Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive345

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Mathewignash, fair use and image uploading 2 Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 3 Legal Threat against Wiki at Talk:Muhammad 4 User:Farazilu 5 Talkpage posts removal 6 Suspicious behaviour from User:Geryt69 7 Muhammad 8 Stalking 9 Edit warring and blocking over Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 9.1 Distortions 10 Using a secondary account for disruptive purposes 10.1 re Whittstable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and User:Whitstable 10.2 Semi protect ANI 10.3 Range block 11 Blanking the Dana Ullman article and then protecting the vandalism 12 Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry 13 Is this evasion of a permanent block? 14 Sleeping sockpuppets waking up at TFD? 15 User does not sign posts, ignores warnings 16 User page that could possibly be considered to be advertising 17 User:Twsx 18 Trenton, Ontario 19 Please edit protected Waterboarding article 19.1 User:Haizum 19.2 Another Haizum sock 20 Autoblock, please help 21 Workurban (talk · contribs) 22 NPA problem with disruptive editor 23 Closing AfD without consensus by User:Uncle G 24 User:Antolikebeer 25 User:Fishpaste15 26 Moving a thread down 27 User:SqueakBox's disruption at Larry Sanger and related articles 27.1 Happy holidays -let's have a truce 28 User:Orangemarlin 2 28.1 Re: Harassment Accusation vs OrangeMarlin 28.2 Motion to ban Ferrylodge from Wikipedia 29 Arthur Ellis sockpuppet again 29.1 And another obvious sock 30 Newbie edits heads up 31 Weird contributions 32 Socks Aplenty? 33 User:Jmccusker 34 Requesting help with problem poster 35 Personal attacks and threats by 71.99.81.194 36 Arthur Ellis sockpuppet again 37 User:Asgardian 38 Front Page Newspaper Article about disputes at wikipedia dec27th 39 AdvisorOne, Lethiere, and Jazmin Grace Grimaldi 40 AfD template for The C Word‎ removed from article. Erroneously? 41 Obvious sock-puppet activity 42 List of Hamas suicide attacks 43 User:Aiman619 44 Sock-puppetry, Vandalism, Creation of Multiple User Names 45 Banking conspiracy theories 46 Naomi Oreskes / GTTofAK 47 List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine 48 OTRS request at Help desk 49 IronAngelAlice 50 Shiftedviewpoint 51 PeeWee IP Block Lifted, He's Back 52 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pablothegreat85 53 Harrybabbar 54 User Wendykoontz 55 BLP violations, Fringe theories, advocacy, incivility 56 GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin 56.1 Raul routinely blocking users with whom he's in an edit war 57 RightGot

[edit] User:Mathewignash, fair use and image uploading

Long story short, this user is yet again uploading images with inaccurate or incomplete licensing / rationale. He was originally blocked here for failure to heed notices about his uploading habits, after which he stopped uploading box art sans rationale. He was told here (bottom of the thread) that photos of copyrighted images can't be given free licensing because they're derivatives of copyrighted works, and has received two later warnings for uploading screen grabs of TV clips with no rationale. He's still at it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just block him already. This has got to be at LEAST the fifth or sixth time I've seen him in here. Let's get that clampdown effect going already. ThuranX (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked him. He was already on a parole from indef on the condition that he not upload images anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that there was discussion on Steel's page which led to an amendment that he would be allowed to upload images if he told an admin first. He asked for permission for a bunch of files in November. But of course it's possible that his medium-term memory loss kicked in again. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. The parole did change and currently Mathew is allowed to upload his own GFDL images (but no fair use images) as much as he likes, and he's allowed to add rationales to already-uploaded fair use images providing he doesn't remove the no rationale tag (so someone else can check it over - something that (seems to be working). I thought of noting the change in his block log, but that thing is already very long and the parole could have later changed again, so I didn't. In hindsight, perhaps I should have, and I apologise for any confusion. The warnings he got yesterday were for fair use images uploaded in mid-2006, so I'm unblocking since everything seems to be in order here. – Steel 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite allright; I did look around a bit but didn't find the discussion that led to changing the conditions— I'm leaving a note on the user talk as well. — Coren ^(talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

A persistent anonymous user is adding dubious sourcing, POV edits and edit warring concerning litigation involving this company. Also engaging in personal attacks on Talk pages and in edit summaries, such as [1]. --Samiharris (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is currently listed on WP:3O. Just thought I'd give the admins a heads-up on that. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has been protected.--Samiharris (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Threat against Wiki at Talk:Muhammad

Made by Farazilu (talk · contribs), see [2]. --Strothra (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User has already been warned and given a link to the policy. Nothing to see here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked until the threat is withdrawn. --Versageek 06:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been unblocked, details are in his talk page history.. --Versageek 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Farazilu

He has, among other things, declared a cyber crusade to remove images of muhammad from wikipedia. Also, he thinks it's encyclopedic to call Adolf Hitler a hero. See: Special:Contributions/Farazilu. I honestly don't think he will ever be civil or back down. Zazaban (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking ay his contributions I have to say that he is here for drama rather than writing an encyclopedia. Some people enjoy conflict for conflict's sake but do we need to tolerate them here? I think not. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We definitely do not need more people who aren't interested in looking at things from multiple sides and respect compromises. henrik•talk 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He is, also rather problematically, organising the edit war on Muhammed externally, (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia) which has got that article locked down. WilyD 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as the article is protected, the only problem will be in related articles being targeted (if there is rampant vandalism is can stay protected forever, thats what edit requests are for).

Someone might want to start watching articles in related categories like Category:Muhammad, Category:Prophets in Islam, Category:Islam, and Category:Arab statesmen for cross-pollinated vandalism/POV-pushing Mbisanz (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he's blocked indefinitely, check his block log for reasons why. We're never going to get any productive contributions out of this one in a million years, so there's no point wasting everyone's time. A depressing specimen of the Neo-Nazi-flavoured Islamism arising in the UK. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage posts removal

A user has just gone and removed several posts from Talk:Owen Hart. Is this against policy? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While removing other users' posts can be frowned upon, removing posts not directly related to improving the article is somewhat different. Wikipedia is not a message board or social network, and the posts removed regarding Owen Hart's death appeared to border on speculation and conspiracy talk rather than ideas about how to make the article better Whitstable (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At WP:TALK, one of the examples given as an appropriate time to edit others' comments is when you are deleting material not relevant to improving the article. This removal seems to fit that description. There may be an argument to be made about archiving the discussion instead of deleting it, but there's really no reason to leave it on the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious behaviour from User:Geryt69

Watching recent changes I noticed the above user making a small edit to an article, changing a png to a PNG in an image name. I looked at his contributions and became suspicious as he replaced the image on several pages with the edit summary "minor edit". So I compared the two images in GIMP and there is a small difference in the map shading. I've reverted as hanging an image for a different one clearly isn't a minor edit, but it looks to me as if a user created a sock in order to make the change, which seems strange. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Professionally speaking I would always prefer a png to a PNG or a jpg to a JPG. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So would I but the reason I reverted was that the two images are actually different, although the difference is not obvious. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Steganography? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is around northern Greece, southern Macedonia, southern Bulgaria, Albania, and northwest Turkey. It looks like the languages spoken there have been slightly moved around. Kesac (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The differences are slight, but real. It was marking them as a minor edit, and by a newbie, that made be suspicious. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

note: The relevant links here are Special:Contributions/Geryt69, Image:Languages_of_Europe.PNG, and Image:Languages_of_Europe.png. —Random832 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the actual changes, looks like this is related to Macedonian nationalism. —Random832 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

User:Totipooh has been disruptively removing controversial portions of this article, without any consensus. While I believe that the editor is acting in good faith, we cannot continue to just revert him all day. I request a short-term protection of Muhammed until this blows over. Lankiveil (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Semi-related is this web petition, I unfortunately suspect we'll have a lot of new editors happy to unilaterally censor the page in the coming days. Lankiveil (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

So protection would be best? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Totipooh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't appear to speak English and has done nothing but repeatedly blank material from the article. (6 times in an hour.) Any reason he/she shouldn't simply be blocked? I don't see any need for further protection to the article - it's one disruptive SPA who can simply be blocked. --B (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the article, it's already semied. If others come do the same thing, it might be easier to fully protect it than to block everyone, depending on how many there are. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think protection will be best, the recent edit history of the article is nothing but the images being removed and then reverted, again and again. This particular user might be blocked (although blocking someone who doesn't speak English does not seem terribly sporting, I fear it may sadly be necessary), but that petition site should send a crop of replacements before long. Of course, I leave it up to whatever you admins deem most appropriate. Lankiveil (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

The article is already s-protected. Full protection is only used for an edit war. But in this case, it's one person vandalizing the article, not an actual dispute. --B (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The user moved from the article to the talk page and started blanking pictures and leaving comments like "Pictures Removed By Your Brother Ahmed Natik Please Ask Allah To Reward Me The Jannah" in their place. I have blocked him as a vandalism-only account. Problem solved. --B (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user there is now making what appears to me to be legal threats [3]. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the legal threat warning to the editor's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Block em all, let allah sort em out? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

[edit] Edit warring and blocking over Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

[edit] Using a secondary account for disruptive purposes

There is a chance that Whitstable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is using the account Whitsttable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks and incivility. I already left a warning about the incivility and personal attacks here and the user acknowledged seeing them here. Now, there is a chance that the users are not the same, based on this comment. My opinion, is that User:Whitsttable is the one that needs blocking, as they are the clearly disruptive account. Maybe a checkuser? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See below. Whittstable has been indef blocked for attacking, amongst others, Whitstable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears User:Rjd0060 clicked on user:Whitsttable to issue a warning without noticing that the vandal had redirected their user page to mine and talk page to mine, hence the warning was left on my page and not that of the vandal. No harm done, though. Whitstable (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct and I have since removed the warnings, with my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Whittstable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and User:Whitstable

I have just indef blocked the former for attempted harassment of various wikipedians, including the latter. One of the acts of vandalism was to redirect User talk:Whittstable to User talk:Whitstable. I should be grateful if anyone with the requisite skills could undo the redirect. Oh, and please feel free to review the block and tell me I got it right (or tell me I was wrong, if you really must...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly protection of that talk page is needed as he is still redirecting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I should be allowed to make sockpuppets if I want, because I'm an experienced user. I am far more advanced than most of you here, so please do not even think about blocking my sockpuppets again. Whitstable. (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late. — Satori Son 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These accounts are clearly a violation of the username policy, as they're attempting to impersonate another user. I've blocked two or three this morning already, and I'm expecting another 60 or 70 before lunch. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating a username is one thing, attempting to use such impersonations to attempt to sully the impersonated account is another. Is this grounds for checkuser to find and (temp) block the ip/range? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth thinking about what is going on here, here and here Whitstable (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is sockpuppetry involved and he claims that his address changes when he disconnects his modem (see here). - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Iamandrewrice. He also left these insane ramblings on Jeffpw's talk page earlier today. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And this edit which is an anagram of my username and appears to suggest I am a sock. WP:DUCK seems to indicate it all goes back to the same source? Whitstable (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another - User:Whitstabble - creating redirects again. Whitstable (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Another

WP:DUCK indeed. If last time is anything to go by block first ask later. Last time Yamla had to rangeblock nearly 200.000 IP's for 3 hours to stop this. This guy is seriously annoying as you and I already know... EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I know too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now been shown that User:Pollypenhouse and User:Listsvery now banned as socks of User:Iamandrewrice - same email addresses for the accounts, see here and hereWhitstable (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protect ANI

Should ANI be semi-protected for a while, till this guy gets bored? I just RV'd another one. Lawrence Cohen 17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, semi-protected for 12 hours. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

Something has to be done before this all gets out of control again - another apparent sock Whitstable (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you take it to RFCU. We can't block a range without knowing what it is. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That sock now added to existing RFCU Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already investigated this and there is nothing that can be done. --Deskana (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, revert, block, ignore. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case could his pretty obvious sock Clarissamelissa (talk · contribs) please be blocked before causing more disruption and allowing him to evade his ban in general? I'm sorry if you can't stop this by repeating the three range blocks Yamla used last week to stop him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Golbez. Could any future socks be sent to WP:AIV to DENY recognition. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking the Dana Ullman article and then protecting the vandalism

• First of all, as soon as Dana Ullman was told that he was not allowed to make changes at his own biography article, he stopped doing so. That COI "warning" on that article has already been on too long. Also, the "changes" that he made were simply responding to a skeptic's request for reference information (thus, he provided reference information).

• There has not been an "edit war" at Dana Ullman's article. There was an edit that provided specific reference to the letters of Charles Darwin and to a book written by a physician who is widely known to have been Darwin's favorite doctor (James Manby Gully). This link to Dr. Gully's book confirmed that he is a physician who used homeopathy alone and/or with water-cure treatments. The skeptics also deleted an interview with Dana Ullman from UC Berkeley's alumni magazine. Because a skeptic wanted a reference that Dana Ullman was arrested and that he won his court case (this skeptic actually referred to him in his edit as a "quack" which breaks Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons), it was surprising that this interview got deleted, especially because the editor's remarks prior to the interview with Ullman established the fact that he was arrested for practicing medicine without a license - and won an important court settlement.

• The most common antagonist to the Dana Ullman article has been an anonymous person who wrote: "I much prefer this version", after his page was "stubbified" and then "protected.": "Can we just delete the page now." 86.146.119.116 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that one of the skeptics (McGeddon) approved the good references that were provided to the Darwin letters, the Gully book and the UC Berkeley, and he simply improved the formatting of the information. And yet, 86.146.119.116 did an UNDO. He explained his actions in this way:

"The only reference is Dana Ullman, who is not a good source by Wikipedia standards. The Berkeley piece was an interview with him, and his articles on his website are no good either. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)"

Someone responded:

"You are wrong about everything that you just wrote, and considering your strong biases against the man, this is predictable. The link to UC Berkeley's article included an introduction to him written by the editor of the magazine, which includes some information about his arrest for practicing medicine without a license and the victory of his court case. As for the other references, it seems that you didn't even see them. They were to Darwin's letters and to Dr. Gully's book. Considering the fact that I just said these things above, it seems that you are not even reading what others write but only seeing what you want to see. Thanx for showing your colors here. Now that you know the truth, what are you going to do to correct it? 71.198.193.248 (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) "

To which, the skeptic wrote:

"Funny. Darwin's letters prove that Ullman is wrong! 86.146.119.116 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)"

It seems that this person didn't even read the Darwin letters that were linked, and even if he did, its still not clear why he chose to delete them.

• The bottomline is IF his article needs protection, it should have been protected when there were good NPOV references, not in its "stubbified" vandalized state. There appears to be a coordinated effort to delete information about Dana Ullman, or provide misinformation about him, and even to delete the entire listing, even though there was previous agreement that his article as a well known author on homeopathy was noteworthy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, turning a disputed biography into a stub and protecting is normal practice; calling a stripped article "vandalism" is not productive. Discuss the issue on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note. When writing an edit summary, using the words "Nothing to see here, move along" is just bound to attract attention to a thread. Human nature and all that. Having said that, you were right. Now, let's see what I can put in the edit summmary. Carcharoth (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not have been my intent.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. I believe user Frank mad (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) and I.P. 66.176.219.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the same person. Both users have contributed to the same articles, vandalizing them repeatedly by removing sourced information and pushing POV. This can be seen in their contributions page. The I.P. has just been blocked for 3 months but the user is now using their user account (Frank mad) to continue vandalizing. Edits pushing POV on White Latin American by deleting the exactly same information by Frank mad [6] and the I.P. [7] [8] are identical. This user will not communicate with other users who have tried to talk to them, including myself. This makes it hard to try to come to a mutual understanding, but in this case erasing info. is considered vandalism. The user and I.P. have been repeatedly warned and told to not remove the info; they still do so, and it is reverted, however, they come back hours later to do it again. I don't know what action should or can take place but this reverting every day has to come to an end. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one of the right places. WP:SSP might be another... And not only that, you should write the account up to AIV, an admin'll block him from there. After that, if he does come back, it'll just be block on sight, if possible. You may want to keep track of the socks. Happy Holidays from —BoL 00:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this evasion of a permanent block?

User:The King of Clay was recently blocked permanently for unacceptable behaviour, including potemtially highly libellous comments about living people. Two requests to reconsider this block were denied because of (on my reading) the nature of the abuse, and the prior history of vandalism. I think this user has re-appeared with a slightly different username: User:Clay for the King‎ as can be seen on an apparently fellow user's talk page (see User talk:Fanku.) If it is the same user, is this an evasion of a permanent block at all? Given the behaviour of the blocked user, it may be an idea to determine whether it is or not.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would there be anything wrong with the user creating a new account, if that is what has happened, as the User:The King of Clay was blocked, not banned? Whitstable (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Although creating a new account and using it in this manner could be grounds for the block becoming a ban, perhaps. Whitstable (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(In answer to your first response - thanks for it, by the way) I'm not sure. That's why I asked the question. I guess the most charitable reaction would be to monitor the user's behaviour with the new username (if it is the same person) carefully to see if the same patterns of offending are manifesting themselves again.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is block evasion - I have indef'ed the second account. They can appeal the indef block on the first account to unblock-en-l or Arbcom or other admins, but sockpuppeting around it is not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleeping sockpuppets waking up at TFD?

Something fishy is going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 25#Template:STLmedia and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 25#Template:PHLmedia. The templates were nominated for deletion by Spencer1151 (talk · contribs), the user's first edits. The only !voters so far are BombBuilder (talk · contribs) (a new user), KansasCity (talk · contribs) (joined Wikipedia in December 2005) and BeerBelly82 (talk · contribs) (joined in December 2006, but has very few edits). They all appear to have come to this discussion out of the blue. This comes across as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend that you file this case over on WP:RFCU as it's pretty obvious that abusive sock-puppetry is going on here - Alison ^❤ 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A better way is not to get all worked up. Just consider the merits of delete or keep as fairly as possible. Much of the sock problem is not really a problem at all. If there is a wacky idea, it doesn't matter if one person or 20 socks support it, it is still wacky. If your idea is wacky, it shouldn't matter if one person has a very reasonable and logical argument or if 20 socks have the good argument. A convincing reason should overcome defective reasoning, whichever side has the socks. Spevw (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is often the case that a majority will support a controversial stance, but without expert and unbiased input, a balanced view appears remote. This is usually left to hope, or more costly processes, in which the participants may not be qualified to assess conflicting points of view. It's also clear that Talk Page discussions are in general inadequate to deal with major types of conflict about content. It's all very well to talk about convincing reasons and defective reasoning, but given entrenched attitudes and politics, socks should be irrelevant and the process at present is a little clumsy, in my opinion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User does not sign posts, ignores warnings

69.143.119.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made several edits to talk pages, and has been warned three times to sign his posts. He has not signed them. Can any action be taken on this? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Now says s/he will do that. Never mind. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, signing your posts is completely optional - it's just worthwhile if you want people to listen. WilyD 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of !nosine!? bibliomaniac15 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page that could possibly be considered to be advertising

Maybe it's fine, but I was just wondering whether this user page (user Walice111) was inappropriate, being perhaps advertising or practically a personal website. I haven't discussed this with the user because the user has not edited since Nov. 12. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From his first edit, it would appear that he's sixteen and may not be clear what Wikipedia is about. Assuming good faith, I would regard this as a test, and since he's not been around for a while, move it to a subpage but leave a reference on his main page. That way, if he comes back, he won't lose that content. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Twsx

This user has for the last few months waged a constant edit war on at least two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth). He has been warned many times before about this. I reported him before but no action was taken as this was the first time he was reported. However, User:Scarian had a conversation with him telling everyone if they continued to edit war they would get reported and blocked. Well, Twsx refused to listen, obviously, because he's right back at edit warring. I ask for a block. As you can see from these history pages: 1 and 2, the user has waged a long running war and has an agenda that no one wants (users such as myself and other keep having to revert him). Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notified editor of this thread. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Pastordavid. As I have had to respond to this very issue (with this very user) too many times before, I have created a small page listing my arguments on the matter. It can be found here. Thank you. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That page Twsx would have you look at is ridiculous and biased against me. It also brings up many old issues and edits that I have done in the past. For one it brings up that I have been blocked twice for edit warring on two different pages. I agreed to stop a long time ago and I would like to point out that Twsx is now doing the same thing I was blocked for and that is not acceptable. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have warned this user a couple of times about his(/her?) POV pushing and warring behavior, without any success. I have tried to stop the POV pushing through discussion on a larger scale here. As users couldn't agree with each other I proposed a truce (here). Since the truce has been in place all edit wars and POV pushing have stopped.. except for the ones Twsx was involved in, despite numerous comments on Twsx' talk page. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments I've posted on Twsx' talk page. [9], [10], [11], [12] Kameejl ^(Talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth edit wars are still going on, we really need help. Kameejl ^(Talk) 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:RPP for help stopping the edit warring. Avruchtalk 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trenton, Ontario

I've been reverting back and forth with IP 67.70.41.80 (talk · contribs) about adding a name to the notable residents list. The user keeps adding a person they say is a PhD candidate from that town and I haven't been able to find any indication that this person is sufficiently notable to include - consequently, I've been reverting it. I've tried to engage him/her on the talk page, but no luck. I can handle the reverting, but this user has taken to vandalising my user page (adding block templates). There was a hiatus over the last few days, but today the same thing happened again from 99.249.160.47 (talk · contribs). It happens about twice a day max, but it's persistent. Would it be possible for an admin to give these IPs a warning for vandalism? Blotto adrift (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can warn the IPs yourself. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please edit protected Waterboarding article

Editors have reached a consensus regarding a change of the first three paragraphs. I am asking any administrator who sees this to edit the article: please replace the first three paragraphs of the article with Shibumi2's version found here, along with expressions of support from most editors who have weighed in on the subject. Neutral Good (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Please read the talk page. Lawrence Cohen 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The specific section that he claims supports this edit is:

• [[13]]

I've asked previously, as more and more people keep bringing this Waterboarding article to the noticeboards (all the noticeboards, in fact). Can we get a variety of admins to come in here and review the arguments? It's getting damned incivil in there now, and it's going to only get worse in the next two days as people return from Christmas break. Nearly all the heated disputes are directly related to interpretation of policy. Lawrence Cohen 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note as well, this "new" account called Neutral Good left a warning of some sort on an another user's page at User_talk:Inertia_Tensor#Warning:_Do_not_remove, warning him to not remove that notice, which is a bit out of line. He seems to be a "bad hand" account of an editor intricately familiar with Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: a quick look at User:Neutral Good's contributions to date is consistent with the hypothesis that User:Neutral Good is a single-purpose account freshly created by an experienced editor, apparently solely for astroturfing the Talk:Waterboarding page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And rather aggressively, at that, leaving warnings on various users talk pages with warnings within warnings that they aren't to be removed, along with threats to "fix" the article once semi-protection became irrelevant to him (this is before the article was fully protected again, before he could "fix" it). Lawrence Cohen 14:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Neutral Good edited their own talk page to remove critical comments [14] immediately before editing WP:AN/I. I wonder just how many real people are behind the various "waterboarding is not torture" accounts, many of which have similar styles of writing and argumentation? -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Haizum

In looking more at this, is Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) actually Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)? Read this old ANI archive and User talk:Haizum. He was banned for very aggressively going after others, had a major bone to pick with me because I wouldn't let him twist policies to his suiting and break NPOV on Blackwater Worldwide, and vowed to return under sockpuppet accounts on his talk page unless he was unblocked. He wrote:

I'm fully capable of coming to terms with my actions. However, I will not volunteer this when it is clear that there is a double standard in play, specifically when my edits are trolled for alleged infractions that were never subject to administrative action. I feel that is a fair stance to take. Now, we can do this honestly; I will accept a long but limited block for my actions with the mutual understanding that there was past administrative malice and a questionable ANI, or, I will change my IP address (I subscribe to two different ISPs) and create a new account with a blank slate. Yes, I'm sure at this very moment you are recoiling at my ultimatum, but note that my preferred concession keeps me publicly accountable for my block log. I ask you, which is preferable? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems very, very similar. And it's been just over a month, since Haizum was removed from any editing ability when his talk page was protected. Lawrence Cohen 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Haizum sock

Please block User:Newanda, a demonstrated sock of Haizum as well that somehow wasn't blocked before. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Block both. Evidently SPAs. Will ^(talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Haizum. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: RFCU determined that Neutral Good and Haizum are unrelated. Avruchtalk 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock, please help

Moved out of above archive, as relates to a problem which affects many admins and is only marginally related to the case at hand. Orderinchaos 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano has been unblocked, but remains autoblocked. Could somebody please help (and then, could somebody PLEASE teach me how to undo autoblocks according to this horrible new system? It didn't use to be a problem!) Bishonen | talk 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

I have removed Giano's autoblock. --Coredesat 10:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coredesat. Would you (or someone else) have time to educate your fellow admins on how to undo autoblocks? It's a reasonable request from Bishonen. We don't want the technology to lead to a reduced pool of admins who have the knowledge of how to undo an autoblock. Do the instructions at WP:AUTOBLOCK cover the new system? Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort of found it by chance by browsing Special:Ipblocklist until I found the first autoblock mask corresponding to Giano's 72 hr block, then unblocked that number on the regular unblock page. WP:AUTOBLOCK seems to say that we have to do just that, as weird as that sounds; it states that admins have to keep an eye on the block list for any additional autoblocks that pop up as a result of an initial block. I suppose this means the tool is useless in its current form; the last time Giano was caught up in an autoblock (one I admittedly caused), it took ElinorD a little while to find the mask for it, and we both found it at about the same time. --Coredesat 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers can trace autoblocks a lot easier, but we could do with explicit permission from the user to do so. Of course we promise not to reveal any information from the check. --Deskana (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have found the tool useless in its current form. I used to undo a lot of autoblocks, for instance always keeping an eye out for distress posts from the unfortunate User:WBardwin. It was easy. And now it takes a checkuser, unless you find the "mask" (wot?) by chance? Please tell me you're kidding. Why has the technology been, uh, improved to such a point? Bishonen | talk 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Does the autoblock tool not work any more? I'm guessing not because I don't see anything there more current than Nov 27. Is it just temporarily down or is it going to be fixed? --B (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same problem trying to undo unrelated autoblocks - they just don't show up at all and I have to actually get the user to send me previewed code by email, preview that myself and use the links to unblock. Orderinchaos 22:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Workurban (talk · contribs)

Workurban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. "Workurban" is probably a name inspired by those annoying captcha confirmation codes when you register an account or forget your password. Sockpuppeteers have been known to use these captchas to name their accounts. His first edit is to "remove POV" from Zune. If this looks familiar, please investigate. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA problem with disruptive editor

"you are a mentally-ill freak, an idiot, and above all, a madman and a lunatic!"

User:Marcus2 has several months worth of NPA warnings on his talk page, as well as article talk pages where he interacts. Stuff like this is totally unacceptable to civil editing. Additionally, calling someone an idiot in an edit summary, "stay the fuck out",

Additionally he is disruptive (deleting sourced information, using socks to back up his opinion) to the Powerpuff Girls article because of his personal dislike of the topic. I suggested several months ago that he not edit articles on topics that he doesn't like but he's been acting out like this on this article for over a year.

Kindness has not been a way to get through to this user about either civility or article disruption. His userpage claims Asperger's syndrome but that cannot excuse such gross incivility as the headline. Admin attention is needed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

He appears to have taken a leave of absence. I reckon he got a little hot under the collar, and realizes it. I think we'll have to wait and see if this affects any change in his behavior. --Haemo (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. He's sporadic already, but I've tired of his appearances on some pages. A break should be well enough. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Closing AfD without consensus by User:Uncle G

[edit] User:Antolikebeer

User Antolikebeer should be blocked from editing due to his vandalism on certain pages

Check the history for Hong Kong International School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.52.152 (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; I've given him a final warning. Next time, please report continual vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, as you will most likely get a faster response there. Raven4x4x (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fishpaste15

[Fishpaste15] has created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV:An Alien‎, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles V: Shredder's Back!‎, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles VI: The REAL Secret Of The Ooze‎ , TMNT VII: The Seventh Shell-Shock‎ today. They have been "prod"ed per WP:CRYSTAL, but I suspect that this is pure vandalism. --Dawn bard (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One wonders at the quality of this user's edits elsewhere: [17]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a thread down

MrWhich has now twice moved a thread from the other day lower down in an attempt to gain more publicity for his cause[18] [19]. Can someoen please remind him to leave the threads in the order in which they are. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SqueakBox's disruption at Larry Sanger and related articles

• Removed Sanger's name from the [[English Wikipedia] article.
• Removed Sanger's name again.
• Claims that "enforcing neutrality" is his "specialty" and accuses everyone opposing his position of "trolling." In previous notes on his talkpage, he specifically accused me of "trolling" with no evidence, and refused to provide evidence of it when asked.
• Spreads this dispute to other, completely non-related issue.
• Further diffs from various Wales- and Sanger-related articles.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10		11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20		21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30		31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

The above diffs are across the project, on nearly all the Sanger- and Wales-related articles. This user has shown that he's unwilling to compromise, and has insisted that he has "no POV" on these matters. The above diffs indicate otherwise. He has accused those who revert his POV edits of "stalking" and "trolling." Mr Which??? 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, in one case, it was stalking - I ended up rv'ing fourty nondiscrimate reverts. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "stalking", though you're free to view it that way. Bramlet did indiscriminately revert SB's edits, but assuming good faith, I think he was simply mistaken in his reversions of some of the edits, seemingly assuming that all of SB's edits were his point-y mass edits of the Sanger- and Wales-related articles. I've presented a ton of diffs showing SB's disruption, and his lack of willingness to stop. You replied two minutes after I posted it. There's no way you even took the time to review them. Mr Which??? 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where was I mistaken? I did not indiscriminately revert SB's edits. I reverted only his edits related to Wales and Sanger. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When you start indiscriminately reverting someone forty/fifty times, AGF flies out the window. Will ^(talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Not when SB had been POV-pushing his edits across the project. Bramlet messed up, and reverted too many of his edits, but that does not excuse SB's actions. Mr Which??? 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say it did? I just gave you one example where he was being stalked. Will' ^(talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) On the same note, there is an ongoing content debate between these guys on the Sanger talk page. As soon as Squeakbox began to lose the argument, and sources were produced that buried his view that no sources supported Sanger as co-founder, he went and began editing out every reference on Wikipedia that called Wales co-founder or Sanger co-founder. A wrong doesn't make a right, but Squeakbox was also very wrong and needs to stop. Lawrence Cohen 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, how is defending the neutrality and integrity of the project a cause for posting on AN/I. I agree with Jimbo that people like Mr Which should be told to stop trolling this issue, and end the issue there. Bramlet most certainly was stalking me, spending all his time following me around and reverting my edits in a SPA way and thus this issue has already been dealt with here, and satisfactorily. If anybody has been out of line today it has been Quackguru for claiming that reverting his POV pushing at Larry Sanger is blockable as if somehow he were the founder of the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute and is perfect for admin review. You were asked on the Sanger talk page if the 80+ sources that cite Sanger as co-founder were with or without merit. You then went and made all these revisions. I'd advise admins to read this section. It does appear disruptive on your part. You'd also claimed it was a BLP violation to say Sanger is co-founder. What BLP violation is that exactly? Lawrence Cohen 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not on the Larry Sanger page I didn't. How is it relevant on pages that have nothing to do with wikipedia? IMO it is not apropriate for AN/I, its just more trolling from MrWhich, who appears to be one of a number of editors who hold a grudge against wikipedia. Its time we took a neutral stance against troll warriors who want to smear Jimbo's good name on this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Accusing me of "trolling" again probably isn't your best course of action here, SB. Mr Which??? 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are trolling, which I suggest you are, it clearly is my best approach. You seem more interested in attacking Jimbo than editing the encyclopedia and this is becoming very tedious. I suggets we take Jimbo's advice and warn off all the POV trolls on this issue, there apear to be 3, Braml;et, yourself and QuackGuru. You al know you are trolling because you have been told before so there are no excuses for trying to slur Jimbo's good anme on this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, how does it violate NPOV and BLP, amazingly, to say Sanger is co-founder, when it's widely supported and sourced? Once these sources were offered up, you immediately began calling everyone a troll, and unilaterally excising any reference of "co-founder" from these articles. Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It clearly violates BLP because of Jimbo's numerous statements on the matter. It violates NPOV because we need to be neutral and not take Larry's stance on this as fact, as again Jimbo has pointed out on numerous occasions. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What statements from Jimbo under BLP trump 100+ reliable news sources and supported you removing all reference of Sanger as co-founder from all of Wikipedia as soon as sources calling Sanger a co-founder were supplied? What reliable sources carried all these statements from Jimbo that you claim trump NPOV? Lawrence Cohen 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

None. Jimbo is no different than any other user who has an article about him.Mr Which??? 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But if someone were to undo Squeakbox's edits to the Sanger related articles, it would be stalking? I'm confused. Because he made so many edits, anyone going through and fixing his out of policy errors would be stalking?? Lawrence Cohen 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you accidentally placed this reply (apparently intended for Sceptre/Will) as a reply to me. Mr Which??? 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a reply to you based on the fact that Squeakbox's mass edits appear to unsupported by BLP as he claims--but I was implying, that, if I were to go and fix his mistaken edits, I would be tagged as a stalker. That is confusing. Lawrence Cohen 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd ask reviewing admins to note these ongoing personal attacks when deciding what course of action to pursue regarding this user. Mr Which??? 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards these users, don't you mean?. Your own behaviiour is what is unacceptable here, Mrwhich. You appear to think you can troll Jimbo with impunity, and me too judging by this thread. I bought this issue to AN/I myself the other day, why are you repeating it. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note ongoing personal attacks. No trolling by me is either evident or proven. Mr Which??? 20:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be too sure of that. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd ask you to prove that with diffs that show me trolling on this issue or withdraw. Don't make this personal, JzG. Thanks, Mr Which??? 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been involved in the "co-founder issue" as well, just for disclosure. I have to say SB, that you lose credibilty when you lump ALL the editors who disagree with you on this issue as "Sanger supports" or "troll warriors who want to smear Jimbo's good name" ect, ect. It seems that you have taken this on as a personal cause or something. The reason I feel it is important has nothing to do with the indiviuals involved but more about how "facts" can be "bastardized" over time and history can morph based on people's involvement, ect. If Wikipedia can't even keep track of who its founder{s} were/are, why are they to be trusted with ANYTHING else? Anyways, --Tom 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As a newbie I think there is an interesting general question to be considered here:

Are prolific, valuable and veteran editors such as Squeakbox and Giano expected to conform to the same rules as newer, less high profile contributors?

Do they deserve a greater margin of toleration and rule-bending as super heroes and guardians of righteousness- or should they be setting an example of rectitude for lesser mortals to follow?

I must admit, I don't know the answer to that one... Alice^✉ 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you have some idea to the answer; but here is my understanding of the situation. All contributors are required to conform to the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. However, editors of long standing are often given more latitude in allowing them to stretch the definitions of said policies providing they are working to the spirit of the policies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Old-timers? (Chuckle.) I admit, I wasn't yet a member when LMS was still active on Wikipedia (he announced that he was leaving a week or two before I registered my account), but it appears neither is anyone else in this dispute: I remember when SqueakBox was a newbie. Since everyone is arguing from their interpretation of the evidence, this entire dispute could be considered a case of original research. In the earliest version of this page, LMS describes himself "(with Jimbo Wales) the instigator of Wikipedia", a statement that went unchallenged until 2004, when Angela & Anthere turned the article into a redirect, arguing in their comments that he failed notability. (It is worth noting that their edits were challenged at the time.) If we were to properly handle this according to NPOV guidelines, we'd quote this text, note that Jimbo currently disagrees with the statement -- & move on. No need to wonder about bending the rules -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy holidays -let's have a truce

I am very happy to not edit at all on this issue till January 2. I am re-considering my approach for then and gathering information, specifically about which articles are disputed as there are a fair few, re this issue and collating it off-wiki. This issue wont be resolved here, can we please just all chill, accept that every article involved the dispute is at the The wrong version right now. I welcome comments on my talk page or via emails (private) from anybody re this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Until you withdraw your personal attacks accusing me of "trolling", and resolve to stop unilaterally changing the content without consensus or verifiable sources on your side accross the project, there's no "truce" to be had. Mr Which??? 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of SqueakBox's editing/POV this is an offer of peace that should be accepted. At the end all of this battle over co- or not co- is not helping here and the encyclopaedia does not need to be finished today. I've been watching this with some amusement since failing Larry Sanger as a good article. All concerned in this lame and self-referential edit war need to relax, have a cup of tea and reread Wikipedia:Don't be a dick and WP:TIGERS. - 22:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peripitus (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? He accuses all who disagree with him of "trolling", and then, when someone finally compiles the evidence of disruption and posts to AN/I, he offers a "truce"? And then you post the DICK and TIGERS links? Wow. Mr Which??? 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich, a christmas branch was extended, in keeping with the holiday spirit. Let's not get all Grinchy, shall we? just accept the offer made in good faith and enjoy the rest of the festive week. There's a whole new year standing ahead of you, just waiting to be filled with squabbling and pettiness. A few days of harmony won't kill any of us. Jeffpw (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An admirable sentiment, but MrWhich is factually correct about sequencing and I don't detect any apology or sentiments of contrition in SqueakBox's "truce offer". Try and put yourself in MrWhich's shoes... Alice^✉ 22:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they did agree not to make the edits between now and January 2. That allows some tempers to cool, which can only be a good thing. Orderinchaos 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving to bottom, and adding a link to this user's treatment of the supposed "truce." Do with it what you want. I'm done. Refers to users trying to turn Wikipedia into "Sanger's blog". He deleted my comment shortly after as "trolling" (a major issue in the above supposed "truce") which is why I had to link to an old version of the page. Mr Which??? 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean your comment where you talked about my beliefs being horse manure and bullshit. Of course I remove your personal attacks from my iuser talk. Now stop moving this thread,, this is unacceptable and trollish behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And a truce does not mean I won't comment on the issue, especially in response to good faith users such as WAS, merely that I won't edit the main space re this issue till Jan 2nd at the earliest. Even though MrWhich claims he has now left the project I still won't be editing the main space re this issue until the holidays are well and truly over. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you still think your behaviour was correct and deserves no sanction or reprimand, SqueakBox? Alice^✉ 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Orangemarlin 2

[edit] Arthur Ellis sockpuppet again

(Now copied to the bottom for visibility, left here for context) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 64.26.148.20 (talk · contribs). Can someone please block it as we did for 64.26.147.175 (talk · contribs) three days ago? For more background, please see see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ceraurus). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And another obvious sock

Could someone familiar with the Arthur Ellis background please also take a look at Chucky the barber (talk · contribs)? His first edit to an article consisted of reverting to a 5-day-old version of an article frequently edited by user:Victoriagirl. I am not sure if this is an Arthur Ellis sock but it is certainly not a new or helpful account. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "sock". It seems anyone who disagrees with Clayoquot is a "sock". I reverted the David Suzuki article to a POV-tag version after Clayoquot said her altered picture of him made him look more "dignified". Seems like a POV comment to me. Chucky the barber (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie edits heads up

Benazir Bhutto has been severely injured in a suicide bombing. I fully expect a load of edits to this article; we shall need experienced editors to watch over changes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, she's dead. Someone please semi-protect for an hour or so til we can work this out. Too many edits at once. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It will need Semi-Protecting for more than an hour, probably a week. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for one week. This news... is very upsetting to me.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call FQ, we don't need unconstructive edits to this article at this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to sprotect 27 December 2007 Rawalpindi bombing for the next two days, as it is linked in the assassination section at Benazir Bhutto, for the same reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say someone created that page. 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

Might want to unprotect after a day simply because it's linked from main page, and a lot of people will be watching it at that point. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Shocking news, really dreadful for Pakistan and the whole region. There's no obvious candidate to replace Bhutto now she's dead. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the reasons given here for semi-protection are valid! You are just doing this to reserve the article for your own use and to exclude IPs simply because they are IPs - that's against policy. And stop confusing "experienced" editors with anonymous editors! I'm an editor of three years standing with significant contributions in a whole range of areas, but I choose to edit under an IP rather than an account. You are excluding me from making any contribution to this, and related, articles. Shame on the lot of you! PS: "Head Up - what on earth does that mean? 86.31.35.135 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One lives with the consequences of one's choices. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, why don't you answer the points I'm making, instead of making infantile remarks? You know very well that pre-emtive SP is not allowed, so please unprotect this article and watch what happens. If it's vandalised then of course SP it. Stone me! there'll be enough "real editors" watching this one! 86.31.35.135 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the current semiprotection is preventing our experienced IP editors from editing. After the news broke, I was one of several admins who were scrambling to keep up with the new and unregistered editors adding to the article, many of them well-meaning newcomers, but many of them making unhelpful contributions such as this or printing assumptions, rumors, and points of view as the world waited for reliable information. It's not uncommon to semiprotect articles that suddenly attract lots of inexperienced editors, and I think I made the right decision; you can still participate in the discussions on the talk page as the community updates the article to reflect the information that is still being updated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit you use as an example was reverted (by you) in under a minute. This suggests that many editors are watching this article and will quickly revert inappropriate edits. The stance being taken here would, if applied across the board, prevent IPs from editing ANY article about a recent, fast-moving, important event. This, so far as I know, is not Wikipedia policy. As I've noted, pre-emptive semi-protection is not policy, so I'm formally asking for this article to be unprotected. Again, please do not conflate inexperience with IP editing. Thanks. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have since unprotected the assassination article, following requests. I would note that "experienced ip's" should have been familiar with both requesting edits on the talkpage, or requesting an admin to edit on their behalf (which advice is included in the template). Since their appears to be enough eyes on this matter now I feel protection is un-necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird contributions

A IP has made several weird contributions, see here, all with the edit summary along the lines of "add nationality and country. This is an INTERNATIONAL encyclopedia". I think this IP is intending to disrupt the encyclopedia. Please also note this post. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad they took their time in doing this, I would have never realized Maryland was in the USA or that Nova Scotia was in Canada :-/ Yngvarr 15:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The user may have a point - but in any case, it's not too much to worry about at the moment and I'd suggest it should be dealt with on an article by article basis, as I've no doubt that adding the country does help clarify in some of those cases. Not everybody reading Wiki would be aware that Nova Scotia was in Canada or Maryland was in the USA, in all seriousness. Whitstable (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And, indeed, presuming so in article prose is one of the most pervasive (if not that harmful) example of systemic bias on WP. Not only do I not object to the edits as described, but I in fact think they are a good idea! — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I going to second this. Americans are infamous for their lack of knowledge of Geography. But they are not the only ones. There was a Canadian television show, set in a Dene community in the Northwest Territories, called "North of 60". Dubbed versions of this show were purchased and broadcast in Europe. The 60th meridian of latitude is the Northern boundary of all four of Canada's Western provinces. Everyone knows this in Canada. But, for foreign viewers the European distributor needed a new name. Unbelievably they chose to rename the show "Alaska". The European distributor named it Alaska, even though the main character was an officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Assuming foreigners know the details of your local geography is highly parochial. I think Dave103 owes the IP contributor a serious apology. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the edits, and they're certainly not disruptive. Some of them might be obvious to you, but not everyone knows where the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast is. And why's everyone so paranoid now that they can't discuss edits they disagree with? Coming here shouldn't be the first option (not faulting you for asking for clarification, it's just that there are better venues). - Bobet 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In some cases (places in Georgia, for example, where they could be either in the US state or the country to anyone without knowledge of the state and the country), being explicit would certainly help. Although the context present in the articles may inform people with little knowledge of them, I think it would be a good idea to be open to the possibility of possible systemic bias. Generally, it is a bit like postage stamps and other inventions which identify countries in some way, where the country which was the first to introduce them by convention has had the right to be able to omit its country name from its stamps. However, convention or not, it can impede people's understanding, which in an encyclopaedia, is not what we are trying to do. The problem will be that comments about it being a good idea will now result in fallacious attempts to argue that this will lead to us going to the other extreme in needing to be explicit about just about everything.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the name of the pertinent country is required per the Manual of Style this discussion is moot anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Caitlin Upton trying to make restitution :) --WebHamster 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks Aplenty?

Looks like 3 AfDs I posted yesterday - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCML Series Cricket, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitin Gupta and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lala Gulab Chand - are suffering from a sockpuppet infection. 61.68.143.142, Sachin1978, Guriyashampi, and Dksindhi all seem to pass the duck test. --Smashville^BONK! 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The first three have been blocked as obvious socks of the last. — Coren ^(talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked the puppeteer for 24 hours. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is well-and-truly infested waters. Reminds me of Immigration to Australia back in the day. Orderinchaos 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jmccusker

Has been linking to lots of videos to do with the Benazir Bhutto assassination, see here, here and here. All of these are to videos on this website. All links have been removed per Wikipedia's External Links policy.

Can you please clarify what part of this policy my links are in violation of? My goal is to simply supply links to supporting reference clips from this news event. Jmccusker (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He claimed on his talkpage that he created the Redlasso site; and went and create the Redlasso article. As this is against policy, can an admin indefinitely block this user? Also see this discussion. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See this Philadelpia Inquirer article about Redlasso and clarification. [35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccusker (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He has a point, Davnel. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Redlasso appears notable. However, it would probably be preferrable to link to the original video page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember this is only a guideline which states that when a COI exists, one should "avoid, or exercise great caution", and as far as I can tell Redlasso is written pretty conservatively. That being said, I agree that video links to this site as refs should probably be avoided in the Bhutto article. Joshdboz (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I just read the section about COI. As a founder of Redlasso I understand the potential issue and COI implications. This was surely not my intent, but rather to be supportive of articles I'm personally interested in contributing to on Wikipedia. I'll refrain from personally posting clips from my site so as not to raise any COI concerns. Jmccusker (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's quite a bit of misunderstanding going on about Redlasso. Redlasso's business model is unlike any of the current players (User Uploaded/generated: YouTube, Metacafe; Media Clip Aggrigators: Voxant, Blinkx). I hope the Philadelphia Inquirer article noted above helps to clarify our differences and business model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccusker (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting help with problem poster

User:Dove1950 has been repeatedly adding false information to the article Mexican peso. When his factual errors were pointed out he persisted in changing the article 1 2. When he was informed 3 of his error, and told other pages disagreed with his erroneous statements he then vandalized those pages as well 4, and continued to vandalize the original article 5. He has been warned repeatedly 6 7 for his actions, and continues to add unsourced original research which amounts to patently false information which is not even moderately historically accurate. Action seems required to end his insertion of false information, and I would encourage others to peruse his other edits for factual errors as it seems likely he may be inserting unsourced and false information in his other edits, as he is doing here. 74.132.178.84 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi 74: that's actually not vandalism. Good faith edits never are. A quick glance at Dove1950's contribution history should reassure you that he is not a vandal. You are having a content dispute, and being inexpert in numismatics I don't know which of you is right. I have a suggestion though: if he is making factually incorrect additions, you are more likely to have a productive discussion if you approach him politely and respectfully, rather than with threats and vandalism warnings. (Which approach would you yourself prefer, if you were wrong about something, and someone else needed to point it out to you?) You might like to try getting help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics, where someone else can provide an opinion, and if that doesn't work, you might try our dispute resolution procedures. Thank you and good luck, Antandrus (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and threats by 71.99.81.194

It seems to be user [36], he should be blocked for personal attacks on my talk page, threats and uncivil behavior: [37]

Translation: Last warning you dick, fuck me! I warn you for the last time, next time I will kick your ass (reworded to have similar meaning), you fat pig. Go to run around the house, it will help you.

Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV, as I believe this is sufficiently trivial. The 71.99.x.x vandal has been a more or less constant presence on the Czech Republic article since his proposal to change the short name of the country was rejected in february (link), and I believe has racked up at least 13 blocks in that time. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis sockpuppet again

(bumped down from above as a different sock has been blocked but not this one) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 64.26.148.20 (talk · contribs). Can someone please block it as we did for 64.26.147.175 (talk · contribs) three days ago? For more background, please see see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ceraurus). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked - outting/attacking comments on an editor's talk page have been deleted, too - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asgardian

User:Asgardian continues to remove a {{Hulk}} template from the Abomination (comics) page ([38], [39], [40]) violating his current arbritration agreement. In addition, the user has made uncivil and antagonistic remarks on talk page such as "What do you say to that?" while accusing IP use of being a vandal. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

• Blocked 24 hours. Thatcher 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page Newspaper Article about disputes at wikipedia dec27th

This national newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post has 4 million circulation. The story has the title wikipedia warriors hit delete at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=199409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.30.102 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AdvisorOne, Lethiere, and Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

AdvisorOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) I've had this page watched from the first revert. I'm beginning to believe that this guy is a vandalism-only account, it's hard to assume good faith when he's been given 12 warnings by 6 people for unexplained reversions with really bizaare edit summaries without explaining himself on the talk page and edit warring only on Jazmin Grace Grimaldi and a relevant removal on a different article. He is now on his second block. It's wierd because another editor, Lethiere (talk · contribs) was pulling the same stunts by reverting without good reason. But he eventually stopped after a few warnings. I don't think it's the same person, but I really don't want to make a likely false checkuser request either. This account should really be blocked indefinitely based on the circumstances. These are his only contributions mysteriously after Lethiere stopped only hours after Advisor stepped in. --Charitwo ^talk 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Posting here because ST47's bot won't let me post it on AIV because he's in the middle of his second block. --Charitwo ^talk 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be at AIV. I was the first to block AdvisorOne. It's unclear to me what you want to do? You don't want to file a checkuser but you do want him indef blocked? His edits are wrong and he has been warned, but I think between the two administrators now involved the case is well handled. The length of the blocks will increase as needed. -JodyB _talk 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD template for The C Word‎ removed from article. Erroneously?

Howdy. I don't know if this is the correct place for this -- please let me know if it's not.
I started an AfD on The C Word‎. The template notice of the AfD no longer appears on the page, but as far as I can tell the AfD has not yet been resolved. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The C Word. Perhaps someone removed the notice from the article? Or perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The AFD template was removed by Emotionboy (talk · contribs). I've re-added it, and warned him to not remove such templates in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious sock-puppet activity

• DoctorIsOut (talk · contribs)
• TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs)

This edit was made by a sockpuppet. Pretty obvious case.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Link is not to a current diff. I don't see anything obvious. GRBerry 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • They appear, to me, to most likely be the same person. However, I don't see any disruption. Lara❤Love 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hamas suicide attacks

List of Hamas suicide attacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is being hit by several suddenly-appearing editors with no prior edit history to revert to a preferred version. Either the sockpuppets should be blocked or the article protected. Corvus cornix_talk 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you by chance show some diffs here? I went to the article but would like to see exactly what you're concerned about. Bstone (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rate of activity not high enough to merit protection. My first inclination was to suggest using WP:SSP or WP:RFCU to address the possible sockpuppetry. All of the later ones are clearly puppets of User:MaZiltHona. Looking at Haganah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), there are likely more puppets there, and MaZiltHona is probably itself a puppet of some earlier account, and I can't quickly sort this out. So I guess WP:SSP and/or WP:RFCU are the right venues, with the histories of both articles being highly relevant. There definitely is puppetry ocuring. GRBerry 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I reported it. It's not an article I deal with. If nobody wants to take care of it, so be it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected already. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Someone else has protected this article. I've now blocked the most recently active in the series of vandal accounts, and flagged the whole mess for RFCU as an IP check; I'm absolutely certain that none of the identifiable accounts is the puppetmaster, but have no clue who the puppet master is. There are likely swarms of additional, not yet used puppets, hopefully the checkusers can find some of them. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Haganah and List of Hamas suicide attacks vandal GRBerry 06:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aiman619

This user has not edited for two months, and he suddenly comes back and starts vandalising. I suspect he wants to vanish, since he moved his userpage, but it is possible his account may have been compromised. - FISDOF9 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could be a number of things. Considering it was a short burst of activity that lasted only minutes, it doesn't seem like someone attempting to vanish. Lara❤Love 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock-puppetry, Vandalism, Creation of Multiple User Names

There is a strong possibility of sharing of accounts or sock-puppetry by User:Knataka as suggested by an Admin (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=prev&oldid=179128524). This user has also gone under the IPs Special:Contributions/76.212.8.87, Special:Contributions/76.212.13.131 and Special:Contributions/76.212.7.17. Special:Contributions/Naadapriya also appears to be another one of the accounts. I request this user (and sockpuppets etc) be blocked to prevent any further disruptive edits (some listed further below). I also request that this user be monitored thereafter so to ensure there is no other suspicious activity thereafter.

In addition to this, the user under User:Naadapriya has created the page Karnataka/Carnatic music‎, despite the fact the Carnatic music page already exists, and remains up to date.

The User has also persistently spammed and vandalized Wikipedia articles and received warnings for doing so, as well as received a warning from an Admin for edit warring. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knataka&oldid=178845574 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnataka&diff=178887030&oldid=178845574) Further disruptive edits can be seen in the contributions of each of the IPs, some of which may include the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179326314 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179677425 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179756004. This continual vandalism, lack of npov, edit warring and the potential threat of sock-puppetry and so on has unfortunately continued.

Please block these sock-puppets. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banking conspiracy theories

The following articles are biased terms to push a POV. All of the information in the below is in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Fractional reserve banking and Fiat currency.

• Debt-based monetary system
• Debt money
• Debt-free money

All three center around a conspiracy theory regarding the Federal Reserve, stemming from a misunderstanding on how fiat works. Ironically, the article acknowledges this in its opening paragraph:

Conventional economic analysis does not generally use the terminology "debt-based money." The link between the currency regime (for example, fiat currency or precious-metal backed currencies) and the banking regime (fractional reserve or full reserve banking) is not seen as fixed, however (virtually all banking systems worldwide operate on some form of fractional reserve banking). Neither is the insight that banks "create money by extending loans" considered new, and the subject is covered in most introductory economics textbooks and many popular reference works.

As a result, it's pretty clear the article should not exist. "Debt-based monetary system" and "debt money" are terms used by non-economists and conspiracy theorists.

The article is sourced in an amateur writer Michael Rowbotham, who according to the article on him has no particular education or experience in economics.

According to the conspiracy theory, whenever money is created by central banking, it's created as public debt which the public must pay. Central bankers, therefore, are engaged in a conspiracy to steal wealth from the public through overprinting money. For anyone who has read How the Fed Works on howstuffworks, this is patent nonsense. The article treats the Austrian Business Cycle Theory as a legitimate economic concept, but it is heterodox economics.

From the article: There are two main kinds of debt money contraction that can cause a collapse in the value of inflated assets. (The Austrian Business Cycle Theory)

I tried to have debt-based monetary system redirected to fractional reserve banking, have debt money redirected to fiat currency, and have debt-free money deleted, but none of that was successful.

This has been talked to death on Talk:Debt-based_monetary_system and WP:RFC was followed, but the articles stay up, partially due to people guarding the page. Some are POV pushers, such as User:Karmaisking [41] [42] and User:N0 D1C4 [43] [44]. Others, such as User:Sm8900 seem to have reverted my edits in good faith, but it's not quite clear why they'd want to keep the pages up.

69.138.16.202 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• It appears, from the names, the contributions histories, and the flow of discussion on Talk:Debt-based monetary system, that Maktimothy (talk · contribs), Timothymak (talk · contribs), Rememberkarma (talk · contribs), and Karmaisking (talk · contribs) are all one single person. Uncle G (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the general note above that the content is mostly fringe and bordering on conspiracy theory, I should note that the quote above regarding 'conventional economic analysis' was introduced by me to keep some level of sanity in the article - that is, to warn readers that most of the article is based on heterodox analysis that is not accepted by anyone serious.--Gregalton (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Oreskes / GTTofAK

Anyone care to comment about this [45] at Naomi Oreskes from the viewpoint of WP:LEGAL? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a {{uw-legal}} warning to the editor. Sandstein (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

The article is suffering from favoritism, with one particular website listing relevant to the topic being repeatedly removed in a vandalistic manner. WP:OWN, WP:VANDALISM, WP:LAWYER, WP:CENSOR, WP:POV, WP:AGF are all at issue.

Note: I am not perfect and have lost my temper in a related article, which I regret and am endeavoring to avoid repeating. Regardless of that, the facts of the issue strike me as obvious, and I look forward to your comments and opinions. Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which you continue to do with your own assumptions of bad faith in regards to any editor who disagrees with you. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately accused of wikilawyering, censorship, point of view pushing, assuming bad faith, etc. -- Crossmr (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never assumed bad faith on your part, I see actions in bad faith on your part. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with others with equanimity, and have a long edit record of mostly having done so. (I am not perfect.) It is your actions with regard to the LiveJournal articles which anger me.

But the issue isn't about me, despite your attempt to make it so. The issue is in fact the pattern of the editing of the articles in question, and whether, as I perceive, that editing has been used to violate Wikipedia policies and goals, which I have asked other, objective editors outside your group of friends to review. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular issue is very clearly about you. Regardless of how you view my behaviour or anyone else's behaviour you have to remain civil, which you continually demonstrate you're incapable of in regards to this topic, here you make another spurious claim of vandalism [46], and more accusations of bullying, wikilawyering, vandalism, and even accusing someone of damaging the encyclopedia [47]. And in the same breath that you violate these policies you make the claim that none of your edits have ever damaged the encyclopedia. Creating a hostile editing environment damages the encyclopedia, which you've done repeatedly in regards to this topic. -- Crossmr (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that individuals or groups holding articles to a partyline POV is damaging to the encyclopedia. I stand by that statement.

The issue remains abusive edits, long-term patterns of them, and violation of POV and other wikipedia maxims, not personalities, yours or mine.

In earlier comments in the main LiveJournal article, yes, I let anger at what you have done goad me to intemperate comments, which I have already said I regret. That doesn't change the issues a whit; and the notion that I, all by myself, single-handedly created a hostile editing environment for your entire group of editors maintaining this POV pattern of edits is ludicrous.

I leave it to more objective editors as to who currently is hostile and who is not. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if you don't think personalities are important. You're required to follow them with each and every edit. The community has decided they're very important.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which we do not mediate here. Please see WP:DR. At any rate, I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, which should settle the issue if the article is deleted. Sandstein (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS request at Help desk

Will an OTRS member reply to Wikipedia:Help desk#Using the Wikipedia Open Ticket Request System? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Several have, since then. I also poked them on IRC about it, previously, just fyi. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IronAngelAlice

Please forgive me if I stumble a bit here, as I have never used this process before on wikipedia, in more than a year of editing here. I've tried everything possible with this particular editor, and feel that it is finally time to bring this to the next level.

This users page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IronAngelAlice

This page indicates that the user has abused accounts in the past, and has engaged in sockpuppetry. I believe that this fact is an important consideration in evaluating the current edits made by the user that violate wikipedia policy.

This user's contributions have a very specific pattern of violations of WP:NPOV and Vandalism. See Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IronAngelAlice

Specifically, the user edits articles in a way that inappropriately weight the articles to a feminist perspective. The user has specifically removed and blanked content from several articles, including the article on David Reardon.

The user was warned for Vandalism and NPOV edits. And several users other that myself have indicated a pattern of editing that is not conductive to wikipedia policy and consensus. These edits were noticed by a very respected and dedicated member of the wikipedia community here:[48]

“

IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has a history of POV pushing of her own, for example see [123] and is virtually a SPA on feminist topics. I see no reason why Alice should be able to remove those images with an entirely spurious reason (These images are not medically oriented, and are used by Pro-Lifers to show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells.) but FL should be restricted from replacing images which had sat comfortably in the article for 4 months. Thatcher 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

”

The POV edits from the user are most noteworthy in the David Reardon page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Reardon

After considerable effort was put into working toward a consensus by myself and another editor, the user returned to the page after being warned, and after repeated pleas to take any discussion to the talk page, and removed cited, verifiable material.

This pattern is consistant with behavior that occurs in other articles related to issues of interest to feminists. Specifically, abortion and related articles.

I ask for appropriate intervention to be made as I have exausted attempts at my level.

My thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Just a diff shedding light on what this editor's doing, [49], but other than that (from what I can see), I see some relatively constructive editing. Maybe I'm missing something. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe revert wars and systematically purging in-line citations to peer-reviewed studies are constructive. The most glaring example of the type of edits that I am talking about are in the David Reardon Article. While myself and another editor are currently working on sorting out a consensus on a particular direction that the article should go, the user went and reverted and blanked text that all present agreed upon. (In-line citations to peer-reviewed studies.) I can see no constructive purpose for doing so as per wikipedia policy. This was done after repeated requests not to do so. Additionally, the editor removed verified cited material from the article without cause. I believe this pattern, coupled with the sockpuppetry and abusive actions in the past shows that the editor is not willing to work with other editors on the board when it comes to articles that impact feminism in some way. Your example involves a relatively uncontroversial topic, a University. I think that the problems only surface when feminism comes into play. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Ghostmonkey just showed up, and without warning decided to place [these on my talk page], which seems to me to be a bit of bullying. I mostly contribute to articles that deal with science and reproduction because my interest lies mostly in controversial topics. This has made me a target for people who believe in fringe science. I am always engaged in the talk pages, I make good faith efforts, and I am civil. Please review the talk pages on the articles the science and reproduction articles to which I contribute, as well the other articles that have interested me:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HPV_vaccine
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Reardon
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fetus
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Nevada%2C_Las_Vegas#Notable_faculty
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Reid
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misandry
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Domestic_violence
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historians_by_area_of_study#History_of_France

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, BTW, I notified IronAngelAlice :) Sorry, should have done that before. Ghostmonkey57, you need to assume good faith here. While the editor is certainly reverting, I don't think reverting different pages constitutes edit warring. If, as IAA claims, this is all part of a dispute related to fringe theories, it should go to FTN. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do review these pages. Specifically:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misandry
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fetus
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Reardon

As these are the ones in which I have dealings with the user. If you note on the Misandry page, the user makes the demonstrably false contention that the term is only used by conservatives to "counter feminist discussion". I believe this is demonstrative of the particular type of editing that I am talking about. While it is true that each of us has bias, when we systematically purge articles of cited and verifiable sources from the other perspective we violate wikipedia policy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

(edit conflicts) I need to give a disclaimer here becuase I am active on Talk:Misandry and some other feminism and gender studies related articles, so this view is not totally "outside" but it seems to me Ghostmonkey has a POV too[50]. Ghostmonkey and IronAgeAlice have a history going back to the Ferrylodge arbcom[51].

I had dealings with IronAgeAlice when she was Bremskraft and found her difficult sometimes but not disruptive (see here). Recently I've seen a good number of constructive edits from her (even if she is sometimes a little hasty with an undo here and there). I think she has some POV issues but I see no attempt at dispute resolution, no WP:3O, or article RFC or request for mediation from Ghostmonkey.

BTW after Ghostmonkey placed those warnings on IronAge Alice's page MastCell explained to him that they were issued incorrectly[52].

As I said, forgive me if I stumble a bit. I have never used this process at wikipedia before, and I will gladly use those other processes if they are more appropriate. Please point me in the right direction. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Actually that is incorrect. Michael Kimmel self identifies as a pro-feminist. I cited his work in the talk page. My point was that you cannot unilaterally remove peer-reviewed research from one perspective, and keep research from another, especially when that perspective comes from a self-identified pro-feminist researcher. I have edited other controversial articles, including Federal Marriage Amendment and Lawrence v Texas as you can see from my edits, I try to work for BALANCE and NPOV. I do not believe in removing research and citations from a perspective with which I might disagree, instead, I add cited and verifiable references to research and facts from the other perspective, SO BOTH SIDES are represented. The edits that I am referring to from the user do not work toward that end. Instead, the user systematically purges cites and material which conflicts with a feminist perspective. I have no problems with including research and cites from such a perspective, it's the removal of the opposing verified and cited material that creates the problem. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Also if we note the Misandry page you'll see an extraordinary claim from Ghostmonkey calling Jennifer Pozner (ex of FAIR) as "far left"[53] - far left means extreme communist, Pozner is not that. There are WP:KETTLE issues here--Cailil ^talk 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The other editors agreed with the removal. If you looked at the information that was removed, you will find that it didn't even support the contention that was deleted. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Ghostmonkey, just a quick point of clarification: I don't claim that "misandry" is only use to "counter feminist discussion." In fact, I was the one who added the "academic" and "Greek" sub sections for the article. My claim is that Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Warren Farrell, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, etc are using "misandry" to counter feminism, and this is borne out in the quotations from these folks, and the references. This would all be much better discussed on the actual talk page of the article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you interpret this for me?It's clear through the references that "misandry" is used as a way to counter feminist discussion in both North American and Europe.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Let's engage the talk page, shall we?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue would seem to be a sensible suggestion, Ghostmonkey? Unless you are asserting that IronAngelAlice is unwilling to discuss these matters with you? Alice^✉ 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation has been resolved. IronAngelAlice agreed to discuss things on the talk pages. That's all I wanted. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] Shiftedviewpoint

Shiftedviewpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a single purpose account, apparently used only to create Becomealpha (and redirects and images related to it). According to this, policy is to handle this sort of thing very aggressively. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PeeWee IP Block Lifted, He's Back

...PeeWee's IP block got lifted, and he's back. [54][55][56][57] —BoL 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked - again! - Alison ^❤ 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pablothegreat85

Can someone figure out what's going on here? It looks like an egregious WP:POINT violation or some dispute between Pablothegreat85 (talk · contribs) and Kmweber (talk · contribs). Thanks. 75.175.2.118 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I notified Kmweber about this. This is clearly disruptive editing/harassment. A block is probably in order. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for those reading it would appear the RfA was created by Pablo and looked like it was kmweber nominating himself. It was deleted and east.718 blocked Pablo as a compromised account. SorryGuy  Talk  06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by user:east718 as a likely compromised account Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrybabbar

This editor has left a "help" message on WT:NPA[58]. Could an admin follow up on it please? It appears he is reporting a personal attack. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No need already been dealt with. Both him and sihk scholer are blocked. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Wendykoontz

Wendykoontz (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war on HPV vaccine. User left an attack message and legal threat on User talk:Someguy1221. After I warned her about her attack, then warned her on her potential violation of 3RR. I then warned her of making legal threats. Wendykoontz then made two more legal threats to me. Jauerback (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Block indefinitely please per WP:LEGAL unless the threats are retracted. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIAV with links to legal threats and to this discussion. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And blocked by LessHeard_vanU. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violations, Fringe theories, advocacy, incivility

If possible, please watchlist Waterboarding. At Talk:Waterboarding it's getting nastier and nastier. Related thread. Full disclosure: I found this initially while doing RC, when it was part of a 100-edit edit war. User:Alison then began what was the first of many, many protections. I tried to play shepherd there to try to help people stay on-topic, and on-policy, rather than having it turn into a completely bitter partisan political holocaust. It worked for about two months, but each day over the past 2-3 weeks it's fallen apart and the center did not hold. I just had to refactor a BLP violation I found, and the tone is sinking fast. Please help. I honestly could care less about the ultimate content outcome of the page anymore, so long as it's compliant with policy. My stake in this now is that I can't deal with trying to keep the peace anymore alone. Unless there is ongoing uninvolved admin monitoring and intervention I can see this going right to Arbcom sooner or later. Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin

[edit] RightGot

RightGot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

His style of adding "obvious" but implausible redirects, changing redirects to disambiguations with improbable alternative articles, etc., looks familiar but I can't quite place it. As I don't recall whether the editor I'm recalling was blocked, this really isn't appropriate for WP:SSP, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved manned mission to Mars to human mission to Mars claiming that having "manned" in the title was sexist and User:Andyjsmith reverted it and calls me a troll because I did that. There are many high schools listed on dab pages for three letter acronyms. I've started a discussion about it here Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools. I think we should either include them on a separate dab page, or removed from the dab pages altogether with a note on the dab pages not to add high schools, but they shouldn't be cluttering up the main dab pages if we include them. RightGot (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He reminds me of LukeHoC (talk · contribs), who created 450+ redirects back in December, in the form of 2 October 2008 to redirect to October 2? He was told they were unnecessary and left Wikipedia because of that. It took me days to delete all those redirects. — Edokter • Talk • 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor appeared out of nowhere a few days ago and has done nothing apart from creating utterly pointless redirects and lists disguised as dabs. I find it hard to believe that he has no previous history on WP. Anyway I can't find more than a couple of his edits that can't be described as disruptive. andy (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'm inclined to delete the redirects as CSD R3 and the dab pages as CSD A1. — Edokter • Talk • 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried that but some admins disagreed as they're superficially plausible, so a lot of these articles are now in AFDs. andy (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a tool for tagging the nineteen oh one redirects? I tried AWB on a similar set, and it follows the redirects. (And AWB doesn't work here for me as the IE engine hits a redirect bug of some sort, not specific to Wikipedia, but I can't use it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects like Nineteen ninety-eight "superficially plausible"? They must be joking... Also, pages like 01, 02, 03 etcetera; they just contain "dab" links to Madden and NFL games. No, they need to go. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, redirects are cheap. I'd just leave em alone. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is MHS before the list of high schools was spun out; [70]. I hope we can agree that the current incarnation is better. Taemyr (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambiguate MHS (high schools)? They're not ambiguous in the first place. And if they are, then we need a major project to disambiguate all the other three and four letter acronym high schools - that is, every high school on the planet. Help all those poor people out there who are scratching their heads wondering which school in their neighbourhood could possibly be meant by MHS, NHS or OHS... Come to think of it my daughter goes to an OHS school. We need lots and lots and lots of lists headed AAA (high schools), AAB (high schools), AAC (high schools)... I make that 17,576 so-called dab pages for the three-letter acronyms and 456,976 for the four letter acronyms. Just under half a million dab pages for high schools. But hey, let's do it!

I can imagine someone being puzzled by a reference to MHS in a medical text and wanting to know it means Malignant hyperthermia syndrome, but schools? Who on earth is likely to confuse Mainland High School, Daytona Beach, Florida with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia? On the other hand if you Google MHS and find yourself trawling through this rubbish are you going to be happy with the performance of WP? I doubt it. andy (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy, if you're going debate RightGot's behavior then do it here. If you're going to debate the dab pages themselves, do it over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I was gonna come back here and do that... silly bot...-- RoninBK _{T C} 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I allowed myself to get irritated with RightGot's behaviour. Don't Feed The Trolls - if he wasn't so prolific it wouldn't be worth talking about blocking, but he is so it is. The only thing that seems to have slowed him down is this debate. I know that WP is a big place but someone who deliberately sets out to clutter it with trivia for whatever reason has to be stopped. Gresham's Law - the bad drives out the good. andy (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that before RightGot spun out the schools to separate pages they where already on the dab. RightGot then created a seperate page for them, rightly seeing this as a better alternative. And took the question of whether they should be disambiguated at all to WP:DAB. Taemyr (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(Followup on my original comment.) Actually, I was thinking of Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Voortle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), but I don't think they're quite the same. The question of whether he should be blocked for disruption, though, is still open. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I spoke too soon - he's at it again, this time with a raft of spurious AFDs. No question about good faith - this is deliberate vandalism. I gave a level 3 warning but that was silly of me. An immediate block is necessary. andy (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

nooooooooooooooooo, he has made some good edits such as [71] and [72] [73]- block for a week and advise him to lurker more maybe, but give him a chance, you can't say he hasn't put a lot of time and energy into wiki in a very short time.:) And he has genuinely tried to discuss the acronyms. This is a very young user I think, he wrote an article about a middle school. I think we should be careful not to WP:BITE. Maybe offer him mentoring? He clearly has enthusiasm. Merkinsmum 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually those are extremely bad edits and help to show that there is no good faith in what he does. The pointless "Pizza deliverer" redirect was one of only two that survived out of "pizza guy", "pizza girl" and a host of other pizza redirects, all of which were rapidly speedied. The "Pluto" edit flew in the face of all recent activity on that article, as did the "Heck" edit. Look at the crazy set of year redirects he's done. Almost every single one of his edits has been immediately reverted or deleted and he's racked up two full pages of complaints and warnings in almost as many days. Read User talk:RightGot and User talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and look at the spurious AFDs he's started. andy (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy I hope you don't mind me saying, and I agree a lot of his edits are wrong looking, but you really seem to have a 'thing' against Rightgot. You tried to remove his pizza deliverer to pizza delivery redirect, when that's an obviously good redirect, and another user kept it. I'm not saying you're a bad'un or not well meaning, just that we all get annoyed at people sometimes. This is a very young user, you personally may not want to, but I think wikipedia should give him a chance, and block for a while and mentor/adopt. You can't say he isn't putting a lot of energy into wiki lol. This is annoying and random, but it's not obvious vandalism like putting the c*** word in articles. Merkinsmum 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: #User:Andyjsmith x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't indef block or something people just for making edits we consider "bad" edits. Otherwise a lot of us, especially youngsters or those who don't have Englsh as their first language perhaps, would be blocked:) What I mean is the redirects may be stupid and dubious, but he has also made some good faith edits to the pluto and so on pages. Just because some people consider them rubbish, isn't a reason to indef block him or something. Merkinsmum 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree if it wasn't for the fact that he's been receiving warnings and reversions from the moment he started editing. To continue in the face of such criticism tends to imply bad faith. Some edits, such as the Pluto one, ran directly counter to recent activity in that article. He's sufficiently experienced to know about redirections and afds. You wouldn't block someone for a few bad edits but we're not talking about a few. We're talking about 90% of all of his edits, and the remaining 10% aren't very good either - and he pays no attention at all to what people say. andy (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)