind anybody else of a stalker? These edits seem creepy to me. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. very strange. Now what to do about the account. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've revoked its editing privileges, just as Nickyt41191 (talk · contribs) was blocked before. And it's not that strange. There used to be an explicit speedy deletion criterion for Wikipedia articles that were being abused as solely vehicles for corresponding with the subject of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Currently it's incorporated as part of A3. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Weierstrass

Should be short-term blocked for continued transgressions. Has had 5 warnings now, including "final" ones, for various things, including violations of WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Doesn't seem to be getting the message very clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show diffs? I don't see the vandalism in his contribs, perhaps I am being dense. Some uncivil edit summaries, certainly, and I see an edit war with two main participants, but it mostly looks like a content dispute. Why not try Talk:Number of the Beast in the first instance if you have a dispute? --John (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange user creation bug at Special:Userlogin

When I created a doppelganger account with my (current) IP address in it, the system seemed to allow it for some reason. Is this a bug that I should raise at bugzilla??

Either way, I did it per a suggestion on User talk:68.39.174.238, where they suggested to the IP editor to create an account as My IP Address is 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is weird, I thought the system didn't allow IP addresses as usernames, but for some reason it does! Anyone else found this happen to them?? --Solumeiras (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any automatic prevention of creating usernames containing (but not being) an IP address, but they can be blocked for having a confusing username like many in User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a criteria that would fall under the purview of WP:UAA? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS (talk · contribs) upto? Woody (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing good, but blocked by Majorly. Imo a username that does not only consist of an IP address is not directly blockable at WP:UAA. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what User:32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is up to, but the username is ironic to User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names being sorty WP:BEANsy, considering the page is a prime target and encouragement to create inappropriate usernames to end up on the list. — Save_Us † 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I created it for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 6#IP addresses and have no plans to ever update it. It's only linked from there and here but I will delete it if people think it encourages misbehaviour. I have not gone through the list to examine contribs and blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the name 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is a WP:POINT violation - trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the point that talking about this stuff is a violation of WP:BEANS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arab League images

User:Arab League has recently created several articles about several organization that most of them has been put for deletion. For those articles, he has uploaded several pictures and flags all with "PD-self" tags. There are two options:

• He is a member of all of those organization. So, there MAY be a probability that he is the creator of those flags. This arises concerns about confilict of interests.
• He is not a memeber of those organizations. So, definetly he has not created those flags, but for what he calls "truth" in here he has uploaded them with bogus tags. --Pejman47 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny business around David Gest

On RC Patrol I stumbled upon a strange sort-of edit war on David Gest. Normally I'd try to get to the bottom of things, but I have to run out the door right now. Any other admins with free time want to take a quick look? I did a semi-protect for 24 hours because there was a lot of traffic from 2 anons, and the most recent edits seemed to be nonsensical (putting a user-warning tag on the top of the page). --Bobak (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For a BLP, the article is woefully unreferenced (particularly given the potentially unfavourable he-said-she-said alleged claims from legal actions). Given a brief check through the history it's tough to find a stable version (this edit war seems to be but the latest that has beset the article). It had a few (not nearly enough) references back in August last year. Given the borderline non-notability of the subject (what exactly did he produce? briefly married to a famous-ish person, small part on a panoply of z-list tv shows) we should hack this back to a sourced stub confined to the matter for which he is notabile (whatever they might be). Recitations of divorce-court arguings and reality show minutiae, even if they were sourced, don't make for a worthwhile article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done the hacking in question, restoring an August 2007 version with many sources. I also chopped a bunch of the sloppy trivia. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an Admin reviewing my edits there befoer marking this as resolved, just to lend my edits the credibility of admin review per this an/i section. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chicagofacts

Chicagofacts (talk · contribs) had been making what I believe to be good faith, but confrontational and edit-warring, edits in many gang-related articles. One of those articles, Latin Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject of an edit war by him and an anon, to the point that I decided to impose protection to get them to discuss. Chicagofacts responded with this: [2], accusing me of being "high and mighty over something [I] clearly have no idea about." My response[3] apparently fell on deaf ears, as neither he nor the anon has tried to discuss at all.

Today, he was apparently editing as 24.12.248.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when he placed this[4] on my talk page, right after blanking the section on Talk:Latin Kings in which I had asked for discussion, along with other sections.[5]

I'd like to ask for the account and the IP to be both blocked for a moderate amount of time, in light of the continued refusal to discuss, the effort to stymie discussion by removing sections from the talk page, the blanking of his own talk page,[6], and what I see now as harassment. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will short term block the ip that commented on your talkpage - I don't see the point of checkusering to see if it really was Chicagofacts, it could easily be someone shopping for a block instead but why bother? I will also leave a message on Chicagofacts talkpage commenting on what it is that sysops do. If this is ineffective then best bring it back here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Crisis on an article about a crisis in the middle east

There has been much debate at the article Iran-Iraq War. Some believe the US should be listed as a combatant, some disagree, and some believe the combatant part of the box should be sacked altogether. Both sides have very convincing arguments. Maybe a few admins could look at this, as now there are accusations of racism (or is it xenophobia? probably racism), bias, and caballing. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to calm this down a little: see my comment on the talk page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good temporary solution. I think the box should just be removed. It can't express the actual degree of involvement, and there is no consensus either way. The box is optional, and sometimes no information is better than controversial information, regardless of whether it's right or not. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz

Dear Wikipedians User:Angelo De La Paz of buddhist vietnam origin is not allowing others to edit Islam in India the user is also vandalising article by taking out important paragraphs, decreasing numbers and so on. I provided User:Angelo De La Paz with lost paragraphs and upto date numbers along with Refferences in users Talk Page. please deal with user accordingly. please view users Talk Page first column Islam in India . Thanks. --HinduMuslim (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning at the user's page to stop reverting the article, and instead seek alternate ways of adressing the problem. He has been instructed to use the talk page to discuss reverts, and to build consensus before doing so again. He has also been told to attempt dispute resolution before attempting to revert the article again. He is now aware that repeatedly reverting the article is a violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for doing so. At this point, I don't see much else we can do. Since he has been warned, he may be blocked if the behavior continues, let us assume good faith for now and see if he follows my suggestions or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK!Let's see who was the truly vandal!Please see what were you did in your contributions, note: 99.237.253.131 is another IP adddress of HinduMuslim
• Your attacks in my Talk Page:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

HinduMuslim, could you please explain what the signifcance is that you feel the need to indicate that Angelo De La Paz is of Vietnamese Buddhist origin? That's skating really close to a personal attack violation. Somebody's background shouldn't be of import when discussing a difficulty, only their behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But user has no Idea of Islam in India no disrespect but user should allow others to edit article as well.

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Neither user has behaved in a particularly good manner over this issue, and the idea that dispute resolution should be used applies in this case to both of them. Both should stop all editing of the article, and seek outside intervention. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

auto(un)block review

I just undid the autoblock that User:Trimy67 was stuck under. Trimy seems to be an actual non-trolling editor, even though some of his edits are a little problematic. (Hia998 was the original blockee.) However, as I was undoing the block, this happened.

Er... ? - Revolving Bugbear 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit might provide some clues. Pairadox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleven day-old MfD

Would an admin mind cruising over to MfD and close out the entry from January 13? It has been open long enough. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range 156.34x

User: 156.34.142.110 has been warned about edit warring (removal of logos). He removed a warning message from his talkpage as seen here. Later on, as User: 156.34.210.147, he continued his disruptive activities as seen here and here. About time he is blocked. Óðinn (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Libs. I don't think we'll be blocking such an established contributor for such a minor transgression. east.718 at 08:45, January 24, 2008

When did edit warring become a minor transgression? And, most importantly, when did a user's edit count start to count as immunity against the administrative sanctions? Óðinn (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Diff question, since when did we start counting the word of anon. new users that their returning anon. old users? MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At least on Evanescence, it looks like he removed a logo from the "Name" field of the infobox, which would seem to be entirely proper due to the fact that the logo seems to have been causing the actual photo of the band to not display. As near as I can tell, this IP only did so once on this article. Nevermind, it was twice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

...and it looks like there were multiple incidents at Slayer. In that case, the photo looks OK with the logo, so there's no formatting issue from that standpoint. Not discussing the issue is a pretty serious concern, as well. Is there a policy on the use of a logo and photo in the infobox? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. We could do with some more experienced people to comment there; at the moment it is an even split between those who are in favour of having made-up "logos", in most cases just some typography cropped from an album cover, in the infobox of every band article, and those who would rather do without unless there is some verified evidence that it is actually considered a logo. (No prizes for guessing which side I am on!) Edit-warring is certainly unhelpful; then again, so is forum-shopping. --John (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But Libs did not cite "made-up logo" as the reason for the removal on Evanescence and Slayer. Rather, it was something like "image in text-only field". But if the image is removed simply because it's been decreed that name is a "text-only field", then the image should be put somewhere else in the article. Otherwise it's orphaning the image. Gimmetrow 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the discussion I refer to above. I don't want to duplicate that discussion here; suffice it to say that orphaning non-free image files which are not essential to the article, and which are in most cases made up, is not necessarily a bad thing. --John (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You talk a lot about the so-called made-up logos. I´d like to see some examples. Was there concern that this or this are not the actual logos of Blind Guardian and Nighwish respectively? How come such concern was not raised first on one by one basis, as opposed to just blindly removing every logo you can come across? In any case, questioning of the logos' validity is not the point here. Edit warring, for which the IP in question has already been warned is. Óðinn (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um?.. An edit that is based on consensus and has a valid edit summary attached to it is not an edit war... its encyclopaedia building. And "the IP in question" is "Libs". It's OK for you to refer to me that way in your biased/anti-anon complaints. The new lean is to move the logos into the article mainspace since the infobox name field is "text-only". There is some debate as to whether the logo should have some claim to notability or historical use... but moving them into mainspace just so the bots don't get them is a fair enough "lean" for now. ( at least it should be because I have been doing it all day ) If someone wants to go back and delete them all that can happen later. For now the only consensus is Name=Text-Only on the grounds that Wikipedia, by its own mandate, is a free encyclopaedia built on free content first. And there just isn't anything more "free" than plain text. And WP:FAIR's foundation is free-use wins out over fair-use... so not only is it consensus to replace the poor quality fair-use graphics with text... its policy. I've been moving poor quality/"questionable official" logos down into article mainspace all day. Since the Evanescence article has been brought up as an example here previously... perhaps one of the earlier editors in this discussion could take the time to move that band's logo out of the infobox. If no one has the time... that's OK... I can always pick it up in my travels. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the user who filed the notice is pushing WP:POINT here. Even on the notice itself there is consensus that Libsey has done no wrong. I don't really understand why Odin is clutching at straws. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please stop edit warring on logo removals. The removals are approaching three reverts all over, which violates Wikipedia policy, and disruptive editing / edit warring short of 3RR on any given article is still blockable behavior." Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the best thing would be to provide comprehensive diffs - this includes evidence of edit warring "all over", it also includes showing that he's broken/near to breaking 3RR "all over". That would allow people to make a more logical/fair/just decision. Rather than coming here pushing your own point (You're involved in this because you uploaded the logo's, take a look at the said user's talk page for evidence) and showing a few questionable diff's for evidence. I suggest you relax and a take a breath. It's understandable that you're annoyed because you uploaded all/most of the logo's but you've just got to relax and take it in your stride please, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who goes around and accuses people of being point-pushing stalkers. It might behoove you to follow your own advice. Further, if you have a problem with the warning the IP in question was given, take it up with the admin who issued it. I have nothing to do with it.Óðinn (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to everyone, look at this incarnation of the IP in question. Now he's specifically after the logos I've uploaded, citing the same "consensus" which can't possible exist yet, since the discussion is still in progress. Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking? Óðinn (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And take a look at the Revision history of Epica (band) If that's not revert-warring, I don't know what is. Óðinn (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a plainly sarcastic quip aimed at myself: "Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking?" ([7]). That sort of retort is unhelpful especially when you are requesting advice on the noticeboard. Admins are unlikely to offer help to someone who is being rude. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from engaging in language that could be perceived as aggressive. Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable way to contact this user? I wanted to give feedback on three inappropriate vandalism warnings but don't know how. (156.34.215.223 handed out three vandalism warnings, each of them a "last warning" where no previous such warning was given, and each of them in what looks to me like a good faith content dispute or a slow edit war in which 156.34.x is involved.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting community ban for two tendentious, disruptive editors

Please look over [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user_2|this action]] and comment about my proposed remedy [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user_2#Move_for_a_community_ban_against_those_bringing_this_tendentious_RfC|here]]. It is time that the community of administrators took action against those forces seeking to disrupt Wikipedia for their own goals of promoting fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant move, this may be the first time in a year I've seen anything worthwhile come out of an Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Abridged is looking for a graceful way out. I know nothing of the underlying issues, but if they choose to exercise their right to vanish, perhaps we should let it go at that? Of course, there's the issue of whether they are still in good standing. Anyway, just a thought. — Satori Son 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vanished user 2#Community Ban|here]] explaining why this proposal is utterly ridiculous... and shameful. Lara❤Love 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily harsh reaction to a proposal from a number of long-term constructive editors. I will assume you merely are unaware of the background to the situation, since you stated previously that you were "too busy" to read the full story.[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond Arritt. Lara, you do not understand the real story here. The community is speaking. It is appropriate that you listen to what the community is saying.--Filll (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "unnecessarily harsh". I don't care what the background is. If I don't have a blocklog or links to RFCs or other processes we use here to deal with disruptive users, then I don't agree that requesting a ban is appropriate. I look at it as laziness that nothing was done before. And now people want to jump at an opportunity to ban the users for abuse of process when one has less than 1000 edits and less than 4 months experience. Is that overly harsh? Does that not make sense to you? Lara❤Love 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] ^{[[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]]} 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You've argued that one of them is inexperienced and doesn't know better; you've argued that the other should be respected because of his experience. But you apparently have no interest in the obvious question: why didn't the experienced editor counsel the inexperienced one that this was totally inappropriate? You can't have it both ways, Lara. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am forced to spend 50 hours or more to build up a case against one or both of these tendentitious editors, that is just time I will not be spending on the project. And then someone like Lara will just let them go without even a warning, or unblock them after some other admin blocks them. Whig has an ugly track record. And anyone who has edited with him knows it. How about this, Lara. Show me some productive edits from Whig, instead of forcing me to spend dozens of hours compiling his record of unproductive edits? You are claiming it is your right to force us to deal with a nightmare so maybe something good will come from either of these two editors in a few months or years time.--Filll (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is warn, then blocks, then a ban. Sort of that whole protocol thing. the_undertow ^talk 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC, but to what I don't know) Or not, Filll. The burden isn't on me. You can't just ban a user that has never been blocked or through any of the processes we have in place here for disruptive editors because you've not been inclined to do anything about this behavior that is so outrageous to you. And Raymond, I never said Whig should be respected. I said that considering he is an established editor and encouraged Abridged to file the RFC, that should be taken into consideration in regards to AGF on the part of Abridged. Lara❤Love 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already did most of the research to respond to some accusations Whig made in the RfC:

Requests for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

Start by reading these threads in ANI archives 311 and 317: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig

Here are some recent diffs:

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [9]

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

Whig's recent behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD [[User_talk:Whig/Archive_1#Re:_Quackery_AfD|Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour] To quote East718:

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.

1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

Also to the point is this in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#Incivility_by_Peter_morrell. I've added some emphasis.

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Vanished user is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this.in his RfCVanished user_Vanished user#View_by_Whig Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Vanished user_Vanished user.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29]]) [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] ^{[[User talk:Vanished user|talk]]} 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to look at Vanished user's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Vanished user is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] ^{[[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]]} 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viewing the situation, their RFC against Vanished user appears to me to be nothing more than a strategic move on their part intended to waylay an opponent rather than a good faith effort at DR which was already underway with Vanished user's RFAR and original RFC. That being so, their filing of an additional RFC is tantamount to repeatedly poking a caged animal with a stick, and for that sort of incivility and disruption and absent any indication from Whig that he'll steer clear of Vanished user in the future I support some sort of a ban to end the disruption. FeloniousMonk (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC per above

For further comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 may be useful. May as well spend a week and do this properly, so that the ban will stick. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] ^{[[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]]} 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This still has nothing to do with Abridged, which the editor I've been concerned with the whole time. Lara❤Love 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Abridged should be blocked, and never said she should. She has been a productive editor on the whole, and some simple advice should be enough to get her past this thin-skinned phase, or so one can still hope. It is possible that problems might continue - her recent stay on Wikipedia has been more problematic than her former one - but I worked productively with her for a couple months a while back, and this recent behaviour seems atypical. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] ^{[[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]]} 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than banning

Problems should be solved with less force when possible. See [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user 2]]. I hope that isn't vexatious. Jehochman ^Talk 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Objection

I object to the whole process here. On one hand, there is another RFC going about Whig.

On the other hand, the case is being argued here.

The court system is carefully set up to ensure that matters are only dealt with in one court. I think there is a lesson to be learned.

The more I see of Wikipedia RFC's, the more I agree with ScienceApologist's comment about "despising this process".

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: Rouge admin needed

Rouge admin desperately needed.

I noticed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and Fringe theories noticeboard, there have been a lot of politics brought up, recently.

So, I did some searching at Special:Linksearch of political websites which would typically be unreliable. Here's a brief list of what I found:

(left-wing)

• Media Matters [10] [11]
• Gatewaypundit [12]
• DailyKos [13] [14]

(right-wing)

• Newsbusters.org [15] [16]
• The Jawa Report [17]
• LittleGreenFootballs [18] [19]

(non-partisan\third party)

• Politicalgateway [20]
• CATO [21] [22]
• Lew Rockwell [23] [24]
• Mises.org [25] [26]
• Geocities.com [27] [28]

Now, per WP:Anti-elitism I know what the knee-jerk response is going to be and I have my counter-rebuttal prepared: Yes, I know that extreme, self-published, or biased sources (like advocate groups or political opinion pieces) aren't necessarily unusable sources, if the subject involves the source itself or the article otherwise is referencing a notable opinion. However, that's not what's being done here if you take a look at the links above, and there are rampant violations of policy which are being ignored. If you dig through those sources, you find plenty of them being used to establish facts on major articles, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Any good admin needs to run through there with the banhammer.

As noted above, that was just a brief list I made. More extensive searches and lists of URLs frequently used as unreliable sources should also be pursued. As a few particularly horrible examples, the white supremacist forum, Stormfront.org [29] is currently used as a source for the article on National-Anarchism [30], on Anarchism and Nationalism [31], and on the biography of Gerald Fredrick Töben [32] On that last point, Gerald Töben is an anti-semitic nutcase, but nevertheless, it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP to be making claims that he's "a favorite among white supremacist organizations such as StormFront" and cite that using a forum post on Stormfront.org. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my word, what a mess. This needs more time than I can currently spare. For now I've killed the uses of Stormfront as reference but the rest of the points Zenwhat brings up need very careful looking at. At the very least, cluebats for people who think Stormfront is a reliable source are certainly in order. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did that a while back. Find who reinserted them and LART them, I would suggest. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt stormfront.org is a reliable source; I would be leaning more towards the spam blacklist for it... Stifle (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, Wikipedia is not censored and it was noted a while back on WP:VP that the spam blacklist is a bit too rigid. There are some rare cases where Stormfront might be reliably sourced. Examples:

• Stormfront, White supremacism, and White nationalism - (obvious)
• David Duke - He has an account in their forum and has posted there before and some of his remarks there (or remarks by other well-known racists, maybe?) may be used as a primary source.

I will say, though, that it might be OK to blacklist stormfront if there were some way that administrators could approve the rare exceptions to the blacklist (something nobody can currently do), since although 99% of the time it's used by vandals, Stormfront might be used once or twice on Wikipedia appropriately.

Also, another comment too: Media Matters, Newsbusters, etc., are frequently prone to misleading assertions because they're advocacy groups, but they often do cite primary sources, like videos and articles in the mainstream media. Instead of just removing the sources immediately, it might be a good idea to quickly check the sources briefly to see what sources they, themselves, cite and then replace the URL with that citation instead.

In the meantime, it occurred to me that it would probably be a good idea to create what could be called a "greylist," a list of URLs I know that are regularly abused by trolls. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat/Greylist. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a bit rogue here, and added all of them, except for geocities (should I add that one as well?), to the revert list of User:SquelchBot (the replacement of User:AntiSpamBot), new accounts and IP-accounts (except if they are whitelisted) will now be reverted and warned. This does not disallow the use, but gives a warning to new users to check the use of these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add, due to several issues with blog sites (WP:COI, WP:RS, [WP:OR]], WP:EL etc.), blogspot was already on that list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this is really bad. I removed a few egregious examples, including some where claims on BLPs were sourced to these political fringe sites. Much more work is needed. *** Crotalus *** 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

even Stormfront is a RS for saying that something has appeared on Stormfront, if that is relevant to the article. DGG (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Groupakarl

This user is a consistent uploader of copyrighted images (see the long list at User talk:Groupakarl). It seems with all of those notices he'll never cooperate with other people (mistaking it for another bot-notice. What should be done about this? --Howard the Duck 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse talk pages than that. How about sending him a hand-written message about Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and watch his uploads? — Save_Us † 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering and Dalai Lama

Not really sure how to handle this one. User:B9 hummingbird hovering is a prolific editor of Buddism-based articles; he doesn't however, appear to mind that by rewriting them almost entirely in jargon is detrimental to their readability. His edit summaries, when they aren't just reiterations of the text, are incomprehensible; his talk page edits likewise.

His talk page has a whole list of examples of cases when he's been difficult to work with in the past. Right now, on Dalai Lama, he continually rewrites passages to make less sense to uninitiated readers. Nor does he take too kindly to having edits reverted (that example got him a 31-hour block).

Turning away productive editors isn't a good idea, but neither is the gradual translation of every article on Tibetan Buddhism into Tibetan. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on main page?

Significant portions of text on The_Drug_Years are identical to pieces from this apparently copyrighted reference noted on the article. I can't see any mention of copyright matters and there are no significantly different versions in the article history. Second opinion wanted. Kosebamse (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwah, this should probably have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. My apologies. Kosebamse (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ERRORS is probably a better place to discuss errors and problems on the main page. Items posted at Template talk:Did you know are supposed to be reviewed before they get posted to Template:Did you know/Next update and then to Template:Did you know, but this one apparently fell through the cracks. (I'm not perfect at reviewing the submissions either.) Any help reviewing submissions at T:TDYK would be appreciated. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the copyright bots didn't pick up on this, as it was a word-for-word copy. I've stubbed the article. Newswire asserts copyright over their releases, and even if they didn't it's shoddy to copy-paste a press release. --JayHenry (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform Conman33, the creator of the article, about this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the standard {{uw-copyvio}} Woody (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of admin action welcome

I know that AN/I is often flooded with editors crying "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, but I am somewhat concerned about this one. With the current arbitration case about episodes and characters, especially concerning redirects currently carrying on, it was disappointing to see another edit war on an article last night. What is very concerning, though, is admin User:PeaceNT's last edit to the article, restoring their preferred version whilst the article is in full protection. Whilst PeaceNT at first claims that this version is not their preferred one [33], they later admit that the edit "was done under IAR" and to "protect Wikipedia" from either ArbCom or deletionists - I'm not sure which ([34]}. This last comment really concerns me, as it suggests that not only was the article reverted to a preferred version (which is not good to begin with), but it wasn't even done through any semblance or intention of following policy. Comments welcome. BLACKKITE 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, a long edit war with accusations of bad faith all around and virtually no discussion on the talk page. Given the length between the first redirecting and the edit war, as well as the somewhat unchallanged claim of individual notability, it seems quite unapparent what the correct wrong version is (unless the discussion took place somewhere else and I'm just completely unaware of it). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I IARed and reverted what I perceived as the evidently non-consensual version, whether I preferred it or not didn't matter. Editors are certainly not allowed to delete/redirect articles on a whim, then persist on warring to get the page protected, especially when their conduct is being examined by the Arbcom. That said, I would have no problem if they use discussion and redirect the article based on consensus, when such thing is reached. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the point here. You do not IAR and revert when an article is fully protected, even if it is in the Wrong Version - which, actually, I agree it probably is. That is unless there are serious issues such as BLP, which there aren't here. Your reasoning for doing so, which appears to be related to the ArbCom, strikes me as seriously worrying. BLACKKITE 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am party to no Arbcom procedures. PeaceNT points at a lack of consensus for the redirect, and she has a weak point. There probably isn't one among Pee-Wee Herman fans. Still, the article is a 6 paragraph plot summary with no sourcing, so even if all the Pee-Wee Herman fans said "no redirect", policy would indicate that redirection was appropriate. Remember, this is not a democracy, and only arguments that are weighted in policy have weight at all. Given that, there is no urgent matter that required violating standing policy: PeaceNT was absolutely unjustified in editing the article in a protected state. A second admin, Merovingian, has also edited it while protected. His edits were mechanical, so I can't get too excited about those, but they still irritate me.Kww (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two names of the article: Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special is at present an article, and apparently the one at controversy. Pee-wee's Christmas Special is a redirect to the list of episodes. DGG (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the issue that article was protected for, is a no-no. Full article protection should apply to admins too. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

is a reasonable argument on the talk page over whether the notability of this episode, which apparently individually won an Emmy, has adequate sources. This is enough that consensus is required for the particular redirect. My personal position is that the change to the redirect for these articles, earlier and now, constituted vandalism, and any editor may revert as needed, and any admin can protect in the unvandalized state--but I know not everyone agrees with this evaluation of the overall situation. One could certainly say that changing back to a revert while the original series of reverts was under arbitration is not acceptable. An alternate technique, waiting until the article happens to be in the state you prefer, and then protecting it, is as much as violation of the spirit of the restrictions on administrative action as changing it first, though there is no explicit prohibition. Given the dissension, I wouldnt have done what Peace did. It was at best a little imprudent and aggressive. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up note : PeaceNT seems to be moving in the direction of undoing redirects where she isn't personally convinced of the consensus. Fans of Bulbasaur are all upset because their favorite Pokemon isn't deemed to be more important than the other 400. So, today she agreed to revert a redirect (and presumably stand guard over it). At this time, she hasn't edited that article in its protected state, but even her stated intent establishes a pattern of editing. I have a hard to giving credence to her protestation that the unredirected version of the Pee-Wee article isn't her preferred version.Kww (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So you assume that every editor who oppose redirection is Fans of Bulbasaur? On behalf of editors who try to build consensus for the discussion, I feel intensely insulted by that comment. @pple complain 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Remember: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you disagree with editing content or any related-redirection/merging issues, bring your views to relevant discussions, like Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) or Talk:Bulbasaur‎. Complaint like "Fans of Bulbasaur are all upset because their favorite Pokemon isn't deemed to be more important than the other 400" is absolutely unappreciated and out of the context. @pple complain 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(response to Kww -edit conflicted)

Oh dear, I reserve the right to learn from my mistake; I was hasty to revert the protected page yesterday, that, now I do acknowledge. But i don't see where your complaint is comming from, I haven't reverted any protected articles without consensus today, even though I must restate that I am firmly opposed to the soft deletion of a former FA without any consensus, thus in favor of undoing it. I only stated that I'd like to restore the page and start a formal discussion, AGF here, please. Don't accuse me of intending to edit war just because I am not "personally convinced of the consensus". "personally"? I beg your pardon? What about the DRV today where all administrators who participated felt the redirection was unjustified? What about the follow-up AfD where everyone voiced "keep" (except TTN, of course, since he or she was the one who redirected the page). A quick glance at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop will show you I'm not the only one there who is "personally" against this behaviour. I'm very sorry, but this continual misconduct in the form of redirecting/deleting without discussion has to stop I don't understand for the life of me why you posted a new thread at the end of ANI page accusing me of having "meat-puppet", with a charged heading; even if you felt certain that you were right, you could have continued with this current thread. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I refactored the title. I assumed that you and Trialsanderrors had communicated ... perhaps that assumption was unwarranted. Redirecting an article like Bulbasaur is not misconduct, and I strongly, strongly resent the implication that people that do so are vandals. Regardless, the article was protected as a redirect, and the redirect was undone while the article was protected.Kww (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On review I see no reason to dispute PeaceNT's version of events above. This part of the matter should be closed IMO. Orderinchaos 22:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More protection fun with PeaceNT and Trialsanderrors

Another long-standing redirection battle has been around Bulbasaur, one of the 400 Pokemon articles that was redirected to a list of Pokemon characters. This morning, while the article was full-protected, PeaceNT promised to restore the article from re-direction, calling the redirect "blatantly unjustified". Perhaps mindful of the controversy of her earlier editing of Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special, where she also ignored all rules about the editing of protected articles, she did not do so. Instead, a couple hours later, User:Trialsanderrors changes article under protection, for the purpose of restoring an article, and adding an AFD notice, even though no one has been campaigning for deletion, just a redirect. Now that it is in her preferred state, PeaceNT unprotects, and now the AFD notice has been removed because, as Uncle G points out, no one ever requested a delete in the first place. Doesn't article protection mean anything anymore?Kww (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not again. Who do you think is my "meat-puppet"? User:Trialsanderrors??? - PeaceNT (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Very funny, Kww. I am tired of the way you let your personal animosity towards PeaceNT, whose opinion differs from yours, spurring uncontrollably in your comments. The accusation of sockpuppets against two respected administrators is even more ridiculous. PeaceNT has clearly explained why she unprotected the Bulbasaur article, which is a very thoughtful decision. Try to dig out some more before creating more drama here. @pple complain 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crying to create drama, I would like to see people obey a basic rule: do not edit protected articles for reasons related to the reason they are protected. Simple. Basic. Easy to follow. Violated again.Kww (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Violated again? Who? Unprotection with valid rationale is no way an evidence of policy violation. Not to mention that the hasty action from the protecting administrator in such case was questionable and injudicious. @pple complain 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Trialsanderrors that edited a protected article in a protected state. I assumed that this was done in order to fullfill PeaceNT's promise. Perhaps they were unrelated, but this timing seems significant.Kww (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I think you misinterpreted the situation. I assume, based on what you wrote, that you believe User:Trialsanderrors is my meat puppet because he or she restored the article and started an AfD without visible talk page discussion, and after I said I would do so. In fact, you may see that User:Trialsanderrors closed a relevant DRV today, where the result was to relist the page in question. The admin edited the protected page properly to add the deletion notice. For the record, I am unrelated to User:Trialsanderrors; I never asked him/her to do anything for me and honestly I don't remember whether we ever talked. I hope this clarify the issue, please re-examine the situation. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww, two admins performing the same action is far from a valid evidence for sockpuppet accusation. If you are still too enthusiastic with this sockpuppetry drama, make your own research and report it to WP:RFCU when enough proofs of relation between the two accounts are found, if any. Good luck. @pple complain 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion, I guess. For the record, I've closed about a thousand DRV discussions in my Wikilife, and I still regularly move the discussion to the related content forum if no admin deletion is to be discussed. I'm not always aware of explosive situations elsewhere, so I propose the best way to point them out to me is on my talk page. In this situation, I think I made clear that I have no editorial opinion on the article, nor do I actually know the editors involved. Keep on buzzing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the final touch?

Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) is a long-time problematic editor with highly dubious intentions. See his talk page and contrib history. Until now, he has managed to stay just below the action-taking point. This edit summary, however, puts it over the top. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess next step is RfC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? That would seem to be a POV-loaded edit summary, but what's actionable about "the beauty of Judaism"? - Revolving Bugbear 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. Adding that a criminal is Jewish doesn't bring out the "the beauty of Judaism." And that's his modus operandi - plastering "he is jewish" on criminals etc....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to see it in context of previous edits; a lot of his previous edits are adding Jewish categories to the likes of criminals, porn stars etc. (Though, there's also what look like good-faith edits too). BLACKKITE 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't looking at the article, just the edit itself. Sorry. </stupid> - Revolving Bugbear 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs history, his edit summaries are VERY problematic, and looking at his user page he has been warned before. A choice collection of OTHER edit summaries, in addition to the one noted above:

[35] threatens other user with admin sanction...

[36] additional questionable statements about jewish people.

[37] crackpots???

Additionally, his entire edit history consists almost ENTIRELY of:

Dubious "proof" that various mass murders, notorious criminals and other "unsavory" people were Jewish [38] and [39] and [40] and [41]

That other notable Jews were guilty of or suspected of crimes [42]

This seems like a suspicious pattern of edits, and needs to be addressed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that he also views Albert Einstein as a fraud and is unwilling to credit him with E=mc2 ([43]). Given this editor's particular history, his interest there could credibly be thought to stem from the fact that Einstein was Jewish, rather than his deep abiding interest in the history of 20th-century theoretical physics. Even assuming the most optimistic best-case scenario about his intentions, his edits fall entirely into the patterns described above of ascribing Judaism to distasteful figures while minimizing or discounting positive accomplishments by people who happen to be Jewish, and I've blocked him for 31 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to advance his point. I would suggest that an RfC proceed to explore the question of whether he might expand and improve his editing, and whetherh his continued presence on Wikipedia would be constructive. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A bold move, but I don't disagree with the final result. I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits, and the longer he is editing articles, the more clear his POV-pushing has become. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how a block will solve the underlying problem, and I cannot say I'm looking forward to the RfC. DGG (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

a block will stop his disruptions. i favor a indefinite community ban for this user, to be repealed ONLY in the evnet of genuine contrition and a promise to attempt to wokr with other editors instead of warring against them. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, an RFC in this case will atleast show due process. I agree it will be messy. I see an ArbCom in the future over this issue, but we should atleast exhaust all other routes before this gets that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has this editor added any value to this project? I confess, I'm missing the part where we should use kid gloves in handling a hate-monger and anti-semitic. I don't see that its worth wasting time on this. Please let me know why we aren't simply blocking this editor for a month or three hundred, and re-blocking every time he does it again, up to and including indef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea why not KillerChihuahua. all this dickering around does is encourage the vandal. i can understnad the desire for 'due process' by forming an RFC (although it wl be a waste of time -- the user has showns no interest in wikipedia and while i try to asume good faith this user seems to be acting maliciousl and with disregard for the feling and sentiments of his fellow users. i recommend an indefinite ban that will only be lifted if the user apologizes an d promises to try to work with other users against instead of using violence and racism. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: SERIOUSLY look at his diffs. he blatatly tries to use his admin status to force andother user to kowtow to his demands.

and if you look mclosely at his other difs, you will jnotice a virulent strain of politicla hatread and anti-Semitism. that is unhelpful tow ikipedia orwikipedia's ineterests.

and furhter more,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

It would be a bit difficult for him to use his admin status to do anything, as he never had it to begin with. That being said I agree with the block. Orderinchaos 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that may go too far at this point. If an indefinite comprehensive ban is imposed, it is drastic enough that an ArbCom decision should give it, not us. Also, the RFC in question may reach the conclusion that a community topic ban on all articles relating to Judaism, and on all edits regarding Jewish ethnicity may be enforced. Likewise, the admins here at ANI may reach the same conclusion, and enforce their own community ban. There is good reason to let due process run its course. I will admit that this users past edit history is not encouraging, but lets at least GIVE him enough rope... and wait to see what he does with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Due process? You mean Rules-Wankery? I've made 49 indef blocks. None were a result of an ArbCom decision. None have ever been overturned. I will cheerfully6 paste them all here, or email to anyone who emails me and asks for the list. An indef block is simply a block with no expiration, which can be overturned by any admin. No need for ArbCom. No need for Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made many indefiniate blocks myself, for clear-cut cases of vandalism and abusive sockpuppetry and other clear cases. However, this is not one of those cases, in my opinion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This reads as short, I apologise - its a simple question. I honestly don't see why not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you state "I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits" which means he has no value-add. Why do you think this is "not one of those cases"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I considered just blocking him for a longer period, or indefinitely, and being done with it. In fact, I had "1 month" in the drop-down window and changed my mind at the last moment. In the end, the pendulum has currently swung to a point where even blocks of editors with long track records of being up to no good are controversial, or likely to be overturned because shorter blocks hadn't been imposed first or an RfC hasn't been run through. So I decided to balance rougeness with my lack of desire to squabble over an longer block. Admittedly, though, this could be viewed as a punt. I will go on record as favoring a longer block of 1 month to indefinite, and being willing to impose it, if there is reasonable agreement here and no major objection (of course, if you support the block, you'll probably end up in the dock before ArbCom next to me as part of the "kangaroo court", so be warned...) MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NB there is an {{unblock}} request up, based on free-speech and other grounds, which I'll leave to someone uninvolved to review. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment pointing him to WP:FREE before I saw this here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I had prepared a report for AN/I many weeks ago should circumstances dictate. To summarise, my good faith has long been exhausted and I would endorse an indefinite block of him. I first contacted "Graham" when I reverted an edit adding an unquestionably irrelevant link to the King David Hotel bombing. Cursorily glancing at his talk page caught my attention and, having reviewed his contribution history and interactions with others, I decided to leave a more substantive message than I originally anticipated. My intention was to communicate my concerns (as both an editor and admin'), introduce him to the fundamentals of Wikipedia, give him the benefit of the doubt, and hopefully allay concerns that had already been expressed long before my first message. He has demonstrated that he has no intention of heeding such advice and his continued behaviour and editing pattern is unquestionably consistent with an editor who is engaged in a disruptive agenda that is inherently incompatible with the project.

His avowed ip 67.83.219.204 (talk · contribs) has exhibited a similar pattern, including this edit - the implication is explicit when one factors in that Google suggest he is/was in reality Catholic. He has gravitated predominantly towards controversial articles, with a BLP dimension, invariably to identify someone as Jewish - usually implicated in some form of criminal activity (one of the most inexplicable) ). Relevant discussions are located at the talk pages of Graham Wellington and Brewcrewer (talk · contribs), whose well-intentioned comments and legitimate actions were (repeatedly) described by the former as vandalism. I had originally hoped it was the result of inexperience, Wellington nevertheless continued to accuse Brewcrewer of stalking long after the original discussion here. There have been many disturbing comments authored by Wellington, many of which have been highlighted on his talk page; an example: [44]. Wikipedia must not indulge those who exhibit all the characteristics of an unashamedly tendentious editor. Lets keep things in perspective. SoLando (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've seen enough to extend his block to indefinite. I don't think that Wikipedia needs to play host to the sort of campaign this user is apparently engaged in, and if a year on-wiki isn't enough for constructive contributions to emerge then there's reason to be pessimistic for the future. I won't object if another admin decides to unblock him, though I would ask in that case that the unblocking admin be willing to follow up on further complaints against this editor. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, and add that anyone who wishes to unblock should post their rationale here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. SoLando (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as nom ;-).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pffft, objection? No chance. Endorse. BLACKKITE 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball endorse FWIW. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Probably a fine move. It would have been interetsing to see where he would have gone had he been aloud to continue under a topic ban, but admitedly my good faith in this user was nearly spent. End result was what I expected, even if I was willing to give them another chance. No big loss here. Endorse as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:81.243.6.193 continiously adding unsourced personal opinion to International School of Brussels

I hope that this is the right place for this; I don't know where else to put it.

User:81.243.6.193 is constantly inserting this to International School of Brussels even after I've told them to stop doing so (section on their talk page) because it's not notable. They have admitted that they're doing so because "if any student would like to join a school to purposely join the rugby team as an outside school activity, they should not attend ISB as their rugby team is obviously incompetent." Hence, this simply seems to be trolling. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it is not properly sourced. I have left the user a warning. Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be also adding this kind of stuff in other articles [45], maybe a 3 hour block is due. Tiptoety ^talk 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my Second Account due to User:Amerique blocking me...

This is my Second Account due to User:Amerique blocking me because I Edit the Inland Empire (California article by simply just adding a picture of downtown Riverside and he accused me of a Sockpuppet he is crazy for University of California, Riverside as well I dont know If he's an Admi., but I need some help but I need help EastCoastland02 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no duplicate quetions Smith Jones (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I got edit conficted in removing the other identical messages that the user posted here, anyway, I've indef blocked the user as evading blocks, you should have put an unblock request on your old user's talk or contact unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org . I'm leaving the request open in case somebody wants to comment on the original block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For the information of anyone interested in reviewing this, prior discussions occurred here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#Possible_ban

I'm not waiting for any new accounts of his to make a series of benign edits then initiate another set of disastrous page moves or other disruption. That's always been the pattern with this guy. Every request for checkuser I've made to Alison on any account of his turned out positive. I don't "own" any articles, but I do keep an eye on a few. Amerique^dialectics 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification of WP:SYN

The current chapter in the continuing saga of editing Bircham International University involves discussion of whether and when the juxtaposition of two facts, without stating any conclusion based on those facts, violates WP:SYN by implying a conclusion. Expert guidance would be helpful at Talk:Bircham International University#Original synthesis in the lead. --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• It’s right there in black and white–“Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.”—Random832 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• The trouble is that what's happening there isn't taking "claims made by different reliable sources about a subject", but rather about different subjects: Bircham International University and degree mills. Frankly, it looks like Bircham probably is a degree mill. But that juxtaposition of two statements to draw the reader to a conclusion that Wikipedia prohibits actually being stated is very weaselly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention on Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy

I put a 24 hr protection on the Homeopathy article after an edit war broke out reverting / readding a "pseudoscience infobox" on the article earlier today. I was hoping that the short protect and a request to discuss on talk would be enough, but the discussion on the talk page is not really calming down much so far. A couple of the participants came to my user talk and recommended that I extend the protection for much longer, which I'll do if I have to but I'd prefer not to.

I would like to request other uninvolved admins to lend the article and its talk page a bit of attention and your opinions. If need be, I will just protect for longer, but more admins may help defuse the situation more effectively. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Block the revert war participants. That page has been protected for a month already. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

User:Nku pyrodragon

The user Nku pyrodragon has placed a {{helpme}} tag on his/her talk page requesting alternate administrator attention. I am cross posting here on behalf of this user. Please see the users comments on his/her talk page. Thanks. --omtay38 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine / User:Freedomwarrior (again)

User previously warned (only a few days ago) about 3RR, has returned to the same pattern. User history and talk page history have numerous warnings on editwarring primarily on only a few subjects.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

This page was recently protected owing to a protracted edit war between User:Obscuredata and three other editors: User:Academic2007, User:Academic38, and User:Nomoskedasticity. A report for breach of WP:3RR was made, and the page protection was the outcome. I have been trying to help all editors involved to reach a consensus, but User:Obscuredata appears intent on continuing to edit war now that the page is unprotected. There is some discussion on the talk page, but it's primarily intentions of being bold against a consensus to which other editors have arrived. Could an admin please look in on this? I think another round of page protection might be an idea to let everyone cool off again. I've been trying to improve the article content, and a few other editors joined the fray to make improvements too, but the problem is that there are two 'sides' with a conflict of interest here (critics of the ORT vs. an employee or affiliate of the ORT), and really I'm finding it tough. If anyone has the time to take a look it could really do with some additional input...! Coldmachine^Talk 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I respectfully disagree with the notion that I have a conflict of interest in relation to the Oxford Round Table page. I have done some editing on the page, but mainly my efforts have been on the talk page, trying to convince Obscuredata to consider his/her edits in relation to relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Coldmachine, perhaps I am misreading what you have posted here and you don't intend to include me in that category. Would you be willing to post something on my talk page to clarify? Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all suggesting that your efforts haven't been in good faith, but the logs from all of the users involved in this edit war suggest to me that there is some underlying conflict of interest:

• User:Academic2007 signed up on 11th December 2007: Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here

• User:Franknfair signed up on 11th December 2007 also:

Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here - this user was later blocked for an infringement of WP:NLT.

• User:Obscuredata signed up on 16th January 2008:

Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here

• User:Academic38 followed suit and signed up on 20th January 2008: Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here

• And finally User:Nomoskedasticity signed up on 23rd January 2008, and also with nearly all edits to the Oxford Round Table article as shown here

I'm assuming good faith and trying to assist these editors overcome their differences and work towards a neutral article. At present User:Obscuredata is the edit warrior in this situation, but all parties seem to have a vested interest in the content on this article, and that several users joined to edit a single article (WP:SPA aside) shortly after a debate on a forum relating to higher education issues, is unlikely to be a coincidence. As I say, it's only User:Obscuredata who is edit warring, but I think everyone could do with a break from working on this article, and the article itself could benefit from a 3rd party outside view. Coldmachine^Talk 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP, 100% link spam over 2 years

82.225.218.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Static IP, 100% link spam over 2 years. Not current, therefore AIV inappropriate. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI must show mercy to this fellow editor. since his last offense was over 2 years ago, there is no reaosn why he shoudl be post-emptively blocked., wikipedia is not an inquistiion and in this case it seems like discussing the issue with this user would be a more productive and rewarding courseo f action than persecuting him for some alleged spam committed a long time ago. Smith Jones (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

80 minutes IS a long time..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

you must be mistaken. according to his contribs, his latest edit was in the 28th of November in 2005. that is hardly 80 minutes ago. Smith Jones (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff proves you to be incorrect, so please stop cluttering up this board with irrelevance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please avoid personal attacks. i am looking at his contribs page right now. look at this diff. It was made at the time that i andicate.d Smith Jones (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at his contribs page (Special:Contributions/82.225.218.187) you'll notice he has edited very recently. You're just looking at his first edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

well then in that case hse should be warned . i believe that he is acitng in good faith but needs to be educated as to the proper role of twikipedia in his local communit so that he knows what he is doing. Smith Jones (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has had multiple spam warnings over almost two years, how many more do they need? What makes you think they're acting in good faith? Do you have ESP now, Smith Jones? Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that if he's been doing the same sort of link spamming for 2 years (as your diff and Hackney's prove - despite the time spacing - they're identical!) then that's even more reason to consider that this is a single-purpose account per the initial report. Orderinchaos 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted warning to User talk:82.225.218.187 that next occurance may lead to a long term block. Jeepday (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. As Corvus cornix & Orderinchaos suggested, more warnings are uneccessary and only act as evidence of the lack of effectivenes of the system. The user received a final warning on 28 February 2007; it had no appreciable effect on their behaviour. It appears to me as if admins do not appreciate the time and effort spent investigating, reverting and reporting such incidents. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeat vandal and harasser

User Jimconch has repeatedly reverted cited materal from such pages as 2003 Fiesta Bowl amd Miami Hurricanes football. Along with this, comes repeated harrassment of other editors which has created a heated debate. "Some dammed..."[46]. "Ohio State fans are..." [47]. Said user has also clearly theatened to use future vandalism, "It would save me..."[48]. Fellow users have stated that they would welcome his imput as long as it was cited Jimconch has not done that. (see first post on Jimconch's talk page) [49]. Bcspro (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin help requested re Troubles ArbCom

Resolved

 – User at issue blocked 48h for attacks and incivility. Sandstein (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-involved admin attention requested at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests#User:Vintagekits. Admins so inclined are also asked to watchlist Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests to help with follow-up to this ArbCom case. Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets?

User talk:204.193.129.239 was just blocked for vandalism at Reddit. Not long after, User talk:199.79.168.163 came along with the same vandalism at the same article. Check the contribs history for the first IP and the contribs history for the second IP and you'll see they have pretty much been editing the same articles for the last few months. Both IPs come from Purchase College in New York. Not sure what needs to be done here but it's at least brought to someone's attention. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Recently I was blocked for the following reason: "stalking Arrow740 on Buddhism articles". I had only edited one Buddhism article that Arrow740 edited (hence there is no plural "articles"). There is no repeated occurrence of me showing up on Buddhism related articles that Arrow740 has edited. I was also never warned by Blnguyen (or Arrow).

I grant that I made one wrong edit (twice with a 42 hour interval between reverts, thus no edit-warring), but did that justify a 72-hour block?

This concerns me because Arrow740, who I was supposed to have stalked, has been following me. Take a look at Arrow740's edit here. He gives no explanation for reverting me, either on talk or in his edit summary. In reverting me, he also, amongst other things, adds completely unsourced info to the article (somewhat like the edit I made for which I was blocked for 72 hours). Arrow740 had never edited this article before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit.

Arrow740, also jumped in, apparently from nowhere into Islamic military jurisprudence. He came in and reverted me, without any explanation on talk. Arrow740 hadn't edited this article in 2006.

Another editor (User:Aminz) has brought forward a similar complaint about Arrow740's editing. In this edit Arrow740 reverts Aminz's edit. Arrow740 had never edited the article before, and his first edit is a revert.

If a one-time violation of WP:STALK warrants a 72-hour block, why am only I punished and not Arrow740?Bless sins (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not merely that you were looking my edits, it's also the fact that you completely ignored my justifications for my edits on an article about a subject you know nothing about three times: [50], [51], [52]. I primarily edit Islam-related articles, and the justifications for my edits to those articles have been posted elsewhere. Aminz agrees with Bless sins on everything, and this is the third place BS has shopped his case, it should be noted. Regarding Islamic military jurisprudence, in my edit summary I was referring to this talk page post [53], which you had not answered when I made my edit [54]. At Violence in Jammu and Kashmir, my motivations were clear and you well know it. For the uninvolved, here is the explanation: I call ethnic cleansing and coordinated campaigns of rape "terrorism" so I changed the wording back. For the other part of the edit, I restored the material in question [55] then tagged the unsourced sentences [56] so that they could be verified. It is common practice to do this if an editor believes that material can be verified, as Bless sins' frequent ally itaqallah has recently done: [57]. Arrow740 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the unsourced part clear. You made unsourced allegations of murder and rape, while following me, and put fact tags on that.

Jimbo Wales is clear on such behavior, (from WP:V):

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Bless sins (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits were made in good faith, and yours weren't. They were repeated, disruptive, and uncharacteristic. That's the difference. Arrow740 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blnguyen's block was certainly too long (72 hours) and one-sided (Arrow himself stalks). Another admin too requested him to shorten the length of the block (which doesn't appear he shortened it). I posted a series of post on the page [58] regarding Arrow's own stalking. Arrow justified his stalking and blind revert of me in a psychology article that he had no contribution at all by saying:"There's nothing wrong with checking contributions and looking at one diff". Later he tried to further justify it by saying "I never denied that that article wasn't on my watchlist". Bless sins has other examples of Arrow's stalking.

Some statistics on Blnguyen's blocks:

Blnguyen has unblocked Arrow740 previously when he's been blocked by another administrator.

See [59], an interesting pattern (all of the five Blnguyen's blocks in a row are Muslim editors not sharing Arrow's POV). Disagreements with the length of his blocks and requesting to reduce them (which he didn't) from another admins ((e.g. User:Tom harrison) can be observed there too.

Arrow reports another user for WP:3RR and Blnguyen blocks the user. Another admin who came to take care of the reports mentions that this single request has been already addressed and the user has been already blocked in the 3RR report [60]

And recently Blnguyen blocks someone arguing that he stalks Arrow. Arrow claims that he has not contacted Blnguyen off-wiki. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Aminz is being dishonest. He posted this same attack regarding the psychology article at Blnguyen's page, and I told him there that he should had posted the whole story [61]. He didn't. What I said in response to his attack on me was the following: "I saw you calling polytheistic beliefs "naive" with no edit summary and got a little suspicious." And that's true. I didn't have that article on my watchlist and I didn't say I did. Correcting an attack on opposing religious beliefs (made without an edit summary) is not stalking. The link Aminz posted is from months ago, and is part of a highly misleading attack originally posted by a sock of the banned editor User:His excellency (see User:Lovegroup): [62]. Blnguyen's unblock of me was when I had 3 reverts, and had been combating a sock puppet of the same banned editor. Tariqabjotu, the blocking admin, admitted that I shouldn't have been blocked long after the fact. He also admits he made a mistake (at least it appears that way, he may have changed his mind an hour later): [63]. Blnguyen's block of these Muslim editors were all in cases of 4 reverts in 24 hours, and all this was settled long ago. Aminz is making uncivil, misleading, personal attacks with this Arrow740 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Given what I have just posted, I believe that Aminz has, in dredging up the past shorn of its context, made a false and personal attack on Blnguyen that deserves a block. Arrow740 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please read the whole story at Blnguyen's page. I didn't call polytheistic beliefs "naive" and this tells more about your revert.

And common, the statistics of Blnguyen's blocks is something everyone can find. It is indeed interesting an admin only blocks editors coming from a certain background and have a different POV as yours.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff I reverted [64]. Others can judge for themselves. You said, "It is indeed interesting an admin only blocks editors coming from a certain background and have a different POV as yours." Aminz, you don't know anything about who he blocks other than the list made by a banned editor. Please stop proxying for him. Arrow740 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, it's time to apologize. Arrow740 (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That Blnguyen's blocks have been long in several cases is not something that I take back. The statistics shows that there is a correlation between his blocks and you; not meaning that the blocks are always wrong but at least that he comes in when the matter is related to you. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have him unblocking me in a case Tariqabjotu made a mistake, and blocking BS for disruption and stalking on an article Blnguyen as a member of Wikiproject Buddhism likely has on his watchlist. Cut it out, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My position: There is a policy in wikipedia that admins should not block those with whom they have content dispute. Does that mean that the admins are biased? no. as a matter of fact, there are many admins around and can address the situation. Similarly I would say the above evidences show that Blnguyen should rescue himself from blocking editors that are in content dispute with Arrow. There are many admins that can address the disputes.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All you've brought here is an attempt to smear, Aminz. There is evidence of nothing. Arrow740 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by D&D vandal now on ArbCom pages

The D&D vandal who has been reverting many edits of mine and others has now moved to hitting an ArbCom page, specifically:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop diff

This is a revert of a tidying edit I made (formatting, whitespace issues). This has to stop. Please either semi these pages or watch them closely. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

nb: Actually, it is a revert of three edits of mine; it also removed a comment I posted to the page. --Jack Merridew 10:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Jack Merridew 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppets

I have put the tags up on there user pages that I think they are sockpuppets refering them to Alpesh Vadher history page where the names are extremely similar and the actions are the same. Thankyou, --Thevardonrushes (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User is uploading copyrighted images

Resolved

 – 48 hour block

...with fake rationales to copyrighted images, see Image:20688_0002.jpg and Image:Heathl.jpg. After warning this user, I got this little response. miranda 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is full of warnings. I think a block is in order. D.M.N. (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Styrofoam1994

Resolved

 – warned

This user has been repeatedly harassing blocked user Nku pyrodragon on the user's talk page. To the point where Nku placed a {{help me}} tag on the talk page requesting for administrator intervention (see post above). Nku may or may not be a sockpuppet, that is beside the point. Styrofoam seems to think that Nku is his "friend" Brandon. Styrofoam has made a specific threat of "spreading the articles" if Nku "doesn't say he's sorry." I originally took this to WP:AIV as a simple case of personal attacks but it was suggested that more input was needed. (So here we are!) --omtay38 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Interesting there was just an SSP case involving these two. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fred_after_pub.jpg

I would appreciate if an admin could restore this image (still hosted at answers.com here) which was deleted without going through the proper ifd process. We are having trouble getting decent free images as it is, so I don't think we need to be deleting images such as this which was highly likely imo to be a genuine upload- it is high res, and the user commented on the image here [65]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the best route to take in this instance. The scan seems original, and it was tagged CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The image didn't satisfy WP:CSD#I9 so I've undeleted it. We have WP:PUI & WP:IFD to deal with suspicious images, and this one appears genuine. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it should be reviewed in terms of clarifying rights. User's only contribution; no overt assertion of having been the author of the picture or of some other way he'd have the rights to it, which given that it is a picture of a famous person seems particularly an issue (in that someone could well own it and argue that it has monetary value). - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The overt assertion would have to be the upload itself, as supported by the caption and talk page post referenced above. Unfortunately, we have an absentee uploader with no set e-mail address. We are left with two options: AGF given no evidence to the contrary, or delete the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or do some research as to whether the picture has been published elsewhere, and with someone else claiming copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should AGF here. The uploader knew when, where and in what circumstances it was taken and made a comment that seems perfectly genuine:

"This picture, taken in 1965 Freddie Mercury and his Isleworth Polytechnic student friends, after a lunchtime session at the pub. His rather conventional appearance hiding his hugely extrovert nature!". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the research approach. So far I haven't found anything using google image search, but if this photograph was previously published it is likely to have occurred in a print biography on Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but without a source or the uploader to ask how do we really know that the image is what it claims to be. Can it (or does it need to) be verified? Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we really know the veracity of any image uploaded to Wikipedia? We are instructed to use our best judgment to decide whether any upload is accurate and useful. If a new account were to upload a low-rez but otherwise professional quality photograph of a celebrity, it would be foolish of us to accept it under a free license without corroboration. Then again, it is easy to trace such photographs by using GIS or searching the databases of Corbis, Getty, and other commercial content providers. In this case we have a decent-quality scan of a candid photograph described by the uploader. WP:V isn't an applicable policy since the issue isn't with the article and any prior publication used to verify this photo would likely invalidate its licensing status. Since this appears to be a candid shot from a private collection, we may never find any prior publications or commentary on it. For the purposes of this thread, the image did not fit the I9 speedy criterion. Deletion of this image can be suggested up by any user through a nomination to WP:IFD. The decision whether to use this photo should take place at Talk:Freddie Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike an image that uses {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}, this template contains no claim of authorship. Nothing on that page states who the author is. It could have been the uploader, the uploader's grandfather, or something within a pay portion of a service like ancestry.com that wouldn't be indexed by Google. If the uploader had used PD-self or GFDL-self, we would have at least had a claim that we could choose whether or not we believe ... but here, no claim has even been made. The image is unsourced. --B (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Send it to PUI and let them determine the image status. I personally think deletion is the right course of action for the image, due to the various questions we have for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The uploader hasn't been around since August and has no set e-mail address. You might as well delete the image. Sorry for wasting so much time on this one, the prospect appeared worthwhile. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

More trouble

Rikara (talk · contribs) has been blocked again for incivility, this time for 31 hours, and he's being absolutely belligerent on his talk page. I think an indef-block or a cluemaul might be in order here; I'm currently talking with him on his talk page and he's being less-than-civil bordering on rabid again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

dont worry jeske i have a lto of experience havndling deranged editors and i will go over ther e and try to reason with UserRikara. Smith Jones (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you let things calm down for a while before you look at the talk page again? Jeepday (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried that with a 24 hour block, but he came back the next day as belligerent as before, according to the contribs. I was offline when he was blocked this time and missed the edit-war. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go help. i am en expert dwith dealing with belligenrent users. Smith Jones (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit Conflict)He's constantly playing, the "I'm Right, You're wrong", "I'm Innocent, Block them", And the "I'm annoyed by you so shut the **** up" cards. He didn't learn the first time, AND he Violated WP:3RR again, last time he got away with it because he was blocked, but I think we should actually add another 24 hours to his block for that so he doesn't get away with it again.
Better yet, why not block him for, maybe a week, untill the game is out and he can actually PROVE his theories? Dengarde ► Complaints 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Dengarde, blocks are not punitive. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware. But we both know that he's going to just come back and do the exact same thing when he's unblocked again in 30 hours, I still say that at LEAST the 3RR violation be added this time. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. a block would be the worst possible solution in this answers. all that resnentment will just pile up and the atmospehre on this talkpage will just getm ore and more pooisonous. the only way a block owuld help is if it was for a week to give him a chance to calm down but i think that everyone here would rather correct User:Rikara's flaws rather than just dismising him out of hands. Smith Jones (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Blocking is not punitive, I suggest letting User:Smith Jones, address the user. If there is a violation in an article, block per standing policy. And don't respond on his talk page until the block has expired. Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already blocked him for this comment, and his consistent background of disruption (adding unsourced information, not listening to reasons, etc). Shortly after I had to block user 67.171.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went on disrupting the article, I guess it was him again. I think that will give him a time to reconsider his actions. I have also left a message in the talk page of the article saying that I would just protect the article until the game is released. Interestingly, people want to have the article fully protected and edit through requests. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving User:Smith Jones the awesome responsibility of negotiating. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the block by ReyBrujo was made before this came up here, it was not in response to anything that was said here. I think you're assuming that he blocked after Jeepday's comments, and that's not the case. Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I blocked him for his unnecessary aggressive comment, feel free to unblock him now that the articles are fully protected. Next time it would have been a good idea to post a comment in the article talk page to let everyone know about this discussion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per request of the community I have Protected this article until February 14 Diff Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

That's all well and good, except that the disruption is mainly on a different article - Super Smash Bros. (series). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did not see that, edit-conflicted when I was removing it. In any case, the main place he's being disruptive is the talk page of the aforementioned series article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't mind if people become heated in a talk page. But when the article is the battlefield, it becomes serious. My only connection with the article is that I am going to buy the game once it is released, but from what I saw in these last days, Rikara has some problems talking with others (or, at least, making himself clear). As I just told him in his talk page, his last edit was reverted by three different users. If that doesn't tell him something, he needs to be temporarily stopped to think about it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been so much heated as he has boiled over. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is way far to go for someone who insists that a forum post is a reliable source. JuJube (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I still can't believe someone is getting to the point of using far too many capital letters, incivil language etc for a number of days over articles or content relating to characters in a Nintendo game. Orderinchaos 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem user

Marcopolis (talk · contribs) seems uncommunicative and has gone from adding oversized images to articles, to completely replacing wikiformatting in articles with html formatting. I've asked him to use edit summary, made suggestions to him, and explained reverts in edit summaries, but he seems to plow forward undaunted. His edit here [66], leads me to believe his english is not fluent which could be part of the problem, but my french certainly isn't up to trying to converse with him in French. But these are unnecessary [67], [68], [69]. As well we had a repeated copyvio issue with him. He's contributing some great photos which might be useful. However I actually question his assertion that he's the copyright holder on this image (and others like it) Image:Seoulines.JPG. I'd rather not see him blocked, but I'm at a loss on how to handle him. I mentioned this on village pump and it was recommended I post this here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy favoring wiki formatting over HTML? I would note than many times I've found certain wikiformats like tables to be very confusing and in some cases had to resort to HTML fixes because the wikifix is not apparent. As to the Seoul subway image, I agree it seems like a likely copyright violation. Assuming good faith that he merely doesn't understand the various issues the image should be deleted. What is the regular copyvio issue other than that image? The user seems to be interested in being productive, noting his maps uploaded which generally help the project.Wjhonson (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, Wikipedia:MOS#Section_headings he just had a map deleted because it was a copyvio. Then he uploaded it again and tried to insert it in to the article again. While continuing to claim he had the copyright to it. [70]. [71] which he put back in through this series of edits [72]. Since he's had images deleted for copyvio, he has a message on his talk page about it, yet ignored it to repeat the upload, and then further uploaded images he obviously doesn't have the copyright on, I can't imagine how we're supposed to continue to assume good faith when the user also refuses to respond to any kind of communication. He's also uploading the same copyvio image multiple times Image:Linestyle.jpg Image:Seoulines.JPG, Image:Seoulines.jpg, as well as Image:Smrtclines.jpg, Image:Onlysmtro.jpg, [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We should continue to assume good faith. I don't see a lot of cross-talk on his Talk page about the situation. I do see that he's uploaded one image several times that appears to likely be a copyvio. But I don't see an explanation to him of how to address the problem like "You can upload a photograph you've taken *of* the sign, but you can't upload an image that you've copied from someone else..." or whatever. Some sort of suggestion to him, of how to get the essential picture, without violating copyright. That is, trying to steer users to productive uses by appropriate suggestion.Wjhonson (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't assume it blindly, nor is criticizing an editor an automatic assumption of bad faith. I've made a request that he use edit summaries and he's failed to do that. An editor asked him a question in December and I found no evidence that he answered it. I posted a couple of comments on his edits on the article talk page, both of which went unanswered, and I've made comments in my edit summaries point him to guidelines and explaining why I'm doing things. He's repeatedly undoing them without communication. In addition to that he's re-uploaded material that was deleted, for which there was an explanation provided on his talk page and he's ignored that. I'm not saying the communication problem is intentional, his nationality is french, he appears to be living in korea right now (even though his user page indicates attending school in montreal). He may simply not know enough english to communicate here. Not his fault, but if we can't talk to him, and he won't respond or learn from his mistakes on his own (which deleted images, with explanations should tell you) perhaps he's better suited to the french wikipedia where people can communicate with him, unless someone here who speaks enough french wants to try and talk to him.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at his image upload history, he already seems to have pictures of most of those copyvio images.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As a start perhaps an admin could nuke those images. I don't think they're being used anywhere right now, and I think its far too obvious that they're unlikely his own creation. I'm still trying to dig up where they may have come from. I'm not sure if it could be a web image or a scan off a map or what.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted material help

Would somebody take a look at BeRecruited.com and it's talk page and help with this? I've chosen not to get too acquainted with copyright issues; I just copy/pasted info from the "Possible Copyright Infringement" box on the article page. Pairadox (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if Admins here don't want to deal with it, perhaps you could direct me towards those that would be willing to help. Pairadox (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute re Franco-Mongol Alliance

Resolved

 – 2 week full protection

This is “an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin”, which I gather is to be posted here. User:Elonka is currently in the process of “hijacking” the page Franco-Mongol alliance. Although no consensus whatsoever exists for her actions (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus), she has deleted about 130k of highly referenced content in order to promote her own point of view version. The main version of the article, which has been developed by numerous editors over 6 months, is now being systematically replaced by a short pov version, deleting about 300 academic references.
She does have the support of a few editors, but overall, she has not managed to obtain a consensus in favour of her replacement of the original article, and she has even resorted to a false claim of consensus to try to have her way (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). This is highly disruptive, and a flaunting of Wikipedia’s most basic rules.
I am asking that Wikipedia’s rules be respected, i.e. if there is no censensus for a major replacement of an existing article, the status quo should prevail, and that Elonka be reprimended for a disruptive behaviour unworthy of an Administrator. Regards. PHG (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy bejesus that's a lot of poorly formatted references. It appears from first glance that she didn't remove references, but notes pointing to individual parts of those references. I'l let her know about this discussion. Grandmasterka 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are really unhappy about this, you may wish to file a Request for Comment on the admin to see what the community think. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) She is not abusing the admin tools, although admins are expected to work towards consensus. This is the diff apparently, but it is virtually all red and makes my head explode. I think we can fully protect the article and let everyone discuss until getting consensus. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 3x) First of all, Elonka didn't use any administrative power on the article as far as I can see, so her being an admin makes no difference. Two, there is no hijacking. Three, this is a content dispute, and from the looks of Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#False_claim_of_consensus, it doesn't look like you have many supporters of these kinds of accusations and you also seem to be the one using other editors statements out of context to advance your point of view on the article. I suggest if you actually want to make a formal complaint about someone's behavior you go through Wikipedia:Requests for comment rather than make absurd comments of hijackings. — Save_Us † 15:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unless there is an abuse of admin powers this is a content dispute., Try mediation or an article RFC to promote wider input from the community. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration over this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected 2 weeks. No admin tools were used by Elonka. Arbitration is not needed yet as this is a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check my request. I think you will see that arbitration is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but would like the parties to try to work this out one more time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise! I've been watching this dispute for months. It has descended into bad blood and accusations. One more try will not be successful. Rather than waiting for more damage to be done, I have requested a structured environment so the parties can work out their differences. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what the arbs do. And unless one of the parties is an admin and uses their bit, they have 2 weeks to work it out ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This post is complete and utter bull. To put this a bit more in perspective, PHG is edit warring with 6 other editors in an attempt to keep his preferred version of the article. Absent his interference (especially during his recent 24 hour block over this same disruption), these other editors have been resolving the issues via the talk page -- again, these other 6 editors are not edit warring with each other. The protection is actually completely unnecessary since we've only got one editor trying to own the article (he's been reverted by four of the six other editors over the past 5 days). PHG's insistence that Elonka is the one at fault here completely ignores the fact that not another soul agrees with what he's doing -- Elonka has not edit warred with him, not used her admin bit and has been active in productive discussions on the talk page. Thanks for requesting the arbitration Jehochman. :) Shell ^babelfish 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My views on Elonka's past disputes are reasonably well-known, but in this case I agree with Shell - I've also been watching this one and it seems she's been dealing in the best way possible with people persistently adding fringe theories. I also have to agree with Jehochman that it's gone on so long now that Arbcom is probably needed in order to decide where best to go with this. Orderinchaos 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Girona

In the article Girona an anonymous adds some external links. I think they don't satisfy the requisites of WP:EL as I stated here, I notified the user, and after a long time waiting I received no answer. Then, the links were removed and again the same ip adds them. I think it is too early to add this links in the spam list, but I would apreciate some admin intervention (perhaps the links are apropiate? semi-protect the page? remove the links and notify (again) the user?...). Thanks! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the links could get blacklisted if they are spam? D.M.N. (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's a bit too early to blacklist. I think better first look if you find that these links are not appropiate and in this case advise the ip. If he continues, I'll go to meta (I've seen (s)he also added the links in Spanish wikpedia).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like IrishGuy is on top of things as well. In the future, another really good place to report this kind of thing, and get advice and assistance on possible blacklisting, is WT:WPSPAM. — Satori Son 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy user page - User:Wright93

Resolved

Random832 fixed it with the user's cooperation. (oops) Orderinchaos 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually I fixed it on my own initiative, the user hasn't gotten back to me yet. —Random832 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Think the title says it all really. Any idea whats going on here? Looks likes the source code for some website--Jac16888 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Its actually very fancy wiki-code that was broken in this edit [81]. Don't know how to fix it though. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone failed to understand the difference between HTML and Wiki-Markup, used a Web-Tool on the HTML rendering of a Wikipedia page, and pasted the result into the edit box. Nothing that needs Admin intervention, although a kind soul could explain this to the user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Microsoft Word code within there, which has all kinds of junky HTML coding, Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone actually tell the user? DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could come to a consensus to ban Microsoft from trying to take over Wikipedia :) Orderinchaos 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gust

Resolved

Hi, there is a problem with Gust, it has not been correctly moved to Gust Corporation, see [82]. Maybe Gust can be made into a disambiguation page and Gust Corporation deleted so that the old version of Gust can be moved to Gust Corporation, I don't know if there's a better way to proceed. Concerning Gusts, from what I see, it's standard to redirect it to Gust (just like Hills). For the meteorological aspect of gust, I don't know if it deserves an article (with a title like Gust (wind)), maybe a mention in Gust is enough. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed before it needed admin intervention, you can move it around as needed now. east.718 at 01:47, January 27, 2008

Thanks, if a similar problem happens, should I post here ? -- Cenarium (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're looking for the cut-and-paste move repair holding pen (that's a mouthful). east.718 at 02:05, January 27, 2008

Homeopathy

Resolved

There is a problem here[83] and at the section just above it; I think things may blow up soon. Admin help would be appreciated. I have tried to calm things down, but to no avail. Anthon01 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Any further disruption on that long-term battleground will be handled via blocks. east.718 at 04:53, January 27, 2008

Unblock

Resolved

New IP's for unblocking are posted at User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor. Please review them and consider unblocking these. Testing reveals they are no longer proxy. Additionally, no posts to this section means it will archive in 24h keeping ANI clear. Regards, Mercury (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All unblocked where applicable. east.718 at 21:03, January 27, 2008

A caution on BetacommandBot deletions related to disambigation pages

There's a problem with the way BetacommandBot handles disambiguation pages, which results in deletion of properly tagged fair use images. The usual sequence of events is:

1. Uploader uploads image, links it from page A, and provides proper fair use template for page A on the image page.
2. Another editor moves A to B and makes A a disambiguation page, but does not change the fair use template. (Arguably, they should have fixed the incoming link from the fair use notice to A, but it's not a link from article space, so it's not customary to fix it.)
3. At some later time, BetacommandBot finds the image page, checks the incoming and outgoing links, notes that there's an incoming link from page B but no outgoing link to page B, and flags the image as lacking a fair use template. The image uploader is notified, but not the creator of the dab page. (Arguably, BetacommandBot should check the page move history, notice that B used to be named A, and fix the fair use template.)
4. The uploader gets a talk page message from BetacommandBot, but doesn't act on it. (It's not really the uploader's problem; their work was done back at step 1. The uploader may not even be active on Wikipedia.)
5. One week later, BetacommandBot schedules the image for deletion.
6. An admin, working off the BetacommandBot list, deletes the image. (Arguably, the deleting admin should manually check for this situation.)

The author of BetacommandBot says it's the responsibility of the creator of the dab page to fix this. (ref) A comment in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation says the deleting admin should check. I'd suggest that BetacommandBot needs to be smarter and check move histories; it has over 700,000 edits, and humans can't keep up. Meanwhile, admin caution at that final delete step is indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has had problems like this for some time. It does good work, however the number of false positives due to misinterpreted redirects and dabs is unfortunate. Betacommand has been made aware of these issues in the past. I will not speak for him, but when I brought this same issue up before, he denied that the bot did this at all. If this is a problem, it is helpful to know ways in which the bot is making confusing and/or problematic tagging so that it can be made to run more efficiently in the future. I agree that this bot function is important, but I would like to see more responsive upgrades made to the bot so that its work results in less false positives like above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous issues were with redirects, which were apparently an issue with the MediaWiki API. The bot should be able to follow redirects, it can't however, determine which article on a disambiguation page to follow. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

there is not a simple method of parsing DaB pages. some of the move,redirect,DaB creations are very complex and not parsable. And links in NFUR's that are Dabs, mean that the rationale for that image/use is invalid. β^_command 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS you also forgot to state that BCbot leaves a warning about the image on the talkpage of every page where the image is used. β^_command 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats rational. I agree; with regard to dab pages, the bot (and other users) should not have to decide which page in the dab it is supposed to follow. Perhaps, could the bot somehow provide a different warning for situations where it appears that a move-redirect-dab construction is the fault? Such as a special warning like "The fair use rationale currently links to a disambiguation page. The rationale may need to be updated to reflect a page move. Please update the rationale so that the image will not be deleted." That seems a reasonable thing to do; the bot should be able to look for markers on special kinds of pages and then tailor its warning messages based on the type of problem it encounters, shouldn;t it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the issue is the bot only sees the pages where the image is used (and redirects to those pages). the bot does not examin what links here, or even the links on that page. what the bot does see is a blob of text and a list of page titles where the image is used. it then checks the text for at least one of those. it doesnt do anything fancy it does not check for wikilinks all it checks for is the name of the article. β^_command 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Most dab pages are easily identified by a machine, due to the use of a template that includes the word "disambiguation". I suggest Betacommand upgrade BCbot to detect this situation and put such images in a separate clean-up category. I also suggested that the image page be checked for the existence of a non-free rationale template in general, so that images with rationales can have their links fixed by humans, as opposed to pages without rationales where a human has to do more work to fix the image (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you missed my point. BCBot only sees the pages where the image is used. how is is supposed to find a DaB page when it does not know where to look, NFUR are not standard, there are no real methods of checking them except for what I am doing. β^_command 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia bot policy (WP:BOT) is that bots must be "harmless". Bots are not allowed "collateral damage". It's the responsibility of the 'bot's author to handle the hard cases in a harmless way. If they can't, the 'bot must be turned off. Technically, it's possible to fix this. Check the move log to find past names of the page; don't rely on redirects. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory BCB finds the file link name and compares it to the text on the image page, and if it doesn't match, then labels it NFCC-non-compliant. In cases of redirects, it somehow senses that the text on the image page leads to a redirect and compares that redirect to the file link. Would it be possible to sense that the text on the image page lead to a disambig and somehow tag differently/list centrally? MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it check for the {{disambig}} tag if it checks for the "REDIRECT" wording? MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BCBot does not check for REDIRECT. what BCBot does do is get the file links section. then for every page there it uses the API to get a list of pages that redirect to the page where the image is used. there are magic methods of finding DaB pages that relate to a given page. β^_command 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Humorous note: there are editors who reply to BetaCommandBot as if it were a live person, and answer the messages it leaves on their talk page. It does sound like a chatterbot at times. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms repeated vandalism by sockpuppets

JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally blocked for edit warring on the above article on 14th January. He then edited as an ip, following which his block tariff was increased and the article sprotected for a short while. He has since then created a whole series of sockpuppets;

• Ben10023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRlLAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jackt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JDT2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Youf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Please note that the first is an old account, which appears to have been a long term alternative id of JackQPR) to revert the removal of one edit. User:Black Kite and I have between us blocked the various puppets, but JackQPR seems particularly tenacious - he is just creating and using socks without any attempt to hide his identity or intent. User:Tangerines and User:Jimbo online, two editors who have tried to maintain process at the article, have requested my help previously (here and here) to which I have responded here and here.

The above editors are suggesting that the article is again protected (I sprotected for 3 days so as not to overly inconvenience legit ip editors), that JackQPR is indef blocked, and that the drawerful of socks is stopped from further disrupting the article. I'm not convinced that the first two options (although I support the indef block as it does not appear the editor is interested in working to Wikipedia rules, etc.) are going to make much difference to this matter; The socks will be allowed to mature for the requisite days and then get used to make the same one edit, and JackQPR is careless to the effect to his account. I would welcome help and suggestions regarding future actions to protect the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd already semi-protected again before you posted here. I'd guess that the ways forward here are;

• semi-protect and revert
• Wait until JackQPR gets bored
• Fully protect the article
• Run a CU in the hope of finding a suitable rangeblock.

I'd be tempted to go for the latter in the first instance. BLACKKITE 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... CU might find a static underlying ip - we could stop account creation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, knowing the history of this, we should fully protect the article pending the outcome of the checkuser. This has been going on for a while, and we need to stop this. We should ALSO block all of the above accounts as suspected sockpuppets. Blocking them would not preclude the use of checkuser to issue a possible autoblock or rangeblock to the appropriate IPs as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• All of the socks are already blocked indef, and I've just upped the main account to the same. BLACKKITE 20:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was also the IP user that he seemingly used -

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As Jayron quite rightly says, this has been going on for a while, the user just seems to have gone into overdrive over the last few days. However, whilst he probably would end up getting bored doing all of this, he does seem quite determined and would probably try again if he can get back editing on the article. The article itself if it needs fully protecting whilst this is sorted it wouldn't be a problem anyway. Thanks for everyones help sorting it though.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may ask a naive question: could contacting the ISP do any good? The Transhumanist 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs) is a Virgin Media IP address, and will probably trace to North of England, as my Virgin Media IP does.

I'll see what I can do regarding this. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I have put in for an IPcheck at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Woody (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are in and the IP has now been blocked - Alison ^❤ 09:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rogue admin

Resolved

Seems we have another rogue admin supplying text of deleted articles, see [84] (look at the end). Also looks like the admin in question is offering to do this on an ongoing basis. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually against policy? I certainly wouldn't yell rogue admin for just this, or perhaps I am missing something? Prodego ^talk 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, my first thought is that it shouldn't be a breach of GFDL merely because an article has been deleted from here; all that means is that the article didn't meet our standards but may be ok for use elsewhere. Unless I'm wrong, which isn't unusual. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've provided deleted articles (not attack articles) for work before, I don't see a problem with it. Lots of admins do it, AFAIK. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with this. What if he accidentally provided confidential information? And to MyWikiBiz, who was banned by Jimbo Wales, AND community-banned under another account? Okay, I may be a little paranoid here, but I still consider the issue valid. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

if you fel so strongly about this situation, convene an ArbCom and see if you can get hte admin in question sanctioned. i personally felt that s overthe top but you have every rtight to do whatever you want to whoever you want on here, as per WP:BOLD. Smith Jones (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can't imagine ArbCom taking this one, even if they've got a quiet afternoon, which is moot. It's a straightforward interpretation of GFDL, and WP:BOLD is not carte blanche for anarchy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion: All our articles are licensed under the GNU GFDL. Deleting them does not break the license agreement. Anyone can ask for a copy if he wants it, unless the information is not for public discussion (like private telephone numbers, etc). Therefore, I see "giving" deleted articles to others is in accordance to our licensing policy. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just a case of "ZOMG!!!!! Banned users getting Seekrit Stuff! Call the cops!!!!!!!!!!!" *Dan T.* (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've just restored that last uncorrupted version of this page. Sorry if contribs have been lost, I will check to see whether this is the case. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes; some comments were removed from the section below. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to restore those manually but got sidetracked for an explanation; damage limitation & repair sometimes takes time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree I don't see any policy issue with this. Deleted articles are routinely still living in Google cache and routinely supplied to user-space on request with intent to correct. If an article has "personal information" then it should be oversighted in the first place and no mere-admin can view purged data. Wjhonson (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's an entire category of admins who have agreed to provide copies of deleted articles. It is not against policy. Deletion doesn't mean that the material is damned for all eternity to the fires of hell; it means that the material didn't meet encyclopedic standards. It may be perfectly appropriate for another site. The only thing admins should refuse to provide is copyright violations and other material that clearly and obviously has the potential to cause legal trouble. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes... But what you all have to realize is that is has historically been a sensitive issue. Grandmasterka 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they restored personal information, something which admins should never do. It is stated on the deleted copies category that any personal/libelous information will not be restored. I think this is a different case, where the articles concerned are non-notable people/groups have and the deleted text is not contentious. Woody (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyking didn't actually restore anything; he merely gave an indication that he might be willing to look over some particular deleted material and possibly provide a copy to the banned user requesting it. Whether he would have gone through with it, even after looking at the material and seeing that it contained (whatever the heck it contained that was objectionable; privacy violations, libel, or something else evil) is unknown, because he was rapidly desysopped before he could go any further. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So the only affect of this thread is the subtle message "If you give deleted articles to people we do not like you will be called a rogue admin on AN/I." Seems to me that this should be archived. The articles he requested are in the same thread, so another admin can check those to see if anything was inadvertently revealed. Otherwise, this section (titled "Rogue Admin" !!) has no purpose, unless someone is trying to argue that deleted articles, having no privacy violations, should be off limits to regular users. daveh4h 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is not deleted for reasons of gross violation (i.e. it's about an entirely non-notable person or thing, or is OR or fails RS) and is not a living persons or legal issue, I really don't see the problem with admins supplying deleted revisions to users on request. If however the article was deleted as a BLP violation or on an OTRS ticket, or is the product of trolling or harassment, then that is an entirely different matter. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this is giving deleted content available therefore only to trusted users, to banned users, by request outside Wikipedia. I suspect this course of action is not supported by consensus. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure - I think that what matters more than the person to whom the information is being supplied is the nature of the information being supplied. If an article was deleted solely on notability grounds, I see no problem with supplying it to Daniel Brandt, if he wanted it. If it was defamatory or involved somebody's personal information, I do see a problem with supplying it to even a trusted Wikipedia user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarcasticidealist, the content should be the only consideration - there is far less variables to consider than character checking the intended recipient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just another front in the Wikipedia Culture War between those who think this site's function is to collect and disseminate information, and those who think the prime directive is to be punitive towards Enemies of the Wiki. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist worded my point better than I did. Orderinchaos 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: User:Perspicacite at AfD

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Angola, Perspicacite/Jose João has been acting in an incredibly uncivil manner. I happen to agree with him regarding keeping the article, but I don't agree that it's ok to call placing a prod tag vandalism, accusing the AfD nominator of acting in bad faith, suggest that a 24-hour block for the AfD nomination "would be lenient", lashing out against other editors who question him, or to delete comment objecting to his bad behavior as "harassment".

I had no clue that I was wandering into such a tarpit when I commented on this AfD. Argyriou (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I when I nominated the article. Perspicacite/Jose João has repeatedly refused to comment on the merits of why the article should stay, and has instead harrased anyone who opposes him. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone who opposes him" consists of you and an editor I have not gotten along with for months. Jose João (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to be able to work civilly with another editor, to the point where you've been sniping at her and labeling her edits as harassment, ought to earn you a good long block for incivility. Argyriou (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User Perspicacite (who now signs as "Jose João") has drawn the lesson from previous reports where no action followed, that he is exempted from our usual standards. Even after he was aware of this report, he has effectively thumbed his nose at community standards by repeating the very same behaviour complained of on exactly the same Afd.

When he can overcome his collegiality issues and co-operate with his fellow editors, Perspicacite is a prolific and productive editor that makes useful contributions to our Encyclopedia, so I would not support a block for these proximate incidents. However, he does need to be very firmly warned indeed that removing other editor's comments from talk pages (especially article and project discussion pages) and other personality directed reverts are completely unacceptable behaviours and will be followed instantly by a block in future. He needs to learn that WP:3RR is not the only rule that will be enforced. Alice^✉ 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing's happened for a bit, so maybe this is resolved. If the user keeps removing comments from AfD, though, or doing other disruptive things, we probably will have to block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have neglected to look at the piped diffs contained in my comments above which immediately precede your own, Heimstern Läufer. The latest incident of removal occurred less than 5 hours before your statement that "nothing's happened for a bit" but more than 9 hours after these continual breaches were first reported. Although I am an involved editor, I do not think that yet more green approval flags should be waved or "not much to worry about" messages should be sent. Alice^✉ 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "nothing's happened for a bit", I did mean "for a few hours". So yes, I read correctly. I was hoping that he had decided to stop. Obviously not the case. My message was not meant to be a "don't worry about it" message, but rather a "let's hope this stops so we don't have to worry about it anymore". Didn't turn out to be the case, alas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that my note about having to block if he continued hardly suggests I'm waving the approval flag. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspicacite has removed my comments at the Afd AGAIN, just now! Obviously he feels totally immune from compliance... Alice^✉ 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. We don't do that in AfDs, no matter what we think of opposing comments. For some reason no-one had left a warning, otherwise I would have been clear to block. Should he re-offend, I would suggest a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. Orderinchaos 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (There have been other incidents of comments that he doesn't like being removed from talk pages, so I don't believe that Perspicacite was ignorant of the norms, but I hope he now gets a very clear message.) Alice^✉ 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. My public service training, however, holds that the paper trail is most important. Last thing one wants to do is to take an action only to see it reversed on a technicality. Orderinchaos 01:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, your obfuscation and condescension are truly epic. When you are banned, and you will be, I look forward to administrators undoing each and everyone of your 'edits'. Jose João (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor the above comment: it seems quite out of place here. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommending editor for oversight

Resolved

Thebluesharpdude is a young and enthusiastic editor who doesn't quite seem to "get" many of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. He's created numerous non-notable articles (see his articles list), even after I tried explaining Notability to him (diff). He's uploaded numerous images, claiming to own the copyright when it's obviously not true (partial list). I convinced him to get Wiki-adopted, but his adopter doesn't seem to be mentoring him, aside from giving him Twinkle and designing a user page for him. I've been trying to keep an eye on his edits and have offered advice and tips but it hasn't seemed to help much. The last time I headed down this road, I ended up with Tweety21; I'm really not interested in a sequel so I'm reporting this here in the hopes that someone can offer some close attention. As I said, he's young and enthusiastic and I think he could definitely be an asset to the Project given the right amount of guidance. Precious Roy (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can keep an eye on him. I'll watchlist his talk page and keep an eye on his contribs.--Phoenix-wiki 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd appreciate any help that anyone can give. Precious Roy (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

External links on US presidential election, 2008

Resolved

• Talk:United States presidential election, 2008#External links to political campaigns

I removed external links to the pages of individual candidates from the general article about the article. But they had been restored back twice ([85] [86]) so far within minutes I made my two removal attempts.

Because it is a current event and because we had cases of congress peoples employees editing wikipedia I am bringing this to the general attention of the community. This is less of a complaint in that sense given this isn't the complaints department and instead a noticeboard. Hence this notice.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to your most recent change, as you are correct. Horologium (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse reversion by Horologium, although the links could be used as referential. the_undertow ^talk 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh there is an article for every individual campaign of the individual. The article in question isn't about any individuals campaign and instead about the general election process and stuff. They can ofcourse be used in <ref></ref>s for example. -- Cat ^chi? 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban on Heqwm

I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him.[87] I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations.[88] He declined to do so.[89] Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.[90] Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.[91] I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.[92]

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago.[93] He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.[94] I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? Johntex\^talk 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i dunno, mate. he isnt bothereing me a bit. What i recomend doing is to not give him any more recogniton by continuing to talk to him. wait here for an admin to block him. i warn you that you might not get a permanent block like what your looking for here but he'll probably be taken out of action for a while unles he apologizes. with regards to the "anti-barnstar" -- LOL! what you should have done was kept the barnastar but write your own text in the textbox and award it to yourself in recognition of your general awesomeness. good luck, and havea safe flight!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what, what do you mean, he isnt bothereing me a bit? Why should Johntex care whether this editor is bothering you or not? Smith Jones, your edits on this page are becoming more and more bizarre. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Smith Jones thinks he/she is an admin...going by his/her edits to this forum. Shot info (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Heqwm for 48 hours for making personal attacks. If the community decides on a longer block or even banning, it would have my full support. Dreadstar † —Preceding comment was added at 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignored warnings on edits

Advice would be appreciated on this small-scale issue: This editor [95] has a long history of making unreferenced contributions, and has been cautioned a number of times. A recent warning by me led to the following exchanges: [96] and a reply [97], after which the contributor resumed making similar edits [98], [99]. Small stuff, but erosive to general quality. In short, the user pays no heed to cautions or warnings. My question is whether the behavior merits further warning. JNW (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the user talk page. If the user persists in making contributions of this sort, a report for administrator action may be warranted. However, he does appear to be somewhat receptive for advice, so I'd advise continued discussion for now. Sandstein (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Category "dispute"

someone threatens to block me for adding an in my view non-controversial, referenced category to the Winona Ryder article (my edit here). See (Ryder talk page discussion and my talk page). I feel my edit is getting reverted without base yet the reverter accuses me of edit-warring. Could someone briefly have a look thanks. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the three-revert rule. Any further edits by you today to the article to reinsert that information will result in a block. Please discuss such changes on the talk page. Nakon 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, another standard reply. Well I have- discussed and sourced my edit on the talk page. But the reverting editors are the ones who are reverting my edit without discussing, yet they accuse me of edit warring. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at User talk:Ward3001 requesting his participation on the article talk page. Hopefully this can be cleared up quickly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I added something on the Talk page. Although I disagree with adding the category, my biggest objection was that 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) was edit warring and violating 3RR without allowing adequate discussion. He posted a comment on the Talk page in response to my request for discussion and four minutes later began edit warring, claiming that he did not need consensus. All of this can be seen in his edit history. And one more point. 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) claims to have sourced his edits. The source does not state that she is Russian-American or that she identifies herself as Russian-American. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Radiohumor

Resolved

_{relisted by nat.utoronto at 08:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)}
Someone might want to keep an eye on Radiohumor (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as recent contributions have been quite uncivil, and not exactly constructive. nat.utoronto 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He is watched, and I assume that the editor just needs some acclimation to the wiki. He has 2 warnings, and at this point, I don't see further action as necessary. the_undertow ^talk 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected title Flash Flash Revolution

Resolved

Requesting protection under the new system, including an explanation of why it was salted. - Chardish (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get what you are trying to request as the page has already been protected. nat.utoronto 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The page was protected from creation due to endless recreations after a consensus concluded it should be deleted (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 15). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Page ownership? and accusations?

I ran into a number of articles where after some recent edits a linkfarm was created (the latest additions contain several of the same links), some pages now contain 15 external links. After trying to clean the articles in question (which was also attempted by other editors), I was being accused of being a sockpuppet of another user who opposed certain edits (diff) and bad faith was assumed on those who performed those edits (see e.g. diff). To me it feels a bit like if the editors in question (User:KKonstantin, User:Ostap R and User:Galassi) try to own the articles. The articles involved:

• Ukrainians (15 EL) (which maybe also should be moved as well to Ukrainian (ethnic group) per WP:MOS?) ??
• Balachka (14)
• Ukrainians in Russia (clean)
• Ukrainians in Kuban (4)
• Ukrainian diaspora (7, mostly spelled in Russian)
• Ukrainian language (12; some in reference section as well (11))

I am stepping away from the discussion (well, tried that earlier), to cool down (well, not that heated anyway ..) from the accusations, name calling and to prevent edit warring (but maybe I am just taking it too serious). Maybe someone more specialised in these articles can have a look at the edits and articles, and try some positive discussion? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry, wrong editor named in original post, changed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Could you name specifically what links are being re-posted across several articles and possibly diffs of users who added them? If they're slightly different, but they're just adding lots of links, that's not linkfarming if each link is noteworthy and worth keeping. I did a quick search and found examples:

Islam (16 EL) Encyclopedia (13 EL) Science (14 EL)

As for Ukranians, yes, it should probably be moved. "Ukranians" sounds tacky, but unfortunately when it comes to ethnic groups, there doesn't seem to be a consistent MoS. I'd recommend moving it to "Ukranian people."

• Kurdish people
• American people
• Persian people
• Hungarian people

• Britons
• Russians
• Arabs
• Jew

etc..

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:KKonstantin is the one who added them (same/very similar links to the 6 pages), he and the others defend. Special:Contributions/KKonstantin shows the respective edits (e.g. this set of diffs (ignore the infobox change, that was by another editor)). I reverted those link-additions as they create a linkfarm, but found the mentioned resistance and response. And I know there are other pages that have quite some external links, but that does not make it OK, the same may be true for the other pages, I would argue that also in those cases it is more than 'a few'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kumqat1406

This users edits seem primarily to nominating articles for deletion, see the contributions. I'm surprised to see that a "new" users first edit would be nomination an article for deletion. D.M.N. (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the AfD nomination of Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is somewhat questionable, it does not appear that this account is being used for disruption. And having an alternative account is not, in and off itself, prohibited. — Satori Son 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I've just noticed his userpage which contains a wierd message on it. And he's just nominated another article for deletion, again an article which seems notable. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And now that the second AfD was speedily kept, Kumqat1406 opened an equally futile DRV discussion. This is looking more and more like a disruptive sock trying to make a POINT. Caknuck (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How come nobody either notifed them about this or attempted to discuss it on their talk page. I've let them know this discussion is here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because (a) the user page mentioned this already, and (b) because the message on his user page mocks anyone who would try and discuss the issue with him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't bother reading user pages and didn't look at theirs. Just noticed from the contributions link in the section title that the talk page was a red link. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, CambridgeBayWeather. I was aware of the discussion. I maintain I was not being POINTy, I believe that Sisters (TV Series) was a legitamite candidate for deletion and do not believe the Speedy was anything more than retalitation for my nomination of the air transport article. After the fact, I admitted that the air transport nomination may not have been the best as I misread the article. While I accept the DRV consensus that Sisters is notable, although I personally don't agree, I still think it was appropriate to list there due to the fact that no one was able to contribute to the AfD. Kumqat1406 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's problematic, because Sisters (TV series) is notable. The consensus at DRV was not that it was notable; it was that it was so self-evidently notable that having an AfD was a waste of time--that is, it was not a legitimate candidate for deletion. If you fail to understand Wikipedia's standards of notability, and continue to nominate such things for deletion, that will be disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as a sock of User:Travellingcari per a checkuser so blocked indef, butWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimo_Williams very strange though. Secret ^account 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chandlerjoeyross

Article creation issues: from the user's contribs, his article creation SOP is based on 1) finding a published obit, creating the article from the obit, and then claiming notability through "somebody else cared that you died", or 2) people who really aren't notable see User:Chandlerjoeyross/Articles_I've_Created.

Many of the articles he has created are stubs and also copyvio from whatever source he used, and since no one really heard of these people before their obits, there's very little published information - he doesn't even have full names for people, such as the aforementioned Thoreau, for example. Could someone speak to him regarding the intent of policies? I see all sorts of issues here. MSJapan (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are non-notable. I think you guys might want to take a look at the amount of warnings here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Obituaries are perfectly valid sources to use. Catchpole (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the articles has and will be sorted out with prods, afds, and speedies. Perhaps 1/3 of these articles were deleted, the others kept. That's not a great record but it's not a behavior problem requiring administrative intervention, is it? Either he'll get tired of having his articles deleted and learn to be more cautious, or he won't, but as long as he's working in good faith I just don't see the problem either. Copyvio is a more serious issue but I couldn't really tell if this is a persistent problem, or he simply had to learn. Notices from the image patrol bots are usually technical issues, not real copyvios. If he keeps doing it long term despite all the repeated warnings, that could be an issue. Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established that obits only show notability when used from sources that use a high degree of selectivity as well as editorial control, such as The Times and the NYT. They can otherwise only be a source of non-controversial detail. But a good number of his articles describe what are clearly people with notable accomplishments. He should do better sourcing, but he is not being disruptive. DGG (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks, etc.

A comparatively new user, whose first edit was December 23, as per here, seems to be less than well informed about matters of policy. He has however regularly impugned the character of others, up to and including regularly calling a well-established editor a "hypocrite" and engaging in other repeated insults, as per the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page. He has also raised completely unjustified accusations against that editor, as per that same page. He has also created a subpage, Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References, in which he specifically requests that no one edit the page, in clear violation of WP:OWN, and so far as I can tell is trying to use the page as a way to circumvent policy and make several completely unsourced statements, again in appearing to further his own personal beliefs. He has also gone so far as to call others "desperate Trinitarians" here, and referring to a "schizophrenic trinity god" as per here. He also seems to think that perhaps anyone who espouses a trinitarian view of Christianity is somehow in a conspiracy to "hide the truth" or whatever, and seems to include me in that number. He has most recently repeated calling another party a "hypocrite" on the basis of factually inaccurate information, as per the Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Early Christian section. I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this individual. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as talking to the user hasn't done much good; I suggest blocking the editor for a week. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As a somewhat involved party, I do not think that I am in a position to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The editor concerned has posted on Jimbo's talkpage here in relation to this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would I be justified in thinking we might wait for him to decide what if anything he wants to do about this matter before proceeding any further? John Carter (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I doubt if Jimbo is going to comment over such a matter. I posted the comment just to let other third parties be aware that the differing view has already been expressed outside of the article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the other party in question is continuing his at-best poorly-based accusations on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page. However, as indicated before, I do not think that I, having tried to work with the editor in question, and now also being subject to his insults and attacks, am in a position to do anything. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the editor in question has now posted a religion/philosophy RfC on the talk page above, in which he explicitly states, in a way which I believe completely and utterly fails to assume good faith, and I quote, "I suspect User talk:John Carter is in the background rallying more christian biased pet-editors and co-consipiritor Administrators to his defence." As a clearly involved party, I now believe that I would be disqualified from taking any action in this matter. However, I also believe that the party's behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I really, really do try and stay out of religious themed content/editing disputes, but I would suggest that an RfC may be an appropriate venue to get this sorted out. Never mind the ludicrous claims, except where it demonstrates a lack of AGF or impedes resolution, and use it to put your arguments across to a wider audience. It is a pity that no-one here (including me) felt that they could contribute in attempting to resolve this matter. Hopefully the RfC will address that need. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I can't imagine why people would like to avoid arguments like this one whenever possible. ;) No problems, let's hope the RfC comes forward with some information. I honestly don't know if the later nontrinitarians have added anything substantive to the discussion, and it would be useful to find out if they have. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)