Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for action in an Afd 2 User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008 3 [WikiEN-l] mailing list 4 User:Egasa 5 Rangeblock needed 6 User:Lumberjake 7 Advice sought re JohnSmith's apparent conflict seeking, and wikistalking 8 Entry for Millard Fillmore currently being vandalised 9 Request for action in an Afd 10 User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008 11 User:Egasa 12 Rangeblock needed 13 Recall 13.1 Block/Unblock Requests of User:100%freehuman 14 1px image DoS vandal is back 15 31 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock 16 Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE 17 Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy 18 Block review requested, if you please! 19 MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians 20 help with murray's dictionary 21 An Issue with an Admin 22 Assistance to close an Afd early and userfy 23 User:Thamarih - Personal attacks and edit warring 24 Political mess? 25 Image renaming 26 TTN 26.1 This is not a content issue 27 [WikiEN-l] mailing list 28 WP:STALK 29 User:Sarah777 30 Review welcomed 31 Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia 32 Trolling on Monetary policy of the USA 32.1 Comments 33 Revision contains personal contact info 34 124.155.55.44 35 Monobook deletion 36 User using sockpuppets to evade a block: 37 Complaint, 83.70.249.199 38 ScienceApologist 39 Connell66 banned long enough 40 User:Cordeyn 40.1 Someone keep an eye on my talk page, per above 41 Deleting Wikipedia Account

[edit] Request for action in an Afd

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have further discovered these statements [1] and [2] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [WikiEN-l] mailing list

[edit] User:Egasa

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. Lara❤Love 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rangeblock needed

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lumberjake

Lumberjake (talk · contribs) is on a prod removal spree, using nonsense edit summaries and not even completely removing the entire subst'd prod template. I left a message asking for valid edit summaries, and was ignored. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. This might encourage some communication. John Reaves 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation, but I would ask that you retract your allegation that the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are "nonsense". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, just FYI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure "removing valid prods" counts as disruptive since prods are, in some sense, there to be removed. I'd suggest that he be unblocked if he commits to using proper edit summaries when removing them in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby retract the allegation that the lyrics are nonsense (I love Bohemian Rhapsody), and caveat by saying that they're nonsense in this context.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder why he duped the page Rabbit bites to User talk:Lumberjake? Looks a bit like he's trolling is talk--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have agreed for the prod to be restored, as it was seriously disputive removing every remaining prod from the category with idiotic edit summarries. Secret ^account 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I could go on and bitch about how unfair this is, but I think maybe I needed a day to calm down and sort myself (other things going on IRL too). I'm cool with it, in the past. Happy end. Lumberjake (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice sought re JohnSmith's apparent conflict seeking, and wikistalking

John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and myself have a long history of bitter conflict, edit warring, and we seem to disagree with each other about just about everything. This ongoing conflict eventually escalated into an Arbcom case where we were both put on a revert probation. There was wikistalking as an issue then. My concern is that JohnSmith’s appears to be back to wikistalking me, seeking to continue the old pattern of provoking conflict and drama, that is objectively disruptive to the articles where this occurs between us. I advise for him to follow the first suggestion of dispute resolution and avoid me--not go out of his way to clash with me. So I’m here to ask for guidance and bring it to attention of admins who might be able to help before things continue and get worse.

My positive good-faith comment to JohnSmith, "...I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)"

But JohnSmith's replies this way:“As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”[8] Why he comes to the one article I mainly edit to engage in conflict with me, is my main question.

Same thing with other articles: John Smiths appeared for the first time right after my edit and request on the talk page. See my request on talk here: [9] I restored a section taking out by User:Raggz, and provide a citation for support. I left a leave a message on the talk page asking editors to please hold off on making any more deletions as I am working to provide references to support the rest of the claims, of which I am familiar with.This is respected by editors, but guess who shows up? John Smith’s, for the very first time to this article. And what are his very first action to the article? To to ignore my request and delete a section: [10] I then respond to him on the talk page with this question but he ignores it:[11]

I’m disturbed by this pattern of engaging with me in endless arguments. I think someone should tell him Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that out of the over 2 million articles, why must he choose the main articles that I am working on, esp. given the very predictable negative result is that we end up in endless and asinine bickering?

Even if his intentions are good, it’s just a bad idea given our history, and it appears to other editors that he is doing this just to fight with me. I’ve asked that he disengage and avoid arguing with me, but he seems addicted to argumentation--with me. I’ve raised this point several times and asked him but he responds back by making personal attacks and assuming bad faith: “As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”

I bring it here because I can see it getting worse again, and resulting in general disruption to actual editing work on improving articles, which is the purpose I edit on WP. If nothing is done, at least I want to be on record here of trying to do something about it before it gets out of hand, and continues on into another arbcom case.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your achilles heel is your longwindedness. El_C 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a Wikibreak go edit something else, forget your WP:POINT, leave the man alone and he will leave you alone. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, thanks! El_C 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I think he was referring to Giovanni. I don't think anyone could accuse you of WP:POINT and needing a wikibreak after a single sentence. ;) John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, the message you posted in italics was not good faith. If you had been truly meaning to say something pleasant you would have said something like "I hope that we will be able to put our unfortunate past behind us and work together on this page". What you did was to bring up the arbitration case (which put the same controls on each of us) and past allegations of wikistalking when there was clearly no need to.

Need I remind you that the only editor not involved in the page and who has no history with either myself or you who commented on my peer review request said that the didn't agree with Bernard's allegations against me being on the page because of you and suggested he strike them.

You are implying that if you edit a page I am not allowed to get involved with it. That is nonsense. I can take an interest in something with you not being an issue. Indeed your prescence on the Allegations article was not an issue until you made it one. I was talking things over quite happily with Stonesky and others. I have also been aware of it for a long time, but only recently felt I could move off the articles I've frequented in the past (e.g. Jung Chang) because you appear to have moved on from them and stopped edit-warring there.

You frequently complain I do not assume good faith but you do not show it yourself. If you want to avoid conflict, don't talk to me. If someone Bernard makes a snide comment as he did either don't respond or say that you think he's being hasty. Don't jump on the bandwagon because you think it's fun to have a swipe at me.

As for not responding on the other article, I was hardly going to stay up past midnight (my time) in the anticipation of you leaving a message. Or do you regularly stay up past 1am and expect others to do the same? And why was I on the page? Maybe because it's related to the allegations page? You are also misrepresenting what happened. You posted a message there well over 12 hours before I removed the text in question. How is a gap of 12 hours "right afterwards"?

If there's any drama it has been created by you. Take Igor's advice - wikibreak and then just leave me alone. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. While JohnSmith has largely been civil on that page, i must also agree with Giovannni's representation of the affair. The page is a magnet for Wikipedia activists who would like to see it deleted and -- in light of Giovanni and JohnSmith's past experiences -- JohnSmith has made some suggestions that bring up contentious issues from a very long time back. He has, unfortunately, also approached the page primarily from the perspective of someone who would like to see it or much of its content deleted. While we may be still working out these points of contention in a civil manner, i see nothing in his behavior or attitude that suggests exemplary mention for tolerance, cooperation, or contribution. Meanwhile, Giovanni's comments were direct, to-the-point, and based upon what must be a very sensitive subject for the both of them. Giovanni pointed out only that there were disagreements between the two of them that had resulted in disciplinary action and an agreement by each to try and avoid the other one. When Giovanni pointed this out, JohnSmith's declared that he had somehow been "personally attacked". His reaction seemed to me quite exaggerated and dramatic; moreover, Giovanni has been a more-or-less continuous presence on this page for a couple of years, whereas this is the first time i have seen the username JohnSmith's appear. Thus, it would seem to me that if JohnSmith's were truly seeking to avoid Giovanni then "Allegations...U.S." would be one of the very few places he would avoid like the plague.

Having said all of that, JohnSmith's has done nothing to personally attack me. His suggestions for the page have been met with our usual appeal to Wikipedia protocol and guidelines. Yet even so, if it is the case that he has agreed to avoid Giovanni then it would seem that he is now reneging upon that agreement in an egregious fashion. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was never an agreement to avoid editing/commenting on pages the other has worked on. I would not decide to go somewhere because Giovanni was there, but his prescence on a page has never really been something I have thought about - if I am interested I will take a look at something and maybe edit. Generally speaking I do not seek to interact with him, preferring to discuss matters with other users if possible.

If he so wishes to have an "official" agreement that we stay away from each other, one that can be enforced by administrators, he should propose it in whatever place would be appropriate so that it can be discussed. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just noted on a user talk page where John was complaining about Giovanni, both of you need to chill and quit trying to get the other party in trouble. Either ignore each other or engage constructively. I'm sick of watching this disupte rampage all over the 'pedia. You're both better than that, and I think everyone who's been exposed to this pretty lame dispute is sick of hearing about it. You are both to blame (note: this means that no one is going to be persuaded by any argument either of you make to the contrary), and both of you should make the choice to "squash the beef" as they say and either work together civilly or avoid all interaction. If that cannot happen Gio and John might have to be forcibly separated in some fashion - hopefully without going through the whole rigmarole of a new ArbCom. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entry for Millard Fillmore currently being vandalised

Millard Fillmore entry vandalism in progress now.

Edits include:

'Millard Fillmore is a fag'

'Millard Fillmore has no penis'

'Buttmuncher'

etc. etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.232 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... as if it's not enough to have been associated with something called the Know Nothing Party, or to have been the inspiration for tired political hackery in a duck suit... is there no end to the indignities to which President Fillmore is subjected? MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know; on the other hand, has two of the most famous rock venues in the world named after him, so that's some compensation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He's also the only president who arguably came to power because of too many cold cherries. Take that, Lincoln!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly... Chester A. Arthur's sub rosa connections to the iced cherry lobby, which dated back to his tenure as head of the New York Port Authority, were a major factor in his failure to secure the Republican renomination in 1884, ultimately leading to Grover Cleveland's rather narrow victory over James G. Blaine. It is commonly believed that if not for Cherrygate, Arthur would have wiped the floor with Grover Cleveland's sorry, philandering, inferiorly mustachioed ass in the general election. The role that iced cherries have played in American politics has generally been underappreciated by mainstream historians. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for action in an Afd

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have further discovered these statements [12] and [13] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Egasa

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. Lara❤Love 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rangeblock needed

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recall

(cross-posted from WP:AN) Hello. This is to notify you of a formal request for recall concerning my use of admin tools, specifically, protection. I hate to stir up drama so soon after the most recent request, but I have decided to honor User talk:100%freehuman's request. You may view the process here; if the threshold for requests for me to step down is not met within 24 hours of the complaint, the process will proceed; comments are welcome on the talk page, litigants may post on the formal page, I only request notification on my talk. Thank you all. Regretfully, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has just registered today. Revert it. And, ignore it. Seriously, Wikipedia's community has enough drama. miranda 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there is a chance that this is either a user you blocked or a common troll trying to create drama, right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 100%freehuman's edits to date do not look like those of a newbie, and I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that this may well be trolling. -- The Anome (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoah here, hold the phone. How about users opposing recall? Keilana is one of our better admins, if it were up to me, she stays. This sitch looks more and more like a troll with an axe to grind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy was editing under an IP and has a problem with a protection I made. I'm calling it valid and good-faith, if I really screwed up it'd succeed, no? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With due respect (and I think you're an awesome admin!), I seriously think you may need to tighten your recall criteria. This one is largely vexatious, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, I'll look over things. I actually significantly tightened them recently. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If this can happen then the recall criteria is seriously flawed. It takes less than 10 minutes of going through your admin actions to see that this recall request is frivolous. Don't assume too much good faith. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So he created a SPA for the single purpouse of having you desysoped? that should be enough to dismiss the recall request and try to discuss drectly. I really respect your honor code but the least we need are 'suicidal' admins, in this case a single protection doesn't justify a desysoping, everybody does mistakes and this certainly wasn't one, the user was trying to push potentially libelous material into the article, [19] protecting a page if there are BLP issues is common practice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That editor appears to be posting comments everywhere. Just other people's to other pages.[20][21] To be honest, I can't make out quite what (s)he's trying to achieve here - Alison ^❤ 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are most likely the registered account of an IP that tried to insert this into the article of a Hillary Clinton associate. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the IP that I begged people for over an hour to block on two noticeboards yesterday? And then had to go on IRC to try and get done? Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw AGF. Why not just block this obvious troll account (100%freehuman)? I mean, just look at its bizarre edit history. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a permablock on 100%freehuman (talk · contribs) for trolling. I also support Keilana significantly tightening up her recall criteria to prevent every Troll, Dick and Harry from creating drama every few days. The words "editors in good standing" added somewhere to the recall criteria would do it. Or just totally get rid of the drama-magnet that is recall. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert the recall request, it's an obvious troll. The user's account should be reblocked indef. --Coredesat 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually after seeing that the user is also impersonating the one that he is asking to recall [22], I support a indef for disruptive trolling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; if all the above requests were actually sarcasm, and I failed to pick that up, then feel free to unblock. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe that was an attempt to impersonate. It was more likely just a poorly executed quote. The comment that was added with Keilana's sig was actually part of a comment left by Keilana here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I know Im new anddont no much or really near anything about everything I am doing the best I can since contributing to an article I have been wrongly blocked and band by Dreadstar and Keilana its all gone really crazy not at all how i thought adding to wikkipedia would be I dont know what iformation i should and should not put so Ill wait till im asked i guess. Thanks Kate 100%freehuman (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why recall is not a good process includes this type of action. Mercury (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you were so willing to be recalled Keilana shows that you clearly don't need to be--Jac16888 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 100%freehuman is requesting unblock. I strongly oppose unblocking- see this attempted forgery of comments. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a similar situation to what I noted above. Keilana left that comment on User talk:AndonicO. It's a poor attempt at quoting, not impersonation. --Onorem♠Dil 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that all the evidence supports that 100%freehuman is a SPA for trolling and the additional evidence collected by Nwwaew supports a permanent block. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Clarify that even if it a poor attempt at quoting it still looks like trolling. Jeepday (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I could do a little clarifying myself. I'm not supporting an unblock. I just want to make sure that impersonation isn't used as the main justification for people supporting the block. --Onorem♠Dil 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block/Unblock Requests of User:100%freehuman

---

100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm struck by the discrepancy between this block and the one being discussed in the thread just below ("Personal attacks by User:Koalorka"). Here we have a new editor, unfamiliar with the Wiki-way, copying and pasting comments in what seems to be an attempt to collect evidence for a case for recall. Indefinite block. Below, we have somebody using highly inflamatory language and accusing an admin of racialism fresh off a 24 hour block for similar comments, and they get off with a warning. Yes, it was a bad initial edit, and the subsequent edit warring didn't help, but it appears she was doing her best to abide by policies and guidelines and just didn't get the parameters of reliable sourcing. She's expressed contrition and confusion and a willingness to refrain from editing until more knowledgable. Anybody else see this as a case of biting the newbie? Pairadox (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock. I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. If you go back and look through the history of this dispute, I think that 100%freepeople was all along requesting clarification as to why the edits on a certain page were considered "vandalism" and thus resulted in semi-protection. Keilana did make some attempts to explain this but mentioned her willingness to be recalled so often that 100%freepeople took her up on it. In fact, Keilana's responses brought up recall much more than they addressed the vandalism and semi-protection part of the question. I think that's not only not blockworthy, it's not even abusive, and may even be a valid reason for requesting recall with Keilana's lax requirements, not that I think this shows any need whatsoever to remove Keilana's admin bit. I just don't want to unblock without consulting at this point. Mangojuice^talk 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and watch. This seems way out of proportion, and a new user is very confused by this kerfuffle. Suggest someone with patience offers to mentor her, or point her in the direction of WP:ADOPT. Let's assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two parties above appear to support unblocking. I tend to agree with that idea. Also, for what it's worth, I have offered to be an adopter, although no one's been stupid enough to accept me as one yet. I third unblocking the editor in question and offer adoption if that user wants it. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. It has already been hashed out that this was an SPA created for the sole purpose of de-sysopping Keilana. I have read through the edit history, the comments and the talk pages, and I don't buy this "I'm new here, I'm confused" line for one NY minute. (Sorry, I usually hold AGF high on the list, but this one has drawn a modicum of my ire...) If you unblock this account, keep a weather eye on this user. Edit Centric (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But this was not an SPA for harassment. The article this user was interested in was semi-protected, so she registered an account, probably to be allowed to edit the article again. When she found that she couldn't edit the article right away, she went to Keilana to complain about it. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. 100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be requesting an unblock, Keilana's desysopping, and unprotection of Huma Abedin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) mainly for the purposes of adding a reference to Huma Abedin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) implying some sort of relationship with Hilary Clinton. I don't know why someone in Australia is so interested in adding this rumor, but we have to be careful of WP:BLP violations here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think an indef block is warranted here. It was a good faith error on the part of the user to incorrectly quote, it was unfamiliarity with adminship and the recall process that led to user to request recall and it was a mistake on Keilana's part to agree to it (again) and begin the recall process on the complaint of a brand-spanking newbie who clearly doesn't understand what is going on. ^Avruchtalk 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on the above discussion, I'm going to offer the user a set of terms for being unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do however note how the user is capable of writing grammatically and correctly spelled "Thank you for correcting your misunderstanding." even including a :), and then going on to at best nongrammatical and poorly spelled sections. Curiouser and curiouser. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking's not a good idea. Have a look at the conversation on WP:BLP/N#Huma Abedin: this is not someone who is willing to listen, this is not someone who has more than one thing they want out of this, this isn't someone we need to indulge. Relata refero (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support unblocking if he agreed to Mangojuices terms (listed on 100%'s talk page); however, he doesn't seem to want to do this... · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support unblocking if they'd be more coherent and civil. As I'm directly involved in Mango's terms, I'm not going to comment on the ones in which I am involved; adoption would be a good idea. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1px image DoS vandal is back

• Ffddd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Pages that need deleting:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

This is a deliberate attempt to DoS Wikipedia through the massive use of 1 pixel images (sample. I'm still trying to find the original thread where this cropped up before, it wasn't that long ago. Thanks. MER-C 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and blocked the culprit. I don't understand the situation fully, but trust MER-C's judgement on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I get it now - I just couldn't see the images at first! It's quite sneaky it's got to be said. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mp3tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Pages:

Another one, from a couple of days ago (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359#User:Mp3tt - not the thread I'm looking for). These pages are safe, but you'll see the characteristic pattern in the history. I'll see if checkuser can refresh my memory. MER-C 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda surprised the user wasn't blocked - done now. Pages deleted, just in case people get jumped looking through page histories. Doubt we need that sort of charming individual hanging about. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From Jan 22nd, I think this was also Zzttr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who I indef'ed then. Pattern appears to be the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result is in - IPs are now blocked but there are a bunch of accounts to be dealt with, if anyone wants to. The IPs are hardblocked for a month, so there's no hurry :) - Alison ^❤ 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:12855. MER-C 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakon has deleted all the pages, and I have blocked and tagged all the ones that hadn't already been blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 31 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents. Thank you for your help. Mercury (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IP unblock requests
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
72.226.235.52 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.232.204.42 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.236.167.137 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.240.135.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.34.232.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.36.146.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.39.137.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.51.35.160 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.55.153.154 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.61.17.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.66.88.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.70.36.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.75.46.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.8.73.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.81.255.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.84.196.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.84.45.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 72.93.69.131 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 73.157.196.208 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.0.39.243 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.101.238.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.105.139.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.107.218.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.111.66.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.112.200.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.113.251.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.128.153.61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.128.62.192 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.130.8.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.133.96.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.134.92.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.136.160.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.138.174.84 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.140.108.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.173.50.215 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.193.219.13 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log) 74.208.46.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • TOR Check • RBLs • Unblock User • block log)

#37 still identifying as a TOR node Dureo (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:74.208.46.15 is still a TOR proxy and should remain blocked. However, the first 36 should be unblocked. — Save_Us † 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tazlk pages need clearing (just delete them if there's nothing but a {{tor}} tag). I would but I've got my own list to plough through! Neıl ☎ 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lara❤Love 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mercury, are the IPs on your list (User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor) the same ones that SQL auto-identifies with his bot daily on User:SQL/Funky TOR? Neıl ☎ 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I copy them then queue them for testing by my process. Then I post them, but if your going to work those directly, I'll stop posting them. Many thanks for your work. Mercury (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting chunks here will help get the backlog cleared quicker - I'd recommend carrying on. Neıl ☎ 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE

[edit] Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy

[edit] Block review requested, if you please!

Clearsight (talk · contribs) - blocked this one indef, reasons given here. Only thing I didn't say there was that he'd managed 3 separate edit-wars in under a week. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I rolled back a couple of past edits while reviewing, as seems to be a singular POV SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just rejected his unblock request. So yes, I endorse this block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He wrote, "User Stephan Shulz has been active on the same talk page from a differing point of view". I am just curious to know if you have been involved in this article in any way? He seems to be of the opinion that you shouldn't have reviewed the block as you're already involved and wants a completely uninvolved admin. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable to ask for. Bstone (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can always look through Stephan's contribution history, which is public. I see no edits to Talk:Holocaust denial and one to Holocaust denial in his past 1,000 edits. I didn't go back further, but you're welcome to. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've last edited the talk page on September 5th. This user arrived here on January 25th. I've certainly discussed the topic previously, but I've not been involved with the user (well, with the account) in any way before this encounter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. --John (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I think this was a good block. The less editorial time consumed by querulous Holocaust "revisionists", the better. And since the Vermont Public Library editor is revving up again... MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From his talk page, he seems to be rather upset about being blocked and is expressing true desire to continue editing in earnest. Perhaps the block can be for a specific time (two weeks? one month?) and also require him to be adopted with probation? I believe we have an opportunity here to build a bridge. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he would be. This edit is enough for me, thanks. Good block. Black Kite 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is indeed extremely disturbing. Bstone (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support per his trolling and that edit linked by Black Kite. Lawrence § t/e 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Bstone) None of the other folks who have commented, here or on his talk page, have found the block particularly disturbing. I suppose if an admin willing to unblock and mentor this editor can be found, then that might be an option to be discussed. Still, given the finite nature of volunteer time and effort, and the historically disappointing returns on mentoring this sort of editor, I would be pessimistic. If you're looking to build bridges or help fledgeling editors (which is a noble endeavor), surely there are more worthy potential beneficiaries out there? MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a Vermont based vandal. There aren't too many people in our Green Mountain state, heck I probably already know the person! ^Avruchtalk 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the library and you see a guy on the computer next to you simultaneously denying the Holocaust, global warming, and HIV as the cause of AIDS, it's him. Tell him to stop. He's destroying all the goodwill towards Vermonters that your delicious cheddar and maple syrup would otherwise engender. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He sent me a pleasant enough email, that I responded to on his talk page, asking me to look into this. I guess he thought I was an admin (I'm not). The section right above my response includes him saying WP has libeled him. Legal threat? Lawrence § t/e 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. "This is libel" isn't a legal threat. "You're libeling me" isn't a legal threat. "I'm going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. The block worries me a bit, but mostly only procedurally; needless to say, I'm biased. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

There is a never-ending edit war at MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. I tried to stick in an oar to leave it at a sourced version, but I don't know enough about this information to know whether the edits are valid or not. Nobody violates 3RR, but there are repeated reversions that need to be stopped. I'm backing out as I don't want to get into the war, myself. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a POV push about the identity of the MOWA people as Native American, not Cajun. the editor in question, User:Uuu987 is a single purpose account who clearly uses POV language to disparage any and all text about the white/black racial identity of the MOWA, in favor if the Choctaw identity. Although he has some sources, his writing is not the best by any means, and his aggressive disputation with the facts of the page is in no way helping. Other editors have appeared to remove unfounded material, but he seems intent on sticking it all back in. ThuranX (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uuu987. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help with murray's dictionary

Just created article. The "D" in "dictionary" should be capitalized. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upperdoes39 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been moved; however, shouldn't this just be redirected to Oxford English Dictionary? GlassCobra 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See talk page for discussion Talk:Murray's_Dictionary--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Issue with an Admin

Please note that the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I) is NOT for dispute resolution. Administrators cannot intervene in content disputes; you must seek dispute resolution by following the steps outlined in WP:DR. If your incident report cannot result in an administrator action (warning, blocking, protection, or deletion), you should take it to an appropriate forum.

I am only posting this because I believe that the admin has become too personally involved, and that if someone else steps in, she will revert to being a good editor again. The admin in question is User:Vary. After editing on Cloverfield (creature), Vary had become involved in discussion over the naming. After injecting herself into a dispute about the use of the term "Cloverfield" to describe the creature or not here [[44]], she went over to another thread that I was in here: [[45]]. Following another user who you are in disputes with to another thread like that is exactly what is written on WP:STALK when it states: "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption."

Why is that true? Because the information she removed were from properly cited sources who verified the opinion of another writer. The section was on the controversy over Article 11. According to WP:NPOV, both sides need to be stated to be fair. The paragraph even starts out saying: "According to author John Eidsmoe, who teaches constitutional law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, ratification of Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli cannot be taken as Congressional assent of its statements.[4][5]" It is only appropriate to have other sources verifying that this his opinion and reinforcing his assessment on the importance of the Article. However, she removes the information and states: "v - the tone is clearly innappropriate - 'mere treaty'?" Instead of fixing the tone and making the paragraph appropriate, she just deletes, which goes against Wikipedia policy. When someone points out that "If tone is an issue, why not rewrite instead of removing sources that are proper and verifiable? " and actually rewrites the paragraph, she claims: "No. It's innappropriate to use this information in this way. " even though WP:NPOV makes it clear that it is appropriate.

The editor continued to remove wholesale properly cited information that is from those who do have multiple doctorates and published by groups like Oxford University Press, which is deemed verifiable under the verifiability guidelines. This continued until she provoked a 3RR, and then made claims of sock puppetry. After that, she then complains here [[46]] that she is being reverted over something that was deemed unverifiable. She used a citation that came from a member of the Rottentomatoes page: [47] for the document and [48] . The person, who she claimed: "There are blogs, and then there are blogs; not everyone who publishes content online is 'just a blogger.' My source for the 'claim' that Paramount published these notes is a reliable online film site, one of several which publish them as the production notes distributed to the media" although the only cite she uses is by a blogger page ([[49]] his home page is from a blog cite, and he is admittedly not a professional) and there is no author or copyright information to verify that it was from Paramount. Furthermore, the citation in question as not from a direct quote in the source, but an off hand comment written by an unknown source.

After pointing this out, she claimed "The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor of beginning the article "Clover is a monster that first appeared in..."" [[50]] even though I have made it clear that I was only justifying how the term "clover" was not appropriate to be used in the context that it was used in the article, and nothing about renaming the page. I made that constantly clear, but Vary continued to claim over and over that I stated otherwise without providing any evidence to that.

I believe that the admin has become personally involved in this issue. Can someone help sort out this issue? Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Wallbuilders is a known unreliable source. The owner of this company, David Barton has been criticized for making up quotes, and placing them in the mouths of the Founding Fathers. When challenged to support his made-up quotes he is cited as believing he saw it somewhere, or that he thinks it's what they would have said. I support removing anything they state as unreliable. If you'd like to discuss that particular aspect more, we have a reliable sources noticeboard here. Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wallbuilders was not the only one being challenged. If you notice, the next one is David Homes, "publisher=Oxford University Press" which is a very reliable source. Another, "American Gospel", is by "|publisher=Random House" [51]. Those are two sources. Please notice that there were four books removed, and only one is needed to verify the statement that was removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're going to want to try dispute resolution. This is a content dispute and does not need admin intervention. Shell ^babelfish 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree here with Shell Kinney. From a cursory review of the associated Talk page, the issue appears to be the relevance, and undue weight, of the included sections and not so much specifically their reliability. If you feel the issues cannot be resolved on the article's talk page, you might want to review our policy on undue weight, and/or open a discussion at the associated Talk page for Neutral Point of View.Wjhonson (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance to close an Afd early and userfy

I believe I have the agreement of the nominator User_talk:MickMacNee#The_Entertainers and a couple of involved admins at this Afd for early closure and userfication without prejudice, as per the suggestion sub heading. Am I correct in my terminology here? (my first time at such a non trivial Afd). I believe an independent admin can now close the Afd debate as delete without prejudice and userfy it to my space? I intend in future to recreate the article after a major edit of the userfied copy, under the same name, without prejudice. N.B. I'm unclear on the references to histories and talk pages in the userfication policy. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. The AfD is not going to be closed early. Just relax. Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thamarih - Personal attacks and edit warring

This user is again engaging in personal attacks and threatens continued edit warring. [52][53] [54] [55] [56] This exchange is typical: This was in response to this admonition to follow policy on conduct and editing.

The user has already taken two blocks for this behavior. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User was blocked for 3RR violation. Considering the length and depth of the problems noted, there is a likelyhood that he may be taking an unhealthy ownership of the articles. If this continues, please make a note of as MANY problems as you can (diffs are GOOD. And article diffs are better than talk page diffs) and we will investigate further. However, please wait until this block expires before doing so, so that we can extend good faith to the user that they may return and stop after this block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political mess?

I'm a bit concerned by many of the non-cinematographic contributions of user:Telecineman, given current political goings-on in the US.

Could I have some people help me out in checking his stuff for BLP and NPOV compliance? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of who? -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. I meant, user:Telecineguy. DS (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image renaming

per several threats against me, I have finished (mostly) a bot to rename images. primary testing will be on commons. please comment on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Image renaming if all goes well I plan on porting the bot over here. if people are interested please help in the transwiki of related pages/templates. β^_command 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TTN

• TTN (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

User has been continuing to mass remove pages (redirectification) and revert war (such as the one on Bulbasaur) despite objections and disagreements. His actions are not based on consensus and are WP:POINTy at best. Admin intervention is necessary as wikipedia is not a battleground.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you want us to block all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft and then war with TTN's efforts to prune it down to manageable (and cited and policy-compliant) proportions? Good plan, but they will howl bloody blue murder, just as they do every time a massive uncited article on an item of fictional trivia is removed. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Revert waring is disruptive. TTN revert wars among other things. -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe an injunction made by ArbCom to restrict these actions would be beneficial, in the meantime, I do not see precisely what admin intervention could be used? Please feel free to suggest something in particular, GDonato (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• White Cat, wait for the arbitration case to end. This is outside of the purview of this board as he is currently the subject of a new ArbCom case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  TTN is continuing to mass blank articles and continuing to revert war. That is disruptive. The presence of an RfAr is NOT a license allowing further disruption. It supposed to be the contrary. The RfAr may last for weeks or months. Tell me one reason why I should not mass revert TTNs reckless mass blankings (as per Wikipedia:Be bold#… but don't be reckless.). -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because they aren't 'blanking', they're redirecting, leaving all content available to editors who want to improve a page, and because until the ArbCom plays out, any such actions, esp. in light of your un-archiving this section, which cautions you to let ArbCom settle out, will be seen by many as tendentious, pointy editing. You are not some neophyte, but an editor well aware of how Wikipedia works. You know that provoking others with POINTy reversions will only serve to draw out the ArbCom, by spurring on more and more commentaries, many of which will speak about your actions here. It is often said that patience is a virtue. I recommend you take that to heart. Since you asked for counsel before acting, it's no longer likely to be seen as BOLD. that's a few reasons not to do what you're considering. I hope you think about hem in depth before pursuing your plan. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It is blanking. All content s removed. If a person redirects by removing all content on a random article (Say redirecting Canada to United States) we revert it. That person will most likely be treated like a vandal. Please do not insult my intelligence any more like that.
  Yes I know how wikipedia supposed to work. That is with consensus not through brute forcing ones own will. TTN is not acting based on consensus.
  If TTN's edits are perfectly fine as if it were a copy edit - something completely non-controversial, why is it a WP:POINT violation if I commit similar edits?If TTN's edits are not perfectly acceptable and even disruptive, I am quite baffled why the community refuses to act on it.
  -- Cat ^chi? 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  see User:SirFozzie/Get It Right for my feelings on it. An article merged for a couple days or even weeks is not cause for despair, anger, and yet another edit war that has already taken too much time of the community's patience and time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, 1 article is manageable but hundereds more is just problematic. Had TTN ceased mass blanking pages at least for temporarily there wouldn't be anything for me or someone else to revert. I am not trying to escalate the matter and on the contrary I am seeking to prevent further escalations by TTN. It isn't like I am in the business of mass revert waring on multiple pages. My comments were intended to be a figure of speech. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because the community tried, and failed. That is why it went to ArbCom the first time. Now it's back at ArbCom, again. Something gets decided there, and the community works with it. If that doesn't work, it goes back to ArbCom (sadly). There's no action to be done that won't be stepping on the toes of the committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, at least now I have something to refer to arbcom that may or may not compel them to a temporarily injunction. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom needs to do something about TTN—a temporarily injunction against continuing his redirect campaign while the case is ongoing would be tremendously helpful. If the ArbCom will not do this, we need an admin to step in and block him for disruption if he continues. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom could give him a medal. And do you really think that an Admin blocking over ArbCom's decision would help the situation, or blow open a can of big fat worms? most, if not all of ArbCom IS admins, so you'd be looking at some sort of wheel war mess. Why can't the peopel spending so much energy on fighting this just go and find assertions of notability in the real world for the shows they want to keep as articles? I'm helping a guy right now fix up an I Love Lucy article. If episodes from 50 years ago can still have supporting evidence, then so can far more recent shows. If you really want to improve them, head down to the library, hit the various periodicals catalogs there, many index all the topics going back years if not decades. Since most of the shows being defended most vociferously are recent shows being defended by editors who grew up with them, those shows are most like to be the ones whose articles were indexed as they came out, and should be easily located in the library's archives. Photocopy the half dozen pages, note the publication info in the margin for citation, come home and include it. Heck, sign on AT the library and do it all from there. This is not rocket science, and I'm really sick and tired of the blanking accusation being trotted out every time TTN is accused, when we all know how redirects work in the history. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See, this culture of people (same people) going out of their way in defending TTNs behavior while making every attempt to prevent any kind of review of TTNs behavior is adding to the disruption. Also the state and quality of the said articles is not the issue here. People are not given medals for revert waring. Arbcoms rulings are rather absolute. I presume you are new to the inner workings of wikipedia and what arbcom is. Per the rationale behind WP:POINT:

If you spot an article lacking proper secondary sources citation

• do attempt to find a source and/or bring the issue to the attention of the general community
• don't remove all content on all articles laking secondary source citation without even bothering to skim through the pages

-- Cat ^chi? 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't agree with you, I must be new? ArbCom didn't issue a cease and desist, or even a loud 'knock it off' to TTN, or that would be that. He's got policies and guidelines on his side, wide support for his actions, and at least some Wikiprojects and editors are listening, accepting redirects, and then working to edit towards better articles. That's all ideal results for using policy. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to send him an e-mail or something. Some of these situations are no big deal, but some of them are concerns that need to be looked at. At the very least, we need TTN to not appear as aggressive. Appearances are half the battle on Wikipedia, and his actions don't just effect him, but people's views on the guidelines being cited. That's not to say he needs to put up some fake smiles or anything like that. I understand TTN's frustration. I should have followed up on this more before we got to the point of needing even the first arbcom case. There's a lot of things.. timing and the way things are said.. that could be easily improved and allow things to go much smoother. And yes, on several of these he does need to just stop and discuss, but on several he's also citing legitimate discussions that back up his actions. It's.. a complicated headache. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

side comment.. "X are/is half the battle" is meant only as a phrase. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which rather invites the question why so many people fight so hard to keep material that abjectly fails policy and content guidelines. You seem to be missing all the battling going on on one side of this dispute. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree that it "abjectly fails policy and content guidelines". And honestly, it seems like people opposing TTN do very little of anything that could be described as fighting. The response has actually been, for the most part, pitifully meek. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just TTN, but it's the other side harrassing the living hell out of him. Just stop this bs and let's edit the wikipedia. As for characters and espisotes, I agree with TTN there, but this is too much reverting, and little discussion. Secret ^account 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why edit if the material could potentially be gone within a few years with just a simple button press? It's far easier to remove information than it is to add information on Wikipedia. TTN has shown me the light, and many others. With deletionists running the show and Guy berating 'fancruft' contributors with his always civil wit, adding to the any part of the mainspace is a waste of time. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Weather you agree with TTN or not, to put it mildly, is none of my concern. A lack of discussion is exactly the problem. TTNs edits are not based on consensus even if they may be the best thing since sliced bread. TTN isn't prone to discussion and instead to revert warring among other kinds of disruption.
There are many articles in violation of many and sometimes contradicting guidelines. In this case weather or not a guideline is violated or weather if such a violation is punishable by immediate and unconditional blanking/redirectification itself is disputed. Should we mass remove all articles that violates some random guideline? How about doing so while avoiding or making an effort to avoid all discussion?
If TTN is getting harassed, I'd like to see the evidence for that. Him getting harassed however is no excuse for TTNs continuing conduct.
-- Cat ^chi? 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletionists don't have time to put forth the effort to have a discussion. Discussion is too much work. Deleting and merging things like mad while having deletionist admins do all the work for him, sticking up for him no matter what, is the way to go. Maybe he'll make one comment on the thread to make it seem like he's listening, but nah, that's as far as it goes. Reading is too much effort. It's already been proven time and time again that he won't ever be punished for this behavior since so many people with the tools supports his every action, so there's absolutely no point for him to listen to these. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In this spesific case nothing is merged despite the merge claim. -- Cat ^chi? 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a content issue

People seem to confuse or intentionally overlook the rationale behind this complaint so allow me to rephrase:

• This entry is over the user conduct of User:TTN NOT over the content of the articles. Content of the articles is beyond the scopte of this entry.
  • This isn't the first time wikipedians had to deal with articles that may or may not have a problem with them. Resolving such issues requires the participation of the entire wikipedia community not just "inclusionist fans" and "deletionist anti-fans"
  • Articles neither have any legal nor urgent issue with them such as WP:BLP violations.
• TTN is mass removing content despite objections.
  • Weather you call TNN's actions redirectification, blanking, mering, etc is besides the point
  • Weather or not the information is in the history log is besides the point. Thats like saying it is fine to randomly delete (via admin delete) articles which have some sort of non-critical problem with them just because they can be undeleted.
  • Creation of such redirects creates problems. Such problems include
    • The mass orphanage of fair-use images which creates a back log for admins
    • Possible mass creation of double redirects which may be hard to reverse as once bots process them they'd have to be dealt with individually.
• Users actions are NOT based on consensus no mater how good or bad they may be
  • There is no agreement that all bad episode articles are to be purged on sight. If so please cite such a consensus.
  • There isn't an overflow of new entries given the current Writers Guild of America strike, and even then the rate of article creation had never been any way near at the rate of TTNs removal.
• User revert wars (see history of Bulbasaur)
• User avoids discussion on the "real matter"
  • User does not take part in the WP:DR process. User only has a single 2-line post in the previous RFAR and has no participation whatsoever in the current one.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, check this AfD close reason by an admin. Even he knows that TTN gets what TTN wants, so there's no point in opposing him. It's sad, but this is what the project has become. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• "all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft": Again, one user's cruft is another user's important matter. For example, I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft, and when reading the newspaper I skip over it, and when it starts in the morning TV news I often switch off; but I do not maraud around Wikipedia deleting or redirectifying the football articles. (And I suspect that someone will have to go through TTN's contributions list reverting his redirectings, if this discussion's verdict allows it.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [WikiEN-l] mailing list

[edit] WP:STALK

This edit ([58]) is example of a violation of WP:STALK. Yahel Guhan has never edited the article before, nor has he/she posted anything on the article's talk page. The user's first edit is simply a revert of mine. I notified the user on his/her talk page, but he/she simply removed my comments.[59]

Please note that recently, User:Blnguyen blocked me for 72-hours for reverting another user on an article I had never edited (even though I ahd not been warned, nor had I ever followed the user before). Another admin thought that such actions justify a 72-hour block.Bless sins (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a long history of stalking me before[60][61][62], editing articles right after me, reverting me on articles you never edited before until I did so, editing right after me[63], starting edit wars over material that there is consensus for right after I start editing a page [64] I have warned this user three times about this before, asking him to stop.[65][66][67] I made a report yesterday on this page, Bless sins is the first to respond [68] It is obvious that bless sins is wikistalking me. On this RFA, Bless sins opposed after I voted "support" [69] Bless sins first edit to Islamophobia in months is a revert of me [70] Yahel Guhan 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hold on. Wait a minute. You mentioned three edits of mine, and I'll respond to them. In the first one, the fact is that I gave warning to a user([71]) who made personal attacks against Yahel Guhan, and Yahel calls it "stalking"? Not to mention the fact that WP:ANI is on my watchlist, perhaps I should stop defending you against uncivil editors. Also, the other edit you mention([72]), there I improved the article (no one can deny that) by making a minor edit. Admins please check it out for yourself. I came to the article since you nominated it for "good articles" and I happen to watch these articles (and review them as well). Finally , regarding this edit, it wasn't a stalk: I had edited the same article just 10 days before ([73]).Bless sins (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding other edits, Yahel can hardly accuse me of taking in interest in the placement of "Islam and antisemitism" category. If an admin reviews my edits, he/she will find that my number one contribution to wikipedia has been "Islam and antisemitism". In some case, it is worth noting that Yahel stalked me: for example Yahel's first edit here was a direct revert of my edit).Bless sins (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you made it perfectly clear why you warned the user in your comment: "As a fellow wikipedian, who would like to see you stay on wikipedia and make a positive contribution, I advise you to keep your comments in accordance with WP:NPA [74] This user was in conflict with me, sou you automaticly support him/her. Second, I highly doubt Black Hebrew Israelites is not in your watchlist. It isn't like you ever edit African American or Judaism articles, as I do (except to revert something I add that is slightly against your worldview). But when you see I nominate it for a GA, you suddenly start editing there. You really can't review that article anyway, since you are obviously bias against me. As for Black supremacy, you edited it 10 days before, because I edited it one day before that:[75], so you looked for something to start an edit war over after I started editing there. I hardly doubt you were just editing Islam and antisemitism category stuff, because you left some of the stuff other editors added alone, not objecting until months later when you finally notived it. Yahel Guhan 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. This is a mess, could both of you present your cases calmly and without sniping at each other? It'll make sorting this out a whole lot easier. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the original article that lead to this, frst of all, I am not stalking you. I am making legitimite edits. Second, I do edit islam articles(which is clear from my contribs history), as is the topic of this particular article, and I didn't revert until I read the duscussion, and took a side in the dispute. Yahel Guhan 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you appear to have removed ([76]) sourced content - content sourced to the Oxford University Press. Furthermore, you had not joined the talk page before (or even after) reverting my edits.Bless sins (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not joined yet. I was about to, then noticed you made this report, and assumed this was more important. Yahel Guhan 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining is actually beside the point. When I was blocked, I was actually discussing the issue on talk. If you really acknowledge your mistake (and I acknowledge I haven't been entirely fair in the past either), you'd self-revert, and let us both move on.Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You were not discussing the issue, you were ignoring it. Anyone who cares about this can read the details of BS's block here and in the subsequent sections. His groundless attacks here seem to be out of frustration that he was caught and blocked for his own disruptive behavior. Arrow740 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation and idea. Having observed both parties and tried working with them some at Islam and antisemitism, I'm not sure this is a typical wikistalking case. They both seem knowledgeable, pretty familiar with WP policies, and earnest. But, and I hope they don't mind my saying this, I wonder if both of them are deriving more benefit from arguing rather than resolving issues. They have a pretty long history together, sorta like an odd couple. They might in some ways enjoy this, but it's not so healthy for the encyclopedia. Regardless of whether a block is applied due to stalking, another kind of sanction might be useful to shift them into a more constructive working relationship (or none at all). For instance, what if they were given 1-2 articles (such as Islam and antisemitism) in which they're quite invested, and given 1 week to demonstrate serious progress in resolving their editorial differences. Meanwhile, they would be required not to confront each other on any other article during that week. (This could be applied first come, first serve, or else do a "draft" of their various shared articles.) Maybe they'll find somebody to help facilitate their effort that week, maybe not. In any case, an uninvolved admin should decide whether they've actually made significant progress. (E.g., have they reached consensus on specific article sections, to the point where they don't need to rehash that section?) After one week, either they get another week on that article (if progress is made) or else the admin should ban one or both from that article for a substantial period of time. Yes, this may be an unusual response, but these editors have been at it for a long time, and over quite a range of articles. While it may seem tough to expect progress in a week, I'm hoping they would appreciate the difficulty posed from this situation. Alternatively, let them divvy up Wikipedia (up to 1M articles each) and take a 2 month break from each other. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins was blocked for stalking just recently so I dont feel his report of stalking could be authentic. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he mentions that above. Its part of his argument actually. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He does have a valid point in a way - if he was blocked for "stalking" on such a poor basis, it could be seen as meaning that such actions are considered stalking and that anyone else who does something similar should also be blocked. —Random832 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The two reviewing admins left him blocked after looking into the details. He followed me to an article about a subject in Buddhism (which he's shown no interest in before, and this is a key point) and reverted me twice while completely ignoring my justification for my edit. His talk page post (which he posted after I pointed out his disruption) also reads as if I had given no justification. Read about this on his talk page. Arrow740 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a valid point (see also [77], first comment, where another admin pointed out the same thing). But I don't think any block on Yahel does any good here. Wikipedia is stressful for both Bless sins and Yahel Guhan because they are editing controversial articles, but that's life :P --Be happy!! (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarah777

I would like to report uncivil behaviour and personal attacks left on my talk page by the above user. I had previously left a uw-3RR warning on this user's talk page as they had reverted edits to United Kingdom twice within a matter of hours and appeared to be involved in an edit war. My original comment was civil and polite, however I was accused of making a personal attack by Sarah777, and the original warning template was removed from their talk page. I restored the template and explained that it was meant as a friendly warning. At this point the template was removed again, and replaced with the following text:

==So much for that, eh?==

Nothing here!

The following threat was also left on my talk page:

Maybe you don't realise that in this context the phrase "(friendly) warning" is an oxymoron? Please stay away from my talk page. Now that is a warning! Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I again replaced the template on Sarah777's talk page and warned them about their behaviour regarding deletion of discussions and personal attacks, however, the discussion was again replaced with the text above (I have not reverted again on this occasion, as this would be considered a breach of 3RR in itself). A second threat has also been made on my talk page:

I see your harassment continues. Second time I ask you - stay off my talkpage. This is a warning. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I must stess that at no point have I made any personal attack or threat against Sarah777 and do not class my actions as "harassment". I feel that Sarah777's actions constitute an attempt to bully me simply for adding a civil warning on their talk page, and as such are a breach of Wikipedia's guidelines. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Editors are allowed to remove warnings and other content from their talkpage. Revert-warring to have them remain (especially a uw-3RR!) is not advised. ^Avruchtalk 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

there's no need to replace the template. If she's seen it to delete it, she's seen it to know she can get in trouble, and if she breaks 3RR, then she has no defense. Stop pissing her off, and move on. And yes, she's being ridiculously hostile about it too. Get out of her way and let her get in trouble on her own. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan, please see WP:DRC. Lara❤Love 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had (wrongly) assumed that the same rules applied to user talk pages as article talk pages. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people assume this, and many people try to enforce it. The reasons why we allow "warnings" to be removed are listed here. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review welcomed

The account Makesbasis (talk · contribs) was created 01:27, 1 February 2008 and perfectly AfD'ed the Main Page featured article two minutes later, at 01:29, 1 February 2008 (the user's first edit). I closed the AfD, blocked the user for trolling, and s/he is now requesting to be unblocked. Independent reviews welcome. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. If they keep abusing the unblock template I will protect their talk page. Nakon 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful object lesson. The anti-IAR crowd should meditate on this. Friday (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Gotta be a sockpuppet, it's very unlikely that a brand new editor could figure out an AFD so easily. Also, gross incivility on his talk page. Useight (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page as it is now being used for personal attacks. Nakon 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and an extremely late welcome back to you, Nakon (just made the connection). - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Th45623j (talk · contribs) sockmaster identified. - auburnpilot talk 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I feel bad for laughing at this? I mean... I kinda feel sorry for him, almost. We should keep his IP blocked for a month or two, if he's grown up he can come back. Lumberjake (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I liked it too. - auburnpilot talk 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Makeb2 (talk · contribs) reverted the close, so a few more comments got in, but I've since re-closed the discussion. The user in question was subsequently blocked for an hour by User:Luna Santin for attempting to re-add the nomination template to the article, and their block was then extended to indefinite. So there's 2 confirmed sockpuppets now. --jonny-mt 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia

[edit] Trolling on Monetary policy of the USA

Modus operandi: Vandalizing Monetary policy of the USA to support gold bug theories, taking ownership of it. Being generally polite and acknowledging bias, but when reverted, making totally unsubstantiated accusations of censorship and wikilawyering, by using blatantly unreliable sources, then following up by quoting the policy page which says, "Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation." But then, he makes remarks like, "This disruption is unproductive. Please restrain yourself." Possibly a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking and worth looking into.

See Talk:Monetary policy of the USA.

Note: If anything here is incorrect, please first review the contribs and see if it is possible to fix it because I may have accidentally placed a diff in the wrong place. Thank you.

WP:SPA

He registered a month ago and since then he has only edited the article Monetary policy of the United States‎. See his contribs.

His first edit was some bold original research. [79]

Long post collapsed for readability.
BigK HeX (talk · contribs) The only exceptions to this behavior have been tagging Monetary policy of the USA on Inflation tax‎ [80] and tagging Monetary policy of the USA on Political positions of Ron Paul in several places [81] [82] Also he removed the {{Notability}} and {{Long}} tags from the Ron Paul article. [83] [84] Abuse of WP:V and WP:RS GeoCities [85][86] What "one federal reserve detractor" said about a newspaper article and the website, moneymaker.com[87] [88] Calneva.com. [89] answers.yahoo.com [90] [91] The Straight Dope [92] Ingrimayne.com [93] Mwhodges.home.att.net [94] Left-wing political blog, workinglife.org [95] An online Marxist political magazine. [96] [97] Libertydollar.org [98] Proliberty.com [99] Appropriate-economics.org [100] An opinion piece for RealMoney.com [101] Mises.org [102] An opinion piece on vivelecanada.ca [103] Kitco.com [104] Investopedia.com [105] [106] Home.hiiway.net (see below) Liberty-free.ca (see below) Political blog, the Skeptical optimist (lost the diff, sorry, but it's in his contribs or one of the diffs on this page) He actually used GeoCities as a citation for one Congressman's remarks. [107] Ironically, one of the sources he cited contradicts the conspiracy theory he's pushing, because it asserts the fact that money creation is not a function of public debt. [108] His edits have suggested a "debate" over fractional-reserve, yet one of the sources he cited asked the question, "How Might Sustained Inflation Reduce Output Growth?" [109] The main page on moneymaker.com reads [110]: The purpose of this Data Base is to record the progress of a debate on the "Money-Ethics@uwsa.com" Internet Mail List. The debate, started in Nov. '93, is devoted to investigation of claims that the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve System are harmful to the economy of this nation and to the well-being of its people. Going to UWSA.com shows that it's a retirement home! He CITED a debate between a bunch of old folks, running a mailing list about monetary conspiracies! He misleadingly quoted John Maynard Keynes using wikiquote, to support his claims. [111] [112] In that same edit, he published material from the self-published website hiwaay.net and liberty-tree.ca. And when it was removed, he re-included it later. [113] WP:FRINGE He has been pushing the monetary conspiracy theories (See gold bug). For a perfect example of what he's been doing, see here where he turned a sentence reflecting mainstream economics into conspiracy theory. [114] To put it in the words of once source he cited, "overapproximately 90% of the US money supply is created out of thin air by commercial banks--for this privilege, banks collect interest on loans to individuals, businesses and government" [115] See also. [116] [117] [118] [119] The American economy has had "numerous yearly swings of 10% or more" in inflation. [120] The Federal Reserve has "has historically failed to achieve that goals that are delegated to the Federal Reserve System by Congress." In this same edit, he again engaged in original research by asserting that the ability to save in America is "in decline," solely based on statistics pulled from bea.gov. [121] It "remains unclear" how comprehensive the audits of the Federal Reserve have been. [122] Weasel words [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] The term "Federal Reserve Corporations." [130] Absurd use of bold and italics. [131] 250 years before fiat, inflation was near zero. [132] This is true, of course, because commodity money is deflationary and has wild swings in price. *face-palm* Demonstration of bad faith In one edit, he actually acknowledged that these are conspiracy theories. [133] He used an "under construction" tag with the summary "not ready for public consumption yet." [134] The economy might collapse if you don't read and understand this article. [135] He replaced the pro-liberty.org citation with one from encyclopedia.com. [136] He replaced the GeoCities citation with the New York Times. [137] Several minutes later, he swapped the New York Times citation back with the GeoCities link. [138] He replaced the vivelecanada.ca source with financialsense.com, which is just as bad. [139] He replaced the hiiway.net citation with the New York Times. [140] About the part above of money being "created out of thin air", he later removed that nonsense in an obvious place where it didn't belong. [141] Then he put it back. [142] A subtle acknowledgement that he's pushing original research in this edit summary. [143] Acknowledgment that the article he wrote is in horrible shape, from the talkpage: There is a comment about the page being too much of an essay. I'm not exactly sure why an "essay" would be a violation of wikipedia policy. The wiki guideline about personal essays refers to inclusion of "personal feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." [see guide] Though I have some feelings about the material, those were not included. I believe I have delivered the material in a pretty straightfoward manner, although I admit the possiblity that unconscious bias may have affected the tone. Also, I assume that standard English writing guidelines are outlined in the 'encyclopedic' style guide, and if so, then I should be within those guideline. The material I added is a simple compilation of factual information, along with the various expert opinions on the facts, as far I am aware. To me, this seems like an acceptable delivery of content in an encyclopedic form. Please help if I'm going astray. I am aware of that NPOV section that cites bias even with facts. I would contend that wikipedia guidelines would lean much more heavily into people "being bold" and adding the balancing perspective than to delete the article for less-than-egregious lopsidedness. The truth of the matter is that the more positive rationales for the Federal Reserve are not readily available in electronic form, and I am trying to keep this article as easy to verify as possible, as some of the information compiled is not well understood. Despite this, see the below accusations of "censorship." Also, he considers consensus-building "impossible": It's unfortunate that the RfC and "expert request" tags are proving ineffective, so I suppose consensus-building is virtually impossible. When he first started pushing the unreliable Herman Daly source (just recently), he gave the reference the inflammatory title "slamdunk_bwhahaha_booyah" [144] Mislabeling of minor edits The overwhelming majority of his edits have been marked as "minor." In two separate cases, he actually cited the law and marked this edit as minor. [145] [146] Personal attacks He accused Gregalton of being a meatpuppet. [147] He accused User Gregalton of "biased censorship." [148] He elaborated on the talkpage: I don't know your general history, but the karmaisking debate and the insistence on deletion suggests censorship. The fact that you found this article shortly after Google crawled it, even suggests that you may even actively search for articles of this nature ... if true, it would give further credence to a personal policy of censorship in regards to negative information being disseminated about the Fed. I've seen such persistence before, even in light of incontrovertible evidence, so I am making characterizations about you that may be undue ... but in light of this opposition, the unfound accusations, and the account ban ... it can't be helped. Your unfounded censorship is the only thing that is not reliable, nor verifiable in this matter. Also: Desperation doesn't justify the misrepresentation of a source, and probably won't win any points here I see no reason why the Federal Reserve structure information was deleted. Our personal dislike of certain information is not a very good justification. I'm well aware that your initial intuition about the matter was incorrect and that you have been resistant to the information being related about the Fed's widely ackowledged private corporation status, but it is still factual and relevant. Why you insist on putting such effort into stirring up disruptions, when there are far more pressing disputes ... I'll never understand. Needlessly unproductive, if ya ask me. Removing information [149] [150] [151] Miscellaneous At one point, he dumped a string of unnecessary tags to other articles in the "see also" section. [152] This includes Michael Rowbotham, a source which has been repeatedly clarified is not reliable. He did the same thing to Political positions of Ron Paul [153] User:Gregalton noted how he was pushing the same redundant stuff that it's in other articles and BigK HeX removed the tag. [154] He edit-war'd once over his annoying usage of linking to the Google cache. [155] [156] [157] Gregalton, EGeek, and the others he's accused of bad faith let the issue go. As I'm looking at it now, though, I plan to remove those Google cache tags also.

[edit] Comments

Is this enough for anyone to at least look into the matter? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarize this in 100 words or less.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I'm not one of them. I actually read that wall of text and have come to the conclusion that this is RFC/U material. east.718 at 07:01, February 1, 2008

I recommend reading WP:SEI before you proceed with your arguments. Igor Berger (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow that is long.! However I agree with East718 request for check user appears absolutely the correct way to go.--VS ^talk 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct rather than check user. - auburnpilot talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I summarized it in the first paragraph of the collapsed material above. I was extensive and thorough to avoid possible claims of lack of evidence or lack of diffs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey .. let's accuse me of being a sockpuppet every few weeks. That's always fun. Fun times, and

Your "summarizations" obviously weren't extensive enough (checkuser results here), Zenwhat.

Furthermore, please learn the wikipedia definition of vandalism .. diputable content is generally not vandalism, then also Wikipedia:Avoid_the_word_"vandal"

Your case looks pretty shoddy, especially given the amount of effort put into it.

P.S. ... there is no "original research." If you have a problem with the sources, then maybe take it to the RSN page which already broaches the topic .... ? BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision contains personal contact info

this diff of a vandalism edit contains someone's personal contact information. I think the revision containing the info should be deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:36, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. The page history is far too long to get rid of it using deletion and selective restoration. --Hut 8.5 07:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a request by email. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:43, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Y Done without oversight...deleted article and then restored it. nat.utoronto 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:44, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 124.155.55.44

124.155.55.44 is repeatedly adding clean-up, notability tags, etc. to today's featured article. They have been warned several times on his/her talk page. I think that they should at least be blocked for the rest of today (by Wikipedia time)–thedemonhog talk • edits 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP above stopped editing an hour ago. They may have created an account, but that account has also been blocked, and the autoblock placed on it should have dealt with both of them. This looks resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook deletion

Please can an admin delete my monobook.js, thanks?? I tagged it as db-user, but it's not showing up at CAT:CSD. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjd0060 took care of it. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User using sockpuppets to evade a block:

• Cordeyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Trelyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

See [158]. The user started a new account, and then redirected their old user page to it. While the new account has done nothing wrong per se, please see the old account and these difs especially, in no particular order, : [159] and [160] and this one [161] The first two led to a 1 day block, the second to a 1 week block. This edit, left IMMEDIATELY after I placed the 1 week block, was left at my talk page by another sock of this user: [162] by which I extended his block to indefinite. This user is the subject of a thread above as well. What think you all? Block the new account? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, blocked users do not get to just create another account and then go merrily on their way as though nothing has happened. By the way his user page means "Heil Hitler" (see Fourteen Words). Blocked indef. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I tagged the pages; sounds like we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint, 83.70.249.199

I'm not sure whether this is the right section to log my complaint, but a user has been repeatedly adding TV channels or Kids shows without any sources on articles such as List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland or Chart Show Channels, his IP address is 83.70.249.199 so you shoud block it. HMR 17:40, 1 Febrary 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit summary [163] shows a particularly civil way to deal with new editors. There is no real vandalism or blockable action here, but there is a long list of rather incivil comments left here User talk:83.70.249.199. Please don't bite the newbies, instead try dealing with other people as new users, and think about re-educating rather than jumping all over them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist

[edit] Connell66 banned long enough

I think it is high time we let such an excellent contributor back onto the project. See AN thread as well. Lancastor (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New editor whose first edit was the above. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the community was willing to give this guy, who has obviously reformed, a second chance. Check all of these outstanding contributions - Special:Contributions/Connell66, Special:Contributions/LOZ: OOT, Special:Contributions/AR Argon, Special:Contributions/The Wikipedist, Special:Contributions/Kaktibhar, etc. Lancastor (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's likely the recently blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maser Fletcher was related in some way. Maser was one of Wikipedia's prized editors. Lancastor (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurry and block this obvious sock, please. (Yay for rhyming ^_^) JuJube (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:SOCK, WP:BAN, and WP:DUCK. Daniel 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastor (talk • contribs)

Note that this comment was added by Lancastor posing as Daniel, signed by SineBot and then Lancastor repeated his attempt to mislead by removing the Sinebot message. Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock or not, let's just consider the merit of the comment as opposed to bitching over who said it Lumberjake (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of re-discussing a block every time the blocked person comes up with a new sock? They can make a request at the UNBLOCK-L mailing list, just as the block message explains. It doesn't need to be discussed and rediscussed here ad nauseum. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cordeyn

This user was just recently blocked for trolling, attacks, inflaming disputes, and has already restarted making the same types of edits. His recent comment here is obviously offensive and unconstructive, as well as his other recent edits. Yahel Guhan 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. I support an indef-block of this account, but I'd be willing to accept a new account from the same person, as long as it's legitimate. Maybe it's a troll, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's pissed and wants to let out his emotions, maybe he's tired and not thinking straight, maybe he's going through a tough time. He ought to have another chance with another account. Lumberjake (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked again for one week to give him a longer cool off time. If he returns for a third round, I would support an indef block at that time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "indefinite block" give me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe, if all goes wrong, we can block him for a couple months, maybe even a year if he fucks that up too. But indef-block is undeserved by anyone. Lumberjake (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be in direct contradiction to your 06:10 comment - "I support an indef-block of this account" - ;) Support block, either way ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just declined an unblock request based on this edit, which he made directly after being blocked this time around. --slakr^\ talk / 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And now his talk page has been protected to stop the feeding frenzy. This should be quiet for a week. We'll see what happens next Friday. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone keep an eye on my talk page, per above

[194] Apparently he's decided that we won't stop him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Indeffing an account is fine, indeffing a person is not. If he wants to come back as a happy person and play nice, that's fine, but this account should be killed with fire. Lumberjake (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Wikipedia Account