Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 JJJ999 2 Inappropriate discussion closure 3 Civility? 4 Admin protection of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation 5 Problem with a talk page 6 As we're all now very sick of Homeopathy, idea to modify probation 6.1 Users who appear to have engaged in post-probation reverting without consensus 7 Blocking Problem 8 User just doesn't stop uploading the same image 9 Dethzone and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS 10 Disconcerting 11 122.148.180.50‎ 12 Possible return of V-Dash? 13 Grawp 14 Serious Vandal. This guy is creative 15 Will (film) 16 Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal 17 Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) 18 Indef'd User:Wfgh66 19 Pookeo9 20 Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page 21 Continuing 22 Possible suicide note 23 Disruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 3rd complaint 24 Jay Brannan 25 Help with possible rangeblock 26 This is an honest question... 27 BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing 27.1 Use of rollback 28 Anonymous IP's anti-semitism. 29 Possible oversight required 30 Jw120550 in continual edit warring 31 Repeated false additions to World Heavyweight Championship 32 User:Sharadtriyama inserting fair use images on Julia Allison 33 Condoleezza Rice Article 34 User talk:129.133.124.199 35 Assistance needed with restoration of "Ecovillage" article 36 Recommend that somone adopt Goblyglook (talk · contribs) 37 Continued problems over Sumerian kings 38 Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters 39 swatjester 40 Legal threat 41 Wikipedia:Image renaming 42 Bizarre behaviour of User:Dbmoodb 43 Anonymous IP has threatened an editor 44 PresterJohn continues misrepresenting source in BLP 45 HELP 46 82.45.166.24 47 Barry Wellman 48 User:58.177.113.21 49 Gwernol 50 King of Mann 51 Can someone review this decision please? 51.1 Ban proposed 52 User:SqueakBox/right to vanish and User:SqueakBox/gone 52.1 RTV, oversight, and talk history 52.2 Ultimate Issue 53 User:Bill edmond 54 Suicide note update 55 Mass date format changes 56 User:Blue eyes gold dragon 57 Pure Reason Revolution 58 Whitemartian 59 Personal attack. 60 Forgery & misapplication of WP:RPA by User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 61 French village stubs

[edit] JJJ999

This user is not assuming good faith and is making personal attacks in this AfD.

Past issues:
He was discussed on ANI in September here when he accused someone of lying.
He was blocked for edit warring and incivility on October 1st for a different incident here[1].
He was warned again on October 20th[2].

Current:
On January 21st, he nominated this article for deletion, speculating with no basis that the creator, Faithlessthewonderboy, created the article because he had a personal relationship with the subject. This would seem to violate WP:AGF.

On January 28th, Faithless nominated the AfD mentioned above for deletion. JJJ999 violated AGF by accusing faithless of nominating the article as retaliation.[3]. He attacks him further here[4] and here[5]. There's more violations on that page, including accusing others (including myself) as voting because we are friends of Faithless (not true in my case, I don't know him). You can see for yourself on the page. V-train (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply- what a tissue of feeble complaints. You don't assume good faith either when it's clearly not deserved!JJJ999 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the article that JJJ999 nominated for AfD was in fact deleted by clear consensus & IMHO good reason by an uninvolved admin. DGG (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Faithless nominated is still under discussion; opinion by independent eds. seems divided. The discussion there seems to show intemperate language by both Faithless and JJJ, but primarily by Faithless. I've had a number of disagreements with JJJ, but this does not seem like a situation where he is seriously at fault. DGG (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My take is that JJJ999 is trying to stir up trouble with some very borderline and snarky comments. However I can't see what admin action is required here. I'd ask JJJ999 that he calm down a bit, and start assuming more faith, but it's hardly blockable. Pedro :  Chat  13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the article that I created deserved to be deleted, and I did not object to its deletion. DGG, please explain which posts of mine you find objectionable. JJJ999, on the other hand, repeatedly attacks me (even my username), refers to anyone you disagrees with him as "friends of Faithless," and in general is incredibly uncivil. The article currently at AfD is one that I've kept my eye on for some time; I gave it time to be improved, which it never appreciably has been. This is the reason I nominated it, not as retaliation for an article I didn't care about. JJJ999 hasn't committed any one, single blockable offense, but I just can't understand why he conducts himself the way he does. faithless (^speak) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pedro that JJJ999 is stirring the pot. FWIW, another incident, so far unmentioned in JJJ999 (aka Jembot99) that editors may wish to review to get some flavour of the history is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine (2nd nomination) (that's not the AfD I was thinking of I'll find the link later) Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are we arguing about? It seems like we're trying to decide if he's a dick or not. Either way, it doens't matter. Dickery is not a reason to block someone. /thread Lumberjake (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGF is just a guideline, but WP:NPA is a policy, I think he's demonstrated a continuing refusal to abide by either (while frequently invoking whenever his actions are criticised). Perhaps this really belongs at WP:WQA, or a user conduct RfC, but I think continued flagrant violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA -if they occurred- would be blockable. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate discussion closure

[edit] Civility?

Zenwhat continues to make public reference to me with perjorative terminology; ignoring WP:NPA, WP:ATWV, WP:DONTBITE, and the noticeboard rules. In his ANI, I am referred to variously as a "conspiracy theorist pusher," a "vandal," "troll," "editor with bad faith," and "possible sockpuppet." In his FTN, I am implied to be a " crank."

Overall, the attempt feels to be focused on marginalizing me, and driving away any further verifiable (perhaps, controversial) edits.

Thank you for any advisement on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite relevant excursion
I'll copy your post to Wikiquette alerts, which is the forum that deals with complaints of this nature. Addhoc (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Ahh.. OK. Much appreciated. Will it get any attention there? The informality seems to leave it as a mostly neglected project ... ? BigK HeX (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) This page is also fairly "informal" as well. The only places that are really "formal" are probably Arbitration and Mediation. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Hrmm ... seems one editor believes that this forum is more appropriate than WQT. Hopefully, some consideration will be given here, then. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin protection of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation

Editors who are involved in the disruption that caused the community probation, are editing the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page disruptively. I propose am indef protection of the probation page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you propose that only adminstrators be allowed to notify other users about the probation on the Homeopathy articles? You suggest that I did not notify Vassyana here? Have you discussed your concerns on the notification page and sought consensus of other involved editors before reverting the page twice? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Vassyana should be warned, not least, because he hasn't recently edited any of the articles. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a warning, it's a notification. Vassyana has proxy edited for a user who is clearly interested in the article - as such, Vassyana should be aware that any disruption on the article (directly or by proxy) would result in sanction as severe as bans. Finally, Vassyana was notified, regardless of the correctness of doing so, and as such can be subject to sanction via the probation. Such a notation should remain in more than just Vassyana's talk page history. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I have proxied for a complaint in a heated topic, and have no intention of editing homeopathy information, I do not object to being listed as a notified party. No need to advocate on my behalf in that regard, though I appreciate the well-intended effort to indicate I am not an involved party to the dispute. Vassyana (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This would cut out the ability of non-admins to issue and log notifications, which would be inappropriate. Anyone is entitled to do that, not just admins. If a user is violating an actual policy, that user can be addressed. In full disclosure, a number of users have expressed that they feel Jossi is too involved in the homeopathy issues himself, and should recuse, which he refused, as is his right. As the community ultimately decides anything and everything, an editor removed Jossi, who then re-added himself. Another user also added Vassyana as detailed above. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the page is a good solution. Hopefully, with Vassyana's comment above, common sense can prevail for now. The purpose of the list is to ensure that people are aware of the probation. Vassyana is aware of the probation. Problem solved. It's not necessary to edit-war over whether or not his name appears on the page. He doesn't have any intent to edit the article, so it's a moot point in any case. Let's move on. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a note, to conteract the possible belief I was creating a "Wall of shame" - I had added myself to the list long before I added Vassyana. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding all editors that you have notified would help eliminate any appearance of a COI. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just removed my comment to that effect as unecessary (probably should have struck it instead), but you're right about that. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If this becomes a problem again, we can split the list of notified accounts off onto another subpage, transclude it into the main Probation subpage, and hard protect the main Probation page without extending protection to transcluded pages. That accomplishes both goals. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page would leave us with no place to discuss the matter. It is the talk page and I thought it was therefore the appropriate place to discuss it. I see my own comment has been removed. (I haven't read the responses yet, but there have apparently been some.) What can we do? -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that there are several objections to Jossi listing himself as uninvolved on that page. Relata refero (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I second those objections to Jossi as being "uninvolved." -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with a talk page

There is problems going on here: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#January_28. Several users are using it as a place to whine about the subject, and other off topic discussions. When I try to remove it (which I'm pretty sure is the right thing to do), it gets re-added for no good reason. One of the editors involved with this: User:Lamename3000, has been very uncivil about it, and refuses to listen when I post on his talk page. He just reverts it off, and has called me a pest and 'tard (short for retard) in the edit summaries. This needs some admin involvement, as everything else hasn't worked. I originally brought this up at Village Pump, but I feel this is the better place to discuss it now. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're the master of civility. --LN3000 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with the matter in hand. RobJ1981 is correct, Wikipedia is not a forum and while a certain amount of discussion about the article subject is permitted it should always be with the ultimate aim of improving the encyclopedia. It really helps if folk can stay on topic, in all instances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As we're all now very sick of Homeopathy, idea to modify probation

Anthon01 posted an interesting idea on my talk page just now. I propose we make an ultra-simple modification to the terms of probation, sound off here if supported. Once someone is aware of it (notification, editing the Probation page, etc.), they are subject to a hard 1rr on all articles that are under probation, and this 1rr will include the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page itself. This'll take care of all the edit warriors on any or all sides. Sound off with support or oppose. I support. Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - if there is evidence of edit warring, any administrator can place any editor on 1RR within affected articles. Doing this automatically for all editors is too gameable. Who needs this now? Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to say the community, as we're averaging like 3-5 of these topics per day. :) Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC x3)At risk of becoming involved, I support with the caveat that someone has to be involved in editwarring to start in some way. That way we don't WP:BITE the newbies who post and then wonder why six people are jumping on their talk page and yelling that they're a bad person, etcetera. We actually had something similar come from the Troubles ArbCom case (warning before being put on probation by a neutral administrator, once on probation 1 revert limit/week on Troubles related articles, and civility parole). SirFozzie (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - too much rules and regulations make Wikipedia into a martial law state! Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure too little rules and regulations make Wikipedia into a state of anarchy. We're trying to strike a balance between allowing folks to edit freely and not letting folks disrupt the encyclopedia with constant edit wars. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The admins can intervene when necessary, that is their job. Igor Berger (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have personally voluntarily placed myself on 0RR on these articles. What might calm things down is an aggressive attitude towards spamming of talk pages with nonsense.--Filll (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since the probation, so have I. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• (tons of e/cs) I don't think this is a good idea. What will happen is that there will be races to gather more friendly editors than the other side on a single page and gamble 1RR, which would lead to slow-moving edit wars. Let's give the current system a chance - give everybody lots of rope and the better editors will do well with their freedom while the more unrepenting edit warriors will fashion themselves nooses. east.718 at 19:41, February 1, 2008

Can someone explain what the deal is with this Homeopathy article, it seems like such a mundane topic, why does it have such heated disputes about it on such a regular basis, its not like its a particularly contentious subject--Jac16888 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it in general terms, it's become a battleground between people with different interpretations of Wikipedia policies, especially with regards to the inclusion of material that some believe lends credence to pseudoscientific ideas. And as with any battle, there have been associated cases of incivility, edit warring, etc. At least that's my take on the dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which articles are covered by the probation? Those under Category:Chemical elements, Category:Plants, Category:Organic chemistry? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially all articles in which the subject of homeopathy is mentioned. It is the mere mention, especially when deemed an unwarranted and irrelevant (for the article) form of homeopathic promotion, that ends up starting fires and edit wars. Many of the mentions are related to attempts to promote the use of a homeopathic editor's book as a resource in those articles. It's like reading the book's TOC, and then articles are created or visited in an attempt to create a means by which the book or its author can get mentioned. The probation enables admins to work with a shorter leash with which they can reign in parties who are improperly promoting homeopathy (advocacy is forbidden at Wikipedia), and anyone - regardless of POV - who acts improperly. No one is totally innocent. -- Fyslee / talk 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users who appear to have engaged in post-probation reverting without consensus

1. TheDoctorIsIn PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. ScienceApologist PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Orangemarlin PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Anthon01 PouponOnToast(talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Levine2112 PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Cobaltbluetony PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I strike-out myself from this list. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take me off that list immediately. I fear I am a marked man. Woe is me. PoupounOnToast, you are making it difficult for me to AGF in your actions towards me and others. Anthon01 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

^ If you are gonna make such a list, shouldn't you include diffs? Such a list seems pointless unless others can examine the substance of your accusations. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am just about ready to ban PouponOnToast from these pages because they seem to be engaged in combat. This is not appropriate at all. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, PouponOnToast hasn't edited in the mainspace substantially since the probation came down. A ban from all related pages seems to be jumping the gun - perhaps a final warning that future attempts to turn a talk page or noticeboard into a battleground will result in blocks without warning? east.718 at 20:00, February 1, 2008

PouponOnToast intends to participate in User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and so will be making no mainspace edits for a month. Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To disputed scientific articles. We are the worlds formost and most valuable resource for Pokemon and obscure indirock, and I have no problem editing those articles. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have explained this. Let's wait and see. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't belong on that list. But he saw fit to place me there. Anthon01 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to put Pouponontoast on the list or to block him. Can someone show me a diff of him being disruptive?--Filll (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Popupontoast made the list and signed each line, apparently. Mike R (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is discussing ways to improve Wikipedia at User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal discouraged? I would hope not. I would encourage all to visit and contribute ideas to help improve things.--Filll (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sick of Homeopathy. I don't even know who that is. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth and say such pretentious things as "the Wikipedia community this" and "the Wikipedia community that". A group of people say something and then associate themselves with the entire project to make themselves seem bigger. Lumberjake (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the sanctuary water article states as fact, "It does not have power in itself to cure anyone and has no special scientific or medical properties." So the question is then, why aren't there dozens of true believers in Lourdes Water edit warring to insert magical beliefs into the article? Homeopathy supporters claim their magic water has power to cure anyone and has special scientific and medical properties. That's why there isn't an edit war at Lourdes, and is at Homeopathy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't think the characterization is quite right. No plausible method of action has been found for homeopathy. So Anti-Homeopathy editors would like the article to reflect that in more words and ways then I just stated. Pro-Homeopathy editors want less, and it's been suggested, (not confirmed) a few want no criticism in the article at all. In the middle are editors who want a balanced article but it is difficult to achieve that with pro and anti editors constantly at odds. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But method of action has been proposed, and their are specific claims of it having scientific and properties, and of it being a treatment for specific ailments. That's why the thorough debunking of these things need to be in the article. Anything further discussion should be on the article page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• This whole Homeopathy thing is WP:LAME Igor Berger (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• obiovusly, but when you get a lot ofpeople who feel strongly that the words on wipkipedia shape reality, then thats what you get. some Pro-homeopathy types think that any criticism fo homeopathic science on their aritcle is tantamount to HOlocaust denial, and some pro-Allopathy types think that anything non-critical of homeopathy is pretty much a rejection of all science now and forever. Thats what i have decided to take a brief sabbatical form editting the article itself to give me some chance to get a better perspective on the whole sitaution, because currently the situation that i am in right now is contraversial to the whole issue of why Wikipedia exists as a community. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• What needs to be decided is what constitutes an NPOV article here. Will it contain 1% material debunking homeopathy? 10% ? 20%? 30%? 50%? Also, Lourdes is not promoting itself aggressively across the internet and in many communities. Lourdes also does not make scientific claims about itself, or claim that allopaths are evil, or that Big Medicine is part of a conspiracy, or that Big Pharma is some malevolent force, etc. Lourdes does not claim that people should not be vaccinated or should not take antimalarial precautions. I cannot buy Lourdes water in my drugstore or my grocerystore, but I can buy homeopathic products there. I do not see Lourdes water being advertised on TV or the radio, but I see homeopathic material advertised in the media frequently. Lourdes does not claim all kinds of strange theories for how it works including misapplied QED or water memories or dozens of other strange bits of scientific nonsense for which there is no evidence. Lourdes is not pushing for government funding and grants for research studies. Lourdes does not frantically lobby people and claim fraud when studies show that their water does not have an effect. The priests at Lourdes managing the spring do not insist on being called doctors. And there are many other instances in which the two are not quite parallel. --Filll (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Problem

I am having trouble getting to any pages related to blocking Garyxxxxxx (talk · contribs), who seems to be another sock (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man and compare his contributions). Every time I try, I insta-timeout; is anyone else having this problem? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brion committed a bad revision that was undone before you posted. east.718 at 20:09, February 1, 2008

[edit] User just doesn't stop uploading the same image

See User_talk:Sidhugill#Please_stop_uploading_this_picture_now. This user just keeps uploading the same fair use violations: [6] [7]. I even asked him to stop. I don't know what to do. He keeps on uploading fair use violations, even months later after being asked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shell Kinney blocked the uploader until a resolution is reached. I deleted the images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, indef'd until we get some kind of acknowledgment out of the user and an agreement to stop the copyright infringement. Probably going to take some explaining if the user finally communicates since they're grabbing text and images from all over the net and tossing them up here. Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

{ec}OK, I hope that's useful. I know indef blocks take care of the problem, but I hope he's able to figure out how to ask for unblock and return.

As for the text, I wasn't aware he did it any other than that one time, but it isn't really surprising. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dethzone and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS

Hello. I'd like to voice concerns that BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of blocked user Dethzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The account BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS was created about three days after Dethzone's block ([8] [9]). Both make similar edits to Wikipedia:Sandbox and enjoy music. They both appear to be fans of Metalocalypse, their signatures reference the show, and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS once edited a comment made by Dethzone ([10]). This is highly suspicous. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also this. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They also both seem to have problems with a stuck caps lock key: [11] [12]. If this wasn't so obvious, I would say take it to WP:SSP. But it is. Does this user deserve another chance? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Iam Not A Sockpuppeter But iDo Like Metalocalypse But that Dos not Mean That Iam Deathzone But Its A Small World iThought iWas the Only Fan With There T-Shirts And Album The deathalbum But there Is A Resembles But iShould Check His Page iHave Know Idea What His Page Looke Like Seriously Plus caplock is my thing some times But Not Always. Nathan Corpsegrinder Wartooth (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck. It'd be very unlikely that Briefcase isn't a sockpuppet. Useight (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than have people waste their time further, can I just say

Confirmed - Dethzone (talk · contribs) =

• BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS (talk · contribs)
• BRIEFCASE OF GUTS  (talk · contribs)
• BREIFCASE OF GUTS (talk · contribs)
• ELECTRIC DEMON (talk · contribs)

- Alison ^❤ 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged. east.718 at 02:42, February 2, 2008

[edit] Disconcerting

I'm not sure what to make of this, but at 1:37 this account was created and edited until 1:41. At 1:42 this account was created and started making identical edits. The edits appear to be constructive, so I don't know if another editor is creating accounts and reverting vandalism rapid-fire, or what exactly is going on here, but I thought I'd point it out. Useight (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edits don't look constructive at all -- they both look like they're removing a bunch of article tags (notability templates, etc) that were added by User:Gavin.collins. The edit summaries claim to be "Reverting vandalism by single-purpose account disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" but that doesn't seem plausible, given that User:Gavin.collins has been around almost a year, I doubt it's a single purpose account. And the edits being reverted don't look all that disruptive to me; see this for example. Doesn't look at all like they're reverting vandalism. To me this looks like an abusive sockpuppeteer. -- Why Not A Duck 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it's related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp - same sockpuppeteer who was reverting edits by User:Gavin.collins some weeks back - Alison ^❤ 02:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Jéské just reported Zhentarim (talk · contribs) at the above checkuser request and it's now Confirmed as being Grawp. Halruua (talk · contribs) is now also confirmed, as well as Daysroach (talk · contribs) and Toldaside (talk · contribs). IP blocked also - can someone move these over to the Grawp case at RFCU? I have to run here :) - Alison ^❤ 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the editing wasn't as good as I initially thought. I was at work and couldn't do more than take passing glances at Wikipedia as my contribs pattern for the last 4 hours shows. I see that the IP has been blocked. Useight (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back the edits, indef semi-protecting the articles, tagging as sockpuppets. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 122.148.180.50‎

To keep this short and sweet, this ip adress has been vandalizing wikipedia. Check contribs--DurzaTwink^TALK (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Click Here to check contribs. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been reported at WP:AIV. If you report it there, it (usually) gets dealt with faster. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--DurzaTwink^TALK (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Have also semi-protected talk page for same period as the editor vandalised the block notice and continuing not to make any sense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible return of V-Dash?

My spidey sense is tingling at DeathMark (talk · contribs) - his contributions look a hell of a lot like indefinitely-blocked user V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s, and, as V-Dash did on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), he's stonewalling discussion at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and edit-warring (albeit slow-mo) over the genre of the game ([13], [14], [15], [16]). I have an RFCU out on him, but I wanted other administrators' opinions first. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp

Banned vandal, Grawp (talk · contribs), is back. See Suck my dick, kid, like your daddy did. (talk · contribs), Master of the Flys (talk · contribs), Breaking Faces (talk · contribs), Hubba Hubba Hot Chick 9 o'clock (talk · contribs), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. --Yamla (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp, too. He's been back for a few weeks now; he's just mainly been stalking Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected all pages edited by these socks. Post any further ones at the checkuser case above; Alison (talk · contribs) has it top-priority. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We're on some sort of Grawp paranoia. AIV just got a request to block Dickmann1960 (with NO contributions) as a Grawp sockpuppet. Folks have got to calm down about this. I'm not saying they're not, but there is NOTHING to say they are. - Philippe | Talk 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll see about that; I'm submitting the names above to the checkuser. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - it's Grawp yet again; same narrow IP range, also Expand my brain, learning juice (talk · contribs). IP blocked yet again - Alison ^❤

Damn, you're quick. I just submitted the above. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Dickmann1960 (created 4:12) - the previous sock User:My dick is bigger than yours. was blocked at 4:11, and an autoblock (with ACB) for this user was set on 4:13. From my technical understanding it is excluded that this is a Grawp sock. --Oxymoron⁸³ 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: - fun's over. I rangeblocked his main range for a month. There are a few others, mind, but I'll prolly hit them, too, as he returns - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked WP:D&D to supply me with a list of articles that both have tags (or have had them recently) and aren't protected. Once I get this list, I will post it on a user subpage as a reference. However, I will state that one Grawp sock attacked the completely unrelated Perfect Hair Forever article; keep an eye out on any unprotected articles bearing cleanup tags. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Vandal. This guy is creative

OK, several users, particularly User:Thingg, have been reverting vandalism by a single IP vandal that is using a dynamic IP assigner to circumvent the blocks he has been given. In one of his edits, he said what he was doing. As far as I can tell, all his IPs are 75.100.x.x . While it may be drastic, I think someone is eventually going to have to block all IPs from 75.100.0.0 to 75.100.255.255 . Seriously, this guy is really starting to get on my nerves. He is laughing in our faces, and us non-admins can't do anything but keep heading him off hundreds of times. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if I knew how to rangeblock, I don't think we can block such a huge range anyhow. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can. We don't like to, but as Ryulong just demonstrated, we can when required. I was going to rangeblock 75.100/16 for 3 hrs to discourage them, but he did for 2 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will (film)

Numerous editors, in general anons but not always, keep adding unsourced cast members to Will (film). What's there now has citation needed tags on it, and I'm going to remove them in a few days if valid sources aren't provided. I don't know if this is some kind of orchestrated hoax being perpetrated, or some sort of PR campaign, but I keep removing these unsourced names, and will continue to do so, but I could use more eyes watching this. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal

[edit] Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)

After talking with JzG, will be unblocking user a few hours after the conclusion of the original 48h block. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today (or, depending on the time zone, yesterday or tomorrow) I blocked Nealparr (talk · contribs) and Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours (essentially for edit-warring against each other). Apparently, Lucyintheskywithdada is the same person as the users noted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski, from December 2007 (she openly admits that here). Now, the question is: should I/we indefinitely block Lucy and unblock Neal? I ask because none of the accounts on that page received progressive blocks, so it's not clear that Lucy is evading a ban. Additionally, Lucy does not appear to currently be using her current account alongside other sockpuppets, as she appeared to be doing when the SSP was file. Granted, as one can see by Lucy's contributions, she (particularly in conjunction with Neal) has been highly disruptive on articles related to Spiritualism. So, any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was toying with blocking Lucy as a tendentious and disruptive editor, so an indef there is good. I refrain from comment on Nealparr. I have indefinitely blocked Lucyintheskywithdada for the reasons I noted on her talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't see this until just now, but was also reviewing this situation as my experience with Neal has been that's he's a solid and constructive editor, albeit one whose views I often do not share. I too was about to indefinitely block User:Lucyintheskywithdada as a disruptive editor and questionably legit alternate accout, but I held off and left a note at User Talk:Orderinchaos, as that admin had more experience with the sockpuppetry issues surrounding this user. In any case, I am in general agreement with Guy's indefinite block, unless Orderinchaos has something ground-shifting to say about it. Personally, I would have given Nealparr a bit more benefit of the doubt on the 3RR thing, partly because he's had a long track record of constructive editing on tough topics, and partly because his "opponent" in this case has a quite different track record. Still, he did edit-war rather than seek outside help, and he did lose his patience. I'd favor a good-faith unblock of Neal and commutation to time served, with the understanding that this was an isolated and regrettable incident, won't happen again, lesson learned, etc. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I support unblocking Neal. I'd gladly do it myself, but have had previous interaction with him (perhaps ironically, we've often been on opposite sides of an issue). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Neal, but I believe Lucy's should be commuted to the original block as imposed. On the Arbcom-probationed BK articles they have shown a newfound ability to work constructively with the other side and I think having the entire of one side blocked when the other side has an open conflict of interest is not a good idea. (For the record I believe both should be there so the article exhibits balance.) That being said, we shouldn't tolerate bad behaviour in unrelated areas for this reason alone, so I believe the original block should stand. Orderinchaos 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Developments since mean this thread is probably unnecessary now. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indef'd User:Wfgh66

[edit] Pookeo9

Pookeo9 has had a history of creating tests, doing nonsensical things, and overall semi disrupting Wikipedia. So far, he has nominated 1 AfD (but then closed it as keep), and closed about 2 others. That's not so bad, but so far has files 2 RfA's that seem to be tests, or vandalism (Also 1 request for mediation). He might be trying to do good, and I am assuming good faith, but he is doing things that I have never seen before, and it is likely to continue. Just as an extra note, he has been given a final warning for vandalism. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and improper AfD closure by non-admin

This covered several categories, so I hope it's okay here. User:Pookeo9 has closed several AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Southern Cat Rocks On (check the history). User contribs: Special:Contributions/Pookeo9. It was suggested at the Help Desk that I bring this here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, see the above notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 :) Yeah, I should have actually just posted here instead of both. But oh well. Thanks for reading that reply so fast! Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, it would be good to hear from Pookeo9 and his/her mentor/adopter - JetLover. I'll direct them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen what you wrote and i did not know it was vandalism. I will remind my adopter one more time to look and comment if he/she can.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: Some things on wikipedia i have done were good and bad and i knew some bad things but i just couldnt stop doing it. As i said before i will remind my adopter one more time about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to politely suggest, until you gain quite a bit more experience, that you don’t try to close any more AfD debates. —Travis^talk 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Travis.--Pookeo9 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs) (among many other IPs as well as the username 'Mondrago') has re-added the link to their personal website (which adds nothing to promote the content of the article and vios WP:EL) has gone 10RR+ and has some sort of "if we don't get our way we will sue you" jargon posted on their talk page. 156.34.222.28 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The user has also been warned for legal threats, and there is a sockpuppet case open regarding this IP, 3 others, and User:Mondrago. See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The article has now been semi-protected due to increased vandalism of external linkspam from 5 IPs. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the link to the spam blacklist. Nakon 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno man, are you sure you want to risk being sued for deformation (sic)? Resolute 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, you could get bent out of shape... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing

This discussion from the top which has since been archived.. I'm concerned about Lumberjake's actions on Wikipedia. Besides the above mentioned issue, see this. Editors removed his PROD and began sourcing the article. That wasn't good enough so he sent the article to AfD. Bells go off when an account only 5 days old is on a PROD removal spree, or PROD/AFD placement spree.. Then his edit summaries such as this, this, this and this PROD reason only further make me wonder what is going on here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User is currently blocked; block is being reviewed. What is it that you would like us to do? El_C 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing now. At the time I posted, he wasn't blocked. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a puzzling thread on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible suicide note

[edit] Disruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 3rd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices again on Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. He was previously blocked twice for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and material that violates NPOV. He has been engaged via the talk pages for his entries in the past as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references, not references to his own blog and forum pages. He has responded with continuous reverts to strong arm his edits. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. I have stopped before violating 3rr. I'm requesting administrator intervention again. Here is the record for the previous blocks: IncidentArchive347 IncidentArchive348 Here's the current listing of anonymous IP's: 61.18.170.141, 61.18.170.108, 61.18.170.107, 61.18.170.129. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll sprotect it, for now. El_C 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Brannan

162.84.234.178 has repeatedly over the last several days removed content from this article. Now the IP claims to be Jay Brannan on the IP's talk page. Then, I'm assuming this user registered and is now known as Jaybrannan, a user that just blanked both the article and the article talk page. I restored the article and talk page. The user then just now left me a message on my talk page regarding the deletion. Someone have a look? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:slackr has blocked the account for 31 hours, and i've done the same for the IP —Reedy Boy 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well before seeing this post, I blocked him for 3RR, since he was a bit out of control. I still have no idea if this is actually the dude or not, but if it is, it's still a huge conflict of interest issue, which I warned the IP he was editing under about. --slakr^\ talk / 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with possible rangeblock

Hi - my first post here as a new admin. I've noticed that Nancy Kulp has been subject to the same vandalism[26] from Carleton University IPs (134.117.0.0 - 134.117.255.255 according to WHOIS) for several months. I think all the vandal IPs fit into 134.117.137.0/24, so I was thinking of blocking this range. Could someone confirm whether or not I'm right and if so for what sort of period I should block? Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  12:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Maxim has protected that page, but as I suspected, it's just made the vandal move on - see [27].  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Oops, that was an old one!  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and not an expert on blocking, but I'd certainly hesitate to block a whole university. How many good edits are also coming from that range? Would it be the type of block that allows logged-in users to still be able to edit? Do you have a feel for how many good contributors are using that range of IPs? Is only one page affected by the vandalism, and if so, why not just semi-protect that page instead? Surely a university is a fertile source of new, good contributors. Putting a barrier in their way such as making them get an account in some more complicated way before being able to edit might just turn away potential excellent contributors before they ever discover what editing Wikipedia is really like. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to avoid the rangeblock and leave the semi-protection in place. Unless we can demonstrate vandalism ac cross the project coming from that range. But one article can be protected and such is less damaging than a rangeblock. And thanks for asking first. Always a good idea. -JodyB _talk 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; agree with JodyB.) My impression is that a rangeblock would be way overkill. I looked at the article and what I see is anon-IP's repeatedly inserting "(ironically)" into the article. If you want to stop that, just semi-protect the article (or have a non-involved admin semi-protect it). I looked at the contribs of one of the anon-IPs that added in that "ironically" thingy: 134.117.137.183 (talk · contribs). I see a bunch of apparently (at a brief glance) good-faith edits on other articles plus one edit adding the word "ironically" to this article. That's nowhere near enough vandalism to block even just that one IP, let alone a whole range, even if you consider it to be vandalism rather than a content dispute which is discussed on the talk page. I realize you're proposing to block a certain range, not the whole University, but still. Just my opinion as a non-admin. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the feedback. I certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with a rangeblock with my current level of knowledge without checking first: I know they can be problematic. You're right, of course that semi-protecting the page is a far better idea, though I was concerned that would just encourage the vandal to move on to other pages (as he has done at least once [28]). He's also been making a repetitive edit to James Lipton since the end of December.

It looks like most of the addresses in the range 134.117.137.18 - 134.117.137.253 have been active, so I guess dynamic allocation is being used. I've checked the contributions from a number of them and while there were quite a lot of good edits up to around 2006, there's not been so much since. Anyway, it's been more an exercise in detective work than anything actually useful, but at least it's made a change from continually rolling back "poop"! And I've learned some new stuff today, which is good.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is an honest question...

...but it could be absolutely trivial, so if I'm making a tempest in a teacup, please be kind...

Exploring the contributions list of ACMEMan(as part of an AfD issue I recently discovered) I discovered the following:

# 17:54, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.230.233.240‎ (←Created page with '(blocked)')

This user is not an admin, and thus can't block anyone. Is it appropriate for non-admins to do such things? As I said--this is an honest question, and though it's a bit stale, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time--I'm still trying to learn my way around here a little better. Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you could leave a polite note for ACMEman explaining things. It seems like this could be a simple misunderstanding of how things work. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing misunderstanding, then. He's been doing that to IP user talk pages for a month now, as his contribs page shows. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Normally that's what I'd do...but if you'll take a peek at his talk page, you'll notice that much of it is dominated by AFD notices, placed there by yours truly. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would not take kindly to even the politest question, especially since there's a potential appearance of stalking. (NOT the case--I found one non-notable article he wrote, then discovered another on the same general topic, and figured I'd check his contribs to see how many more there might be--but I can see how it might look bad.)Gladys J Cortez 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Hut 8.5 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed full of awesome. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has just reverted much of my work from December and January, of converting external map service links to the more general geographical coordinates, improving existing coordinate tags, reviewing the quality of the results, and then removing the links from articles. She abused administrative and other tools by blindly reverting 220 edits, restoring all the removed links, and in many cases making the reusable coordinate information unavailable for now. Her tendentious and disruptive reversion spree was a result of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services, where she wasn't capable of thinking the situation in a wider perspective and her personal viewpoint of "any map link in all articles" wasn't supported by other participants, as opposed to clicking on the coordinates and choosing a link from the first page, though the same procedure had already been done with book sources and ISBNs. She was pointed out the Wikipedia policies against the inclusion of such links, but she decided to ignore those fundamental principles and go by her personal preferences. During the heated debate the last couple of days I had stopped all article editing related to this issue until more people voice in, but BrownHairedGirl lost her cool regardless and decided to go solo.

For background on this: My original edits were part of WP:GEO goals to "have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles" by consolidating and standardising coordinate and map link use on Wikipedia. This goal is based on Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia information should be reusable, that external links to general map services are not information about the articles' topics when there exists dozens of other similar services usable with the same geographical coordinates, and that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and it doesn't offer to readers or support any single external advertising supported map service over all the others, but readers will have to choose themselves. More details on these at Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services - summary.

What can be done with administrators who disregard Wikipedia policies and revert other editors in a tendentious manner with nothing but their personal opinion behind their actions? Arbitration is probably too drastic as the damage she has done is only temporary and the information is easily recoverable, but there must be something to discourage such admin behaviour? --Para (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has the same right to edit as any other user, but mass-reverting good-faith edits doesn't seem to me to fit the intended purpose of admin tools, and puts Para at a severe disadvantage. Can we agree to stop these high-speed admin-tool-powered reverts now, and then work something out at WP:GEO, please? -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GEO would indeed be the right place for the discussion, but whenever users new to a debate join a discussion that has for the most part taken place on a wikiproject page, they are fast to point out that the participants haven't represented the views of the community, and that the discussion should not be continued there. The proposed correct location is often the village pump or other central dumping ground, but all discussions can't be had there, which is why they are separated on pages focused on some very specific topics. Should all wikiprojects that simply enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an organised and centralised way then have the wikiproject connotation removed from their names? --Para (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On review: yes, Para has a point -- this is very much like the links-to-Amazon issue for books. Sure, the ISBN link system is clunkier than a simple link to Amazon, but it gives the reader more choice, and avoids any suspicion of commercial promotion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing: if a complaint is raised about someone at ANI, it is helpful to notify the person complained about so that they can respond, and it's a pity that Para did not to do so. Thanks to Luna Santin for pointing me to this discussion, which I would otherwise have been unaware of.

On the substance of this, there has been a lengthy discussion at WT:EL about Para's mass removal of all direct links to external map services. The discussion was an exceptionally difficult one, because of Para's repeated refusal to take seriously the deep concerns about the usability of the GeoHack system which were expressed by every other contributor to the discussion other than Para — everything was repeatedly and arrogantly brushed off as "resistance to change" or as "nonsense".

Para's summary above the discussion at WP:EL is a gross misrepresentation of that discussion, and in particular Para's attempt to conflate a series of policies into a ban on any direct links to map services is highly misleading. Para is acting as if there is a clear policy supporting his actions, when there is not, and refuses to listen to any objections.

It is quite clear from that discussion that there is no consensus for this mass removal until the usability of the GeoHack system is improved. (I believe that the discussion shows a consensus against, but Para disagrees on that point),

For now, the relevant guideline is at WP:EL, whose nutshell says "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." One or two direct links to a relevant map at an appropriate resolution are entirely in keeping with that guidance.

There is no objection from me (nor, so far as I can see from anyone else) to the addition of GeoHack links to articles which do not have them, and I would welcome that addition. The issue in dispute is solely Para's unilateral mass removal of all other links contrary to the existing guideline at WP:EL, before usability issues have been resolved.

Unfortunately, Para is engaged in a one-man exercise of mass-removal of direct map links, before usability problems have been resolved, and has adamantly refused requests from several editors to desist until the usability problems have been fixed, decrying the consensus against him as "resistance to change", which is a bizarrely arrogant description of widespread concerns about poor usability.

The folks at WP:GEO are doing good work in developing the GeoHack system, and I wish them well in developing the system further to improve its usability to the point where it is welcomed by other users as a satisfactory replacement for all map links. However, it's not there yet, and there was a very sensible proposal last night by User:Wikidemo, who wrote "The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots."

Unfortunately, that wise proposal was immedaiately rejected by Para, who wrote "The best solution is to just go for it and then see about the comments.".

In response to that, I warned Para that any mass removal of direct links without consenus would amount to disruptive and tendentious editing ... and when I later checked Paras' contribs and found the extent to which this had already been done, I reverted those edits of Para's which were described in the edit summary as the removal of map links. (Note, I did not revert edits which described the addition of geohack links, or even of those which replaced map links with geohacks — in those cases, the map links should be restored but the GeoHack should stay, and simple reversion would be inappropriate).

As to a solution, it is not for the WP:GEO project to impose its system on the whole of wikipedia. I wish them luck in improving the GeoHack system, but for now the guidance at WP:EL permits a limited number of relevant links to external sources, and there is no consenus to ban any direct links to map services. If, as Wikidemo suggest, the folks at WP:GEO improve the usability of their system to the point where "everybody loves it", I'm sure that there will be consensus to change the guideline. However, we are not there yet, and Para's mass-removal should stop.

(BTW, in reply to The Anome, this is not the same issue as links to Amazon. Amazon exists to sell books, but Google Maps or Line Search Maps or Yahoo Maps are not trying to sell a product. Like online newspapers to which there are squillions of links, they are advertising-supported information services, which is a very different matter to a sales site.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl continues to ignore fundamental Wikipedia principles, doesn't even try justifying why they could just be brushed aside with her personal opinion, and seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that what she has done is not appropriate for someone who supposedly has the trust of the community and is expected to know Wikipedia policies. The book source system was taken into use and Amazon links removed, and the map sources system works exactly the same way, except that more attention has been given to usability. Both types of services benefit from incoming links, and with such services that have dozens of alternatives usable with a known identifier, Wikipedia should not promote any single one over the others. Even if the usability was on the same level for both, we could already move to using the centralised map sources page as there's the precedent and supporting policies, but BrownHairedGirl insists on imposing her personal preferences on all Wikipedia readers.

The only people to ever have complained of my removal of map links are Sarah777 (talk · contribs) [29][30][31], who then alerted[32] BrownHairedGirl to speak for her, and we all know now how she delt with that. All comments of her disruptive actions have been negative, and people have already started reverting her reversions independently [33][34]. I am not alone at all in converting map links to coordinates, see for example the entirely independent edits from these users during the couple of days I was monitoring external link changes:

• 201.38.195.168 [35]
• Americasroof [36]
• New World Man [37][38][39]
• Blinadrange [40]
• Asn [41]
• Majoreditor [42]
• Nyttend [43]

See also the WP:GEO discussion on getting rid of all external map service templates, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord, where there was a clear consensus to remove the links. The people opposing the change there only had concerns that have been taken care of since.

In addition to the direct map links BrownHairedGirl restored, she also restored a WikiMapia link to 900 articles through a template [44], though the links had been gone for almost a month already without a single complaint. WikiMapia in particular is an ad infested website that, despite the name, only has the community editing part of the site common with Wikipedia, but keeps the results of the work for themselves. Such a site shouldn't be supported in any Wikipedia article except the one about the site itself. People who really want to use it can choose it from the list of all other Google Maps mashups.

I expect BrownHairedGirl herself to have to revert her own reversions. Meanwhile, as there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links, how do we get that in the guidelines so that other opinionated revert warriors ignorant of Wikipedia's goals won't go on the same path? Guidelines are after all just extensions and longer explanations of the existing policies, but obviously a direct note about this is needed in WP:EL. Generally it has been very difficult to get people comment on a minor issue such as map links or coordinates. Should everyone identified in editing map links or coordinates be contacted directly, or can we just act based on the existing fundamental policies? --Para (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of rollback

Just as an aside, isn't the rollback tool only allowed for "obvious" vandalism? Lawrence § t/e 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback, and I will not revert my rollbacks. Despite Para's long posting above, the fact remains that in the discussion at WT:EL, I can see no-one else supporting Para's purge of all direct map links.

Para points us to a discussion at WP:GEO, but a wikiproject does not make policy or guidedline for wikipedia as a whole. And it's very depressing to see that despite a clear consensus at WT:EL not to support the amendment of the guideline, Para claims that "there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links". That's a transparent falsehood, and it's very disappointing to see Para trying to make all these false assertions. In two years of editing wikipedia, I have never before encountered any editor so utterly unwilling to listen, and so determined to ignore consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion on WP:EL makes you think there is consensus in any way? Perhaps I'll summarize: I support removing map links, Wikidemo supports removing map links, SEWilco supports removing map links, DanBealeCocks prefers the list of map services over single links, Sarah777 likes Yahoo and WikiMapia and would have liked to have been notified of changes, BrownHairedGirl likes any map link as long as it's directly on the page, some anonymous user dislikes the WikiMiniAtlas, and EdJohnston seems yet to have decided on an opinion. No matter how many ways I try to count this in or weigh the arguments, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the discussion is finished or is showing any consensus at all. Above I provided diffs of edits where 9 different people have removed map links from articles. What kind of inverted view of consensus do you have?? --Para (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Para, I don't know why you persist in repeating so many untruths, but I have never before come across a wikipedia editor who will so blatantly claim that black is white.

I'm not going to waste time summarising how you have misrepresented several editors, but I'll just repost wikidemo's latest comment in full, highlighting in bold the points where wikidemo specifically opposes the mass removal of links at this stage:

"Maybe everyone should take a little chill. This issue isn't new and it's not getting resolved soon, so no emergency worth getting personal over. I don't think it's a good idea to link directly to map services, and I would probably remove such a link if it appeared for no good reason in an article I was working on. At the same time we have 300,000 and it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place. The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots. We could even give people some notice and warning time so they can put a "do not convert" flag somewhere for the bots, if they strongly feel that a particular external link to a mapping service should remain. Of course they could always just revert the bot too"

If you really think that "it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place" should be read as meaning "I support Para's zealous insistence on immediate mass removal of all direct links to maps", then you need to do some urgent remedial work on your reading comprehension skills.

Anyone else concerned about this issue should read the thread for themselves rather than relying on the bizarre misrepresentations posted here and elsewhere by Para. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining usability issue that has been reported is the interpretation of the title "Global", on whether it indicates map sources with data on a global scale, or if it means services that only show a globe. Nobody has confirmed the issue or suggested other alternatives, but it is of course listed in the appropriate place for further comments. Absent any other issues, we can say that the system is good or at least as good as the book sources list, and the quoted comment from Wikidemo is therefore unrelated. To further quote the same editor [45]:

"for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps"

Making Wikipedia's external linking neutral is an ideological issue, and BrownHairedGirl's personal opinions are irrelevant when keeping Wikipedia's principles in mind. Book sources have already been centralised, and so will map sources. BrownHairedGirl is acting from a minority viewpoint mostly represented by herself alone, and any of her attempts to keep Wikipedia biased should be reverted. --Para (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Alone? I have not been silent in my opposition to it, nor have other users. Orderinchaos 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I participated briefly in this discussion and overall, it's pretty clear that the way to go in the long run to remove links to specific mapping services in favor of a universal geocoding system promoted by the appropriate wikiproject. It seems that 282,000 of 300,000 articles already take this approach but that there's some objection to mopping up the last 18,000, on account of the geolinking service on Wikipedia is clunky and takes extra clicks to use. That's a fair criticism, and if the community really thinks so, it's valid request to ask the geo people to go back to the design lab and come back when the feature is perfected. I don't know what it even means to talk about consensus in such a context, but in any event the bickering between BrownHairedGirl and Para at the village pump has gotten so intense that it's very hard to tell what's going on, and unpleasant to participate in the discussion. Perhaps a full review would reveal that one or the other started it or is being unreasonable, but I'm just an editor and it's not worth the frustration to wade into someone else's flame war. In any event I don't see any chance of a new consensus emerging as long as the discussion is so hot (which leaves open the question of what the current consensus really is about these articles). Perhaps they both need to take a short or long-term break from this issue, or invoke some kind of mediation. In any event it would seem inappropriate for any party to such a dispute to use administrative tools or privileges to have their way - even if administrative action is called for it would be a lot better if it could come from a disinterested party. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed Wikipedia:Rollback policy does not seem to me to countenance rollback for "the mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback" as suggested by BHG above. Can those in favour of rollback for such purposes please get consensus on that page either for changing the rollback policy/guideline or for correcting that document's mis-statement of WP policy? Thincat (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Allowing the use of mass-rollback over content disputes in this manner, sets a chilling precedent for editors without this tool. It is not an appropriate manner for dealing with the issue. The previous versions should be mass-rollbacked and dispute resolution should be entered. This is a content issue. Admin tools were not given for the purpose of engaging in content wars. Wjhonson (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So far we have four people who feel that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. Anybody else care to weigh in, or is this "chilling precedent" going to stand? Pairadox (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally (and I'll admit a past involvement with this matter) my perception of this situation is that Para and SEWilco have been quite difficult to deal with with regards to this. They seem to have decided in absence of any community consensus on what they are going to do, are mid-way through implementing it, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. It's an approach that flies completely in the face of consensus-building. Developers of the map link templates such as myself are getting occasional bouts of criticism for doing nothing about these incursions. It seems like WP:OWN on a grand scale where a small wikiproject has decided to take ownership of a particular attribute on thousands of articles. While there have been some minor improvements, a quick inspection of the WP:GEO talk page will put paid to any notion that there is a consensus or that they take criticism on board. As far as they are concerned, this is going to happen whether we like it or not. As such, I support the actions taken by BrownHairedGirl to date. When we become admins, we are expected to protect the encyclopaedia from vandalism and disruption. This is very much a behaviour issue, not a content issue. Orderinchaos 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add with regards to "inappropriate use of rollback" that rollback is a tool. It's a technical mechanism that works as a fast undo. Any editor who can make a snap decision that a particular edit should be reverted (either because of the nature of the editor or the nature of the edit) is going to do so, rollback or no. I don't think the method of reverting is relevant. • Anakin ^(talk) 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is for controversial edits. During December and January when map links were removed from those 220+900 articles (and others), only a single editor protested the removal from her 3 articles. This is not a sign of the kind of community wide controversy that would give reason to a massive retroactive rollback by one deeply involved administrator. Using rollback in this manner is abuse of a tool which is restricted to the use of people who have been trusted not to do anything controversial with it. Orderinchaos seems to be disgruntled for having been left in a minority when trying to oppose the removal of another more organised linkspamming. I cannot fathom how people can even think that promoting some specific external service over all its alternatives would be following WP:NPOV, when it in most cases isn't even the "most popular" and therefore not the most relevant or the most useful for the article. --Para (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely object to the above characterisation of my actions. As a user and admin with 26,000 edits and a two-year history including getting one of the geographical articles to FA status in a project which has thousands of articles which are affected by these arbitrary decisions, and getting asked by others in my project why I had not stood up for common sense in the face of such blatant hostility, I finally decided a month or two ago that enough was enough and something needed to be done. As Para will recall, we had previously been on cooperative terms when another now-Arbcom banned editor was causing all manner of havoc at a Geo-related page, and I supported the introduction of Coord on just terms. There seems to be two disputes here, one of which relates to the direct placement of links in articles, which I have always opposed (apart from being messy, it's also impossible to manage from any point of view), the other relates to the indirect placement of links via Mapit/Geolinks templates, which I have always supported. This is not "linkspamming", and to use such language towards a long-standing user is, in anyone's language, inflammatory. My genuine concern, and I've seen evidence of it, is that since WP:GEO started trying to force change on the latter issue in November last year, users (not including myself) have been fighting back by removing the templates entirely and resorting to manual links. This moves us from a situation which we can manage, to a permanent battleground. Orderinchaos 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is not, and has never been, any kind of policy, nor consensus, that restricts the usage of rollback to "only vandalism", nor anything similar. Rollback is a tool, not a big deal, and does absolutely nothing that cannot be reproduced by many script tools, as well as the default edit button. All these allusions to a non-existent policy must stop, just like we weed out the equally misleading non-policy idea that "you may not remove warnings from your talk page". >Radiant< 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Comment from previously uninvolved editor/admin Rollback is for non-controversial reverts; vandalism, countering 3RR violations, etc. Notwithstanding its possible inappropriate use in the context of the above content dispute, the attempt to have BrownHairedGirl sanctioned for using it in that dispute has not gained traction. It is not "abuse" of the tools since it only replicates the effect of the undo option or choosing the previous edit in the article history - it confers no special or unique power to a sysop.

WP:ANI is not the venue to continue the content dispute. There are other places to pursue resolution; please use them. I am marking this resolved since there is nothing that any admin can or will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an appropriate discussion to have here. Any use of administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is abuse. The argument that they simply achieve the same thing as a non-adminstrative tool is spurious. If the administrative tool were no better than what we non-administrators have, then why use it? Administrative privileges aren't granted to allow some people to be super-editors. Wikidemo (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you were a week or so ago, but there was quite a few discussions relating to the fact that Rollback had been made available to all editors of "good standing" via Twinkle (not that I had remembered this when I wrote the above a few hours ago). Also, the point stands that Rollback achieves nothing that Undo or choosing the previous edit in the article history doesn't means that this tool gives a sysop any extended power in a content dispute. Therefore the argument should not be about the tool but why it was used; and that is a content dispute, and this is not the right place for such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Perhaps I misunderstood the first above. It appeared that the objection was that admins have some sort of special tool for mass-rollback, not one-by-one rollback. I'm sure we can all agree that blind-reverts of 220 edits in one long spree is tendentious editing. I actually respect BrownHairedGirl, I've seen some of her comments and they seem spot-on in many situations. But this shouldn't be simply igored as a typical editor reaction. This isn't the way we want to approach consensus editing. Instead, if Brownhaired Girl felt this was highly inappropriate, that is why we have dispute resolution. An RfC, Mediation, etc would have handled it quite properly.Wjhonson (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• (resolved label removed - an important point has yet to be made). I've reviewed the edits that were of concern, and I agree that rollback was being used inappropriately here because, and this is important, the edit summaries were not informative enough and the edits were being marked as minor. Three styles of edit summaries were used:

• (1) "Reverted 1 edit by Para. using TW"
• (2) "Reverted 1 edit by Para; Rv, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links, there is no consensus for this mass removal of links. using TW"
• (3) "Reverted edits by Para (talk) to last version by Raymond Cruise"

The third one is the rollback summary, the first and second are TWINKLE summaries. The second edit summary is good, and (except for the use of "minor") should have been used for all the other edits as well. Please, please, please, do not use rollback for mass non-vandalism reversions like this without using a custom edit summary (pointing to where there was consensus to use rollback in this way) and removing the "minor edit" label. Rollback is very bad at leaving a paper trail to help editors reviewing the edits to work out why the reversion was done - unless, of course, it is obvious vandalism! There are several scripts available that enable people to modify rollback to output custom edit summaries. One is User:Gracenotes/rollback.js, described at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 5#Rollback summary. Another is User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js, described at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Vandalism only?. I am going to update WP:ROLLBACK to include this, and I will notify BHG, Radiant!, Wjhonson and other people in the above thread. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Carcharoth for a productive and pro-active approach to a sticky situation!Wjhonson (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems! :-) Those who are interested, please see here for a discussion on how best to phrase all this in the documentation. I've left various other notes around, so hopefully people will realise the sense in using custom edit summaries for non-vandalism reverts (regardless of what tool is used to do the reverts, be it rollback, undo, or some combination using scripts). Ideally, people on a dedicated run of rollbacking vandalism (eg. RC patrolling) would also have a custom edit summary enabled (eg. "rollback of vandalism reviewed during recent changes patrolling"). People spotting the ocassional instances of vandalism during normal editing will still find it quicker to hit rollback, and I am aware (before someone says this) that there is no requirement to use edit summaries at all, but it makes a great deal of sense to use informative edit summaries where possible. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP's anti-semitism.

Someone posted on WP:FTN about some people pushing the fringe theory that Jewish women did not originate in the Middle East.

So, I posted on the talkpage [46]:

Talk:Palestinian people#This article should not mention genetics.

75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs) then made this rant. [47]

I'm not Jewish, actually. And characterizing those you disagree with as Jews is a bit off-the-wall, aside from the claims that the Jews are all lying about their heritage.

Looking at his contribs list, he actually was making genetic comparisons between Jews and Palestinians on the article on Palestinian people! [48] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on whether the IP is being used for antisemitic trolling, because I haven't looked, but I've posted to that talkpage and to WP:FT/N that studying genetic differences between populations is fairly standard in population genetics. Actually, to tell the truth, its almost all they ever do, the boring fellows. Relata refero (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When IPs make racist remarks, remove the remarks and move on with your life. Maybe warn 'em, or block 'em if they've been a problem before. WilyD 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the diff above before commenting. The population genetics of Jews do not belong in the article on Palestinian people. WilyD, I'm not a politically-correct person who is particularly bothered by racism. I just brought this here because this is where it belongs, no?. Telling me to "move on with my life" and "maybe" warn them in response to being accused of being a Jew is quite frankly absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"accused of being a Jew"? Wow. That's...an interesting sentence construct, there. Wow.Gladys J Cortez 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP sounds like a bad lot, but comparative genetics are not per se racist or antisemitic. Can we establish that, please? And the comparative genetics of X people is hardly an irrelevant subject for the article on X people. I have no opinion on the specific content that the IP added to the article, but your general claims are overstated. Relata refero (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, once IPs go dormant, there's often little point in blocking them - unless they're a) actively misbehaving, or b) persistantly misbehaving, there's really nothing to do, and you've not suggested either is the case. WilyD 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Population genetics are not anti-semitic. I never said they were. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem obvious to me that the relationship of the palestinian people to others peoples is relevant in an article about them; population genetics is probably the most reliable objective evidence. The difficult come because, like all evidence, it can be interpreted or quoted in ways that unfairly emphasize a particular point of view--as is routine in this particular topic. the rule of citing all positions holds, as it always does. . DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what Zenwhat was getting at - it's not the use of population genetics that's looks a bit antisemitic, as that's merely a standard research technique, it's the rather hostile comments about "CURRENT jews got caught red handed ( historically) stealing a land that their recent or ancient ancestors never been to" (sic). I've seen worse, to be honest. As the others have said above it's not really worth blocking an IP unless it's doing this kind of thing routinely or in large volumes. I'd just remove the anon's comments from the thread as not being relevant to improving the article (see WP:TALK#Others' comments). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible oversight required

Creator of this Mike Ward (TV director) article has unfortunately put a private email address in the edit summary. Pollytyred (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done without oversight...nat.utoronto 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The deletion has been oversighted, also. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jw120550 in continual edit warring

Jw120550 is a new user, but recently engaged in an edit war on Nancy Pelosi. In fact, he violated 3RR a few days ago, after being warned, and I had the report completely typed up, but right before I was ready to submit, he promised to stop: [49]. He did not: [50]. He has also vandalized the same page via his IP: [51]. I ask for someone to please block this user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I believe I've found a second IP used for vandalism: [52]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what his deal is but again tonight [53] and for some reason this [54]. R. Baley (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask that any admin looking at this, hold off on any action (involving the "buttons". . .any other assistance is, of course, appreciated) at this point. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to respond to this? Why do my ANI posts go unheeded so often? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated false additions to World Heavyweight Championship

User Charaxes‎ and IP's 64.85.130.207‎ and 64.85.130.139‎

Are adding information to World Heavyweight Championship that is incorrect and completely false. I beleive all ips are from the same. Always posting and deleting the same material. Has refused to pay attention to numerious warnings. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Add IP 64.85.131.147 to the list--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP? D.M.N. (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fundamentally not something that belongs at AN/I; it's a content dispute and you should pursue the standard dispute resolution options. If it needs to be brought to admin attention, take it to WP:AN3 and note that you, too, appear (at a cursory glance) to be risking a 3RR violation, too. Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I am new and have been trying ot read through all the information about this, but it is vast. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sharadtriyama inserting fair use images on Julia Allison

Someone else watch the page, because I am taking it off my watchlist. miranda 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After many warnings, Sharadtriyama is continuing to insert a fair use image to Julia Allison even when there is a plain consensus that a free image of her is on the page. She uploaded fair use image screen shots and (same image here). She inserts the image here and here. I told her to stop doing so, but she continues the behavior here. I am not violating 3RR due to the free content exception, but one of two options need to happen. Either fully protect the page, or block Sharadtriyama from editing. miranda 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And, she has broken 3RR. miranda 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left her a note explaining the situation. If it continues, blocks will follow, but hopefully that won't prove necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a wheel war. I would strongly ask someone to fully protect the page, because I am tired of reverting the page because of some picture of her not putting on her best dress, etc. (i.e. pathetic minute details which are disruptive). Cheers. miranda 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleezza Rice Article

Somebody who knows how needs revert the obvious vandalism to the photo used in the Condoleezza Rice article. I attempted to revert it myself, but could not revert back to the correct photo --TommyBoy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a doozy. I've replaced the image with a cropped version of the original from Commons, but I'm not sure how to get the good original back. The article is OK for the time being, but we should probably fix the original image. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandal on Commons who also vandalized Image:Rumsfeld1.jpg and Image:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg. I've reported it to the vandal board over there, but it's a bit of a ghost town. If any Commons admins see this, please go block Commons:User:Downstage. - auburnpilot talk 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been blocked by Commons:User:LX. Sandstein (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:129.133.124.199

Could an admin or admins please review User talk:129.133.124.199? The IP editor is making a lot of claims against a couple of other people that need to be addressed and the editor either admonished or their complaints resolved. Corvus cornix_talk 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning again... perhaps an umpteenth opinion will set him straight? Sasquatch t|c 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from two weeks ago... How is this an incident? Or, why did it come up now?El_C 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was an edit war going on over removing and reinstating the comments. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed with restoration of "Ecovillage" article

I am in a bit of a state and need the help of someone with more tools than I have. Here's the situation:

• On January 26, KVDP put a note at Talk:Ecovillage that proposed a move to Sustainable neighbourhood. He put a merge tag on the "Ecovillage" article, but then, inexplicably removed it that same day.
• On January 27, DWaterson put a merge tag on the Ecovillage article suggesting a merge to Sustainable city.
• On January 29, following comments by these two users at Talk:Sustainable city, but no comments at "Talk: Ecovillage," KVDP moved "Ecovillage" to "Sustainable neighbourhood."
• I only happened on this latter discussion on February 2. By that time four users had commented at "Talk: Sustainable city." Two, (myself being one) were adamantly opposed to any merger of the "Ecovillage" article. Only one (KDVP) has spoken in favour of such a move. However, I then discovered that the move had already taken place.
• Unfortunately I freaked out and, forgetting everything I had ever learned about page moves, copied the old ecovillage article back to its original location. Of course, the problem with that is that the page history remains with Sustainable neighbourhood.

There seems little doubt that there should continue to be an article for "Ecovillage." The term is well-known and there is a worldwide network of ecovillages[55]. The term "ecovillage" gets 287,000 hits on Google; "sustainable neighbourhood" only 9,500. Moreover, two days (or even five days) seems insufficient for discussion of a move of an article that has been extant since April, 2002. Would someone be willing to restore the "Ecovillage" article's page history? I would think that "Sustainable neighbourhood" (whatever that may be) could be a redirect to "Ecovillage," but not the other way around. Sunray (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the history of Ecovillage out of the way, so you can do whatever you want now. east.718 at 02:23, February 3, 2008

Many thanks. Sunray (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend that somone adopt Goblyglook (talk · contribs)

Goblyglook (talk · contribs) has a history of making irrelevant, "chatty" comments on article talk pages that do not pertain to improving the article, with no additional substance. Some examples are here, here, here, here, and here. The inappropriateness of such comments has been pointed out repeatedly to this user. Most recently, he/she has tried to use his/her talk page as an opinion forum or social networking website. I'm not sure if this is just a user who simply doesn't "get it", or if it's a practical joke. But I think if the user will agree to be adopted it might be a step forward. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The portal for adoption is at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, The user has expressed a desire to be adopted Diff. I will point them in the correct direction. Jeepday (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued problems over Sumerian kings

• Sumerophile (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)
• Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)

Could someone please intervene with a relatively new user User:Sumerophile who has repeatedly been adding parent categories to all of the Sumerian king articles that are already in subcats. I have asked him numerous times over the past few days, including on his talkpage, to read WP:SUBCAT and at least engage in meaningful discussion as to why he feel an exception should be made, but he has not deigned to address this question at all, and instead continues to revert me without explanation whenever I remove the parent cats on all of these articles, and back and forth it goes. He will not listen to me and I have also been trying for some time in vain to get anyone else to take an interest in the overall situation, to no avail or response, so this is like a last resort. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, so much for my "last resort". I told you, I have tried everything else but it seems like nobody these days gives a crap about Sumerian Kings or their articles besides me and him, and he is meanwhile becoming increasingly hostile. I don't know where to turn now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs linking to hostile remarks? It isn't that no one gives a crap about Sumerian Kings, its that administrators have no power over article content - merely conduct. If you can demonstrate that some intervention is necessary regarding editor conduct, then the noticeboard can help you. ^Avruchtalk 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (cf. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] swatjester

I had my user page history legitimately deleted today. An admin called Swatjester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) went and restored it against my wishes. Pleawee can another admint ake a look and warn him. It appears to eb part of a dispute he has with me at Perverted-Justice. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed two sections below. Nakon 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

... of course...everything that isn't exactly as SqueakBox wants is some sort of personal vendetta against the king of personal vendettas. That "because of my protection against his poor edits on X article" accusation/reason is getting old... VigilancePrime (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

[56] Corvus cornix_talk 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The legal threats continue - [57]. Corvus cornix_talk 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blanked as a courtesy and protected. Nakon 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Image renaming

• Bugzilla link: 709

While it's not currently possible to move/rename images, Betacommand has a bot that can perform the function for us the hard way.

Requests for image movement should be placed at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Image renaming. Admins are automatically authorized for the use of this tool, and non-admins may be added by having an admin list you at the bottom of Wikipedia:Image renaming, which also includes instructions on using the tool.

There is no "Requests for" process involved, you just need to have a reasonably good edit history.

Related pages can be found in Category:Image renaming ~Kylu (u|t) 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre behaviour of User:Dbmoodb

Frankly, I'm not certain if this is appropriate for this forum. But anyway I'm puzzled and frankly rather irritated by the sub-troll behaviour of User:Dbmoodb. He mostly confines himself to user page stuff which he defines as "silly" but makes an occasional foray into article editing. All very teenage. No big deal - many of us have kids.

Most of his edits are reverted but (and here's the troll thing) he comes back much later and either re-does the edits or makes stupid comments on talk pages. It's parasitic on the goodwill of other editors and the openness of WP. The example that's prompted this is a series of "silly" edits to one paragraph in a boring little article called Moriah College, Sydney.

Here's my question: do you leave this sort of thing alone (i.e. Don't Feed The Trolls) and accept a minor level of corruption to WP, or do you tackle it head on, which is like smacking a child for doing childish things (i.e. you usually end up apologising for being a brute?

Answers on a postcard please.

andy (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Penzance: A View of the Art Deco Lido (circa 1952)" (other side) This is an encyclopedia - children should use a colouring book if they wish to draw doodles. Remove the vandalism, and if they don't get bored or grow up then send them to their room without biccies; i.e. warn them. Hope that helps. Weather horrible. Wish we weren't here! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greetings from Baltimore, Maryland" When in doubt revert, block, ignore. The weather is here, wish you were beautiful. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. RBI it is. Winter weather gets me down sometimes. andy (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Andy. I did warn you that I was watching you. Some of My early behaviour was incorrect, changing languages to suit the traditional English, but if you wish to look through my edits you will notice that I am not some sub-troll. I do not just edit user pages, Barkochbar's page was altered because I thought he was South African after I found out he was not I stopped adding this erroneous information to the page. I do have fun and do not follow normal behaviour at times. However, when I edit articles I edit articles seriously. I edit them for wikipedia and the world. I do not edit them to troll. If i see an error I will fix it. Andy you seem to want to attack me for correcting your grammar to the Moriah college article after I had put a hold on to the Milw0rm page. The Milw0rm page you deleted and would not provide me with a full explanation DGG will hopefully soon (I have contacted him and provided my email). DGG told you off for not being polite. You are incorrect to post here. This page is to be used after you have posted on my user page the exact issue. I have posted on your user page and given you warning for personally attacking me. Thus, we must go through the dispute process and "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process". Hence would an admin please inform Andy about how to use this page and remove mine and his post. Andy I wish to proceed down the dispute resolution process. Remember Andy I am watching you. I openly invite users to review my contributions. It will get you silliness points. Dbmoodb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have warned the above editor with regard to the comments "I was/am watching you." I consider them and the tone of the above to constitute harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider my post to hassmesnt. I notify andy of what we should do and give my version of my history on wikipedia. It is not an offense to watch a user the logs are made public for good reason. Threatening or hassasing him would be. I have informed you of by believes here and suggest that you and everyone watches me. I urge you to reconsider your warning LessHeard in this case. I have not attempted to intimitate just inform. I also suggest that this is remove or moved elsewhere because it does not belong here.Dbmoodb (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP has threatened an editor

• 83.7.209.185 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has just made this threat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Him again. Looks like the little monkey has learned how to use random IPs this time. Marvellous.HalfShadow (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Jéské Couriano. Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported all IPs to the Grawp CU case to see if they're possibly related to Group I (Senang Hati (impersonator) and his socks), and left a warning on one of the IP's pages that any more death threats will result in an abuse report to the ISP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, all. That's the D&D vandal/Grawp alright. I've seen that same text either on my talk page before or on that of User:Gavin.collins; would have to look in the histories. The IP's are throwaways and Jéské and Alison seem to be on top of this guy. I say that Alison blocked a large range the other day, but the problem child seems to have a deep toolbox. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not Grawp, unless he decided to move to where Grawp was in the books, according to Alison. All five IPs are British; the range Alison blocked resolves to Bloomfield, Colorado. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PresterJohn continues misrepresenting source in BLP

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. US charges David Hicks

Prester John continues to edit to present the allegations as facts/admissions. This problem has been discussed on the talk pages of David Hicks with PresterJohn and on Talk to the Hand/"David Hicks allegations" section.

Misrepresenting edits

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.

SmithBlue (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See here for relevant talkpage discussion Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 08:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues on this topic. However, given that there are multiple sources for Hicks' training with al-Qaeda, SmithBlue's fundamental dependence on the use by a newspaper of the word "alleged" seems a wee bit precious, and I wonder if this ANI report is aimed at resolving an edit dispute by nobbling those with opposing views. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to this content dispute at the David Hicks talkpage. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

see also: Talk:David_Hicks/Archive2#Satanic_symbols cygnis insignis 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No dispute that "Hicks trained with AlQ" from me and I was pleased to see PresterJohn's recent removal of many POV headers and phrases from the article. This issue is more fundamental to editing an encyclopedia. Accuracy of representation of sources is essential to WP. Without it? ... what do we have? SmithBlue (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

The user styrofoam1994 keeps on deleting my supporting evidence from the sockpuppetry case that he filed against me even though he did it before and it was dismissed. Please help me as soo as you can. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here's a link to the page I think is meant: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink --Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal. Just fill out a 3RR report. One or both of you ought to get blocked. Maybe they won't block you because you were just restoring evidence that had been deleted -- maybe that could count as reverting vandalism? There were definintely more than 3 reverts, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a warning at User talk:Styrofoam1994, focussing mainly on 3RR, though really I suppose deleting evidence is worse. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Styrofoam1994 (talk · contribs) seems to have stopped reverting. I think this thread can be considered resolved. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the story is on WP:AN Agathoclea (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 82.45.166.24

Please block 82.45.166.24, because he has vandalize pages such as List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang UK & Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmr (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also and Block 65.78.194.114 please, because he has vandalize List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang UK & Ireland as well, Thanks. HMR 11:57, 03 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

You need to take these to WP:AIV. Ros0709 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. HMR 14:30, 03 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Wellman

The page Barry Wellman has a potential conflict of interest that is being covered up. The primary editor that has put most of the promotional language on the page is User:Bellagio99. After what appears to have been an incident where he continually defends edits that try to make the page more objective, it seems to have a new defender in User:Anthon.Eff that is quickly reverting the addition of a WP:COI2 template tag and he waits until a few minutes after 24 hours to revert edits to avoid a 3rr. It seems that the two editors are in cahoots to defend a rather self-interested self-promotional page that reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia entry. Please take a look at both editors and the page in question to help determine what is going on. Are there 2 accounts for the same person perhaps? Or are they just helping each other out to maintain self-interested and self-promotional language? 64.171.57.46 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of discussion via edit summary. Has anyone tried talking in the wikispaces dedicated for such interaction? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:58.177.113.21

This users history is providing Chinese translations of names in Hong Kong related articles and nothing much else. Basically doing good work (but maybe a little too much and cluttered for my taste). However, he has just gone to work on a chemistry article, here's his/her first diff [58] on it. This is just weird, surely we don't want Chinese translations of every chemical name in Wikipedia? But as I don't know any specific policy he is violating, I have not reverted him. Also, I would not want to scare away someone with a valuable skill to us. Can somebody please advise? SpinningSpark 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

True, our practice per MOS is to a non-english language term only when relevant to the actual subject, not for terms like "anticholinesterase inhibitor" DGG (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and a polite note on the users talk page would be appropriate? Oh no, have to do it the hard way, rollback for clear vandalism only. SpinningSpark 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gwernol

Noting to see here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King of Mann

Please would you semi protect. I suspect puppetmaster User:Kingofmann is back.CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any recent vandalism worth protecting the page against. For future reference, such requests usually belong on WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a reference if missed, it looks like he made and removed this edit here. Lawrence § t/e 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingofmann self-identifies in that edit. We need to relink the old ArbCom here showing that he was voluntarily leaving the project, for future reference. I do not cherish rerunning the whole thing from scratch.Wjhonson (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is (cf Kingofmann ArbCom case dismissed). It was dismissed because, in part, he was leaving the project. If he's back, then it may need to be reopened.Wjhonson (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone review this decision please?

User:HanzoHattori just has been blocked indefinitely: [64]. Of course his incivility is obvious, but I think such harsh decision would require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. I know him as a good, reasonable and highly productive editor (~28,000 edits) who was always willing to discuss any disagreements with me.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The incivility is unacceptable. Note that the block is indefinite rather than infinite. If he wants to return and edit without making personal attacks, he can be unblocked. Nakon 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This User has been blocked 12 times. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, if they'll agree to quit making the incivil edits, they might be unblocked. Corvus cornix_talk 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked because they obviously didn't get the message from increasing blocks, I highly doubt that they'd reform. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for practical blocking purposes, indefinite and infinite mean the same thing in the block entry. As for HH, being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. Being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. To tell the truth, another user just came to my talk page and blamed me of bad faith and "manipulations" [65]. I tried to explain him about WP:CIV and delete his uncivil comments, but he reverted me three time at my talk page to blame me of "lie" without any proof... With regard to Hanzo, I can only hope that he will rethink his behavior and ask for unblock.Biophys (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I must also endorse this block, this editor has a long history of incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing. User has ignored a long list of warnings, recommendations and blocks. Dreadstar † 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the continued incivility on his talk page, I have protected it. Dreadstar † 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ban proposed

HH's behavior has gone way beyond tolerable. I propose a formal ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the community has shown an incredible level of tolerance towards his lack of civility and, which is an almost bigger problem, tendentious editing.--Aldux (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read just a few of HH's comments, I think a ban is in order. 28,000 edits is no excuse to throw civility out the window. — Edokter • Talk • 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to endorse as well. Wikipedia is not therapy, period. GlassCobra 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse this ban. Long-term, ongoing problems with this editor. Dreadstar † 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I encountered this editor a while ago and found their poor demeanor egregious. Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems he is gone forever. Let's save our time. If he asks to lift his block (which I strongly doubt), then such discussion would be meaningful.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This uncivil message [66] cited by Dreadstar was addressed to me and in reply to my message. May I ask you please not to impose a community ban on him, since that is partly my fault? I should not ask him and should not post this review request here at the first place. Besides, that would be an excessive and unnecessary punishment for someone who already has serious problems.Biophys (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I bet his "departure" is only temporary. He's had plenty of chances to learn to behave and only gets worse. Wiki is neither therapy nor a counseling center. It all boils down to that the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we've been very patient with him for a long time. If he can't learn to be polite, then there's no place for him on Wikipedia. Rudie M. (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia through collaboration by its editors. If an editor's actions are disrupting that objective, the wider interests of the project have to take precedence. That applies to repeated incivility just as much as it does to more obvious forms of disruption such as vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to dispute here. Hanzo was able to work productively and collaboratively with me and other users who gave him these barnstars [67]. He worked a lot and edited in a good faith. Unfortunately, he lost his temper many times. I saw the problem growing and tried to mediate his conflicts on several occasions but missed this one. I wish I could help...Biophys (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SqueakBox/right to vanish and User:SqueakBox/gone

[edit] User:Bill edmond

User:Bill edmond recently deleted a large portion of the article Igbo people with the somewhat odd summary "For the sake of posterity in keeping the RULES of WIKIPEDIA, let this article be edited, but not be deleted." Judging by his talk page, he has been admonished in the past, and even blocked for a month, for disruptive edits to this article. I haven't really been tracking this, and I don't have time to look into it, so I'm not the one following up on this possibly complicated matter, but I suspect that another long block is in order. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no response here. Is someone taking this on? - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it near impossible to get through to Bill edmond (having dealt with both this account and past ones). He's a good faith user, but he just doesn't seem to want to cooperate with other editors of Nigeria-related articles. Your assessment here is correct, too; that article is impossible to keep in good condition. Picaroon (t) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide note update

[edit] Mass date format changes

Looking at diffs such as Adolf Hitler and Phil Collins, it is clear that User:Wtimrock‎ has mass changed date formats in the article from International Dating format to American Dating format, against the guidelines of the Manual of Style. I've asked him to change them back, but I can't force him to do this, and it's a lot of work to go through and change each date individually. --Pete (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are interchangeable. 14 January 2008 is the same as January 14, 2008 per Wikipedia:DATE#Dates. While you are technically correct, given that both are not native to America, it's really no big deal, and it would really be a waste of time to go through and revert all of the edits when the date format works the same. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of our users are readers, without accounts or date preferences. Perhaps you should log out and see it as an average user would. Obviously the two formats are not then interchangeable. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you want a cookie? 72.193.12.47 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Logged out and the dates were exactly the same. Obviously the two formats are interchangeable. You are merely making a mountain out of a molehill. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't do it. It may well be annoying for editors who chose the other style. There is no reason to make the changes. Tyrenius (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's annoying. Phil Collins is, at least, British (and is as influential as John, George, Ringo, Paul, The Who, Floyd, etc), so the date format should remain British. Will ^(talk) 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter part of your argument is severely compromised by comparing a drummer who got lucky when the lead singer/songwriter left, to the subsequently named bands. In reverse order those bands invented or were the leaders of British psychedelia, hard/art rock, and... British post war musical everything. Phil Collins possibly invented British post divorce melancholy pop rock... ooh, looky - red link. He is a better actor than the rest of the above combined, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with you about the date thing.

Well, thanks, guys. In the old days, there'd be an ArbCom case when editors changed BC into BCE or something similar, but all I get is murmurs and the usual misunderstanding about date prefs. Anyone gonna give the editor a boot in the balls? Looks like he's a problem, from the number of warnings on his talk page. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blue eyes gold dragon

I became aware of this user because of this Wikiquette alert. What I have seen is worse than what was reported there: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Perhaps someone can have a look at this until their adopter User:JetLover is online again? --Hans Adler (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Blocked 72h. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Reason Revolution

This is a complicated case about the article for the band Pure Reason Revolution. User Justpassinby has only ever edited this and related articles. His/her posts generally have a negative attitude towards the band and its members, but, earlier on, edits made tended to be more reasonable and followed policy. More recently, Justpassinby's edits have been unreasonable; various editors considered these edits to be vandalism and left warnings. These were ignored and this led to Justpassinby being blocked. Since then, there were a sequence of vandalising edits by 78.105.130.169 (the first ever edits from this IP address): these largely repeated Justpassinby's edits and I presume are Justpassinby avoiding his/her block. Yesterday, was the first and only edit by user Joncourtney. Jon Courtney is a member of Pure Reason Revolution. However, the edit made by the user Joncourtney was insulting towards Jon Courtney and the band and was in a similar style to edits by Justpassinby and 78.105.130.169, so I am concerned that the Joncourtney account is a sock-puppet and raises further issues of impersonation. There have been two further edits by 78.105.130.169 since too. I would like to suggest semi-protection for the page and further administration action against Justpassinby and the Joncourtney account. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a condensed version of the above should be submitted to WP:SSP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can vouch for his accounting of the events, I just took a look. The vandalism reads like it's being done by either a former member of the band, or that former member's supporter. SSP might be able to give it a good block, but maybe it should be semi'd until they get to it. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported the case to WP:SSP as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby. Bondegezou (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitemartian

Keeps creating socks (Whitemartian3.0, Whitemartian2.0), etc., for pure vandalism. I think there's history between him and User:David A - can an IP block stop him? gb ^{(t, c)} 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To try and get an IP block for him, unless you can give a provable IP address for this vandal, you need to request at WP:RCU. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the random pornographic image added to this section by User:Juno24631 and given that user a warning. --Masamage ♫ 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack.

Here an editor came at me with a level of vitriol far above what was called for. This is not the first time Mactographer has stirred up trouble related to the Mike Huckabee article. Since this comment reflects his extreme POV as well as a cheap shot, I'm asking for a block for him to cool off and remember taht we're all here to improve the articles, not to attack each other, or at least a warning from an admin. ThuranX (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading the diff, but I don't see a "level of vitriol far above what was called for". Also, WP:BLOCK specifically mentions cool off blocks as something that shouldn't be done. - auburnpilot talk 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Perhaps a level one warning. DGG (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not even a level-one warning. If there's anything that stands out in the diff, it's ThuranX's remarks about Huckabee. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Huckabee's actually spoken about his ability to mis-speak, and I made a joke about that. The return was an insult both about Clinton, which was thoroughly out of place, and at me for being ignorant. The article in question was later edited to reflect that if 'acting' governors are not counted (although they are sworn in) it's 44, if they are counted as sworn in governors, it's 54. Whether or not Huckabee knew this is beyond our ability to source. That I made a joke to an editor I'd previously edited with, without this level of acrimony, and got that insult in return is absurd. OF course, it might just be that since he's on the of the Huck'sArmy editors I've brought up for CoI multiple times, he's decided to get proactive and blatant about his attitudes. ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That diff doesn't seem all that bad to me, barely warnable. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vindication of the obvious. If ThuranX hadn't provoked the incident in question with his rude and uncalled for attacks on Governor Huckabee, I wouldn't have had the slightest reason to reply in kind. And, in fact, he was ignorant in the classic sense of the word since he was unaware of the correct numbering system ... of which the Governor himself was fully aware. It seems to me if someone doesn't want to get into a verbal sparing match, he shouldn't throw the first punch and then come running to the admins complaining about it. --Mactographer (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I admit it. mactographer has no sense of humor at all. He's too vociferously defending Huckabee on the article and everywhere else to see a JOKE. Next time, I won't make jokes with a member of Huck'sArmy.com, I'll just report the COI and off-wiki canvassing again. It was a clear joke, one that came with an explanation. He's now picking a bigger fight about this, and it's clear he's not about to stop. This is ridiculous. HucksArmy was upset months ago when I presented their COI to bot AN/I and the BLP boards here, and now he thinks he's got a chance to get me in trouble. His continuing personal attacks and misrepresentations are getting tiresome. I'm requesting he be block to prevent further attacks. ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgery & misapplication of WP:RPA by User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

GvH feels i violated WP:NPA by describing a series of his article-talk edits as an "intermittant rant". I'll find a wording that should ameliorate that before i go offline in the next half hour or less. But in the meantime, he has cited WP:RPA in justifying a far more aggressive editing of the talk page than i remember ever seeing, even when Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was a frequently cited essay instead of a Rdr. (He excised half of one contrib including its sig, and the whole of an apology that was a separate contrib, leaving the appearance that the whole was a single contrib. I trust no one will suggest i am overly prissy in holding that every modification of another editor's signed contribution must

be signed by the modifier,

maintain clarity about where removals have been done, and what that remains is original and what modified

to avoid condemnation as forgery.) I am about to rv all his removals on that talk page of my writing, with edits of my own wording to address his sensitivites, but in light of his responses, in summaries and on my tk (lk'd above) to my expressed concerns anticipate the possibility of another reversion by him. In that event i will block him for 8 hours and revert, before leaving to attend to an overdue commitment lasting something like 6 hours, and hope for the attention of another admin, to counsel restraint by him (in place of his self-righteous advocacy of restraint by me) and remove the block.
--Jerzy•t 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am usually weary of comments being removed. But your comments are too personal and inflammatory, needlessly so. Up to and including the title you chose for this notice, with the first word being "forgery." Can I press on you to tone down the rhetoric and, generally, limit your interactions with him to impersonal, dispassionate, matter-of-fact communication? Thanks. El_C 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for needed feedback, with which i could use some less abstract assistance if you are willing. (I fear your efforts will be wasted on me if they stop here.)

I need more help from you or someone.

In particular, it is all very well for me to intend to apply what may be learned from this, but in the meantime there is the present situation to be dealt with.

And, excuse me, but i cited forgery first bcz that is the most objective and least defensible offense; if it seems inflammatory, it is IMO simply bcz forgery of talk contributions

1. is a threat to WP in the same way and degree that forgery in society is a threat to the reliability of contracts and other important documents, and
2. is so obviously intolerable that there is no Rdr named Wikipedia:forgery to direct us to the neologism that might have developed for it, if there had ever been a defense made of forgery in certain circumstances (as there was a essay page Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, even tho it was so problematic that the page is now vigorously deprecated), and the term that sounds like a criminal act does quite well, thank you, except for those who want exceptions made for them to forge contribs.

(Of course, that editor's conception of RPA does not even live up to the now suppressed examples in the old essay, which presumably were too encouraging of misuse to survive the, uh, refactoring.)

I would like to be the first to say that the editor who is the victim of forgery is not an ideal enforcer of the no-brainer prohibition of forgery. The proper response to that fact is not to try to get me tie to my own hands, but to intervene, now, to solve the forgery problem first, ameliorating the personality and passion issues, instead of exhorting me to to the Herculean task of rising above them. This is personal bcz am the immediate victim, but it is worthy of a passionate attitude for far better reasons than its being personal, and it is not matter-of-fact.

Since i first wrote here (but before receiving ElC's counsel), i moderated my terminology (without labeling as a PA what IMO was not), and solicited feedback on whether my use of "utterly unfounded insinuation" was something he would like ameliorated. GvH simply said on my talk page

Right, now you seem to be deliberately drawing attention to the personal attack that you made in the first place so I am just going to revert you again. Regards

and reverted, with summary "rv harrassment". I have seen no hint that he is prepared to seek what he wants without forgery, and every reason to think that he simply wants a veto power on mentions of him. The effort to remove my comments, without attempting negotiation of a rewording, began some 25 hrs ago, under the cryptic summmary "rv to me, i made that comment and it is directly related to the thread". (I took that to be a proprietary statement that he was free to delete, in the refactor i began, a hdg he originally created, and which i had until then assumed we both wanted to preserve -- Hey, no biggie.) No one else has shown the least concern about the forgery aspect, and the time will soon arise when i do my best to take the counsel of User:El C (who hasn't edited in about the last 4 hours) as i enforce the crucial (if de facto) prohibition of forgery of signed contribs.
--Jerzy•t 04:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French village stubs

Consensus was that this is not a problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)