Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467

Admin Advice Requested

Resolved

 – Allegations fully investigated and accounts blocked. Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to take this to Checkuser, but I'm not sure if it fits there, at least not yet. There's been an edit war at Esther Hicks over portions of her BLP page. One user has already been blocked for 3RR, and the page is currently fully protected for talk page discussion.

Ahnalira was the main force behind the removal of most of the information on the page (that was not corroborated by the subjects own website bio page). From his/her user page, they appear to have a clear conflict of interest (they run the website for this person's business). However, since the discussion has gotten heated, several other single purpose accounts have popped up to support the removal of any information not already on the subject's web site. These editors are Kmcgloin (talk · contribs), Melcapp (talk · contribs), MoriahBaron (talk · contribs), and Gacuster (talk · contribs), all of whom are recent accounts with no other edits except to this page (and similar subjects).

I'm a late comer to this article, and I've tried to keep the peace on the talk page and encourage discussion. It does seem peculiar to me, though, that so many editors have the same viewpoint and don't seem to cross paths. I wanted to bring this here to seek the opinions of admins. Is this a matter for checkuser? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm investigating this matter, and will return results shortly. Anthøny 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC with Anthony)As for being resolved because the page is protected, I'm not sure that's the case. These accounts are still in play in the discussion, and to be honest, I'm not sure of their logic of removing sourced material. If there's puppetry of some sort going on, then we're trying to gain consensus when one side is still acting in bad faith (and discussion-stacking). Since the protection, two of the single-purpose accounts have chimed in on the issue at different times, then both said they had to go.

I'm just wondering what to do here, if it's resolved with the full protection I'll just continue as scheduled. Thanks! I appreciate your attention to the matter, Anthony. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; I'm not an admin, so any suggestions I make can be overridden by someone who is. It is being looked over, though, so at least an eye is being kept on it. HalfShadow 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have looked in to the matter and compiled a report with results here. Thanks for bringing this matter to light, Dayewalker. Regards, Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickthearmenian12 and Hampar Kelikian

Nickthearmenian12 (talk · contribs) insists on adding a huge quote from People Magazine to Hampar Kelikian. I've removed it twice, and issued him two warnings about copyright violations. His latest edit was on my Talk page, saying, if wikipedia is not worried about it then you shouldn't be either. It is not your place in my opinion to tell me what I am doing wrong if that is the case then I will try to fix that but you are the only one that is giving me problems. FWIW, he self-identifies as a teenager. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note and will keep an eye on it. Continuous re-addition of copyrighted content is grounds for a block, but hopefully a little education will make sure it doesn't come to that. --jonny-mt 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Without that content, and a further stripping out of all the fluff and peacock vios, there's not much left to assert notability. I'll leave it to others to decide if it needs an AfD. ThuranX (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More and more unfree images are being uploaded with bogus licenses

Like I mentioned a day or two ago, a number of people editing the 2008 South Ossetia War are uploading images they have found on one Russian website or another. They are sticking bogus Creative Commons and other free licenses on them when the images all seem to have a commercial restriction on them. I've been here before about this. People are creating sockpuppets to upload as many files as they can for whatever reason. I got a few deleted the other day but many many more seem to be appearing. Once they're found out and warned, they abandon the account and move on to another one, resuming the uploads.

• [1]
• [2]

There are probably others as well. Can someone please nip this in the bud now, delete the images that need to go and block? Otherwise we're gonna end up with a gargantuan mess of copyvio images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking fish is on the Commons, which administrators of the English Wikipedia have no jurisdiction over. There is commons:COM:AN though.

Also, these are just two accounts. Is it really a pressing matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind speaking fish then.

A pressing matter? Only if you think it's a bad idea to let people upload unfree images to Wikipedia under free licenses. I was hoping someone with more time than I have and who isn't about to go to bed would take the time to investigate this more deeply, but if it's considered fine to do that, then by all means ignore me and let them continue. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what Commons images that need my attention still on my talk page, I'll get round to it eventually. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there's a Commons report here as a follow-up location if the problem continues. The English language article is semiprotected and the Commons account has gone inactive. A lot of new users are unclear about noncommercial licenses and make mistakes in good faith. Please post to Commons if uploads resume under a new account name. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User With Personal Attacks And Plenty of Socks

Not sure what to do about this one, so I'm bringing it here for admins. Zombified24 is a new editor, but his first edit was to his userpage where he admitted to being several other users, including Harlot666, Wikihatingjew, Zombified22, and Haroldandkumar12. He also made some pretty agressive statements there about wikipedia and other editors [3]. In this incarnation, he's been warned several times about personal attacks, as seen here. [4] [5] [6] [7] He's been warned in all of his previous incarnations, and blocked in at least two of them.

In this edit, [8] Zombified24 not only says he has plenty of accounts, but also makes a remark that could be anti-Semetic.

I'm not sure how alternate accounts and blocks relate to sockpuppets, so I'm bringing it here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Not only has he done nothing of value to help build the encyclopedia, all he does is insult other people, brag about his sockpuppets, and make racist comments. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Specialwolf (talk · contribs) [9]. Also, not all the accounts are indef blocked. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. I also blocked Metallicafan1bryan (talk · contribs) but on further analysis, I believe he is a friend who made an edit from Zombified24's computer but normally edits from his own computer on a different network. Still, his contributions are mostly in the same vein. A second opinion on his block would be good to have. Thatcher 13:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot guy

Is BrvHeart (talk · contribs) related to these users from a little while back? --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, or even likely. However, the majority of the edits are reasonable - with just the addition of [[bare feet]] (not the most salacious - fantastic word, not used nearly often enough - site on the 'pedia) being of any concern. Should this user be blocked, or just have that element of their edits reverted, or should nothing be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same guy. I'd say revert his edits on sight, and block (since the sockpuppets were blocked earlier). I've done so. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one. He was being phenomenally disruptive and clearly had no intention of contributing constructively. Alun (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, he's back. I asked Alison to run a checkuser on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did. No other accounts apparent. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not possible.

Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).

I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" without which the article was not readable, and I added "by their political opponents".

He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).

I left a message on his talk page.

Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I urged you do something.

After I explained him [10] he goes to other pages to report his story.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't delete anything, then you can safely ignore him and he'll go away. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How easy it is...

If you were proud of the WP:NPoV and quality of wikipedia articles, you would already have banned her. That is just the 5th time.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuously changing spelling variation

The Wikipedia user, "Samuel_Webster", has decided to change the spelling of the word "centre" to "center", without taking into consideration that the spelling "centre" is preferred in the articles that this person has edited.

He/she does not care about the spelling variations used in the articles, regarding the Olympics, and has also been told by other users not to change the spelling to the American variation. Here are more reasons of why it should be kept in British spelling.

This user has been notified against his/her actions already. However, he/she continues to change the spelling in more pages, quote, "virtually all names spelled with "Centre" are incorrect". Now the spelling of all "centre" has been changed to "center" that has anything to do with the Olympics.

This person has made the changes repeatedly to many pages that can be seen on his contribution page.

The attitude shown by the user is even made clearer reflected by the sarcasm on the personal page. He/she further threatens other users, if the spelling gets reverted back to "center", the account of that user will be banned, and blames other users for modifying the changes others make for "vandalism". Bleedingshoes (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving this from Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism to a more suitable venue. I'd discourage a move war in either direction without some more attempt at discussion. Looks like Samuel is claiming these are proper names for the buildings in question; has anyone attempted to address that claim? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User, regardless of their merits in editing, has a very troubling and spiky attitude to people who disagree with him. --mboverload@ 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Troubling diff: Rv spelling vandalism by Bleedingshoes. --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues

"Don't feed the trolls," as they say. Sorry if I'm violating that dictum. However, I'm not violating WP policy by using correct spellings. The spellings are PROPER NAMES, and virtually all of these spellings use "Center." You need to prove 1) that IOC always uses UK English (they didn't when they were in Atlanta); 2) that this has relevance for WP spellings (I don't see that it does), and, far more importantly, 3) that this means you can use a different spelling for PROPER NAMES. If my last name is "Gray," and there's a page about me, are you going to change it to "Grey"? I'm trying to assume good faith, but you seem like a trouble-maker. Note, trouble-makers eventually get banned from WP. --Samuel Webster (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From nbcolympics.com, search using "center", and search using "centre". Center looks like the correct spelling. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the official website for the Beijing Olympics uses the "center" spelling. - auburnpilot talk 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it's highly likely that the website for the olymics is properly localized and translated such that folks in centre locales see "centre" and folks in center locales see "center". The world is flat. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I came across this at WP:AIV a few hours ago and investigated a bit. It seems Samuel Webster has a extensive history of battling over American vs. British English. I reverted him once on {{2008 Summer Olympics venues}} because WP:ENGVAR states the variation of English should be left as the original author wrote it, in this case, 'centre'. These page moves and changes seem to be Samuel Webster's latest battlefield, and he's the one who keeps firing the first shots. The Olympics templates and articles are highly visible at present and this centre vs. center stuff is silly.

Plus, for what it's worth, the beijing2008.cn site seems to use American English throughout, which leads me to think it was translated by an American. I'm not sure if it has an 'official' English spelling. Or I could be wrong. KrakatoaKatie 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi KrakatoaKatie! I was pissed off at orthographic anti-Americans for a while, to be sure! (I'm not American, but I'm a student of Noah Webster, and of Samuel Johnson!) But not once did I violate WP policy (well, there might have been a couple accidents). I spent a lot of time correcting the efforts of British teenagers who seemed to be spending their afternoons violating WP:ENGVAR. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, people who enforce WP policy should be thanked.

What's relevant here isn't my past behavior, however, it's WP policy. These are PROPER NAMES. They are all (with one exception: Qingdao International Sailing Centre) spelled with the International/American spelling "Center". End of story! I can't believe this is even being discussed. (The Web pages aren't localized, by the way: Use a UK proxy; still comes up Center.) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I find it bizarre that you think I'm firing the first shot. I'm trying to improve WP by correcting errors. I guess that's a "shot", in some sense, and, perhaps, first fired. Seems a stretch, however. Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading this from the US? If so, you may be reading a localized version that differs from the british version. Toddst1 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the website alternates spellings depending on your location. Even so, I used a British proxy to find the Olympic site through Google.co.uk and there wasn't a bit of difference. - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR for guidance on when to use U.S. versus British spelling. Does the article have a strong national tie to one country or the other? If not, then who got there first to establish a national preference is the deciding factor. See Maize and Press up . For something really amusing, see Talk:Color/Archive 2#Page move (not done) for a historical and linguistic analysis of "color" versus "colour," rife with ad hominen attacks on "upstarts from a nation less than 300 years old" and "small island nation" inhabitants. The Spanish Wiki had an equally inane argument over whether "papas" or "patatas" was the correct word for "potatoes," pitting country against country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How does the MoS apply at all here? It is the name of a building, clearly there is an official name for it. BJ^Talk 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bjweeks: stop being intelligent! Not allowed! :) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ENGVAR: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar. For example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are: ... titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force)."

I take that to mean, if the official title (name) of the building includes "Center", then the article should use "Center" in the name of the building, regardless of which English variation is otherwise used in the article. See Capital Centre for an example of this, where a US venue used the British spelling in its name. The article, written in US English about a US venue, nonetheless uses the proper official name of the venue, which happens to include "Centre" in the British spelling. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Summary. We have two issues: 1) the spelling of proper names; 2) the spelling of the text in these articles about the 2008 Summer Olympics. Any reasonable person should regard the first issue as a no-brainer: the spellings I've changed to the "Center" spelling are correct as they are, with the "Center" spelling. (Use a non-US proxy to look at the official sites to verify.)

The second issue is more complicated. WP:ENG cites a tie to a place, institution, etc. IOC is internationl, not UK-based. Yet their preferred spelling is UK-spelling. But these Web pages are not, of course, about the IOC. They're about the 2008 Summmer Olympics, which are not taking place in the UK, they are taking place in China. When the Olympics are taking place in the U.S. (or Japan, Mexico, Israel, etc.), the official Web sites would very likely be nearly exclusively in some variant of American English. WP pages about the games would be in some variant of American English. In 2008, the Summer Olympics are in China. The official Web sites use International/American English. This is not surprising, since this is the variant preferred by most Chinese (they have their own English: logical puntuation, as in Europe, with American spelling: "International American"). Since WP prefers logical punctuation, and since the 2008 Summer Olympics are taking place in China, whose citizens (increasingly, even in Hong Kong) prefer American spelling, I think there's a strong case for using International/American English (American spelling and logical puntuation) in these articles. It also just seems unprofessional to have the title be in one dialect, and the article body be in another, esp. since there's no strong case for it (as there is with the Australian Labor Party, for ex.). Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note, of course, that I'm in Canada, and http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/ does indeed use American spelling for "Center". When I switch to French http://fr.beijing2008.cn/venues/ the word "Center" changes to "Centre". This says that these are not actually proper names for venues as they would never change. As well, their proper name would be in Chinese, and likely does not actually contain the word "Centre". The versions on other language pages would be localized transliterations, not translations. BMW(drive) 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the proper name for the current venue is the Chinese one - the problem here is which translation is appropriate. I suggest that, as in other cases where a variant of English is not the local language, that it is the choice of the first (major) editor of the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tisk tisk tisk. Samuel Webster, if you would like to say it's a proper noun and that it's a name of the place, let's get official here. The officially official name for any venues containing the word "center/re" in Chinese is "中心 or 館“. Like Bwilkins said, the name is translated from Chinese, so that is why it appears to be "centre" in French. Interestingly enough, earlier mentioned, the site is being translated by American English-speaking people. So they did not get the translators to put it into UK English, the standards set by the International Olympic Committee. You can therefore not use this standard as the "golden rule" for the spelling on WP articles.

And, didn't you say, "there's nothing called International English" in the Water Cube article edit? So why are you saying that it's "International/American English" now?

Lastly, just to let you know, Hong Kong still uses British English for the majority as the Brits only left in 1997. Further more, the University of Hong Kong is a prime example of UK English usage. Check their site. Please don't assume things. And, speak to a Hongkonger. When they say "can't" they'll say it the British way.

Bleedingshoes (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• After a lot of contemplation, I have to say this: If indeed, beijing2002.cn is the official site of the Olympic organizers, then that makes en.beijing.cn the official English version for the organizers. As sad as it is (and so contrary to logic) I would have to say that en.beijing2008.cn is canonical for the naming/translation standard into English. Of course, if they suddenly hire a bunch of local translaters, it will change quickly ;) Remember, the largest English TV market is probably the US. BMW(drive) 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment on Talk:Beijing National Aquatics Center and Bwilkins' comment just previous, I'm 90% convinced that the IOC's preference is not canonical for this building. The building doesn't belong to the IOC, any more than the 1996 Atlanta venues do. There may be arguments why the Web site is also not canonical (e.g., produced for a US audience, produced by a US vendor out of spec for the BOCOG). But in absence of any clear evidence that BOCOG or the owner of the building (the PRC government?) feels differently, the Web site is pretty strong prima facie evidence that Center is the official spelling used for these games. - PhilipR (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW(drive): Why are you sad? And what is the logic that is contradicted here? Sorry if I'm missing something. And why would anything change if the translators were local? The Chinese generally prefer American English (though not as strongly as Japanese and Koreans). Actually, how do you even know the translators aren't local?

Bleedingshoes: No, it has TWO (at least) proper names. You seem to think the Chinese are too incompetent to give something a proper name in a language other than their native language. A peculiar view. Linnaeus had two proper names. One was Linné, used in Sweden, the other, Linnaeus, was used in an international context. The Chinese chose names with "Center" as international names.

Astonishing so much time has been spent on this.

Ok? Are we done now? Samuel Webster (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User With Personal Attacks And Plenty of Socks

Not sure what to do about this one, so I'm bringing it here for admins. Zombified24 is a new editor, but his first edit was to his userpage where he admitted to being several other users, including Harlot666, Wikihatingjew, Zombified22, and Haroldandkumar12. He also made some pretty agressive statements there about wikipedia and other editors [11]. In this incarnation, he's been warned several times about personal attacks, as seen here. [12] [13] [14] [15] He's been warned in all of his previous incarnations, and blocked in at least two of them.

In this edit, [16] Zombified24 not only says he has plenty of accounts, but also makes a remark that could be anti-Semetic.

I'm not sure how alternate accounts and blocks relate to sockpuppets, so I'm bringing it here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Not only has he done nothing of value to help build the encyclopedia, all he does is insult other people, brag about his sockpuppets, and make racist comments. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Specialwolf (talk · contribs) [17]. Also, not all the accounts are indef blocked. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. I also blocked Metallicafan1bryan (talk · contribs) but on further analysis, I believe he is a friend who made an edit from Zombified24's computer but normally edits from his own computer on a different network. Still, his contributions are mostly in the same vein. A second opinion on his block would be good to have. Thatcher 13:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot guy

Is BrvHeart (talk · contribs) related to these users from a little while back? --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, or even likely. However, the majority of the edits are reasonable - with just the addition of [[bare feet]] (not the most salacious - fantastic word, not used nearly often enough - site on the 'pedia) being of any concern. Should this user be blocked, or just have that element of their edits reverted, or should nothing be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same guy. I'd say revert his edits on sight, and block (since the sockpuppets were blocked earlier). I've done so. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one. He was being phenomenally disruptive and clearly had no intention of contributing constructively. Alun (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, he's back. I asked Alison to run a checkuser on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did. No other accounts apparent. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not possible.

Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).

I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" without which the article was not readable, and I added "by their political opponents".

He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).

I left a message on his talk page.

Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I urged you do something.

After I explained him [18] he goes to other pages to report his story.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't delete anything, then you can safely ignore him and he'll go away. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How easy it is...

If you were proud of the WP:NPoV and quality of wikipedia articles, you would already have banned her. That is just the 5th time.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Detective help wanted

Hannahmontanafan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up on August 16, and created three reposts of deleted material in extremely rapid succession. I'm investigating who this might be, but am hampered by my inability to see the histories of the deleted articles. I know the histories of the Vanessa Hudgens stuff, but not the Britney stuff. Can someone tell me what accounts created the older versions of Britney Spears' sixth studio album, Britney Spears's forthcoming album and Britney Spears Forthcoming Studio Album?
Kww (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Britney Spears' sixth studio album - no older versions.
• Britney Spears Sixth Album - Javi13sc on May 22
• Britney Spears's forthcoming album - JoFerg on 15 June 2008; AlexBoyJr on July 1; Kyyle25 on August 14
• Britney Spears Forthcoming Studio Album - Fergie bep on July 29.

Hope that's useful for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Insults, edits, strange threats on userpage etc

Hello. This user User:tharnton345 has been leaving a number of personal attacks, a stream of unexplained edits and a number of bizarre threats and strange messages on talk pages. Some of it is documented on his talk page by both myself and other users. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's more interesting is that he admits to being a sock of a former blocked user here. Isn't that gorunds for a block in itself? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The user self-identifies on his userpage as 9 years old. He is apparently making some useful contributions, and needs to have our core policies (e.g., that the fact that he supports the independence of Scotland in the future does not mean that he can deny that locations are in the United Kingdom in the present) explained to him in a clear fashion. He also needs to be strongly cautioned against providing personal identifying information on his pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

When they were Fila934 (talk · contribs), they self-identified as 17. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Difficult situation

• Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few months ago, it was found out that Steelerfan-94 was using sockpuppet accounts HornetFather19 (talk · contribs) and HornetUncle (talk · contribs) to iminate banned user Hornetman16, see here and here. Steelerfan-94 made his last edit here after Alison requested that he e-mailed her, but Steelerfan-94 said that "it never sends me that message or what ever". That was his last edit, and his account has since been inactive since the end of May, see his contributions. However, for the past few days, I have seen an anonymious IP message leave messages on several of his friends talkpage see [19][20][21], with messages asking the users to e-mail him at "zac1194@gmail.com", see [22][23]. I dunno why he is doing this, asking for users to e-mail him, but I just found it a bit strange. Having asked some of the users he has contacted what he wanted, it appears he thinks his account (Steelerfan-94) is indefinitely blocked, despite the fact it isn't blocked. I'm not quite sure why he's hiding behind an IP to leave comments on other people's pages. Any comments would be appreciated. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can leave a note at Steelerfan-94's talk page reminding him that he is not blocked and can edit from his account (maybe also leave messages at the IPs' talk pages). The IP contributions you mentioned do not appear to be disruptive, so I don't think that an admin action is required at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The user's left a comment on his talkpage using his username after I reverted the IP twice. This can get tagged as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this below, unaware of this section: Back in May, this user created two sockpuppets: User:Hornetchild16 and User:HornetFather19, impersonating the banned User:ChristianMan16. When it was revealed through checkuser, User:Alison confirmed that it was Steelerfan abusing multiple accounts, impersonating the banned user. Recently, he has talked to Alison and claimed that Alison agreed not to block him. I highly disagree with that, as I believe that is a sockpuppeteer abuses multiple accounts once, there is no doubt they might do it again.

Recently he returned using two different IP's and asked multiple users to e-mail him including User:SRX and User:Wrestlinglover. User:D.M.N. and myself realized the situation and contacted Alison, currently to no response. Steelerfan returned to his account and seems to be bragging that he is not being blocked. I think that per WP:SOCK, and indef block should be given to Steelerfan. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not something I have an opinion on but people should note that there was some discussion about this user above in the section "Difficult situation". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know of a way to resolve this? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the spirit of the law (building an encylopedia) rather than the letter (punishing people for misdeeds 3 months ago). I recommend asking this user directly if he intends to help build the encyclopedia (not work on signatures or have discussions on user pages). If so, let's move forward. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it seems unfair to all of those who have socked and been blocked. I just find it completely fair that Steelerfan receives the proper punishment for his wrong actions. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(almost) 3RR and incivility over adding a blog to an article

on 00:39, 16 August 2008, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php was added to the Tucker Max article - a blog. I reverted it because it is not a reliable source. [[24]]. the same user added it back immediately. [[25]] i reverted it again with a more clear explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources. the user added it again [[26]]. I reverted it one last time with an even more detailed explanation as to why this is not a reliable source [[27]] then another editor added it back [[28]] with the message "Look this is just retarded, blog critics is an invite only program and the source backs up something YOU had a problem with. Leave him alone". the problem here is borderline 3RR, incivility, and all over adding a clearly unreliable source. can someone step in and remove the source definitively? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted with prejudice (um... I hit "rollback" when I meant "undo") and followed it up with a comment at the editors talkpage and a general invitation to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

hello. thanks for the quick response in removing the unreliable source from the article. would you mind watching over the article for a bit? your attempt to remove the unreliable source has already been reverted by McJeff [[29]], the same editor who has fought an RfC to have an anonymous blog removed, and ignored the overwhelming response from the outside editors and admins and still kept the anonymous blog in the article. very strange. he is also the same editor who wrote [[30]] this in a recent edit summary, but he has not received any written reprimand for this behavior. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i also wanted to show this [[31]] this editor, who just reverted your explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources, has a history of questionable reverting. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a reasonable discussion on the talkpage, and McJeff did revert his first revert before giving his reasons on the talkpage and re-re-reverting. I think the discussion is ample proof of attempting consensus, so I am happy to leave it to be discussed by you folk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Constant Changing of WP:AN/I Protection Level

Never in my time here have I seen the protection level for WP:AN/I changed so many times in one day. Choose a protection level and just fucking leave it! Who ever the prick is vandalising will bugger off after a while. --The High Commander (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Sure he will. HalfShadow 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the case before commenting, THC. The vandal in question is not your average 15 year old. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the protection level never hurt anybody, lowering it can only help (by allowing anons to edit here). Prodego ^talk 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

recipes?

I can understand the a historic recipe might be included, and if there were some controversy over a recipe it might be included

however one user seems to feel quite strongly about having recipes on numerous food related articles.

when I made him aware that wikipedia was not the place for this he changed the section title from recipe into preparation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki

is this really OK for wikipedia?

I would just remove the whole section, but some input from an admin who understands these things a little more than I do, would be nice.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a wiki cookbook specifically for that --The High Commander (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Many article writers don't know that recipes are not permitted at Wikipedia. Typically when contributors active in WPFOOD find this sort of thing, we do our best to preserve some content by working recipe sections into prose, to present the typical ingredients and manner of preparation of a dish, which should be in a dish article anyway. Badagnani (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct him to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook --The High Commander (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

-

LOL Badagnani are you joking? you are the editor who changed the section title from recipe to preperation. You are well aware than reciples are not allowed in wikipedia, because I linked and quoted the section that specifically states recipes are not suitable for wikipedia. Merely changing the title to prep. does not change the fact that it is a recipe. Give the major ingredients, don't give instructions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that the edit you refer to is exactly what badagnani is referring to as working towards generic incorporation. Let him work on it for a bit and AGF. ThuranX (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mika2008 blocked for a month

Resolved

Accidental block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this user for recreating an attack page that disparages another user without going through the customary progressive warnings based on the seriousness of the page creation and the blocking history. Seems to have a history of creating inappropriate pages, but has also made constructive edits. Don't like to act in so peremptory a manner without bringing it her for review. Also, it seems a shame, because Mika has constructively edited. Perhaps someone can help him to be a better editor? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, they don't seem to have made any edits since their last block on June 24th. Is there something more recent I'm missing? Were the user active, I'd be in support of the block (good edits don't excuse repeated creation of nonsense and attack pages (admins, for easy reference), but I'm not sure it's really necessary just now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, You do have to be able to see name of the deleted attack page, available under Special:DeletedContributions/Mika2008 to know what I'm talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've made a mistake. Undoing. Dlohcierekim 22:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Hersfold. Unblocked. Looks like User:Arthur Rubin has a new fan. Dlohcierekim 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad I wasn't seeing things. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jman505 / 72.224.49.240

I believe that Jman505 and 72.224.49.240 are the same person. The IP user just got blocked for, well, going completely nuts, and I'd like to get Jman505 blocked as well, as he's consistently altered chart statistics on Peter Gabriel Discography and related pages, and committed some bad vandalism of his own today. I believe they are one and the same because (1) the IP never completely reverts Jman505, but makes a small change to one of his false edits, probably to help the rest of Jman's edit slip through (example in #2) (2) they'll both disappear for a while, and then suddenly edit within a few minutes of each other: Jman edit IP edit (3) they both had very profane meltdowns today: Jman505 IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa (talk • contribs) (06:47, 17 August 2008)

IP block adjusted so it's not anon-only. Gimmetrow 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't edits like this lead to a block? Corvus cornix_talk 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[32] An admin gave a "final warning" for that, choosing not to block. Gimmetrow 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

JaGa and I have been corresponding about this for some time now, and he posted this here at least partly on my behalf, because I didn't want to get directly involved. But it seems likely the "E. Sanchez" mentioned in Jman505's edit summary is user ESanchez013, someone who (along with JaGa and myself) has reverted edits to the Peter Gabriel discography page. In fact, ESanchez013 reverted edits from the IP address, and (correctly, I believe) tagged the IP user talk page for vandalism. Yet the offensive edit summary came from Jman505, not the IP. Sorry I don't know how to link to these, but I believe Jman should be blocked as well. And so much for me not getting involved, but it's been irritating me for a while now. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Antisemite among us

Resolved

 – Please re-report if the IP continues this behavior after the block expires. —Travis^talk 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

88.113.45.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) plainly has no interest in doing anything but posting antisemitic attacks on talk pages. Check all his edits. The IP address has never done anything else, so I doubt there's any need to worry about it being used by anyone else. Could someone please give him the longest block possible for an IP? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. If edits like this come up again from this IP, the blocks can be made longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and previously given short blocks twice before. Keeps coming back to hit exactly the same sour note. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I hope you don’t mind, but I agree with Durova and have extended the block to a week. —Travis^talk 00:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy you did it, I was thinking about doing the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Expect us all to be called Zionist agents in the near future. Nutbags are amusing. JuJube (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. —Travis^talk 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ty Durova^Charge! 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Resolved

Today's featured article image does not appear to be protected on the commons.   — C M B J   02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be protected through its placement on User:Zzyzx11/En main page, which has cascading protection. - auburnpilot talk 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Quackwatch

At Talk: Quackwatch#Conditions for editing there is specific conditions that say you should not remove content from the article but instead try to reword or tag the disputed text. I believe that this edit] by Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of these restrictions. I do not want to simply reinstate the material (which is discussed at Talk:Quackwatch#What is Hufford?, but I think that some enforcement of the rules should be done. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with his edit summary. I wouldn't call it "irrelevant" but it does look like an attempt to poison the well. Oh and "somewhat sympathetic" is rather weaselish, and seems to be an estimation based on the "selected publications" of the ref url which is Dr. Hufford's CV, so possibly original research as well. — CharlotteWebb 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• All this seems to me to stem from attempts to argue the case against Quackwatch's views of various varieties of fringe nonsense, rather than documenting what reliable independent sources say about the disputes discovered. How about going back to first principles and including only disputes where reliable third parties have described the dispute, rather than describing the dispute ourselves by reference to the disputants? Guy (Help!) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But that would mean trimming out a great deal of information, heaven forbid! ;^) I've suggested the same thing many times, but too many of the editors disagree. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Charolotte is correct -- the problem with the information removed by Ludwigs2 (clarify: I mean the "Hufford is somewhat sympathetic to alternative medicine") is that it is not sourced to anything. It's more than likely true, but as far as we know it is just the opinion of the person who added it (ScienceApologist?). I wouldn't raise a fuss, but since it is contested, it should probably be sourced or removed (probably not hard to source). As far as JzG's comment, I don't understand it. Hufford is an academic commenting directly on Quackwatch in an academically published book, and his point is backed up by the 2006 National Research Council's publication on AltMed. Calling AltMed "not medicine at all" overstates the case. II | (t - c) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The edit by Ludwigs2 does not violate the editing restrictions. After reviewing the edit and history, I concur with User:ImperfectlyInformed that the removed information was unsourced and appears to be an opinion or editorialized comment. In addition to unsourced characterization of Hufford's views, the removed material also stated an unsourced assumption about the reason Hufford was invited to present, and an unsourced editorial characerization of Dr. Lawrence J. Schneidermanthe's presentation. Without third-party sources, those opinions were appropriately removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat or just dramatic teen?

Resolved

 – New mentor found, contact has been made with user. Not a suicide threat

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

---

User:Kitty53 has twice posted to my talk page that she wishes she were dead and that she hates her life in response to my nominating three of her voice actor articles for deletion.[33][34] I'm fairly certain this editor is a minor, either preteen or teen, and she has a tendency to get very emotional and dramatic about any perceived slight. She will beg other editors for barnstars to "cheer her up" and gets really impatient when they don't respond.[35] (though she'd stopped for awhile after some corrections from others). She seems to be way to emotionally vested in Wikipedia, and perhaps too immature to be an editor here right now. She had a mentor helping her, but that editor has been gone from Wiki since June due to health issues and Kitty is returning to her previous habits. With her past history, I'm not sure if her words should be taken as a possible suicide threat, or just her being dramatic and angst, so decided I should ask here to be safe. Note: to avoid upsetting her further, I have not left the usual AN/I notice on her talk page at this time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic teen. I'll give her an email and see if she wants to talk. No need to rush out an get anyone in trouble. Rob^{Not an admin}  05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an explicit suicide threat, but it's definitely warning sign behavior. Nothing to actually report. Suggest finding a new mentor. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say I wanted to mentor her when you EC'd me..how funny. Rob^{Not an admin}  05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd posted a note over on Adopt a user earlier asking someone to take over for her last mentor, but hadn't gotten a response and she seemed to just keep getting more upset as the evening progressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who tried commiting suicide a while ago, I suggest being careful, just in case for now. You never know. Try being really nice to her, and give her a really good mentor. Perhaps a cherful, happy go lucky one? She shouldn't be notified, as she may fel as others are ganing up on her. Suicidal teens get that feeling easily. Just be careful with her... _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 05:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Um..going throw myself into this one. I'll take her. But I need to find a way to get a hold of her. Rob^{Not an admin}  05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I know. Been down the dark road more than once due to clinical depression, hence my erring on the side of caution and getting other views rather than just brushing it off as her being upset at the moment. Thanks for being willing to adopt her Rob...hopefully she will calm down some as she seemed to do doing better when she had a mentor before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a way to get a hold of her. Also..I too have been down that road. In fact it was only 6 months ago. Rob^{Not an admin}  05:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great on finding a way to get a hold of her. I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to her as I'm trying to respond calmly, but I also am not good with talking to kids or young adults and worry I seem like I'm speaking down to her by talking like I would to an upset adult. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great to see that you'll help her, Rob. ;) Would you like me to talk to her about it? I'm not the best for the situation, but, I may be able to help calm her down. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(unden)I sent her an email that just barely mentioned anything. But it would be nice for some one to talk to her about why a new mentor would be good. Basic summary of the email. I talked about Cyborg009 and only briefly mentioned the Mentorship. Rob^{Not an admin}  05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, good. I'll try talking to her in a calm way. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Would anyone complain if we called this closed and archive it? Rob^{Not an admin}  05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sounds fine to me. Thanks again to you both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just left her a short message on her talk page. I think that it would be safe to call this over. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. She's already replyed. She seems happy that I've offered help to her. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 05:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Rockefeller2

Resolved

 – Vandal blocked, checkuser requested. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked twice under the names User:Bjrothschild7 and User:Davidrockefeller for vandalism/anti-semite nonsense. Now continues under new name as seen here.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for alerting. I'll ask for a checkuser on the accounts. In the future, reports of simple vandalism like this can be placed on AIV. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use that in future.--Gregalton (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass "Democratic" -> "Democrat" vandalism

Resolved

 – User has stopped. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped. —KCinDC (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The same IP is still vandalizing, dozens of pages so far and continuing. —KCinDC (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours and asked him/her to discuss the matter on user talk. To be pedantic, the term "vandalism" should only be used for unarguably bad-faith edits—like putting "LOL YOU SUCK" into an article—since it's an emotionally charged term. However, such mass automated changes to dozens of articles shouldn't be done without prior discussion. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Changing "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party" is in the same category as "LOL YOU SUCK". It's an insult used by Republicans, and the change is not in good faith but for pure annoyance. Another one of the edits changed David Axelrod's description from "an advisor to Barack Obama" to "a top talent manager to celebrity and Chicago Democrat Barack Obama". Another deleted almost all of the Douglas Kmiec article. This wasn't some innocent newbie making mistakes. —KCinDC (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And now I see that he had already stopped. As you might guess, I'm not very good at mental math. Trouts are welcome; line forms over here. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for permission to create an article using a blocked name

Hello I am the PR for an company and our artist first album is entitled, "To Be Announced..." but that title is blocked because so many people try to use it. The page said to come here and state my reason for requesting clearance.

Thank you in advance for all your assistance!

PR Department Corner Office Projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner Office Projects (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're representing a company, then you shouldn't be editing any articles that relate to your clients, according to our policies and guidelines. Additionally, your account's name makes it sound as if you're a role account, which aren't permitted without Foundation approval. I really don't want to BITE; anyone better than me at explaining policy want to deal with this user? --Slowking Man (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been blocked as a spamusername, and a COI template put onto the user's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Really offensive "Heil Hitler" comments by User:Sceptik

Resolved

 – Blocked by Swatjester for 2 weeks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I happened to notice this comment [36] on the talk page of the Holy Roman Empire. Personally, I see this as a pretty much offensive and completely unprovoked attack. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User given a final warning. He has been blocked in the past for personal attacks, albeit for 31 hours. Suggest an eye be kept on this one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

...and blocked by Swatjester for two weeks. 9_9 weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to overstep your warning, but I blocked him for two weeks. He was blocked for personal attacks a week ago, and obviously hasn't learned. A warning at this point will not solve anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a note, when a user makes statements like "If you don't like my matter-of-fact statements about the treachery displayed by others, but would like to prosecute my own impropriety of "political correctness", I do not care" and "If you don't like my attitude, you can go ahead and make it an indefinite block." it's a fairly safe bet that they don't intend to change their ways. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are very few situations where I would consider a user's request for an indef block... this might be one of them. Concur that two weeks is a good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Muraad kahn and multiple articles

User:Muraad kahn/User:Muraad Kahn (and his probable sockpuppet which I have reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Muraad kahn) has been making disruptive edits to a large number of articles for quite some time now, including Abu Taher, Muhammad Hamidullah Khan, Bangladesh Sector Commanders Conference 1971, M. A. G. Osmani, and Bangladesh Liberation War. The latest in line is Bangladesh Forces. User:Ragib (and, sometimes I) has been trying to moderate him for long (see: Talk:Abu Taher, User talk:Muraad Kahn, User talk:Muraad kahn, User talk:98.112.33.250 and the ongoing Talk:Bangladesh Forces). But, there's no stopping this guy, though he's been warned repeatedly, and even blocked once. I guess, the time has come for some serious intervention, as he refuses to listen to all rational requests (made politely and explicitly). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency

Special:Contributions/Cyanoa_Crylate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was beaten to the punch by User:Kizor, who blocked the user indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter this and similar incidents should be used to justify making it harder to get access to Twinkle and similar tools. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It won't help. People can use their own versions of the tool. Maxim (☎) 13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've used rollback on all of the user's edits but two which seemed non-controversial. ^S._D.Jameson 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  (To clarify, over half had already been dealt with, but I found several that had not and fixed those.) ^S._D.Jameson 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Category: Collaborators with Imperial Japan to Indian National Army and related articles

I was wondering of someone can help. The ips 62.25.109.195 and 118.109.85.99 keep added the Category: Collaborators with Imperial Japan to articles relating to the Indian National Army (and other articles). Of note, User:Mrg3105 had added this same category to the Tokyo Boys article. I had pointed out to him over a lengthy discussion that collaborator is a pejorative term, and using it in articles related to the INA is especially PoV since it expresses a very onesided view. He subsequently went on to edit the Collaborationism article as well to change what the article said. I pointed out here too that what he wrote was in fact misrepresentation of what the scholarly cosensus of the implication and usage of the term is, and I voiced my suspicion that he attempted to alter what the article says about what the term actually means. I dont know if the ips are connected to MRG3105, but it is extremely suspicious that the same category is being applied to the articles in this category. Please also note that terming the INA as a collaborator army is a strongly disputed and moreover an extremely PoV thing to do, as the Controversy section in the main Indian National Army and a quick google search will indicate. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The High Commander

Could someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? Although the account was started in June, the editor seems to have a much stronger handle on things Wikipedian than one would expect after that short period of time, raising the suspicion that the editor might possibly have had previous editing experience. Then the mix of edits: Hitler, mental retardation, the move of "Spiritual" to "Negro spiritual" because "that's what they are called", the change of "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." in the Communism article to "the United States of America and the U.S.S.R."... they just seem a bit odiferous of a POV warrior. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and see also this from the talk page, which refers to this edit, and my question whether the mangling of the name "Jeffpw" to "Jewffps" was deliberate or not. Almost immediately after I pointed it out, the entire conversation was archived.

This all could be quite innocent... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be. He may have editing experience in the previous years of Wikipedia but he seems to be a good editor. :) --eric (mailbox) 10:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Omg I did not know I wrote that!!!!! The guy wasn't even a Jew though so why would I? --The High Commander (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The guy wasn't even a Jew" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at my keyboard and 'w' is right next to 'e' --The High Commander (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I suppose that the "upload a picture of a chimp to the Robert Mugabe article labelled as his father" is right next to the "Upload a flattering portrait of Mugabe's father" key? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And as for "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." and changing U.S. to United States of America, what on earth is the problem? U.S.A is the correct shortening, 'U.S' sounds more like slang in my opinion. And in changing it I chose to write the full United States of America simply because I thought it looked better. --The High Commander (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason it gets brought up is because by extending the abbreviation, you lend undue prominence to the United States (and by extension, all capitalist nations) in an article that works to treat both it and the USSR on equal terms. If you'd also extended "U.S.S.R." to "United Socialist Soviet Republic" it probably wouldn't have been noticed, and on its own it wouldn't have likely attracted much attention; however, in tandem with the other seemingly biased edits, it's questionable. If it is just an honest mistake, that's ok - if you would, read through our neutrality policy and just take a little more care with your edits from now on. We're not looking to block anyone here, just reviewing something that if it continues, could be a problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Algebraist 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hersfold. I will certainly remember that next time. Cheers for taking the time to explain that. --The High Commander (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have come across The High Commander's edits a few times and in all cases his edits indicated disruptive POV pushing or worse. The worst one was this diff[37] which really made my stomach turn. It had been a while since I have seen something so disgustingly racist and sexist on Wikipedia. I left a warning message[38] at the HC's talk page which was quickly erased. This was actually my second run-in with HC. The first one concerned his addition to a currently deleted article Joachim Andersson. Here is the diff for HC's original edit[39], for the admins here who can look at deleted contribs. The substance of the problem is explained in the message that I left at HC's talk page at that time:[40]. The infobox for the bio of that person had the names of his parents where the last names were different. HC edited the article to add "born to unmarried parents" with the edit summary "added info about illegitimacy". The edit was reversed, appropriately, as a BLP violation. Then there was HC's attempted removal, on censorship grounds, of an image from Pornography related to the making of a pornographic movie. HC first removed the image with the edit summary "rm immoral picture"[41]. When it was pointed out to him that censorship motives are not an appropriate reason for deleting WP content, he changed tack and removed the image again, this time alleging that the image was non-free (the image was from the Commons):[42]. When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [43]. More recently, I have seen the HC go on a spree of removing "Common Era" (more precisely, replacing "Christian/Common Era" with "Christian Era") from various articles on different centuries [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] (there are more, see the contrib history). It was eventually pointed out to HC[56] why his edits were inappropriate (and as usual, he quickly removed the warning from his talk page). I have not looked at the other contributions of HC but the ones I have seen show the record of a POV pusher, not, as EricV89 put it, a "good editor". In fact, I cannot see anyone who did this edit[57] as a "good editor". Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And then there's this quickly self-reverted edit where the user added a picture of a chimp to Robert Mugabe with the caption "Mugabe's estranged father" and the edit summary of "lol". Why isn't this user indef blocked yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was self reverted, then there isn't a problem. Unless you want to say that the user is racist and should be blocked on that regard. Unfortunately, there are a lot of racists, depending on your perspective, and many of the hot topics (ethnic conflicts, for instance) tend to be filled with them. I don't know if there is a policy against having a racist opinion, but I doubt there really is one. If they are civil, they are civil. If they are incivil, they are incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Racism is actually covered by the policy WP:CIVIL, so by that definition the user is incivil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair here - "When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [74]" Actually, what it says is that he is concerned that children are reading. This isn't a "POV ground". This is a legitimate concern. The difference may be subtle here, but one we should all recognize. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, give me a break. The only image he removed from that page was the one having something to do with homosexuality (the filming of a gay porno movie), which was a non-graphic image directly related to the content of the article. The other images, actually more graphic, he left intact. The explanation at his talk page shows that what he was really upset about is the homosexual content of the image. The attempt to remove the image as supposedly non-free after his "immoral pic." argument did not work was clearly in bad faith. Regarding self-revert on the Mugabe article, sorry, but if you do not find the original edit, even if it was self-reverted, completely unacceptable, I cannot help you. These kinds of racist vandalism edits should never be made in the first place and they are not an acceptable form of "joking". They remain in the edit history where the others can see them and only serve to insult and inflame. It is not acceptable to vandalize and then self-revert. One should not vandalize at all in the first place. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then say that. You don't need to introduce "POV" into it. HE removed things without consensus. Thats good enough, isn't it? The editor demonstrates and unwillingness to talk to others before editing and ignores consensus afterwards, according to you? Does he revert it back to his afterwards? Is he unwilling to discuss it afterwards? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest, will you, please. Removing a relevant non-graphic image from the Pornography article because of the image's homosexual content is POV pushing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your hostile mannerisms make it clear that you do not care to listen to others or go to the source of the problem. Instead, you are throwing around pejoratives instead of talking about these issues. Because of this, this will be my last response on the topic with a recommendation that your response should be used to take into considerations on how to deal with the above user. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do care to listen to reasonable arguments of others. And I don't throw pejoratives lightly or without thinking about them or without justifying my position. I certainly do hope that my response and my other posts in this thread are taken into account when this thread is resolved. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, respectfully, THC's double standard and prejudice is apparent when comparing [58] to [59]. I think it's fair to surmise that the comment made in the latter diff was nothing more than à propos posturing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor's contributions to Mental retardation and Talk:Mental retardation are also somewhat troubling; edits like this and this on the Talk page, for example, as well as additions to the article itself here and here which appear to be chosen primarily because they use the word "retarded". (In the case of the external links this was done even for organizations that do not use that word in their name - he just gave them new names that used the word.) - Eron^Talk 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the user's made a habit of showing that he's anti-gay[60], anti-black[61], anti-jew[62], anti-woman[63], anti-down's syndrome, pro-USAUnited States of America, "pro-family", and doesn't mind lying and disrupting to push his edits. Hell of a list for a "good editor". I'd support a significant block for him to have time to read our policies, or a community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, we have [64], which relates to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pearl_necklace_.28sexuality.29 another thread on this very page. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Although he reverted himself straight off, this edit alone is so disruptive as to be blockable. Taken along with all the other disruptive edits (noted above), I wouldn't mind if someone blocked this editor indefinitely and almost did it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Mugabe edit and this edit[65] are the worst of the bunch. Nsk92 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was about to add that edit as being, in and of itself, worthy of a time out. I think a block is in order. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two edits are so far beyond inappropriate as to require some kind of sanction to protect the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One further note: The High Commander ..T.H.C. and his name uses "high"... inappropriate name for drug reference? not sure if it's enough to block on, but speaks to general attitude towards wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. See Dick Solomon from 3rd Rock from the Sun --The High Commander (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's one problem solved. Any response to your homophobic, bigoted, anti-semetic, misogynistic editing habits? ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Archie Bunker from All in the Family? Kuru ^talk 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what we have here goes a bit beyond Archie Bunker. HC has interesting views regarding Hitler and the Jews which are explained in the discussion at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 48#The opening paragraphs (above the contents box). A few quotes from HC's comments there:"Then perhaps it should mention world Jewry declaring war on Germany in 1933, and how Hitler attempted to have the Jewish people peacefully relocated out of Europe." and another one: "And yes it was England who started the war. Tens of thousands of Germans were being persecuted in East Prussia, and all Hitler ever asked of Poland was for Germany to have a land corridor to connect East Prussia with mainland Germany. Poland refused, and Hitler being left with no other option to defend his countrymen, was forced to invade Poland. Upon doing this, England and her allies declared war on Germany. Not the other way around as many mistakenly believe." Sorry, but that is just too precious. Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so we've got evidence of persistent, long-term disruptive editing behaviors. Community ban time? ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support either a community ban or an indef block. The Mugabe edit[66] and this (don't even know what to call it)[67] would probably be enough for me and I don't think that anyone who made these two edits deserves third chances. Apart from the other problems discussed above, there was also this recent pearl from HC[68] at Talk:Burma as well. Nsk92 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean he's not blocked yet? Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Rodhullandemu 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, could someone please move Negro spiritual back to Spiritual and revert TCH's edits? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx, please show where racist opinions are not allowed when they aren't targeted directly at others? Because there are many people here that are well respected and have been shown to have the same ideas. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Falls under the category of disruption as explained above. please read before looking for a fight, or editing threads in a way that makes me look like a liar. ThuranX (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban. Enough is enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) Just to bring the editor's status up to date, User: The High Commander has been indefinitely blocked by User:Gwen Gale as of 05:10, 18 August 2008. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:WDANTopModel

Before I contact the User to suggest they remove the content, I wanted other people's opinion. Is User:WDANTopModel appropriate use of User space? It certainly wouldn't be kept if it were in article space. Corvus cornix_talk 04:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That page should be MfD'd. Getting the user to agree to remove it would, of course, help delete it more efficiently. I'm also going to warn the user about COI. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Corvus cornix_talk 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page db-histmerge request with vandalism warnings

• At 00:29, 18 August 2008 User:Kesac put in User talk:Scastronomy a db-histmerge request to histmerge User talk:Scastronomy to User talk:Scastronomy. But both pages contain vandalism warnings. Should I obey that request? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops typo: User talk:VoteMayorGrandviewMO to User talk:Scastronomy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm... looks like the user moved their user (and talk) pages to a non-existing username. I usually wouldn't call vandalism warnings crucial, but it wouldn't hurt, either. Might as well go ahead and either delete ({{db-u2}}) or histmerge, but it's probably not a big deal, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done: I histmerged User talk:VoteMayorGrandviewMO to User talk:Scastronomy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C Is Harrassing Me and Disrupting Anti-Americanism

Colin4C is edit-warring and disrupting on Anti-Americanism. He won't let me put a "Neutrality Is in Dispute" banner on the page, even though I dispute the neutrality, and he won't let me fix the neutrality according to my opinion either. He won't listen to my point-of-view in the Talk pages either. When I say that "anti-American" is an opinion he says things like "Prove it" and sarcastic things like "If someone says that the world is round, or that water is wet, is that just an opinion?" He says CNN calls thing anti-American so Wikipedia should too and sarcastically compares my ideas to a conspiracy thory about faked moon landings. He is dishonest about things I said to other editors, and accuses me of driving Equazcion off the article. Actually, Equazcion got me blocked for 4 months, so he drove me off the article. He accuses me of trying to delete the article when I never voted to delete it or said it should be deleted. His edit commentaries removing my banner say things like "removed edit warrior's tag as per concensus view on Talk page". Everything he says to me is a personal attack. I want this harrassment to stop. Here is a link to all of our conversation: [69] Rachel63 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good to me. Perhaps you should list the points that you think are disputable along with your reasons. The okiniwawa rape incident seems to have been adequately addressed. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rachel63 has been reblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy. Same disruptive pattern we've seen for a year. Marskell (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A threat to kill

Resolved

I don't know either of these users but some intervention is definitely need here: [70] One user is threatening to kill another editor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked; just Grawp or a Grawp wannabe. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler

 Done _TalkIslander 16:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

hello, sorry i am not so sure about how to use wikipedia or how to edit info so cannot fix it myself, but can see that someone has vandalized the page about the death of hilter [71] please fix 58.178.140.162 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New disruption

I think Yopie should be blocked from editing the article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha, on grounds of disruption. He abuses the Twinkle tool in an ongoing edit war, accuses those who wish to edit the article of vandalism and reverts their edits with Twinkle. The other edits are clearly not vandalism by Wikipedia standards. After an administrator proposed a compromise Yopie has used the Twinkle tool 8 times to revert edits, making it impossible for anyone else to contribute to the article. Wikipedia clearly states that abuse of the Twinkle tool may lead to blocking. StevenB (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... the article hasn't been touched in over three weeks, other than a single bot edit. Why are you bringing this up now? Stifle (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see that you've ever been involved in editing that article. What's going on here? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It does look like there was a revert war, with neither side engaging in constructive dialogue. Yopie was merely replacing cited material. I don't see that it should have been removed without discussion. Perhaps Steven was one of the anon's involved in the dispute? Perhaps if meaningful discussion of the removal of the material were to begin, a consensus could be reached? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is because I would like to add references to the article, but predict I will get censored by Yopie (as it seems almost everyone else has been) and banned as a vandal. My main interest is in things related to medieval Spain. Reading the revision history of the article and the comments on the Talk page I just can't see how the article can progress when all edits are reverted by Yopie. StevenB (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could predict a lottery win with such certainty :-) I would recommend making the edits that you feel are appropriate - cite them correctly. Make sure they support the article as a whole. Update us if there are issues with your edits. BMW(drive) 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup there, so I'll be watching to see what happens.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo online

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

---

There is currently a discussion at WP:RFCN concerning the user User:Jimbo online, and specifically whether his username is too similar to User:Jimbo Wales. Only a few people have commented on the RFCN, so I am posting here so that more people will be aware of this discussion. I think more outside opinions would be beneficial, since this concerns the potential blocking/driving off of a contributor that has been here more than a year. Is he back? (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's a radical idea: How about asking Jimbo Wales himself what he thinks of it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, regardless of what JimboW things and whether he's annoyed by it, (he'd probably be laid back) this account should be renamed as it's confusing to other users, it seems like impersonation. So even if, as they no doubt are, this person is innocent, some other editors on first seeing their name will think they're being disruptive, when they aren't. So it's in this user's best interests to change his name, too. Sticky Parkin 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if his name is actually Jimbo? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So this guy should change his name to prevent confusion to those editors who fail to assume good faith, and think he is being disruptive? Perhaps those who might assume he is being disruptive should adjust their point of view. Kevin (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus at the discussion seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the name; as far as I'm aware, RFCN discussions are traditionally closed more quickly than most XfDs, so I've gone ahead and closed this one. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow the name. How could User:Jimbo Wales and User:Jimbo online even be confused with eachother? That may be a more valid claim if the username was User:Jimbo WaIes or the like, but this is just silly. You know how many Jim, Jimmy and Jimbos are on this planet? Jimbo Wales doesn't own the exclusive right to the name. — Moe ε 12:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How could they be confused? A user pops onto this Wikipedia thing he's heard about. He knows that someone with the absurd name of "Jimbo" invented it, but not much else. While he's looking around, he comes across a person named "Jimbo online"... I think it's not unlikely that he might believe that that person is a bigwig here, and jump when told to.

The editor using "Jimbo online" can use one of the other 37¹²-1 names of that size available. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this one's fine -- surely we can have more than one Jimbo on the project? Maybe if you ask nicely he'd be willing to write on his userpage 'I am not Jimbo Wales'. — Dan | talk 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

my two cents; when i first ame here, I thought thaat the Wikipedia Inventors' name was "Jimmy Wales". I onyl heard the "Jimbo" moniker after bing here for a little while. while my experience was pronalbny not universal, its likely that someone who'se been here for a while will be able to tel the difference between Jimmy Wales and jimbo online. in my view, the risk of misaken identity is not high enough to warant harassing someone over this for alleged impersonation Smith Jones (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread should be closed, it was dealt with already at WP:RFCN and is clearly an allowable name. RFerreira (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

IP user "correcting" other people's comments

User:79.73.137.95 has been (and currently is) making a number of spelling corrections across Wikipedia, many of them in user comments on talk pages (example). I've already left a comment on the IP's talk page pointing out that this is not good etiquette per WP:TALK, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. PC78 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Issued {{uw-tpv2}}, and watching Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If my super-mild case of typo-fixing OCD is any guide (see my user page) I would say that this might just be someone with some serious OCD goin' on =P --mboverload@ 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with a tan

Resolved

 – So, all is well and good again in Wikipedia land... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block this user immediately! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

why for? Keeper ǀ 76 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Instead of being an ass, I should just click first. Blocked, userpage deleted. Sorry IP. Keeper ǀ 76 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You might just want to look at the IP's history of vandalism before taking it at its word. Just a thought. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A Userpage with "I am a man with a tan!" written underneath a picture of an African American politician warrants a delete, and block, in my opinion. I'm not worried about who reported it. YMMV Keeper ǀ 76 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor is probably the subject of this image which I nominated for deletion. On top of the other concerns, I have deleted the image. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the IP editor probably is one and the same person as the Man with a tan user I just blocked, but that's an unsupported hunch. Keeper ǀ 76 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely, he trolled my userpage, presumably trying to elicit a block. Fail. Given the request for IP block exemption, I'd say this is not this person's only account. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha! That diff is way too funny, hadn't noticed that in his contribs. I'm sure you spent the last day or so quivering, wondering if you'd be able to find a branch to grab onto "on your way down." He sealed his fate, IMO. Nice work letting that one bury himself further a day later instead of giving anyone WP:DRAMA fuel. Heh. Guy: 1. Troll: 0. I'm sure he's reformed now, and will resurface on your talk shortly to "apologize". Keeper ǀ 76 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed. It's a reasonably large rangeblock with a lot of abuse going back quite a while. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious group libels on User:Cmmmm

Take a look; it's pretty bad. (I already edited out an overt accusation of attempted murder, and a tag that this article was part of the articles on the U.S. Constitution.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: User is saying that the JH tried to kill him and that only Jimbo Wales and God like him (?). He then says people are trying to kill him again and that his two friends will save him again. --mboverload@ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. About the only thing this really falls afoul of is "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", and most of them _are_ related to Wikipedia. I think we'll have to pretty much ignore it for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought

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

Links added by: Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Arbitration enforcement discussion
• Ban notification (and also notification of AE discussion)
• Discussion with the administrator placing the ban

---

• Please note that I am currently topic banned as a result of a discussion here at ANI, in which I had no chance to participate (it was concluded before I logged in). In order to determine whether and how to appeal, I am requesting community input.

1. As I understand NPOV policy, significant minority viewpoints require treatment in articles. Regardless of the merit and truthfulness of the official version, I would expect it to be legitimate and even necessary to include mention of major minority views in some detail in any article, no matter how "foolish" or "opportunistic" such views might be, as long as they are held by prominent figures and are not confined to tiny minorities. Concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks wikipedia is not the forum to debate the validity of viewpoints, but merely to represent them, fairly, without giving any undue weight to such views. Now in the case when former ministers or current parlementarians of major countries such as the U.S.A., Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan all have expressed their doubts about the official version, would it not seem adequate that wikipedia report this?
2. Would quoting the 9/11 Commission be allowed, even where the 9/11 Commission is contradicting its final report and conclusions?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the anti-American biased viewpoints of foreign leaders is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Are you sure that sanction was placed here, and not at WP:AE? Perhaps you should provide a permanent link to the discussion so that other editors can actually see the basis for that sanction. Your comment above indicates a poor understanding of verifiability. Beliefs of actors, government officials and other notable people are not reliable sources of information for Wikipedia, except perhaps as primary sources for articles about those people. We prefer scholarly sources, or reliable news outlets, that conduct extensive fact checking. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Unless the opinion of foreign leaders is based on some inside information, it remains of no more relevance to wikipedia than the opinion of some random guy on the street. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that this sanction is appeal-able to the administrator who placed it, or to the Arbitration Committee. I suggest you ask them directly at WP:RFAR in the appropriate section of the page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support expiration of ban in 24 hours The above user has explained his opinion coherently and in a very civil fashion. The banned person poses questions instead of proclaiming "this is the only way the edit should read". Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so the most scholarly and referenced view is the correct version, with exception to an emphasis on controversy in articles about porn and coitus. (see above ANI discussion). Scholarly stuff, when written by multiple authors, needs discussion as this banned person is doing. Furthermore, the user says that the ban was concluded before he had the chance to respond. If true, then Wikipedia is no better than North Korea or Saddam, both of whom have show trials and give long sentences. Let's not be Kim Jong Il or Saddam. As far as quoting leaders, the leaders of the relevant entities (US, al-Qaeda) may be important. The opinion of minimally related countries, such as Andorra and Zambia are not. As far as "major minority opinions", we just need to prioritize. With article length restricted, the first priority is the facts of the event. Then comes analysis. Maybe a sub-article is appropriate, maybe not. In conclusion, I agree with the above behavior and civility of the banned person so I favor expiration of the ban by tomorrow but I don't agree with political opinion of the person. HRCC (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that lifting the topic ban now is a good idea. I looked at the AE thread linked above which resulted in the ban. It looks like Xiutwel's behavior in the 9/11-related articles has been consistently disruptive for 2+ years. Xiutwel's post above or at the page of the admin who placed the ban do not indicate any admission on Xiutwel's part that his conduct has been problematic or that he has been at fault in any way. In view of this there is a good reason to think that his pattern of disruption will continue if the ban is lifted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In society, if the danger is high, then the amount of leeway is low. In Wikipedia, the danger is minimal. A few bad edits or even vandalism is not going to make the WTC collapse. If the guy appears civil, an unban is in order. Afterwards, if there is chaos, there are over 1,500 admin who can re-ban in 3 seconds. This is one reason why I favor expiration of the ban in 24 hours. 24 hours allows an angry person's mind to clear and a changed person something to look forward to. What harm is it if this guy is unblocked, he causes trouble and a ban resumed? Even rapist and murderers get paroled. HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no. Xiutwell is the archetype of the vexatious civil POV-pusher. Clearly a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, to the point where he asserts that they are "alternative theories" not conspiracy theories, and wore everybody out with his insistent nonsense. The last thing we need is Xiutwell returning to advocate his Truther twaddle round those articles again. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Xuitwell, this is your chance to state your plans. Plan to "Truther tawddle round" again or make the article better? HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong venue This is not the place to discuss this matter. See Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary_sanctions, which is quoted below. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

---

It should be noted that when saying that the venue is inappropriate and closing this thread User:Jehochman seems to be ignoring what was said [72] by a member of the commetee:

appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not, and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators.

If he is aware of this then I would invite him to tell us where does he think that the "consensus among administrators" for an appeal should be found if not here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Venue: It seems I confused AN/AE with AN/I. My apologies. What would be the appropriate course of action for me now?
  2. Editing: regarding my editing behaviour just prior to the banning: the ArbCom decision made no specification as to which side of the debate was risking to be banned. I have warned several editors and admins to adhere to policy; I should have guessed it was my side which was generally seen as being at fault, and with hindsight I see it was unproductive and silly to warn editors not to violate wikipedia policy. It makes sense that that was considered as rude, and I admit fault there: my actions were harmful to wikipedia and should not have been made.
  3. Wikipedia content: As far as the articles are concerned: I fully agree that the official version is the one most referenced, and that version should ofcourse be dominant in the article. On the other hand, it is a known fact that the official version has a received an unusual amount of criticism: not just from conspiracy nuts but also from scholars and politicians. It would not seem fair and unbiased for wikipedia to ignore such criticism altogether. Worse, in the current articles all information which might (if you squeeze real hard) make the official version look a bit shaky, is being systematically omitted and deleted. That does not seem to be the spirit of NPOV, or does it? E.g. testimony to the 9/11 Commission by a Secretary of Transport, and conclusions by the 9/11 Commission itself could certainly merit inclusion, even when they are an inconvenient truth to those who hold the official version as the only plausible one. I realize I started this thread on the wrong venue, but since I asked community advice: I could refrase my question: "Is it so certain that the official version is 100% true that we can step over normal NPOV procedures and discard any and all information which might lead to criticism of the government and its account? And is it un-American to criticise a government? (I used to think it was 'unrussian' to criticise ones government)."  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

• I am now moving this discussion to AE absent any better ideas. Please do not respond here, only there (same topic name).  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help with User:Ceedjee

Resolved

 – pending mediation

Hi, hoping for some neutral feedback here. A few days ago, I commented in an AN/I regarding whether a block of User:Ceedjee had been appropriate. AFAIK, I’d never interacted with him before, but I thought the block was correct, and that a subsequent hurried unblock of him was not. (One diff example of my comments here). My opinion appeared to be a minority one at the time, so I thought that was the end of it. But Ceedjee ended up following me to an unrelated page here, to basically call me a liar for thanking a group of editors for their work. I asked him to refactor [73], he point-blank refused, with more insults. I struck the offending portion of his comments, he unstruck them, and we went back and forth. At the moment, they’re back, and I’m leaving them be, pending what people on this board think. I went to Ceedjee’s talk page here asking him to not insult me, and not to follow me. He also followed me to Palestine, where he reverted my earlier edit – this was an article he had no prior history of editing. Recently, he arrived out of the blue to gainsay a point I was making on the reliable sources noticeboard here. When I asked him to please stop stalking me, Ceedjee deleted my comment in its entirety, with a perhaps ironic edit summary invoking NPA and AGF. He does not seem even remotely receptive to my requests, so I was hoping someone else could weigh in.

I can understand that he was angry that I supported his block (though I wish he’d just come to my talk page to tell me so: I’m quite open to discussion), but pursuing a stalking campaign/vendetta is not an appropriate way to express disagreement, IMHO. Thoughts welcome. IronDuke 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke,

I told you numerous times I was not wikistalking you and I don't.

And I explained I had not insulted you, whatever you claim.

What you write just above doesn't respect WP:NPoV, even if this policy only concerns content issues inside articles, it would not be bad to try to apply this "methodology" everywhere...

The main and only issue is that you went on deleting my message [74] and pursued and intimidated me here while at the same time asking me not to interact with you...

I have been here for 3 years. My articles of interest, explained on user:ceedjee are the 1948 War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am also concerned by all issues related to NPoV and sourcing (also explained on my talk page).

I posted and edited Palestine and on [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard] before I met you. I don't know why I would stop. And I just want to point out that in these recent days, I have also edited and discussed about Battle of Latrun (currently under translation), Post-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, Operation Nachshon, 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, ...

I think all these artiles are linked with Palestine and with the reliability of Ha'aretz, The Guardian and Le Monde Diplomatique...

...

>"I can understand that he was angry that I supported his block (though I wish he’d just come to my talk page to tell me so: I’m quite open to discussion)"

If don't feel you are open to discussion. From my point of view and the experience of interaction with you (given here above), I rather feel you "just" consider you are right and just want to educate (some) people. If this "dispute" goes on, I will bring numerous testimonies from people with all sensibilities concerning the I-P conflict who will come and explain I am open to discussion, listening.

As I told you, the only issue is that I refused and still refuse you delete my comments and that you didn't like them and considered them as "personnal attacks"

I have heard you. That's ok.

But you haven't convinced me of modifying anything in these, all at the contrary.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NB: Palestine is in my follow-up. 3 days after I corrected a mistake, IronDuke modifies this and attacks me in the diff. Less than 2 hours after, he is reverted : [75].

Joining IronDuke, I would welcome a mediator between him and me.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you show with a diff where you edited Palestine before I did? I'd also appreciate it if you could say what you were doing at Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report, posting right after me? Thanks. (NB: the reversion of my edit you point to above has itself been reverted/modified. That's how things go in I-P areas, but it doesn't give you the right to follow me around, even if we do share similar interests.) IronDuke 12:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The ANI raised by User:Ceedjee that mushroomed into a 3RR block on him (imposed and then lifted) can be seen here - and it looks as is there is funny business going on. User:Shevashalosh was attempting a naked act of denial (the re-naming of Deir Yassin Massacre to "Battle" - the same action that previously got another editor permanently banned from the article). I feel confident that if Shevashalosh had been of a different POV, he'd have been summararily handed a long block like this one. It seems strange indeed that Ceedjee's problems with Shevashalosh have led to sudden and unwanted attention on his edits, since there's no question that he's a generally well-respected editor (I've usually felt that Ceedjee was of a different, perhaps opposite POV to me, but I've always respected what he's brought to articles, as have others). Checking the diffs offered against Ceedjee, I see only evidence that he has been courteous and thoughtful. PR^talk 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, PR, given your extraordinarily long block log starting with "Serial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:BLP", I defer to your experienced interpetation. IronDuke 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:ROH Historian

This editor was previously blocked (too short IMO) for baseless and outrageous claims, that most editors he encounters want him to commit suicide. Please look at User_talk:ROH Historian#Only warning. It's the same suicide nonsense all over again and something about my "misguided anger" and "brand of hatred". It's rather disturbing, really. Someone please issue an indef block, this is unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's exceedingly poor form to say "most editors he encounters want him to commit suicide", but this is easily blockable as a personal threat. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And now this: [76]. This guy has issues. Exceedingly poor form? I'd say those claims are beyond poor form.--Atlan (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say more like patently ridiculous. In any case, this user is clearly disruptive and seems more intent on disruption than constructively editing. Shereth 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I was about to block myself as even thinly-veiled emotional blackmail puts other editors into a difficult position, and that cannot be acceptable here. But he is now blocked. --Rodhullandemu 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the community will forgive me; I took the liberty of blocking him indefinitely. I think he's being intentionally disruptive; no one would react the way he has unless they were either being obnoxious on purpose or seriously mentally ill, and my guess is that the former applies in this case. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to unblock him- and take on the job of teaching him the basic interpersonal skills that most of us master by age 7. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a moment he is simply trolling, which is why I thought the 24 hour block was too short. Good block.--Atlan (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments like "This is why school shootings happen because innocent people like me are forced to eat shit sandwiches by people like you" being reported to the cops would soon teach this editor a lesson in thinly-veiled threats. Steve ^{T • C} 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

←It's highly likely that this guy is a sock of User:MaskedSuperAgent, blocked for much the same thing back in May. Kevin (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp attack on CHU

Vandal Grawp has targeted WP:CHU. User:Jpgordon has brought to our notice that Grawp has been creating all requested user names on that page, thereby denying legitimate renames. This complicates the renaming procedure, not to mention is quite irritating. Any ideas how to tackle Grawp and this latest round of attack? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you not simply rename the stolen-names to "StolenName19930103" and so on, thus freeing up the desired username for the good-faith user requesting it? The page says, Account names requested here are regarded as being "reserved" until the request is accepted or rejected. If someone else registers the account while the request is here, it will be renamed if necessary to allow for the requested move. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action. Grawp probably attacked that page specifically for that purpose: if we make it clear to him it's not really a hindrance, he'll stop. That's the whole purpose of WP:RBI, anyway. Either rename them to something like "Stolenname" or just a string of gibberish: or, better yet, names he's likely to use anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp's attacks won't dent us, we can always circumvent it by early renames or usurps, but as Grawp has shown in the past, he does not give up easily. I remember the number of pages I had to clear from my watchlist after those page moves of his. I'm sure he is using some kind of anonymous proxy to edit, and that makes it harder for us to catch him. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that. But notice that I've asked the affected users if they still want to use a name that has, unfortunately, been associated with the vandal Grawp. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need to advise those wanting a non-usurp name change to register the new name as a placeholder before making a visible request, so that the page effectively becomes "requests to usurp your own dummy account" (unless of course we want to add a Special:Renameself extension). — CharlotteWebb 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If they create it, we still have to blow it away to effect the rename. Mzmcbride has put in a bug six to prevent requested names from being created while the request is pending. This would be an excellent fix if the developers can do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a rename log entry in either case but at least no block log entry due to vandals' use of the user's new name. — CharlotteWebb 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget the other side of this (where I first caught it in action): he went down the list of recently changed names, and registered the old names for himself.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the old-fashioned low-fi way (creating a new account and linking to the old one—if you feel like it) is safe against both types of attacks... — CharlotteWebb 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors who request renames on account of privacy. i.e. they prefer changing their real name to a pseudonym and doing away with the old ones. If Grawp recreates the old id, it could lead to complicated privacy issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody has privacy concerns and half a brain they will register a new account rather than renaming the old account (a renamed account is too easy for even a casual stalker to figure out by looking at signed talk page edits prior to the rename, and there's no easy way around this). If there is no rename there is no risk of name-squatting by an impersonator, before or after the transition. — CharlotteWebb 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen CHU then. Most of the requests placed are by mint new editors. About 30% of the requests fail to read the rules, and several more fail to abide by the in-your-face checklist. Many of the requests are badly formatted, some don't even bother to check on the status of their request. So the talk of one having half a brain...errr, a revision of that figure would be more apt. When it comes to privacy, editors do not wish to leave their real name as a username on Wikipedia, so for them, purging any mention of the old name is what they seek, and most often it is their last edit to Wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time this sort of thing has taken place. Although it would be a slight reduction in transparency, perhaps we need to set up a system where renames and usurps are requested by e-mail to a mailing list, rather than on-wiki? The fact of renaming could then be posted on an on-wiki page after, rather than before, the renaming take place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it gets out of hand, that's a scenario we might have to consider. :( But that does not prevent Grawp from checking the rename log and creating the new accounts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One solution is that the old user accounts be automatically be tagged by a marker that prevents the old account from being recreated. If in a future an established editor decides to create it, they would have to go through the usurp channels. This would prevent unscrupulous giants from taking over. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On some projects it is standard practice for the bureaucrat to immediately re-register the a dummy account for the old name of the renamed user, manually of course, to prevent anyone from using it, maliciously or by default. It would be easy enough to add a checkbox for bureaucrats (enabled by default) to do the same thing automatically so that there is no chance of forgetting or being beaten by a person or bot stalking the rename log, and simpler than any novel flagging system for non-existing but off-limits usernames. — CharlotteWebb 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the count is, but the renames here are over a thousand per month. With such as high number, our policy on en places the onus on the renamed user to recreate the old account rather than bureaucrats recreating old accounts if they have privacy concerns. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me a wee bit of programming could make it a simple matter of checking a box on the rename page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:EdwardsLovechild

Resolved

 – Blocked for username vio. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I indefblocked this user for hate speech, for creating Nigga culture and American nigga, the user's only edits except for this one.

The user has complained that the terms are notable and therefore the speedies and block are inappropriate.

I know only too well that I can get things wrong, so am looking for another admin to look over my actions. As I've already indicated to the user, if I'm out of line, the actions are reversible and I'll happily apologise. In the meantime, I've left him/her blocked. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The username is enough... seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think that escalating blocks would be more appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly considered it as a username block myself, given which article I saw the account editing on. They appear to have switched to Slemvu (talk · contribs) as a new account. That account at least lacks the inappropriate username issues. GRBerry 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reblocked for username violation, and indef. blocked Slemvu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). seicer | talk | contribs 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at Art Center College of Design

I am reporting a legal threat here, probably in response to a WP:BLP violation here. I am not sure what to do at this point. I was advised to report it here. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• This BLP is all over the official site of the college. The story is public, annals are online. Remove quotes around 'master plan' and it's as PC as it could be. NVO (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing any information like that on the school web site. Hopefully someone can add some references, or it should go. I removed the BLP violation. The threat of lawsuit message keeps coming back. Can an admin semi-protect this article? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP making the main threats, which appears to be registered to a law firm, was blocked by FisherQueen for making legal threats, as was another anonymous user. With these two blocked, I don't see a real need to lock down the article as well, but feel free to submit a request at WP:RFPP if it escalates. --jonny-mt 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is strange. The threat obviously did not come from a lawyer (or if it did, a very odd one) Wikidemo (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Fain is an architectural firm, not a law firm. Corvus cornix_talk 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up--I saw an important-sounding name in connection with a legal threat and just kind of assumed.... --jonny-mt 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images not resizing again

I'm experiencing what seems like a repeat of the problem we had the other day, where images wouldn't resize, there'd just be a placeholder instead. Anyone else seeing this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

block evading sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tatcher --Enric Naval (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please indef-block User_talk:Zombified26 as painfully obvious block-evading sock of indef-blocked User:Zombified24. Same name scheme as indef-blocked User:Zombified22.

Also, per his user page [77], he is also User:Haroldandkumar12, User:Harlot666, and User:Wikihatingjew, all of them being indef blocked by Tatcher as socks of the same user. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Jorge Queirolo B.

Hi, I'm sysop on Spanish Wikipedia and today we find out that this article (check deletion log) has been created by anonymous users and single-purpose accounts in several wikis, including here. This article violates your vanity, COI and notability policies, and may be eligible for deletion. If you want, you can check the creation of this article in the following Wikis:

af:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, az:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, bar:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, bs:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, ca:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, cbk-zam:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, cs:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, da:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, de:Jorge Queirolo, diq:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, en:Jorge Queirolo B., eo:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, et:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, eu:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, fi:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, fr:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, fur:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, hr:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, hu:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, id:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, it:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, la:Georgius Queirolo Bravo, lad:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, lt:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, ms:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, mt:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, nds-nl:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, nl:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, nn:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, pl:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, pms:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, pt:Jorge Queirolo B., ro:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sc:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sco:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sk:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sl:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sq:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sv:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, sw:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, tr:Jorge Queirolo Bravo, vls:Jorge Queirolo Bravo.

In addition, a checkuser verification in Spanish Wikipedia thrown a relationship between the anonymous users involved in the creation of the article and Jorge Queirolo Bravo. Please, review the quoted article with your local policies and delete it if necessary. Cheers, KveD (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request is here. In my view the article should be deleted as soon as possible per Kved arguments. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with 90.199.99.31, yet again

This user is back, pushing same things as he did before his last temporary ban. He just violated the WP:3RR again on the same article as last time, [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. He is trying to push the same information on several other articles, such as [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]. I am just not getting through to him, despite leaving several comments in both the edits, and on his talk page. He won't add a source, or even an edit reason. There are several other things he's trying to push aswell, such as [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99], even though it contradicts official sources and articles linked. This is getting tiresome. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that request. This anonymous IP editor has no interest in following Wiki policy and continues to re-add disruptive, and sometimes blatantly false, information despite all previous warnings and blocks. Libs (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This IP doesn't seem to want to play nicely, and to make the same disruptive edits on returning from a block is strongly indicative of one who knows The Truth. The IP seems stable, so blocked for 3 months; review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual Twinkle vandalism spree and death threat

Resolved

 – Well, that was fast, lemur.

I'm at work, can I ask you lot to deal with this, or at least make a lot of noise about it? Thanks. --Kizor 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again today User:Rapidfire squad blocked indef - but the attack text remains in the history - any automatic method of dealing with that? cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight. I just fired off an e-mail. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Difficult situation

• Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few months ago, it was found out that Steelerfan-94 was using sockpuppet accounts HornetFather19 (talk · contribs) and HornetUncle (talk · contribs) to iminate banned user Hornetman16, see here and here. Steelerfan-94 made his last edit here after Alison requested that he e-mailed her, but Steelerfan-94 said that "it never sends me that message or what ever". That was his last edit, and his account has since been inactive since the end of May, see his contributions. However, for the past few days, I have seen an anonymious IP message leave messages on several of his friends talkpage see [100][101][102], with messages asking the users to e-mail him at "zac1194@gmail.com", see [103][104]. I dunno why he is doing this, asking for users to e-mail him, but I just found it a bit strange. Having asked some of the users he has contacted what he wanted, it appears he thinks his account (Steelerfan-94) is indefinitely blocked, despite the fact it isn't blocked. I'm not quite sure why he's hiding behind an IP to leave comments on other people's pages. Any comments would be appreciated. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can leave a note at Steelerfan-94's talk page reminding him that he is not blocked and can edit from his account (maybe also leave messages at the IPs' talk pages). The IP contributions you mentioned do not appear to be disruptive, so I don't think that an admin action is required at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The user's left a comment on his talkpage using his username after I reverted the IP twice. This can get tagged as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this below, unaware of this section: Back in May, this user created two sockpuppets: User:Hornetchild16 and User:HornetFather19, impersonating the banned User:ChristianMan16. When it was revealed through checkuser, User:Alison confirmed that it was Steelerfan abusing multiple accounts, impersonating the banned user. Recently, he has talked to Alison and claimed that Alison agreed not to block him. I highly disagree with that, as I believe that is a sockpuppeteer abuses multiple accounts once, there is no doubt they might do it again.

Recently he returned using two different IP's and asked multiple users to e-mail him including User:SRX and User:Wrestlinglover. User:D.M.N. and myself realized the situation and contacted Alison, currently to no response. Steelerfan returned to his account and seems to be bragging that he is not being blocked. I think that per WP:SOCK, and indef block should be given to Steelerfan. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not something I have an opinion on but people should note that there was some discussion about this user above in the section "Difficult situation". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know of a way to resolve this? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the spirit of the law (building an encylopedia) rather than the letter (punishing people for misdeeds 3 months ago). I recommend asking this user directly if he intends to help build the encyclopedia (not work on signatures or have discussions on user pages). If so, let's move forward. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it seems unfair to all of those who have socked and been blocked. I just find it completely fair that Steelerfan receives the proper punishment for his wrong actions. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was archived without being resolved. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

im not an admin, but according tot he WP:BLOCK policy, blocks are prevnatiative, not punitive. admins issue blocks when warnings have faile to stop and illicit act, not to punish someone. If someone does something like vandaliam or sockpuppeting and gets warned and then stops, an admin wont come back three months later and block him for something that he stopped doing. Remember, blocks are not punishment; they are to stop ongoing trollwork only. Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found this now, having been unaware of it, and having been away for the weekend. Ok, to clarify, I did not agree for SteelerFan to "remain" unblocked so he could roam around Wikipedia. He contacted me via my talk page and once or twice since over email where I suggested that he sit tight and not do anything until I'd had a chance to deal with the situation. He does not have carte blanche from me or anyone else to edit Wikipedia right now. I hope that much is clear.

Having said that, my intent is (and was) to bring this matter to the community and petition to have Steelerfan's behaviour reviewed. After I caught him socking last May, he contacted me last May 31 and I suggested he make a frank and open statement to the community to explain his behaviour, and why he created sock accounts to get HornetMan16/Christianman16 into trouble. At that point, he disappeared and hadn't edited since. His account remained blocked. As checkuser, I'd like to point out that I generally don't block accounts in circumstances like that, as I'd rather not play judge, jury and executioner. It was not a straightforward case.

At this point, it's been almost three months and I personally think any price that has to be paid, has been so. The primary motivation for exposing these sock accounts were to clear Hornetman16 of blame, as he swore vehemently that they were not his. Checkuser, indeed, showed that they were not; they were Steelerfan's. Let me point out that Steelerfan was not the only one indulging in this sockery. Right now, I see no reason why Steelerfan should not be allowed back to edit. He has indicated in email that he's ashamed and embarrassed by what he did, and that it was a one-off event in an otherwise clean record. However, since he tried to contact me on my talk page, both User:D.M.N. and User:iMatthew have been lobbying to have him indefinitely blocked and his talk page clearly shows that.

Right now, I'd like the community at large, and preferably members of WP:PW to review the matter and decide what needs to be done here. EIther way, it's unfair to all to leave the matter hanging like this. They guy hasn't edited in almost three months, he's really sorry and he'd like to be allowed return to productive editing. However, that's not my call to make. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re-block indefinitely, or invoke the {{2nd chance}} template. D.M.N. (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Re-block" is a bit of a misnomer, as he was never blocked in the first place. Can you give further detail as to why he should now be blocked, 3 months after the fact? - Alison ^❤ 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Quote from you: "At that point, he disappeared and hadn't edited since. His account remained blocked." - he was never blocked according to you. Also, IMO if he never disappeared he almost certainly would of bee blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Oops - typo. That should read, "... his account remained unblocked". Either way, I'd been hoping to get some sort of explanation from the guy as to why he did it, but it wasn't forthcoming at the time. It turns out that he'd basically stopped because he was too embarrassed to deal with it at that time. I can understand that, and he did do damage, esp. to Aaron. Overall, it sounds like a silly prank that went too far. Point is, where do we go from here? - Alison ^❤ 08:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Too embarrased - how's that a suitable reason? Also, that doesn't fall into the two questions you provided him here. In my view, he's gotten away with clear, abusive sockpuppetry. D.M.N. (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. My personal preference at this point would be for him to make a public statement and at least give an undertaking never to indulge in this nonsense again. His contribs show him to be a good all-rounder with a clean history and I think indefblocking him now, 1) smacks of punishment and 2) is of little benefit to the project. While I can't speak for Aaron, I'm sure he's largely over the offense at this point. His name was dissociated from the socks and this was his main objective - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm just a fairly new editor and this is just my opinion so you can completely ignore it! I think he's generally sorry and i as a christian belive in second chances! I think we should give him a trial for a month or so let him back to wiki! And Monitor his edits if there good he can stay if there not then he can get blocked! thanks for your time Adster95 (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm very very sorry. I tried to apologize at WP:PW but it was reverted within seconds. Please listen to me I'm sorry. If you give me his E-Mail address I'll apologize to Aaron. ZACH 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be legitimately sorry about the situation to me. I support giving him a second chance, while making it clear that he's essentially on thin ice and any more mess-ups could result in an indefinate block. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I should state at this point, that according to the edit count, he has edited the mainspace 291 times, and has edited his userspace (User and User talk) 799 times out of 1,234 edits. That means he has on average, edited the mainspace in 23% of his edits, yet has edited the "userspace" in 64.7% of his edits. I hope that when (and if) he is given a second chance (when I say second chance, I actually mean invoking the {{2nd chance}} not just some comment saying, "Hey, this is your second chance") I hope to see the trend reversed, so that at least 60% of his edits come from the mainspace. D.M.N. (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes DMN your right I don't have the edit count I should have, It's something I was working on and I plan on going back to a standard signature and having Alison Locking My signature page. So yes that is going to change. And DMN is that really relivent to the main subject at hand? ZACH 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very relevant ... your role as an editor on Wikipedia is to improve the Wikipedia project and not improve your image. Not an overarching problem in and of itself, but it does seem to be a symptom. BMW(drive) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could Galaxypublicity be connected to www.Galaxypublicity.com

Resolved

 – One article deleted as CSD#A7, second article not eligible for CSD. User softblocked by Gb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violation of username policy. SoWhy 11:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

http://galaxypublicity.com/ is a PR agency whose clients http://galaxypublicity.com/nav.php?p=clients.html include Satine Phoenix and Shay Lynn. User:Galaxypublicity has created two articles Satine Phoenix and Shay Lynn. This could be a deeply unfortunate coincidence, but both articles look like PR work. ℑonathan ℂardy(talk) 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack, wuack. both can probably get speedy deletion nom'd as spam. ThuranX (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. WP:CSD#G11 is rather strict and those articles, even if PR work, sound rather neutral to me (maybe needing a bit of cleanup). They might fail WP:BIO but that is then a case for AFD. SoWhy 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted them under A7 rather than G11, and softblocked the username for violation of the username policy. _Gb^T/c 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Although on second thoughts I've restored Satine Phoenix, as that may have been a bit hasty (WP:PORN and all). With only one film to her name, though, I think Shay Lynn is clearly speediable._Gb^T/c 07:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:75.187.90.247

Resolved

 – Case for WP:AIV once enough warnings have been given. User seems to have stopped vandalizing though. Please report at WP:AIV if vandalism continues. SoWhy 11:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:75.187.90.247 seems to be a vandalism-only account. See:
  • User talk:75.187.90.247
  • Special:Contributions/75.187.90.247
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helmet&action=history

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, you should list it at WP:AIV after it has received enough warnings. SoWhy 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of attack- and vandalism-only accounts coming from that IP range... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

stalking, harassment and personal attacks

I am posting here anonymously because the editor harassing me also stalks me. I have been attacked by him for two years and my work here is very difficult because of either harassment or threat of harassment. I would appreciate it if I could continue this via email as I see no way of continuing here without interference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.66.106 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but if I can make a small suggestion? Create a new Wikipedia account. On the user page explain that you are user X (I suggest putting spaces in the name or something so it can't be caught with a google search by your stalker). Using the new account contact an admin who has observed this behaviour for advice. You'll need to provide some diffs showing what you mean by them posting harrasement and also some diffs perhaps showing how they keep editing (unrelated) pages and following you around. I hope this helps. As I'm not an admin I can't do more than this for you I'm afraid. 85.65.228.58 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I was hoping that by posting here, an admin who is specifically interested in or assigned to these types of problems could reply and I could then email him/her. If that doesn't happen, I'll try plan B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.66.106 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should look at the Dispute resolution process. You should think about filing a user conduct request for comment that contains evidence of the alleged stalking. The community will evaluate your evidence and comment, and if people agree with your view, the result will be peer pressure applied to the other editor. If the editor's behavior does not improve after an RFC, things like topic bans and revert restrictions can be applied by admin consensus or by going through arbitration. But an RFC is the first step. Thatcher 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ peer pressure...I wouldn't quite put it like that because people associate it with school-yard behavior. But, simply, if people agree with your view, the editor in question will be strongly urged to voluntarily improve his conduct, or to cease the cited misconduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite put it like that because people associate it with school-yard behavior And this was an incorrect analogy how? Thatcher 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incorrect, lol - just that I wouldn't quite put it that way.... Didn't want it to sound overly negative, should anyone interpret it that way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eyes

Resolved

 – several comments from admins on talk page about the need for WP:RS Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could some eyes see article please. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser needed for case of edit summary spam and harassment

Could a checkuser take a gander at ZapThunderstrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rapidfire squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and see if there is an underlying IP range that can blocked? Dealing with this persistent edit summary shock site spammer and hate mongerer is getting tiresome. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser requests should be posted at WP:RFCU. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly for normal situations, however the gravity of this situation requires something a little speedier. Or so one would hope since earlier today ZapThunderstrike made 300 edits while using this edit summary: "Vandalizing United Kingdom because "I'M IN YOUR WIKI, VANDALIZING YOUR ARTICLES - [redacted website] - [redacted user] IS A RAPIST"; using TW." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thatcher 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooksi

This editor is going through seemingly every horror film made before 1960 and adding Category:Pre-1960 horror film stubs to the article. I have asked him several times today to stop and his response has been not only to continue the disruptive editing but to revert my removal of some of his inappropriate edits. Is there a bot or a tool that can do a mass-revert of his edits? Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I think this would be more fit for WP:CFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what is the problem? If he's putting pre-1960 horror film stub articles into their category, they are actually constructive edits. If you disagree with the existence of the category itself, I'll second Gwen's recommendation of taking it to categories for deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rollbacked the addition of the category in nonstub articles. bibliomaniac15 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I don't object to the category nor do I care if he adds the category to actual stub articles, but he's adding them to articles that are clearly not stubs, including B- and GA-class articles where they clearly don't belong. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he was just confused over the 'stub' term. I saw a few other lingering 'this type of movie stub' categories still on articles that had since grown up; he probably just assumed it was an ill-defined term. Seems to have stopped for now in any case. Kuru ^talk 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To make things worse he was directly using the category rather than the stub templates. Speaking for myself I've never gotten a straight answer regarding what is or isn't a stub. WP:STUB only says "a few sentences of text" and we all know that definition is obsolete. I've used a rough standard of "can I read it all without scrolling down?" or "is it wider than it is long?" but have been reverted in both adding and removing stub tags. This could be due in part to differences in users' screen and font size (shrug). — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the definition from the quality scale is good, although still somewhat subjective: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a peculiar category in any case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! What's significant about 1960 for horror films? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot. It was the year of Psycho, which is argued by some to mark a transition from "monsters as horror" to more domestic and psychological threats. But 1960 does appear to be somewhat arbitrary, considering that many post-1960 horror films also involve simplistic monsters running amok. In the absence of authoritative opinion, I'd argue for the somewhat subjective nature of this category, and thus its indefinability. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No to extend this side discussion too much, but doesn't that argument ignore Val Lewton's psychological horror films of the 40s? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguably all American cinema can be broken roughly into a studio system / post studio system classification, a break which occurred over a period of time, and can't be pinned down to a specific year, but which hinges vaguely on the beginning of the 1960s. And there're other things that happened in the 60s, both from outside film (women's lib, sexual revolution), and from within (prominence of the auteur theory, film criticism being taken seriously as an academic discipline) that pushed American movies into a different kind of terrain. It's a divide more visible in genre pictures, particularly horror. I'm not saying it's a flawless category, but one with a leg to stand on at least. Ford MF (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not just doing it with American cinema, IIRC, so the simplistic dichotomy he's applying doesn't necessarily hold water in a world sense. UK horror may have started in the late 50s/early 60s but if I were to choose a watershed year it would be more related to the start of Hammer Horror colour films. That's the problem; unsourced, 1960 is a somewhat arbitrary divide in a fluid time in cinema. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The category is used as a stub-sorting category by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting so if they find it a useful organizational scheme that's good by me. I agree that I'm not seeing 1960 as a watershed year but if the project can use it to their advantage that's fine. Otto4711 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• He's at it again, and now he's adding some kind of template that's adding the descriptive text from the category to articles. Can we roll back his edits again and then maybe find someone fluent in whatever his primary language is to explain what he's doing wrong? Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord, his user page says he's originally from England... Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely- as a protective measure, and left a comment here. He needs to explain his edits, but untill he shows that he understands what he's doing I doubt this should continue. He's already had a shot across the bows with his Category:Homosexuality people deletion, and may need mentoring. --Rodhullandemu 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to notify him of this discussion. Hope my failure wasn't too disruptive. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but there is ample material on his talk page to indicate there's a problem and invite a reaction. He can read this and post comments there if he wishes. Had he been a tad more communicative (i.e. greater than zero), I might have left it, but it was clear he didn't seem interested in that. --Rodhullandemu 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this editor a couple weeks, as he's been quite prolifically unconstructive, and tried to reach out to him about his wayward editing habits, to little avail. The comments he's left on other people's user pages, which are, without hyperbole, utterly incomprehensible, make me doubt if English is indeed his first language, even though he says he lives in Merry Olde England. Ford MF (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same editor who created the categories "The Signature Collection" and "Comic Icons"? He/she added the "B movie" category to "His Girl Friday" the other day. The editor either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care. They never use edit summaries, and almost never respond, which rather sounds like a number of other editors who have been blocked recently. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Skipsievert

Skipsievert (talk · contribs) is causing a disruption on two articles: Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of economic thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has changed a sentence relating to Adam Smith 10 times over the course of the last three days[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114]. He has done this after a consensus was reached that sentence in question was correct as is. He has also attacked other editors' sourcing [115][116][117]. He has also called anybody that disagrees with him an libertarian, which I consider to be a very grave insult but I don't believe there a policy about that. Multiple editors have said why they disagree with him but so far it has done nothing and he continues to be disruptive. Thanks --Patrick (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (Caveat emptor: I'm not involved, but I'm not an admin) Looking at the diffs, the talk pages and the article history, I can say that this is an example of someone pushing a POV in a semi-disruptive manner. The basic content dispute is understandable and simple: do we consider smith the father of economics given the fact that A: what smith wrote on was rightly called political economy and B: economic thought in some sense predates smith. That is a valid discussion to have and there are mainstream views on either side of the issue (it really isn't that heterodox to suggest that economic and semi-economic thought predated smith in a significant fashion). But the content dispute is just the impetus, not the issue. The issue appears to be a refusal to seek consensus, a willingness to reinsert disputed material and a habit of ignoring attempts at reasonable discussion. This is the sort of activity on an article or topic that soaks up time, effort and goodwill. This isn't a new user and he has been blocked for this sort of thing before. I don't see any reason to offer a whole lot of leeway this time. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• It is a content dispute... also... I did not call everyone that disagreed with me a Libertarian... so that is not correct, and if any thing I would say that Patrick Flaherty is the party that should be looked at here. This is not an issue about me, it is an issue about content. I would add that the person above Patrick Flaherty violated the 3 edit change rule today... and I have not. . and have tried to make all changes a matter of debate. I have tried to present good material in an impartial light. Also the accusation is not true. I have mentioned that Patrick Flarety is a Libertarian (in context) because he has brought attention to that on his talk page recently calling himself a conservative libertarian. Since the article has been tried to be biased toward that view point (in my opinion).. I thought it should be pointed out openly... not in any kind of attacking manner... just honestly. The discussion has also been mixed, and contrary to the opinion above the edit has not gotten consensus. Consensus has been trying to be worked through... however the editor above automatically reverts... multiple exceeding times, and does not try to gain cooperation... the person Patrick Flaherty. I have tried patiently to work toward consensus, and am willing to keep doing that. skip sievert (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The 3RR bit seems like wikilawyering to me. I wouldn't describe your actions as anything resembling patient. This can easily become a non-issue if you decide to bring sources and drafts to the talk page rather than reverting edits by other people in order to insert unreferenced claims. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bring out some old mistakes made that have nothing to do with this situation? Why build a case against me personally when this is a content dispute? One that I am willing to be flexible in? I think it should become a non issue... but I am afraid politics has been injected into this now. I did not make up the rule of 3 revert... and accusing me of wiki lawyering in this manner here could be viewed as inflammatory. Another user pointed out to Patrick Flaherty on his talk page about this ... not me... another editor. This issue has little to nothing to do with me as guilty party and everything to do with a lack of cooperation on the article and perhaps a sense of ownership on another's part. How is it that it has been pointed out merely that Patrick Flaherty violated the 3 revert rule and that is somehow turned against me? Careful examination of the history will show that I have tried to cooperate and be flexible. I did bring sources and drafts... It is pretty obvious that you have not followed what has happened on the talk page, Protonk. It may be a good idea for any interested parties who are trying to sort through this to look at the entire lower part of the Talk section page on the article relating to Smith as father for a comprehensive feel for the current discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Smith and the entire article revert history. Adam Smith.Thank you. skip sievert (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't prove to you that I read the Adam Smith talk page, but I did. I saw a half dozen editors asking you to source a contribution you made to an article and most of what I saw in response was your disdain for the sourcing in the article currently. The same pattern occurs in the article history. You insert roughly the same material each time and editors revert those unsourced insertions with new and better sources for the original claim. If you want to cooperate it is as easy as saying "ok, let's compromise, here is what I think the page should say" and providing sources for your claim. Looking at the talk pages I see you making claims and then accusing editors who disagree with you of anything from dishonesty to incompetence. That is why this matter has been raised at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing editors of dishonesty and incompetence? No... that is not true. Pointing out contrary information... that could be viewed as connected and informative... The above is a personal attack. Please stop. It is not true. quote Protonk I see you making claims and then accusing editors who disagree with you of anything from dishonesty to incompetence. That is a personal attack ... plain and simple. This is a content dispute. I have not attacked any one... and feel ganged up on here. Lay off the personal attacks. I am making a protest about this thread in general being used to gang up on a user. Myself... with personal attacks that do not reflect the actual argument here. skip sievert (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Patrick's summary is fairly accurate - skip is denying any suggestion that Smith is the father of economics (which may well be a defensible position), while other editors are saying that he is widely considered to be the "father of economics", or the "father of modern economics", and while that in itself may be slightly weaselly it is exceedingly easy to change that to "economists such as Economist A{cite}, Economist B{cite}, Economist C{cite}, ..., Economist Z{cite} consider Smith to be ...", and I'm sure some of the editors on the topic would have the expertise to say which of the several hundred Google Scholar/Books results would be considered the most reliable on the topic. Skip's use of "libertarian" to dismiss the opinion of everyone who disagrees with him is also exceedingly un-WP:CIVIL, if not a traditional insult. I haven't looked at the bilateral claims of 3RR, but I'm sure an admin can work out what to do with that fairly quickly. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the three reverts that I made this morning in response to his three reverts. [118][119][120] He has been reverted multiple times by 4 other editors so any claims that it is a personal dispute is incorrect as the links in my first statement shows. --Patrick (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that interested parties go to the page in question for the edit history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=232418441

In connection with the current situation the user said in a response that he is a conservative Libertarian on his talk page in context to what was happening. I just mentioned that the article was slanting that way. Does that make me guilty of something. I was not uncivil... when an article is not neutral it should be pointed out. Besides... this is not a pattern. I have not made a big deal about this except as it relates to content in this particular situation and it is being brought out here like I am against all Libertarians. Whether he is or is not I do not even care.. but the article edits were reflecting libertarian bias and I pointed that out. That is not an insult... I agree here with user ConMan that this is a simple edit dispute that could have been worked out easily and still can be just by neutrally editing the phrase. That seems simple. Could it be neutrally phrased and that will be that. Lets just not call him the father please... originator of this and that or progenitor is fine though, although there are elements in the sentence that are inaccurate also. Pardon me about the libertarian thing... but I think this is blown out of proportion... mostly as an excuse to point the finger at me instead of the content of the issue skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Just a comment on the dispute. We are not saying that Smith is the father. We are saying that he is wildly considered the father of economics. The reference we have used is a study that states that the majority of the books claim that he is the father. I really believe he is the uncle of economics but that doesn't matter since I can't source it. --Patrick (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith is not considered to be the father. Many people considered Saddam to be behind 911, but that does not mean it should be presented as possible fact. Since this content dispute can be cleared up easily why was it brought here in the first place..?. so please do not be flippant Patrick about this issue... since you have accused me of being disruptive, which I do not think is accurate. I agree here with user ConMan that this is a simple edit dispute that could have been worked out easily and still can be just by neutrally editing the phrase. That seems simple. Could it be neutrally phrased and that will be that. I also think that this entire process was phrased to inflame... Skip Sievert disruptive editor seems to be titled to bring ill feeling and malice toward my self... which I think is not deserved. Could someone change the title here? Is this really a good title that should have been used... or is the person that brought this here making a point that is not justified? Coming here is a little like the when did you stop beating your wife syndrome with a title like that. I request that it be changed. It is inflammatory and phrased guilt into itself. Whether or not this was done on purpose... is it really called for? It looks to me that this is vindictive phrasing and I protest. This is a simple content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that curious parties go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Smith#Rewrite_of_lead Talk:Adam Smith, for an example of how the article lead is being sourced. The disputed content was given a citation http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute, which claims that not only Adam Smith is not the father of economics, but someone else... is for sure. Is that proper editing.?.. putting a citation to an article that says just the opposite of the content line, that is claimed... and also a very iffy political/economic//Austrian school/ site? Why has that not been reverted... and why was that put on to prove that Smith is the father of economics when it clearly is saying just the opposite that he is not the father of economics? This may be a perfect illustration of what is happening in the article currently. If someone experienced and neutral could redo that section this could be over and resolved.skip sievert (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of that source is "Adam Smith is widely regarded as the father of modern economics." As I've pointed out many times before, the point isn't whether or not Adam Smith is the father of economics. The point is that he is widely regarded as such. Verifiability not truth remember. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you rephrase what this content conflict is about... maybe you should have mentioned that here, since you have defended the previous edit so strongly. Here is the change you just made Frank Tobia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016

Adam Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been involved in this issue for a few days now, and I think the above is a pretty accurate representation of it. Personally I'd say it doesn't look like Skip shows any signs of working amicably with the group on these articles. I personally have tried to give him every opportunity to collaborate, but he keeps giving back the same unyielding responses. As it is, this dispute is taking up valuable effort that would be better spent improving these articles. What is the next step we should take if Skip continues his disruptive behavior? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Frank. Remember (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the source you used is conflicted. Trying to prove a negative and reference the page with something that says the opposite viewpoint entirely is not a good argument. Is it considered disruptive to contribute to a talk page? I am being railroaded here by a couple users. Also you just changed the edit in question to read another way.. without bringing that up here... and continue to make this a personality issue attacking me for trying to be neutral. Your new edit to the page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016 Adam Smith. How is it that after all of this you changed the content to read very differently? Because it needed it I am guessing. skip sievert (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been timid about participating here because Skip & I have had heated exchanges on several topics and articles, besides those in question here. I do think Patrick's summary captures what's been happening. There's consensus but Skip repeatedly changes the article in spite of that. While he's done a little refactoring and has claimed he didn't mean to accuse me of dishonesty, several of his comments very strongly appear to accuse me of "faking" references. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics has nothing to do with this. That article has been completely done recently. Mostly at my direction. It looks pretty good now. This is not a blog for attacking other users. This is a content dispute about Adam Smith that is probably resolved now because the worst part of the edit has been redone...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016 Adam Smith, you cretog came to my site and harassed me early on... and I asked you to stop. Rembember? You called me a kook? Statements like that, to be frank, make you sound like a kook, even if you're right. end quote cretog skip sievert (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:ONUS and WP:PROVEIT, also WP:BRD (with the emphasis on the D). The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content. People here are not interested in arguing the rights and wrongs of the edit, which is (rightly) decided by discussion on the article's talk page; people here are looking at your behaviour and seeing disruption. Bearers of WP:TRUTH are not exempt from editing guidelines, so either drop it or wait until you have persuaded others. And bear in mind that if the attempt to persuade goes on too long then that, too, may be considered disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok Guy. I will go by what you say. I very much respect your opinion. skip sievert (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world strikes again

After a long absence (following two blocks, see

this and

this,

User:Cult free world has returned to his same disruptive editing patterns as before (i.e., making non-consensus unilateral changes to an article here, here, here and here;

name-calling here and here).

Multiple editors have repeatedly tried to engage him in meaningful discussion but he reverts to name-calling and stubbornly refuses to discuss content or compromise (as he did before, because of which he was blocked).

The last time he was blocked, the consensus was that if he returned with his same editing patterns, he would either be indefinitely banned or topic-banned from "new religious movements" article pages - Please see this.

His recent edits are in direct contradiction to previous consensus and it appears he has no intention of making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia (indeed, even his user talk page is blocked because of unblock request abuse). He has been warned regarding vandalism and he just removes the warning (see this).

Please, can someone put an end to this?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can the member's of the sahaj marg cult (Renee, Marathi Mulga, Sethie, Embhee and duty2love) point out what is the problem with the edits ??? any WP:RS or any other policy violation, or is it they have some personal vendatta against me, which they are demonstrating elsewhere on web and are atking it on wikipedia as well ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins, Please help us out here. The user "cult free world/talk-to-me" has now violated 3RR here, refuses to engage in discussion (and indeed, these issues have been discussed over and over again, please see User:Embhee's note here where he lists various threads where the items Cult is changing where discussed in depth. He engages in repeated incivility, calling anyone who disagrees with him a "cult member" (see above).

Most importantly, please see this, which shows a history of repeated disruption of Wiki. Please see his talk page here, which shows a complete unwillingness to "get it." Renee (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Todd (User:Toddst1) for addressing Cult Free World (User:Cult free world). The change he did here significantly differs from what has been agreed upon by all editors of the page here, the contents of which has remained relatively stable and acceptable by all editors and users over the past several months, if you look at the history. All the changes mentioned by Cult Free World have been discussed many times over and he has been told that if he doesn't agree then we can to go to mediation, but he refuses and keeps engaging in edit-warring.

Last time Cult Free World was on the ANI board, I understood that he would be permanently blocked if he returned to his old ways as he has here. Please refer to this discussion here, that happened last time when we had this similar issue. Embhee (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Block extended to indef

I'm unsure of the procedure here, so apologies if I've stepped on anyone's toes. I've extended User:Cult free world's block to indefinite. Based on the account's edit history, and the previous ANI discussion linked above, I see no reason to afford this disruptive editor any more 'last chances'. I've also removed User:Toddst1's {{resolved}} notice, since others may wish to comment. EyeSerene^talk 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement in the previous discussion. The project's better off without editors who push an agenda in article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for everyone. Cult free world is one of those for whom it is not. Every single edit seems to have stirred up a shitstorm. I am seriously unsympathetic to cults, this one made opposing cultcruft considerably harder. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Block endorsed, per Wildthing and Guy. Way too many chances ... looking at the history, I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Blueboy96 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have tried working with this user patiently for a long time but with little success. His behavior was very much like 2 previous users who got blocked permanently for similar reasons, this sock report ended concluding just short of that. So, perfectly right decision! Duty2love (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Atul Aarohi

Resolved

 – Pages deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure, but I believe that this is the right place to air my concerns. This user has been using his account for personal purposes. Let me explain. If you notice his contributions, the first thing that one would notice is that he has contributed primarily on his user page. This may seemingly not be a potential issue, but look at his first contribution. It says the following: This wiki page will be used to communicate project status to all Aarohi members.

This appears to me that the user is utilizing his user space for personal reasons (commercial/non-commercial). I believe that his talk page corroborates my thoughts. I felt that this behavior is not expected here on wikipedia when funds are being donated for storage servers. Does anyone echo with my concern and possibly suggest what could be the next steps? Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see currently, there is nothing to judge by yet. We are not desperately in need to save every kB of webspace, so I advise patience. You should leave the user a note, echoing your concerns and leaving them a link to WP:UP#NOT for now. If he/she ignores it and really starts using the user page as a web page devoid of any Wikipedia related content then I think we can do something. No need to do something now as there is currently nothing happening yet. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was about to heed to your advise and write to him on his talk page when I see that his user page and talk page have been deleted. I wonder what happened here. Mspraveen (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed that an admin deleted both these pages. Mspraveen (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right - Wikipedia is not a free message board or anything of that sort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone also delete User:Aarohi ihp sus, which seems to have the same or similar content? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this BLP violation?

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Merbabu made these remarks in the talk page of John Howard. In reference to Mahathir, quote "ramblings ...refactor here too Matilda ^talk 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) past." The whole conversation can be folowed at here. I wanted to remove it myself and notify him as I thought it violates WP:BLP but decided to let administrators decide. Thanks. Docku^Hi 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns will have a better chance to be addressed by these who are monitoring WP:BLP/N. Consider posting a notice there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but i wonder if it is needed that admin Toddst1 already acted upon it. Thanks. Docku^Hi 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think refactoring was more appropriate rather than removal of all comment--Matilda ^talk 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick image help

Image:Tornado sm010.jpg I think this image is suspect. A lot of User:Pensil's uploads have been copyright violations and he has had a lot of his images deleted. Could an admin (or anyone else erudite with images) take a quick look into this and see if it is actually self-made? He's been warned many times, according to his talk, for copyright violations. Any help much appreciated, thanks. Utan Vax (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture is from Georgia (thought the plates were Ontario at first, but trucks/vans are black lettering with AA# ###, and this one is AAA ###). Someone else can check image tags I hope. BMW(drive) 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image comes complete with EXIF data, which I doubt it would have if lifted from elsewhere. Looks OK to me. Nothing lookee-likee on Google images so I'd guess it's OK. Would be better on Commons, however. --Rodhullandemu 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just spam

no comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.95.112 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably just as well. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody isn't happy about their article - block-worthy COI?

An IP altered references relating to a court case in Kevin Sullivan (producer) to make them invalid. WHOIS says that the IP belongs to "sullivan-ent.com". This relates to a previous incident involving legal threats (or maybe implied quasi-legal invocations) to remove similar links. Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs), Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs), and 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs) (the IP in question) appear to be related accounts. This seems like a more under-handed way of accomplishing what they failed to do the first time around. Discuss. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not a death threat, not surely some admin cares about blatant WP:COI and harmful editing enough to deal with this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest aren't blockable. Spamming is, and a variety of bad-faith actions are as well, but editing in areas related to you dis discouraged, not disallowed. WilyD 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately editing links so that people won't retrieve information about a lawsuit involving your company isn't block-worthy? It's hardly constructive editing. If I'm alone in thinking that this is an egregious edit, I'll let it drop. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget the COI, isn't altering the urls just plain old blockable vandalism? Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than blockable vandalism: it has explicitly malicious intent. It's the difference between stealing a street sign and rearranging stop signs.
Kww (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like vandalism to me. Preventative measures should probably be taken. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Warn the IP for vandalism, block it if it continues. Keep the relevant pages watchlisted and deal with any other IPs or accounts that pop up..._Gb^T/c 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blockable vandalism, certainly; and a side order of sockpuppetry on all their socks? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some fairly template-y warnings have been issued. Mschwartz is probably the IP address, Sullivan may or may not be. WilyD 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By some warnings, it looks like you mean one, and not to the IP who made the edit. In addition to the aforementioned edit, I've discovered that after the last appearance at AN/I fixed the article up, User:Sullivanmovies made this edit which conflated a Canadian lawsuit with what appears to be a separate Japanese lawsuit. I can only assume after today's edit that this was also done to intentionally mislead. The edit summary was "Added result of lawsuit for the sake of balance" and it followed immediately after the mention of the Canadian suit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sullivanmovies has two, and the IP has three. IPs often don't get messages, especially if they're jumpin' around or whatnot. He certainly seems to have some formatting problems (everything written is formatted badly). Anyways, barring further action on his part, there's nothing to do, and if he resumes blanking/mangling things without discussion, we can always force some. Otherwise, there's nothing to do. WilyD 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you're soft-pedalling this, but the only warning related to today's issue appears to be the one you left regarding the user's name, not their edits. Can someone step up here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs) made a very similar deliberate link-breaking change as the one detailed above, in Anne of Green Gables (1985 film) a related article. Can someone start handing out blocks, please? See the previous AN/I thread about these articles - there's a nasty pattern here and these articles will need a close looking at. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting this issue at WP:COIN might be another option, since that's a good place to track slow-moving bad edits related to COI. Removals of text by COI-affected people that claim to be BLP-justified can also be reported at COIN, like the removal mentioned in the AN/I thread above. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The COI is the motivation for what are clearly unacceptable edits, but I was hoping someone would act based on those edits. I'll take it to COIN (and SPP) tomorrow if there's no action by then. Thanks for the suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now got some pure and simple copyvio to add to that, in case anyone is following this thread. User:Mschwartz311 cut and pasted straight from www.sullivanboutique.com into Anne of Avonlea (1987 film). Take note of the domain name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review requested

Resolved

 – Block endorsed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just blocked Dsegal58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for disruptive editing and constant violations of NPOV on United States twenty-dollar bill. The editors only mainspace edits are to this page and Criticism of Wikipedia. I welcome a review of this block since a perusal of the editor's talk page leads me to believe that they will protest this block vehemently. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a sound block to me. _Gb^T/c 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with this block. I don't know if reading WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS would help them. There's nothing untowards about getting critical, sourced PoVs into an article but this. is. not. the. way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely blockworthy, but you might want to reduce it to a week or two. I'm not sure if the activity calls for indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Along that very line, I was kind of hinting, that if the user is willing to settle down and cite some sources, indef is not forever. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block, it looks like the user is here to push an agenda. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

←Would someone mind responding to a quasi-unblock not in the unblock template request posted on the user's talk page? It seems as though he's a college professor and on his website he's made his position quite clear. His remarks on the user talk page after the block and what he sent to me in an e-mail that I'm not going to respond to (so he doesn't get my e-mail address) leads me to believe that he doesn't and will never understand why what he did was inappropriate. Also, these edit summaries say quite enough: [121], [122]. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and properly formatted an unblock request there, so admin review is again requested. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is resolved - the block's been endorsed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that this professor be unblocked so I can discuss a new way of dispute resolution. This is certainly not the best first test case but I wish to start. Reblocking can occur in a few days if I am not successful. 903M (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly out of the ordinary (not sure if it's acceptable to use an unblock tag on behalf of another either). But, why can't this 'new way of dispute resolution' be attempted through email and on his talk page? The block was specifically to prevent damage on the encyclopedia itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be done through e-mail because this new method, called the provisional editorial council, doesn't operate in secret. Everything is in the open and above board. Anyway, the unblock request has been denied as is very common so this dispute resolution type technique will have to find another qualifying user. 903M (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked, protected user talk page

This is an extreme and obvious case of soapboxing and unblock abuse. This individual does not seem to operate in a manner which is compatible with Wikipedia policy or community. I've wiped the talk page and protected it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: East.718 asked if it was ok to unprotect the page and try to continue dialoging with the professor. I have no objection to that, I doubt it will succeed but if he's willing to put the effort in... If that fails, however, it's probably best to re-protect and walk away from the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's ok to unprotect the page and try to talk with him but I wouldn't think an unblock would be at all helpful until this user has acknowledged an understanding of Wikipedia policies, that any expertise one brings to this topic would have to do with knowing the reliable sources and citing them and has said in a straightforward way that the behaviour which led to his block will not happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:I didn't push her

User:I didn't push her has left spam edit summaries on over 100 pages. [123]

This user was blocked but all of the bold, in-your-face, summaries are in the edit history. The summaries also insult a Wikipedia user. Can an admin delete these edits? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but bear in mind that a few dozen cycles of deleting, checking, and undeleting is a lot of effort for admin and server, and only invites further disruption of a similar nature. The particular user targeted here seems to have a healthy sense of humor about this. Possibly you could contact WP:OVERSIGHT about this. Open to second opinions, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I actully wondered about that earlier when the other person was doing the same thing. The only real reason to delete them would be to protect those whou hadn't bother installing an anti-virus program on their computer and decided they had to vist the site. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not people have anti-virus software isn't really important; The fact still remains that these edit summaries are dangerous and purely malicious. I've only seen deletions (and their policies) concerning the content of the article itself, not the edit summary. It's quite literally a different layer we're looking at. Same ballgame, different field. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears this user is still at it. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:ZapThunderstrike [124]
• User talk:Cyanoa Crylate [125]
•  Done See below. Thatcher 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Padillo image purge

I previously posted this hypothetically at WP:AN but as it didn't get much responses I am re-posting it here as I am fairly close to just instituting WP:BOLD on performing this action. Padillo (talk · contribs) is a serial image uploader with a severe case of lying about ownership. The most recent case that has been brought to light is Image:John cena concert-2.jpg, which has been uploaded to commons through its GFDL licensing, has been found to have been cropped from this WWE copyrighted image. Although not all of his images have had sources found for them, all of them from a purely aesthetic perception are professionally done (Image:Jayresochristiancagechamp.jpg), impossible (Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg, dead for 6 years and picture taken over 12 years ago), or ridiculous private/intimate (Image:Ashleylondon.jpg).

Considering the sheer number of images that are violations, and the ridiculous amount of warnings received, it's my move that all the images this user has uploaded be deleted and the user indefinately blocked. However, before I do this, I would like to see if anyone disagrees. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to indef block - this has gone on past enough warnings that he should know better. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block - if he can understand what he was doing wrong and agree not to do so in the future, that's one thing, but there's no reason to think he'll stop uploading images that are copyright violations otherwise. Shell ^babelfish 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin help on re-AfD'd article please

Resolved

 – Take this to Deletion Review. The AfD was closed. seicer | talk | contribs 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Jewish Internet Defense Force just came off its first AfD as "keep" about a week ago and the edit warring was dying down when a user came along and re-afd'd it (here). This seems disruptive. Banjeboi 09:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the nominator should have gone to WP:DRV rather than opening a new AfD so soon after the last, but I saw no evidence that they took part in the prior deletion discussion. It looks like a good-faith nom to me, and constructive debate appears to be taking place, so (leaving aside procedural niggles) I don't really see anything that requires admin attention. What are you suggesting should be done? EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the thread above (Another organized disruption campaign?) but this does seem disruptive. Do we really need to only wait 7 days after an AfD before the next one can start up again? I would hope it could be closed proceedurally as disruptive and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I'm also concerned that we aren't setting a precedent that sometime an article can be AfD'd twice in a month. The group that the article is about has expressed their disdain for wikipedia on their website and at least one person has tried deleting following this edict The Jewish Internet Defense Force ) thinks if Wikipedia cannot get this right, then there's no point to have them in here. Banjeboi 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix

Proven sock puppet Mharvey23 (who is suspected to be Nirvanix's own PR rep, Matthew Harvey) has declared via sock Yellowdude89 information in the Nirvanix article slanderous and manipulated in his AfD nomination, while proposing a boilerplate advertisement as a replacement.

The article was created in good faith by someone independent of all the related companies, clients, suppliers, agents, etc. (and not affected by The Linkup's recent mass data loss) and is well referenced.

Both users were already blocked for sock puppetry and they appear to have resorted to the AfD process, however with a Keep consensus forming it is not clear what action they will take next. I have warned the user with uw-legal but wasn't sure if an indefinite block would be required for implied rather than explicit legal threats. MediaMob (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, where is the legal threat? I don't see it myself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think that's based on what's quoted in the first sentence above. However, even though they've used the word "slanderous", the user is not threatening to take legal action, which is where a block would be applicable to prevent them editing until things are settled. I have to agree with Jasynnash2 though, I don't really see it as a legal threat either. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. As I said, I think they've pulled their heads in but wanted to give you guys the option to intervene before Wikipedia landed in hot water... they've apparently threatened to sue their own founder so it wouldn't be out of character if that were true. MediaMob (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the related article The Linkup seems to be a perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "Controversy" section because it was pushing a conclusion not supported by the sources. Besides that, sections labelled "Controversy" often begin their lives with an inherent NPOV problem. CIreland (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:Justinesmith for being an account that I believe is being used for the sole purpose of promoting a company.

Resolved

 – self-promo article in Afd. No other action necessary at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:Justinesmith is an account that exists for the sole purpose of promoting a company called Sterling Bancroft International (this article is undergoing an AFD discussion, at the time of writing). I believe this because the account's creation of the article about the company is the sole edit this account has committed, and that edit was done back in June. The evidence of this can be found here: [126]. I would also like to note that the CEO of the company, according to the article, is Justin Evan Smith, which is very similar to User:Justinesmith. I have referred this account to this noticeboard because WP:Blocking policy suggests "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines" should be considered for a block. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

perhaps we should wait till the article is deleted at AfD, as seems rather likely. DGG (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? If I am going to come across as someone who thinks they know more about Wikipedia procedure than an admin, I apologise, as I do not think that. I believe that an account which seems to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, is an an account which seems to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, regardless of whether the article it created is deleted or not. I believe this because the edit history of the account does suggest that it has such a sole purpose, and that evidence, imo, is independent of the fate of the article it created. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 1 edit creating a relatively innocuous promo article about his company is hardly reason for blocking. We usually issue a warning (or 4) first. I went ahead and politely warned the user, which is what you should have done rather than bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing it here. I was under the impression that any account which appears to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company should be reported to the admins, regardless of how many times the account has promoted the company. Thank you for the speedy resolution. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My first 1/2 dozen edits were to the same single article, and here I am more than a thousand edits later to hundreds of articles ... the username in question is not obviously related to the article in question. Let's wait it out, as it's not obvious ATM. BMW(drive) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I take that back. Username is promotional ... head of the business is Justin E. Smith (Justinesmith). My bad. BMW(drive) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query on User:Cma vis-a-vis User:Flaminsky

May I respectfully ask enlightenment on: Whether or not, present User:Cma which, according to - Revision history of User:Cma[127] was first edited by User:Flaminsky, is for all Wikipedia intents and purposes, a valid and subsisting User or Username. If I may, it appears that - on 05:33, 17 June 2005 User:Flaminsky (Talk | contribs) created the User page and then User:Cma edited onwards. I noticed that User:Flaminsky per records - that - 04:25, 18 August 2005 Cma (Talk | contribs) began creation of this user page.

Now, per this User talk:Flaminsky - says that User:Flaminsky was: "Vandalism - Please do not edit other users' User pages. Please click the "Discussion" tab to put messages on a user talk page. User:Ral315ral315 05:34, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Oregon. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. User:VegaDark VegaDark 05:46, 2 August 2006(UTC)"[128][129]Revision as of 05:33, 17 June 2005 Sorry about the Mel gibson edits, just playing around too much on my part, -Flaminsky

Then, User:Cma created the present user page from deleted Flaminsky(Vandalism)[130]Revision as of 04:25, 18 August 2005 (edit)

Here, it appears clear, therefore, the origin of Cma from vandalism-Flaminsky[131] Then here:[132] This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cma (Talk | contribs) at 04:25, 18 August 2005. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

IN SUM: Respectfully - My question is: Was the current and past current uses by now User:Cma of-from deleted user User:Flaminsky valid under Wikipedia rules. May I please ask for a ruling in this. Thanks so much. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, the vandalism I reverted is over '2 years old. From the looks of it, he accidentally created a user page instead of a user talk page, and then the user has since changed his userpage to his liking. That's perfectly valid. VegaDark (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)