Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive245

Need a second set of eyes

They call me Mr. Pibb (talk · contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for WP:NPA violations and edit warring. He was originally blocked by me for edit warring on Metromedia. He subsequently was blocked by Alphachimp on April 8th for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring. I blocked him again last night after he started making personal attacks again. He's left some choice words on his talk page, and on my talk page, under an IP here, which reveal some misunderstandings about basic policy (for example, he wasn't banned, he was blocked, and he was warned repeatedly before anyone ever blocked him). In cases where a user has made threats of ongoing harassment against another user, and has shown no ability to keep civil, refrain from making personal attacks, etc, I'd usually block for a while, but as I'm the dude he's threatening to harass "over and over and over and over and over and over again", I'm no longer an uninvolved party. There's also the question of possible sockpuppetry going on over at talk:Metromedia. Mr Pibb wasn't active until a flare-up between other editors, and he suddenly reappeared on the page, within hours. I've already blocked the IP that made the comment on my talk page (no other contributions from that IP before), but there are other IPs involved. Thoughts? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the Mr. Pibb account... I see an escalating example of unacceptable behavior on his talk page, and his threat to continue harassing you leads me to view this as entirely preventive. Given the abuse of his talk page, I'm going to protect it as well. I'll recommend that if he wants to be considered for unblocking, he email unblock-en-l since he won't be able to use the {{unblock}} template. If rotating-IP harassment becomes an issue, you could go to checkuser/Requests for IP check. Thoughts on the appropriateness of this approach? MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and block. So far, no other problems have popped up. If they do, I can take it to CheckUser. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TTN

Resolved

 – Pending any further unblock requests, this seems resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This User Merged Spongebob Squarepants With the Simpsons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethdoe92 (talk • contribs)

You're Dead! is not an acceptable message to leave on someone's page, and TTN did not merge Spongebob with the Simpsons. --OnoremDil 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked Sethdoe for a week for that behavior. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the message here, as attacks are allowed to be removed. Acalamari 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

207.28.221.97

Resolved

 – Blocked. Guess that's resolved?

This user returned from a temporary block and vandalised several pages today including the Did You Know. Canuckle 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a very fast problem, but nothing but problems for awhile. Blocked for now. You may want to report future such vandalism problems to WP:AIV for faster response, in the future. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian Gov't IP?

Came across the following request for unblock for 58.169.25.55 (talk · contribs). The claim in the unblock request seems credible. Perhaps it should be switched to a soft block? Pastordavid 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does it appear this is going unnoticed? If this is really part of the Australian Government would we have to report that to The Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee quickly? The Australian government isn't on the government ip list. But we haven't bothered to put Australian government IPs there. Funpika 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It already is a soft (anon only) block, and the IP appears to be Telestra (a big generic ISP) rather than a government IP. There is no general need to pay special attention to government IPs anyway. The reason the US House and Senate IPs are listed is because of publicity surrounding negative editing of Congresscritters' bios by other Congresscritters' staffs. There are probably millions of government IPs that we don't make any special fuss over. Thatcher131 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Telstra is "a big generic IP" but is also majority owned by the Australian Government, and some employees there would still class themselves as working "for the government", but not in an equivalent sense to the US examples above. I'd concur that no special treatment is needed in this case (and I was the blocking admin). --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I posted it here - so that people who know more about these things than I do could give it the once over. Pastordavid 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another account gone comprimized?

It has come to my attention that Kaori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing pages as though the account has been comprimized ("I have hacked Wikipedia..."). It has been blocked, but, what is happening? --24.136.230.38 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The password was reset and the account unbocked. Probably the new password was mailed to the user's registered e-mail address. Thatcher131 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More spoiler nonsense

In this edit User:Doc glasgow blanked {{spoiler}} although it was speedy kept not deleted at a recent TfD, and there is now a general discussing on the sue of spoilers at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Blanking this template (which is protected) before consensus on the use or non-use of spoilers is achieved seems little short of vandalism, particularly given the many pages thus affected. i have reverted. DES ^(talk) 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whatever happened to assuming good faith? I, for one, think Doc's edit, which he explains on the talk page as temporary, is a good idea because it will prevent fighting over it in article space. You, however, have misused the rollback tool, and your "speedy kept" at tfd comment is a falsehood; the debate was postponed because of the rfc. Picaroon (Talk) 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I speedily closed the TFD to centralize discussion. That was not a "keep" decision, but a "debate elswehere" decision. Kusma (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. and DES should have considered discussion before he machine reverted me as a vandal and accused me of bad faith. The MfD/RfC demonstrates that there is currently no consensus for the policy of using {spoiler}. Indeed there is probably an outright majority against it. Despite that removing these templates even from articles like Mary Poppins can been reverted claiming their is a 'standard policy'. There is evidently no such thing - there is no consensus. I blanked the template as a temporary measure until policy is clarified. If there is shown to be a consensus for the use of such things (which I think is hightly unlikely) then fair enough. But don't let these unencyclopedic things stand without consensus.--Doc^g 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This does seem rather odd. Perhaps I'm not in full possession of the facts, but it seems to me that yesterday there was a spirited debate about this in the form of an MfD, which was finally closed because this was not the place to discuss policy, and not because a clear consensus was reached. Today, the template is suddenly blanked. It is protected, so only administrators can participate in this game. But the reason given "I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at" seems odd. Is this the norm: to delete things while there is no consensus for its use? Since equally, there is no consensus for changing things, and no consensus for removal. I don't care about the template particularly, but I don't really like to see what seems to be a fait accompli victory for one particular "side" in a debate that wasn't concluded. The use of adminstrative powers in this dispute does seem to raise it above a content dispute; the admistrator involved doesn't seem to be a disinterested party, seeming to have strong views in the debate. If this is considered to be proper, then at least be tidy and blank the end-spoiler template too. Notinasnaid 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The template was long-time protected to prevent against vandalism. There is nothing to stop an admin editing it. It was not protected due to any dispute. So the use of admin tools is not relevant. The point is that people are enforcing the use of this template on classic fictional works without any consensus and making the encyclopedia look ridiculous. I took the view that given the lack of consensus for its use - I would remove pending further discussion. Unfortunately, DES rather than discuss with me assumed bad faith, used his vandal rollback, and engaged in personal attacks. But there you go.--Doc^g 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a dispute going on -- the reverts yesterday on both the template and many pages that use it make that painfully clear. if the page had not been previously protected due to vandalism, particularly because it is a high-usage template, it would surely have been protected yesterday because of the current dispute. Since you have been quite active in expressing your views in the dispute, and at least somewhat active in disputed edits over the placement of spoiler tags, i knew perfectly well that you knew about the dispute. Editing with the summary "improving the encyclopedia" does not sound like something intended to be a "temporary" change. I ask again, why the rush to judgment? If you are convinced that consensus is against the use of spoiler tags, why not wait a week or two and see what develops from the discussion now at hand? Do you really claim that blanking a widely used template, that is at the center of a large ongoing dispute, without waiting for consensus to form one way or the other is editing in good faith? I note that you blanked it again and were reverted by another editor. It appears that I am not alone in thinking that this is an unwise edit at this time. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the wisdom of my action is a matter for discussion, not assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. I am happy to be though wrongheaded - but I'm not happy to be insulted. AS for my second revert - I reverted you - since you had had the discourtesy to use a vandalism rollback tool without explanation. When another editor disagreed and reverted - I let the revert stand. Discussion continues. But refusing to assume good faith, using personal attacks and then bringing the dispute here is not the way to go.--Doc^g 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• My memory was mistaken about how the TfD result was expressed, i apologize for that error. While it is probably true that there is currently no consensus, certainly no clear consensus, for the continued use of the spoiler templates as they have been sued for several years, There is equally certainly no clear consensus not to use them at all. Given all this, I do not see how blanking a widely used protected template with the edit summary of "improving the encyclopedia" can be seen as anything but an action taken against the previous consensus, without waiting for a new consensus to form, which is not how I thought good-faith edits to the project were supposed to be conducted. What is the rush? why not wait until there is some sort of resolution to the discussions now in progress? DES ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother; Sydney Carton dies; Frodo lives, and the Rhinemaidens swim off with ring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed's wife commits suicide while awaiting trial for the murder of her boss (who was actually killed by Ed in self-defense). After the road-head scene, Ed is arrested for the murder of the dry-cleaning pansy (who was actually killed by Ed's wife's boss in retribution for the $10,000 blackmail, which was actually committed by Ed). Ed dies. —freak(talk) 02:18, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

And Little Bo Peep lost her sheep. Quick, add the spoiler tags! Picaroon (Talk) 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And Timmy fell down a well! —freak(talk) 04:55, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

User:68.194.0.108

Resolved

 – Reported to AIV. Funpika 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP has vandalized List of Backyard Kids even after a final warning was given. Deletion Quality 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC) :He did not vandalize after a warning. You didn't even bother to tell him the consequences of vandalizing. Funpika 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops looking at wrong ip. Funpika 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep the ip you mentioned DID vandalize after final warning, unlike the one that I mistook for the one you reported. This seems better on WP:AIV. Funpika 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing by BillDeanCarter and WhiteKongMan

Hi, I would like an administrator to look into possible violations of WP:CANVASS by BillDeanCarter and User:WhiteKongMan:WhiteKongMan, in the recent Bill Monahan Writing's Debate.

BillDeanCarter left the following message:

"(username), would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion.-BillDeanCarter 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

He left this message on the talk pages of all users who had voted KEEP in the first debate:

The messages can be found at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Soon after, WhiteKongMan left the following message on the talk pages of user who voted to delete in the first debate:

"Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

He did this on the following pages; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

I'm not sure if either necessarily violated the canvassing policy, but I think its important that Admins be made aware of it.

Thanks, Black Harry (T|C) 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You accuse others of canvassing... yet the top of your user page contains canvassing... Matthew 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that canvassing is when one contacts others repeatedly. What Black Harry has on the top of his user page is not canvassing, but is still somewhat inappropriate—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just removed it, thanks for reminding me Black Harry (T|C) 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Newbie biting by JSpung (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit concerned with JSpung's vandal fighting technique. He seems to be giving level 4im and uw-bv warnings for every instance of vandalism he reverts lately. I left him a message on his talk page about this, but it was removed with no comment. [1]. He does not seem to make much distinction between clearly bad-faith vandalism and assumed-good-faith test edits. He reverted this (the anon's only 2 edits) on Declaration of independence and gave the user a uw-bv warning. While most of his warnings are fine, I'm concerned about his ability to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that JSpung is a newbie himself, but a closer look at his contributions makes it bloody obvious: it's not his first rodeo. —freak(talk) 00:31, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

User Batman2005 Ad hominem attacks and uncivil behavor

In the discussion page for "Freddy Adu" Batman2005 started off with Ad hominem attacks, saying that I would be uncivil(which was baseless) To the contrary he had multiple posts which consisted purely of trying to create arguments where there were none, posts that were purely ad-hominem attacks, and posts that contained ad-hominem attacks.

Looking through his history, I see I'm not the first to have this problem with him. Drsmoo 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Drsmoo pushed his pov upon the page in question on several occasions. Including a failed attempt to label me and another user sockpuppets of each other. Only when presented with an overwhelming majority against him did he relent on his position, then he attempted (against wikipedia policy) to delete portions of the talk page which would skew the discussion into his favor. Repeatedly this was reverted and repeatedly he continued to do so. As well, Drsmoo removed on several occasions (against wikipedia policy) talk page discussions on his user talk page. Lets also take a look at Drsmoo, who accuses me of ad-hominem attacks, clearly attacking me [2].

Looking through his edit history, I see that this is not the first time he's pushed pov and acted against policy by removing information. I find overwhelming irony in the uncivil calling others uncivl.

As of now, I'm going to consider my affiliation with Drsmoo over, yet will continue to revert pov edits, even if they be by him. Batman2005 05:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, Drsmoo violated 3RR on Freddy Adu on the 14th. 1 2 3 4 --Selket ^Talk 05:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, yet chose to start a talk page discussion about the content, rather than reporting the violation. Batman2005 05:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey, if anyone actually looks at the discussion they'll see that I agreed it was POV from the start. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what this guy is getting at. There was absolutely no argument between him and me in that regard. However he decided there was and insulted me as if it were a fight. I welcome admins to look through my history and see that I have never acted uncivil. If you look through Batman2005s history(for example in the Freddy Adu discussion) you will see that he was the only one resorting to Ad-Hominem attacks. Drsmoo 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous. Batman2005 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you guys have any real problem. I don't see anything really incivil going on there, and it looks like you've agreed about what needs to be done. Bringing it here is just adding to the problem. I think the best idea is just to walk away. --Haemo 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note my above post where I said that I was going to consider the situation over, yet he then chose to insult me on the talk page. Just another in a long line of policy violations by Drsmoo. Batman2005 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly "letting it go". --Haemo 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, it'd be better to let it go. But I also think it's important to let other editors know that he has a history of Ad-hominem attacks

The event was insigated by Batman2005 when he posted on my discussion board that "I don't expect you to be able to maintain a civil or constructive discussion on the issue, but as a courtesy...I wanted to mention that such a discussion has been started."

His first message on the board then included "..yet if those were added Drsmoo would delete them immediately and claim I was pushing my pov. I have pushed NO pov in my edits...I have merely acted to eliminate the pov from the existing article. I highly doubt that Drsmoo will engage in any legitimate or constructive discussion here, so perhaps others will have opinions as we work towards a consensus and not just Drsmoo's way or the highway." which was wrong as I was pushing more towards removing POV than anyone else, he continued with comments such as...

"But, you're probably totally unwilling to look at anything Adu related objectively" "And no, I didn't insult you...apparently I was exactly right. You've proven yourself both unable to hold a civil discussion and/or accept anothers viewpoint. There is overwhelming support here for my viewpoint that saying that he is widely regarded as anything is pov. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and get over yourself?" "Shouldn't you be off pushing your pov on other pages and being proven wrong over and over again like you were here?"

"I fail to see Drsmoo, perhaps you can let me borrow the rose-colored glasses you wear."

There was absolutely no reason other than blatant and causeless hostility to be insulting.

That's my last post on the matter, just wanted to let other editors know. Drsmoo 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And my last post will be to let the same editors know of the blatant pov pushing, callous disregard for wikipedia policy and hypocritical ways of Drsmoo. Batman2005 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but this doesn't really seem to be ANI material. Can you two agree to stop this? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FatherTree

This user is harrassing me, and other editors, despite being asked to stop. He is also making false accusations. His comments and style are remarkably similiar to that of Sarner, who was blocked on several occassions for similiar behavior. Exmples of Personal Attacks and harrassment can be found in the following diffs:

1. . [[3]]
2. . [[4]]
3. . [[5]]
4. . [[6]]

The dispute is about the Attachment Therapy article, and also involves two other editors who are making false accusations and Personal Attacks, StokerAce, who has had problems before in this regard, and Fainites. See diffs: False Accusation: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] RalphLender^talk 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC) And who appear to be working in concert regarding this issue. [[10]] [[11]] RalphLender^talk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Related previous disputed include the following: [[12]] [[13]]

I am not sure how to pursue this. I really think some direct administrative action is necessary. If you can direct me about how to try to resolve this tangled dispute, I'd appreciate it. RalphLender^talk 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue. I just protected Attachment_Therapy due to edit warring. However this has been going on a long time and may involve conflicts of interest. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph, I honestly don't see any personal attacks or harassment in those diffs. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. given the level of edit warring and past history here, and the number of single-purpose accounts (relatively new editors who only edit this article), I do think Administrator intervention would be helpful....If you could become involved that would help. (Maybe Will_Beback, since you have already been involved by putting on the much needed freeze) I am concerned that a small group, mainly single-purpose new users, don't want to even consider mediation....Your help or advice on how to proceed would really be a big great help. Thanks. RalphLender^talk 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the group (Maypole, Fainites, FatherTree, and StokerAce) are refusing mediation and demanding Arbitration...but I thought one had to try mediation before going to that step. I see this as another attempt by them to avoid trying to find a consensus and agrement. RalphLender^talk 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that all of those mentioned are happy to find consensus. The problem is, at this stage RalphLender,DPeterson and others are objecting to things like fixing broken links and tracking down relevant peer-reviewed articles. It makes things very difficult. StokerAce 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Given StokerAce's history of conflict on this page and that his is largely a single-purpose account, I think it very important to get Administrative support to work to consensus or have an admin decision made...In any event, Attachment Therapy needs a second set of eyes and some intervention...perhaps mediation. RalphLender^talk 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried to edit by consensus for weeks. I made no edits at all to the actual article until agreement was reached on each paragraph. I put up with the rudeness and unreasonable demands of the dominant group and their constant polls. When we finally reached consensus I posted the results, only to have it almost instantly perverted to include yet again, another promotional push for Becker-Weidman, contrary to what was agreed.[14] Forgive me therefore for being a little cynical about your happiness to reach consensus. As for your complaint about Father tree, you have been asked many times to fix the links for your edit about organisations position statements. I fixed one for you, but couldn't find your other sources. When the broken or missing links were brought to your attention, this was the response [15] [[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I think I'm a relative outsider to this. AT is a new subject to me as I came here with an interest mostly in hypnotherapy. I can see that some of the arguments above are a little inaccurate factually. I don't see much in the way of personal attack anywhere. People have been reminding each other of any known possible biases though. I do think arbitration would be helpful though I havn't been through one before. I don't think anyone is refusing mediation. Some may have voted no, but thats not exactly a refusal in my mind. I am undecided about mediation. There does seem to be some resistance to improving the article from some members and perhaps thats where mediation might help. I'm happy the article has been frozen. There are some glaringly obvious improvements to make that some have reverted already and I find that rather odd. I wish to get to the bottom of it. There do seem to me to be sockpuppets pro-DDP. They also seem to me to be arguing from the position of that of interested parties. Well, I like to do one project at a time, so I will be happy to persist with getting all relevant views into the article at some point. Balance and weight will have to be something for us to work on together. Arbitration sounds fine, mediation may possibly be helpful. Maypole 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pietras1988

This user (contribs) appears to have been canvassing for a long period of time, though it apears that no one has complained before. His canvassing request states that he would like the user to create an interwiki link for the Kurów article (which, I guess, is his hometown), and includes external links to what appears to be other wikis that aren't Wikipedia-sponsored. After warning him on his talk page, he blanked the page. --Jhortman 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

... and, shortly after my first post here, left a personal attack on my talk page and re-blanked his talk page. (diff) --Jhortman 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I hate you" hurts, but it's not quite a personal attack. I'd agree that something should be done about him, though. Phony Saint 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right... I probably should have called it "uncivil" and referenced WP:CIVIL instead. I think my initial point is valid, though. --Jhortman 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pietras1988's edit summary ("revert after fucking vandal. Please about ban for him") when removing Jhortman's warning was definitely uncivil and, IMHO, a personal attack. I would recommend a short-term block if further incidents occur as warnings do not seem to be terribly effective. --ElKevbo 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also worthy of note that the user also blanked an NPA warning that ElKevbo put on his talk page with the edit summary "not important." (history) I'm seriously not trying to "go after" this guy or anything... it just seems to me like he's being pretty blatant. --Jhortman 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia-related disruption

Sysin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a hardline Greek nationalist with a history of POV-pushing and edit-warring, particularly concerning issues relating to the Republic of Macedonia, which is controversial in Greece. In recent weeks he's continued to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and push a nationalist POV by repeatedly deleting references to the country's name and recreating deleted templates, for which he has already been warned by myself and Andrwsc. The most recent episode has been edit-warring over Template:European Union Labelled Map, in which he has repeatedly deleted the spelled-out version of the acronym "FYROM" [16], even though it's already been explained that acronyms should be spelled out (as per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations). He has done the same in Via Egnatia, replacing the country's name with the acronym FYROM.[17] I've seen this sort of thing before - it's a standard tactic among Greek ultranationalists who reject the country making any use of the word "Macedonia".

I'm not going to block Sysin myself since I've been trying (apparently without success) to explain our standards and guidelines, but given his persistent disuptive behaviour, edit warring and POV-pushing I believe a block for WP:POINT violations would be in order. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could implement the block.

In the meantime, the issue of Macedonia-related terminology is under discussion in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They've only done 8 edits in the last week; the FRYOM issue is clearly contentious, but the only other recent apparently controversial thing is a translation spelling issue on which they have some other editors agreeing with them. This doesn't look like it needs ANI intervention to me. Georgewilliamherbert 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth asking User:NikoSilver to have a word. Jkelly 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My response is already posted on the Talk page for the template.

1) [WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations]] clearly is intended for text and not on maps, where design and space considerations are critical. See Template:World Labelled Map and Template:United_States_Labelled_Map where the use of both acronyms and abbreviations is a high multiple of that in the tamplate in question. On clickable maps, a simple click or even a hover will quickly explain any acronym.

2) I have no political objection to spelling out "the former ..." as I often do so myself. I would, for example, object to anyone trying to fully spell out or footnote Luxembourg on the map, as it will crowd the map and ruin its design. In this case, the footnote that ChrisO wants to add appears like a label on the map (since it is placed where a label would normally be, and there is no other label to draw focus away from it). The map of the EU is then, at first look, labeled as a map of one country.

3) It is interesting that ChrisO only objects to the FYROM acronym, and not to other abbreviations on the map ("Lux.", "Neth."), which clearly demonstrates that he cares little about the MOS and this is just a lot of self-serving hand waving.

sys < in 09:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Can someone who knows the free and open source software industry take a look at the contributions of 74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs) since 21:35 UTC (the edit to Bill Kristol adminst four edits to Leonard H. Tower Jr.. He made a bunch of changes, many of which were reverted by User:Lentower. He then edited Leonard H. Tower Jr. (yes, the editor is the subject of the article) that violated BLP. I saw this in my watchlist, rolled it back, and looked at the rest of the IPs contribs from today, and rolled them back as they were changing references and links consistently in a way that changed the meaning. I cautioned on the IP talk page (though not about the BLP issue), and they went away for an hour. I came back, and saw the BLP violating edit to Leonard H. Tower Jr. had been repeated. So I've rolled that back again. But are the rest of the edits good or vandalism now? Beyond my expertise, so I request review (and a block if appropriate). Since I am a personal friend of Len's since well before Wikipedia existed, I shouldn't be the blocker even if the BLP violations alone merit one. GRBerry 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Realizing news sources would be unlikely to print the "K word" in reporting the incident, I did watch a video of the heckling, and I did not see or hear anything to corroborate the assertion that Kristol was called a "dirty kike", unless of course it had been muted out as profanity. However, he was clearly called a traitor and equated to Goebbels by various spectators. Good revert. —freak(talk) 01:54, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

The software-related edits are mostly POV-pushing, changing "free software" to "open source" and then in some instances revert warring over it. There is some inflammatory political stuff too, at Rupert Murdoch and Neoconservatism. Almost all the edits are small (1 or 2 word) injections of POV terminology rather than anything substantial; for the Rupert Murdoch article, a few-word-long unsourced allegation is added ([18] not supported by the cited article). Bad user and possible troll. 75.62.6.237 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Wikipedia?

I found a site that plagerized directly from wikipedias content and did not give credit. they make people pay to be members also. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/charis-visionsof-mary.html They are way of life ministries a baptist org.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.243.177 (talk • contribs) 05:45, May 17, 2007 (UTC)

You should mention this at the talk page of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, but it's not really an admin issue. ugen64 07:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is OK under GDFL . --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me. GFDL requires crediting the original source and also distributing the copied version under the GFDL. That site is not crediting Wikipedia and is trying to impose a different set of conditions. 75.62.6.237 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would take this over to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, but I can't see which content is being taken from Wikipedia, and which Wikipedia page it's being taken from. ··coelacan 08:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Wasn't sure if this is a copyvio or not. The picture is found on a [copyrighted website. --CyclePat 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, on both links it says the image is Public Domain. Anynobody 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable page protection?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name was, admittedly, a contentious and confusing nomination, not the least of which was its process-questionable dual-nomination in both MFD and AFD. However, we've certainly had more problematic XFDs in the past; Esperanza comes immediately to mind.

Without passing judgment on whether or not consensus could have been established in either direction, I question the way the discussion was concluded. Discussion was "suspended", and the MFD page protected, by admin Jerzy.[19][20] However, Jerzy was not an "uninvolved administrator". He had previously commented in the discussion, favoring the retention of the material.[21] Additionally, his justification for the suspension seems somewhat lacking, stating that it "involves procedural irregularities too extensive to either tolerate in light of their potential for functioning as de facto precedents, or enumerate clearly in the time i have left to edit in the next 24 hours or so." Although he has suggested that other participants "Please keep the discussion of these measures on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name", he has not done so himself[22] (he is the only contributor to that page as of the linked version).

I don't know that I expected anything at all from this A/MFD, but I can't say I expected it to end this way, especially with such vage explanation. Was this a proper use of administrative tools? And, either way, what course of action should be undertaken to allow examination of the arguments for and against deleting this material?

Regards, Serpent's Choice 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have over-ruled the suspension and unprotected the page. See my enclosed comment for detail. Thanks. El_C 10:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (again)

Please see Wikipedia: How to play The Game (game) and get your article back - it appears to have been created as a WP:POINT, and I also notice that the creator is threatening to try and take this to arbitration.

Shouldn't this be nuked rather than taken to miscellany for deletion?? --SunStar Net ^talk 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Been deleted by JzG. Trebor 11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, gentlemen, I deleted The Game (game) meme a while back as trolling along the same lines, seems to be a similar sort of scenario. Moreschi ^Talk 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• SunStar Net suggested a page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests - that seemed a very good idea to me so I was bold. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:S.jensen

Can somebody with enough fuel in their flamethrowers please help to deal with the walled garden of copyviovanicrankspamcruft that is apparently the complete oeuvre of S.jensen (talk · contribs), regarding one Martinus Thomsen and his numerous books on mysticism? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament for precedent. I haven't yet worked out just how much of it can be speedied. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see anything eligible for speedy deletion, but I did isuse a delete all opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual science by Martinus which you opened. I think the 5 articles in the AFD nom plus the 14 redirects are all the non-deleted pages to which the user has contributed. GRBerry 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User 210.56.112.80 Vandalism

Whilst on my WP travels I have discovered that user 210.56.112.80 is persistently vandalising the Dera Sacha Sauda article. The IP address may need to be monitored. Jamie 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This way, please! --ElKevbo 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block request...

I would like to request a block on IP - 148.168.40.4. It is a shared IP but is consistently making unneccessary edits and personal attacks. I apologize if this the wrong place for this. Thanks for any help. Strunke 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be the more appropriate place to report this. You'd probably get a quicker response, too. --ElKevbo 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much....Strunke 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS International / MDS America conflict bothering Wikipedia

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

Both articles and talk pages have been semi-protected for 2 weeks. Talk has been archived and some rules put on the talk pages. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

→ See also: MDS International section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Ok. We've been here before. I know it has much to do w/ WP:COI but the latest developments have gone beyond that. Believe me, i consider this case the most difficult one i've handeled so far and that's why i need help. This is the situation in brief:

1. MDS America is in a legal conflict w/ MDS International (based in France). Notice that MDS Intl. redirects to MVDDS dispute as its article has been deleted twice (went thru DRV).
2. Both MDS America employees (User:Bhimaji, User:WizardOfWor, maybe User:Macrhino as well though i am not sure, but of course many IPs hailing from Stuart, Florida where the company is located. Also User:72.19.4.235 claimed once that he is the CEO of MDS America who already got an article called Kirk Kirkpatrick) and MDS Intl User:Jeanclauduc aka User:83.206.63.250 (claiming he is the CEO of MDS Intl) ones have been editing in wikipedia and they have been edit warring of course and in many occasions personal attacks and uncivility have been noticed.
3. On The account User:Fabrice10 has been created on May 2nd. His first edit was at the AfD page claiming he is the son of User:Jeanclauduc and that he is still a shareholder of MDS Intl while cooperating w/ MDS America. What we can get from that is that the alleged father and son are engaged in a family business conflict as well!!!
4. I've tried to mediate between the two sides as you can get from the ANI link above (because User:Jeanclauduc speaks French but poor English) but he stopped cooperating after i asked him a few questions for clarification but he never contacted me again.
5. On May 15th, User:83.206.63.250 has personally attacked and threatened User:Fabrice10 to divulge personal info about their family affairs. In fact he has already done it in French. As a result User:Kuru blocked him for 31 hours. His alleged son Fabrice10 has just divulged on my talk page some info about him which i've just removed.
6. Editors User:Nadav1 and User:EdJohnston as well as User:Ronz and User:zzuuzz have tried to sort this mess out but in vain.
7. For more information please refer to this case at WP:COI/N

Maybe i missed some facts/incidents but all i want is a community opinion. Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to personally thank FayssalF for having the patience and fortitude for dealing with this very complicated case. The file over at WP:COIN has been open for over a month now, and while some progress has been made in sorting out the COI issues, there is still much to be done. What has made this saga especially difficult for me, and perhaps has also tried the patience of other editors who have tried dealing with this, is the constant bickering and personal attacks that have continued to appear on the talk pages. Some of these attacks, namely those emanating from the presumed JC Ducasse, have grown especially viscious as of late. I hope other editors can suggest some sort of solution to this whole mess. nadav 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about soft-protecting the two articles and their talk pages? I've never seen talk pages protected before, but it would stop or at least heavily reduce the bickering there. Maybe merge MDS America into MVDDS dispute first as proposed? --Ronz 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't solve the problem radically. There a conflict of interests in play. I believe a RfC would be the best option for now. But let's wait for some feedbacks here and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz's solution could work. It would at least stop the barrage of anon IP's. Currently, there is little non-disputed material in MDS America: despite repeated pleadings from the regular editors, all the effort from the SPA's has been channelled either into the fighting, or else into technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway. Kuru has been trying recently to direct the parties' attention towards improving the article rather than fighting, but this has been tried before and has not worked. I added citation needed tags for the material in MDS America some time ago, but nothing has been forthcoming. MVDDS dispute and MVDDS are basically the only articles for which there are secondary sources out there. Since the parties seem intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground despite our perpetual warnings, I am tempted to agree that talkpage semiprotection is the cure. nadav 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is both inaccurate and insulting, nadav. I am not "intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground." I have been attempting to have a reasonable discussion on the topic matter. Any objective reading of the edit history will show that Jean Claude has been intent on battling on any talk page he can find.

Regarding your claim that the talk page contains too many "technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway," I've been attempting to answer questions from un-involved editors about some of the technology. If a neutral editor is interested enough in the article to be asking questions of me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to spend my time helping them understand the technology. Hopefully this will allow them to edit the article as they feel appropriate from an NPOV.

Regarding the citation tags you mention: I should have noticed them sooner. The first one is for material that is actually in the MVDDS article. The second one is a request for a citation indicating that we don't buy our systems from Jean Claude's company, MDSi - I'll see if I can find a citation, but Jean Claude's edit history here should make it quite obvious that we don't have an ongoing business relationship with him. The third citation is in-progress - we're going to release the network diagram for an operational system.

Perhaps it's true that some people from MDSA are too easily trolled into responding to Jean Claude. Personally, I find it difficult to criticize somebody for responding to a threat to distribute pornographic pictures of their wife. The fact that Jean Claude is permitted to continue his diatribes on Wikipedia is the fundamental cause of the problem. It is challenging to have a civil and productive discussion when such insults are the most frequent diffs you see.

If you'll look at my own talk page, you'll note that at least one NPOV editor felt that my edits on the MDSA article were good. I'm not trying to brag, I just feel that I am being unfairly criticized by nadav. Bhimaji 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take his criticisms personally. It is a fair statement that both parties are involved in an edit war, but your own, personal responses have been level headed and patient. I'd like to try this one last attempt at ferreting out the actual conflict with the article, if there is one. I've proposed refactoring the talk page to remove all the off-topic crap - if there's no serious objections. If this fails and turns into a edit war/rant, then we can go nuclear. Kuru ^talk 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My citicism was definitely not directed at Bhimaji. His efforts throughout this saga have been made in good-faith. My words were an expression of general frustration with the situation. nadav 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your frustration is understandable. After the latest nonsense, and FayssalF's excellent bilingual reiteration of the rules and talk page archiving, I think this is getting closer to resolution. Kuru ^talk 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am Fabrice, I have been dealing with my father for years. Up to now, no one (MDSA or various editors) has ever insulted my father or criticized him in these talks. Whatever anyone is writing, JC Ducasse (JCD) will argue forever. Up to now everything he wrote is incorrect. Say black, he will say white; say white he will say black. The only way for cooling him down is to let him say anything he wants and no one should answer or comment what he say (at all). Eventually his comments could just be removed without bringing any comment.
We could argue with JCD forever, but has all his claims are not correct it will be a loss of time.
But just as an example, for arguing against the KU band broadband solution that I designed in 1996 and later improved with MDSA, JC Ducasse is mentioning in these talks a "patent" that he say having filed in 1985
But this is not a pattent and it has no relation with what we are alking about.
JC Ducasse is referring to the document available on MDSi Web site http://www.mds.fr/patent/patent.html
It is not a patent it is what is called an “enveloppe Soleau”. (i-DEPOTs ?)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enveloppe_Soleau
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/newsletter/6/html/EN/howToProtectYourInvention.html (in English)
The purpose of this "envellope" is just to show that the writer knew the process before any patent can be written.
The process for registering this "enveloppe" is the following : JCDucasse wrote 2 envelopes and sent them to the intellectual property (IP) office in 1987 (not 1985). Then the IP office keep one envelloppe and send the other one with a date stamp to JCD.
Then, if someone else patent the same process, the owner of the enveloppe can use the process for his personal usage (not commercial).
Once the enveloppe is OPEN (like on MDSi web site), then it became null. It has to be opened during a court case in front of a judge.
In addition, the Soleau Enveloppe of JCD is not mentioning any Internet or broadband at all. In 1987 the Internet was not popular enough for being known and mentioned by JCD.
The "envellope" is just describing the american MMDS process (70s) and is mentioning “ ANALOG TV broadcast (video and audio) using hyperfrequencies” (No satellite sharing, No digital, No internet, ....). It was demonstrated during Northpoint trial that such process couldn’t be patented.
In addition, MMDS was already existing before JCD wrote the Soleau enveloppe. By renaming the "enveloppe Soleau" into "Patent" JCD creates a confusion and is feeding the debates with incorrect information which are very difficult to control.
Sorry for this long message . --Fabrice10 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected both articles for 2 weeks. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same to the talk pages and put some rules. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

RodentofDeath revert warring in Angeles City

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) repeatedly deletes a well-annotated sentence on prostitution on Angeles City, typically with misleading edit summaries. [23] [24] [25] [26]

He's been warned about various incivility and 3RR-type behaviors in the recent past and has now advanced to disputing pretty much every source on the Talk page [27] [28] [29], then removing without consensus. Discussion has become lengthy, and I don't think further discussion will be productive as he removes the material regardless.

Other new, single-issue editors have joined in the deletion. Rodent came up clean in a recent SockPuppetry investigation, so I can't say with certainty these are him. [30] [31]

• 208.52.112.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.141.228.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Rodent has been on related campaigns of article reversion and harassment toward editors. The Angeles City article was protected for a while due to revert warring between RodentofDeath and Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over references to slums, and references to Welfare organizations and human rights monitors.[32] Rodent's general campaign has been to remove anything perceived as unflattering.

I've considered mediation but I have trouble believing any good will come of it. Ditto RfC. I'm not sure where to go with this. What is recommended? / edgarde 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this particular case with some interest. From what I understand, the issue is essentially more of a POV dispute between two parties who, like it or not, have strong biases on the topic (take note of the lengthy discourse on Susanbryce's main user page). If you ask me, this isn't exactly a one-sided issue; both Rodentofdeath and Susanbryce have their fair share of conflicting issues and concerns that badly needs to be resolved. I'd also suggest that you leave a note at the Philippine regional noticeboard (talk page) so that other Filipino editors can also share their thoughts about this (some of the regulars are also admins, btw) and better explain why this could be a POV issue. And, yes, I think mediation is long overdue. --- Tito Pao 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about Philippine regional noticeboard, and it sounds like a good resource. Thanks.

Susanbryce may have dropped out by now. If I get a reply to the mediation suggestion I left on User talk:Susanbryce, I'd be pleased to see a mediation begin.

What I'm seeing now is RodentofDeath is the last one standing and has taken an obstreperous WP:OWNership of the page. I got involved fairly late, and am mostly in it for this one edit. / edgarde 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a longer version of this incident in WP:TAMBAY. / edgarde 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with comments by edgarde, what's happened is that RodentofDeath has pushed out neutral editors such as Phaedrus86 and from there has attempted to own the article. Addhoc 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I started adding the content on welfare orgaizations in the Philippines and the Human Trafficking trade due to my experience in these aseas. Im not an educated person, and I made a lot of mistakes in what I posted. But with the help and guidence of more experienced Editors such as Phaedrus86 and Adhoc, the artilces have been well sourced, well written and a valuable addition. I have always abided by the advice of the more experienced Editors. I feel im being stalked by RodentofDeath who has attacked and deleted most everything I have posted. Even a simple post that mentions charities is attacked and deleted. I have requested more senior editors to engage and they have and I have abided by their guidence. I have dropped off because im tired of the constant abuse RodentofDeath aims at me. With that said, ive mostly made the additions to Wikipedia that I wanted to and am basically happy with the current articles as they are. All im seeking now is to maintain those articles. Kind Regards, Susan Bryce.Susanbryce 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wandering off-topic, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate Susanbryce's information in general, but where I've seen Bryce's contributions in other articles, they seem to be in good faith, and are often followed by disparaging comment from RodentofDeath (examples: interaction in Talk:Sex Tourism, Talk:Prostitution in the Philippines). Over time, Susanbryce seems to have developed a cautious and deferential approach to editing, whereas Rodent has been grinding his axe.

That said, the Bryce/Rodent conflict might be better served by a mediation. I'm right now more concerned about RodentofDeath's ownership issues. / edgarde 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations

This matter should only be discussed directly with the arbitration committee by e-mail. Thatcher131 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Formerly banned, but reinstated by Jimbo, user User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is carrying on in a questionable manner, edit-warring on Cherokee (which has required protection of that article), making what borders on legal threats (based on totally preposterous legal theories of his to the effect that Indian tribes can override the First Amendment and ban discussion about them if it goes in directions of which they disapprove), engaging in WP:POINT behavior (creating a category "Massacres by Mormons" with only one article in it because he dislikes a similar category regarding massacres by American Indians), accusing users critical of him of being sockpuppets, and so on. *Dan T.* 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I left a note. He needs to take a chill pill or he's going to end up blocked again. However, Dan, please resist any temptation to bait him. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I interacted with this fellow a while back at Daniel Brandt. Neither of us had a great time, though in my opinion the exercise was largely memorable for this edit. I've not seen anything quite like it, either before or since. Moreschi ^Talk 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing this. Not all the trolls are from SCOX. I'll refrain from feeding any of them.  :-)Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Willful or clueless? I vote 2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clueless. Someone placed a {{who}} and I thought it meant for someone to say who in the community said it, so I put it in. I assumed if it was wrong, someone would format, correct, or remove it. I'm glad everyone finds it so entertaining. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you're just not quite getting it, allow me to provide you some good, but unsolicited advice. You're not doing yourself any favors by threatening people, mentioning laws, or trying to muscle changes in past anyone. Anyone who spends 10 seconds trying to figure out if you're gonna be able to muscle changes past them is going to realize quite quickly that just a small, well placed, well written whine about you is going to send you back into indef blocked. You, not them, need to tread on eggshells. You're incredibly lucky that this particular whine isn't perfectly written. If the first commenter had stated "Merkey is back to his old gig - threatening wikipedians with lawsuits (diff), editing disruptively (diff), and sticking his nose where it don't belong (diff). Why did we unblock him, exactly? Were we short on POV pushers who like to threaten people?" then I suspect we'd be discussing this from the other side of your block log. I think you're just a tech guy who can't interact with people. You're going to have to learn if you want articles to read how you want them to read. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has been subjected to any threats other than me by a large group of troll accounts, most of whom are affiliated with the Linux movement. I am saddened that disagreement with views about Wikiality offends folks. Many of the arguments esspoused by Brandt and others appear to be true about this particular community on the English Wikipedia, despite my best efforts to assume good faith on folks part. Time for a break. I will go ahead and write enhanced filters to the Wikigadugi project to strip out Native Articles into a separate dump so I can review and remove the false information contained in them about these fake "Wikipedia Indians". I may return to correct or add syllabary constructs from time to time. The English Wikipedia is like a slow motion train wreck I feel compelled to watch, but helpless to stop or advise. I fear things should just go on the way they have until the next train wreck. It's just too stressful and time wasting to attempt to make progress here.  :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Christ, Jeff, you have no idea how hard you are making it not to reblock you. That post, plus your edit history and ban history, says the banhammer should come out again. Have you ever considered counting to ten before hitting Save? You are a smart man, a really smart man, how come you are so stupid? Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this is part of my frustration. Please go look at your post and the threatening tone, "banhammer"? . I realize you mean well and are trying to help. I am a very smart man, but I am also a very old man, and things move a little fast for me here. I am sending out a press release Monday or Tuesday launching the Wolf Mountain Group. I will have the company address many of these issues when we get to the part about the Foundation and Wikipedia in General. I wish you guys the best and good luck. Hope to see many of you again. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

• User:Secfrance - sockpuppet of User:Secisalive! and User:France a.
• Those two accounts were both permablocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and vandalism.
• Secfrance confessed on my talkpage to being a joint sockpuppet - though he insists that France a was his brother, and Secfrance is a joint accout for both of them.
• See the discussion on user talk:Secisalive! for the "brother" thread. Could someone block him?--Rambutan (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Brasileiro1969 sock puppet, User:Rabbia62

Hi, I just logged in to find my userpage vandalised by this new account (Rabbia62). I think it's pretty clear that it is a sock puppet of the banned account Brasileiro1969, which is turn was found to be a sock puppet of Marlon.sahetapy (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy) aLii 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Superman34241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Superman34241 seems to be flying under the radar here (for lack of a better figure of speech). All of his mainspace contribs are vandalism, but he has not received higher than a level 2 warning. He also has a threat (that he says is "a legal warning") on top of his talk page, warning others not to edit it. After LuigiManiac warned him for some vandlism, he replied with a uw-bv, and a very WP:OWN-ish message. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Azerbaijani

I lost count how many times user:Azerbaijani attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users). Here new one [33]. He tries to push his opinion as the only truth. Before he twice told that I lied [[34]] on the question which turned to be right from my perspective - I proved the fact by submitting relevant document. Wiki community should pay attention to such users like user:Azerbaijani. He is on the Arbcom parole, yet he was blocked once for violating its desicion and still behave in inappropriate manner.--Dacy69 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked this user. This is another false revenge report, one in a line of them. Note that in none of the diffs this user has ever posted was there ever a personal attack. Wikipedia's policies say that I am allowed to comment on a Users edits but not on the user himself. I have never commented on Dacy personally. He tried to lie about what a source was saying, and I called him out on it and eventually he admitted it and we all moved on. I was the one that asked him to bring up a source proving his point, and finally, after distorting the first one he brought up, he was able to bring a legitimate source up.

This user is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV, OR, or PA. I have asked him several times to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules. I have even went as far as copy pasting the rules for him on talk pages, and that hasnt even worked.

I know of countless diff's I can bring up of user Dacy breaking Wikipedia's policies, and making false accusations and false reports.

Note that this is not the first time he has made such a false report: [35] (he asked for a check user on me without any justification whatsoever but rather a week argument, which was baseless) [36] (Another similar report of incivility against me...)

Its hilarious how he tries to use Wikipedia's rules against me when he isnt even familiar with them. He cannot prove that I have ever attacked him personally of ever been uncivil towards him. This is part of his (and other friends of his on Wikipedia's) bullying and smear tactics.

Dacy69 is also on Arbcom parole, and so far he has broken parole twice but not blocked for it (due to false revenge posts and reports by his friends).

This user and his friends are trying hard, really hard, to bully me around with such tactics. Notice how in his description he says attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users) however, look at the diff's, A) nowhere is there an attack, and B)no where is there inappropriate language. This is a POV revenge attack, simple as that. I even predicted this would happen, as it has become a usual thing for me to have to deal with these days.Azerbaijani 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is global plot against him.--Dacy69 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a global one, but its pretty obvious whats going on, or is what you, Grandmaster, and Atabek doing just a coincidence (even though you guys work together on almost every article, make almost identical false accusations and reports, exchange reverts on articles, etc...). Also, this user thinks Wikipedia rules dont apply to him, and has made that clear several times, the lastest: [37] (He thinks Wikipedia undue-weight and NPOV dont apply to that article or him)Azerbaijani 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:70.146.137.154

He is harassing and threatening me about a totally non-wikipedia related matter, posting personal information, and not responding to requests to stop. Tmtoulouse 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block for legal threats being made. Any oversights around? x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made the block, I'm not an oversight though. --Wafulz 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think an oversight was needed for that. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ymous

Resolved

Ymous (talk · contribs) is using Wikipedia for his own soap box, creating patently absurd articles and edit warring over them, then writing polemics about the liberal bias in Wikipedia on both his User page and his Talk page. Corvus cornix 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indefblocked by David Gerard.[38] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute over original research. What specific action would you like reviewed? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, perhaps the disruptive editing behavior of some of the editors. Perhaps I just want more eyes on the article? Or, perhaps we can just let the pigs run the farm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • More eyes on the article sounds just about right, SqueakBox 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

What's the deal here. Every time I view this page it multiplies. First, there were 83 requests and now there are 96. I randomly clicked about a dozen and each one had a request template on the page. Is this being including in a template somewhere? - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, some admins have enabled autoblock, and now it is causing extensive damage. --24.136.230.38 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Golbez unblocked the person and reblocked him without autoblock. Things should be (semi) back to normal now. --24.136.230.38 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone blocked the Wikimedia server, no wonder... --24.136.230.38 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Jain yankee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the 'block his IP' box remaining checked; apparently, his IP belonged to one of the Squid servers, and so it seems that everyone editing was hit by the autoblock. Hilarity ensued. --Golbez 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, finally can edit again :) --- RockMFR 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What confused me is that people were adding it to article talk pages [39] [40] Special:Undelete/Talk:Plaster_bandage. Now we just need some people to clear out the request templates... - auburnpilot talk 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one Ymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was creating a shitload of autoblocks. Undid that one, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Was it just jain yankee's block that was causing problems? I was also getting block messages for Ymous and one or two other editor names. --- RockMFR 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sdffsdf's block is still causing problems, too. --- RockMFR 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain just HOW the autoblock feature is triggering blocks on the wikimedia squid servers? Because it seems to me there are at least two things that would have to go very horribly wrong for that to happen. Any developers watching this discussion care to comment? --Random832 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody really knows what the hell is going on. The developers are aware, and I'm not really sure what they're doing right now to fix it. If you're autoblocked, PLEASE DO NOT ADD YOURSELF TO CAT:RFU. You're just adding to the backlog. Sean William 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to a bit of clarification on #wikimedia-tech, it seems that the aforementioned IP wasn't recognized as a squid; instead, MediaWiki thought that all edits were coming from that IP. Therefore, the autoblock affected that IP, and autoblocked each and every editor of Wikipedia. Sean William 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this releated to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Anomalous auto-block message? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Golbez 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Would a new autoblock on anyone cause the collateral damage again until this IP problem is fixed? Funpika 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fixed. Just clear the autoblocks, if there are any left (which there shouldn't be any), and remove the templates from talk pages. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another one of the foundation's IPs got blocked. See User talk:66.230.200.148. Should it be unblocked? Funpika 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[41] Seems unblocked. Martinp23 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to look at block log. I just saw the block and the pending unblock templates there and assumed the IP was still blocked. Funpika 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamquest

Resolved

 – Has been salted. ♠PMC♠ 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Islamquest.net . User:Islamquest 3 times in a week has created a page Islamquest.net and each time it has been speedy-deleted db-spam for preaching. Salt the name? Anthony Appleyard 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Csheth re-creating deleted articles

User:Csheth created Current-Inrush and Voltage Surge Suppressor (CVSS) late on May 16 (possibly early May 17), which was deleted as a speedy deletion. He's responded by re-creating the article with the same text, this time as Current-Inrush and Voltage Surge Suppressor. A friendly request not to do this again might be useful? Hobson 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of user:Jim Burton

This matter should be discussed privately by e-mailing the arbitration committee or any arbitrator. Please do not discuss it here further. Thatcher131 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Bucket pronounced boquet

This user has vandalised my user page and left personal comments on my talk page, but most concerningly, if you look at User:Chris C. Nichols he/she has left a comment stating that his/her cousin attends my university and he/she has instructed said person to 'kill' me. I take this quite seriously, if you could intervene I would be most grateful. The incident stems from me warning this user for vandalism and non-encyclopedic edits. Thanks a lot. --Will2710|^Talk! 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked them as an obvious vandalism-only account. Krimpet (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted. User page deleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! :D --Will2710|^Talk! 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not block 66.230.200.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)?

User Selket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a warning on the talk page of the IP, saying that "will lock out every editor for a brief period of time until the developers fix whatever bug is causing the squid problems." This IP is vandalizing, and is past the final warning. Is this legit? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) _{(not logged in at the time)}

Yes it is. There is a problem with the Wikimedia servers and blocking that IP address blocks ALL addresses. See here. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone kindly explain what "squid" means in this context? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to look it up, found it under squid cache.--Xnuala (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more info at m:Wikimedia servers. Krimpet (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There a way to add it to the list of IP's on the Block page? Also, any other IP's I need to worry about? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Michael Safyan and "Neutrality"

Resolved

There is this new user, User:Michael Safyan, who seems to go around taking article titles as being {{POV-title}}. He is doing this to so many articles that it seems more disruptive/point-ish than a serious concern, have a look here at his contributions. He gives this "explanation". --Abnn 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete them. Editors can't go around POV-tagging every single article in a broad subject area, and especially without starting a discussion on the talk page. I'm going to go revert all of them without any relevant discussion on the talk page. --Haemo 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page. I suspect that he's trolling → Creating a new brand article and tagging it POV. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not "trolling." There was a link to an empty article, and I started filling it in. I began marking articles under the WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Arab-Israeli Conflict with the "{{POV-title}}" marker to indicate that the subject matter is disputed. At the insistence of the above user, I have stopped. The above user also deleted the article I was editing, and I have left it alone. If the editors believe that these pages should not be marked, then I shall consent. Michael Safyan 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussed at your talk page. It wasn't me who deleted that article. It has been deleted 2 times before in 2006 for the sake of accuracy. It is not for the editors to believe that these pages should not be marked, but it should you who should place an explanation at every talk page related to the one you are tagging according to the policy. I asked you to read the guide of common practice re POV tags but you haven't listened so i am referring you to it again. Here it is → Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of popular tourist regions

Could someone please close this per WP:SNOW?? Stubbleboy 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat of physical violence against Abu badali

I missed this when it happened, but it strikes me as rather serious. User:TechnoFaye threatened to physically assault User:Abu_badali with a baseball bat: [42]. I think this should be taken very seriously. —Chowbok ☠ 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If someone thinks it is not enough please feel free to change the duration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef would be entirely justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with these situations is the underlying causes of vented frustration. In that spirit, perhaps an admin should look into Abu Badali's actions as well? I'm not addressing the offer to brain him, TF's words are violent and stupid, and he needs a good long cool off, but did the actions of abu badali incite him through continuing escalations? and if so, shouldn't that be addressed as well? ThuranX 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why i stopped right there. Abu badali is already at the ArbCom for the moment. Whatever the case is, personal attacks especially threat of violence got no justification. An indef would have been too harsh as the climate surrounding the ArbCom case is hot and maybe that what added to TechnoFaye's behaviour which was unacceptable but i don't believe it merits an indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be the only person that's going to say this, but the comment was written... on May 2. Blocking him for 1 month on the 15th knowing that the Arbitration is undergoing and he's cited as a party doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Penwhale. I have no problem unblocking the account in order to give the owner the opportunity to participate at the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally unblocked

I've just unblocked TechnoFaye in order for her to be able to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. I made this clear to her at her talkpage and the unblock edit summary. I also sent an email informing her of this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please exercise some restraint

Some information, take it as you will:

1. User:TechnoFaye is functionally autistic. She is ordinarily a very good contributor and a perfectly decent person in my eyes.

2. There is an open ArbCom case against User:Abu badali for widespread wikistalking, targeting the contributions of individual editors who have disagreed with him, and other misbehaviors.

3. User:Chowbok is hardly an innocent bystander, simply "bringing threats of violence to the attention of administrators." This editor has been accused of some of the same activities as Abu badali in the past and has an open [[43]], although note that he's nowhere near the level of Abu badali. TheQuandry 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input TheQuandry.

1. Well, the point is that making exceptions is not the best option. The policy is quite clear: Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. I've had a look at her contribs before i executed the block and found out that she is a good contibutor. As usual, i perfom a block log check for double checking. Alors là i found out that she got involved in two cases of uncivility. So this was her 3rd one. 1 month block is not 48h but it is not 6 months as well. If it wasn't because she is a good contributor the block would have been much longer of course.
2. I am aware of the ArbCom case and she is free to participate on it as i explained above. It is not an exception but a necessary thing. Her input there is essential to the case. Abu Badali is having his case there but does that justify TechnoFaye's personal attack involving physical threat? She could have just expressed her distress in a civil way instead of doing what she's done.
3. As for if Chowbok is innoccent or not, i consider that an irrelevant issue as anyone could have reported the incident. Maybe he's involved in causing her distress but that should be dealt w/ at other venues or here in a dedicated "Chowbok causing TechnoFaye's distress" thread. Not to defend him but i just found out this: Chowbok, good work. Do not let this RfC dissuade you fron continuing. --Jimbo Wales 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   Since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, a likely bad-faith report of a two-weeks-stale incident should be given all the consideration it deserves (that is to say, none at all). --Random832 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not sure if we all really understand how policy is implemented . There is no question about blocks are meant to be preventive rather than punitive but the This part of the policy answers that question of prevention/punition. Please read the link again and tell me if i was wrong and see whether the user has been blocked for engaging in that behaviour before as the second point states. This has been the third infraction by TechnoFaye.
2. I of course understand that Chowbok got something to do w/ this but has he violated any policy? If we are going to characterize this report as being a bad faithed one than almost all reports in this page would fall in that category. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 issues

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

No administrative intervention warranted. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello there. I am coming here reluctantly, as I certainly would not like to have to reprimand a user of such stature, but there have been many recent problems with this user that I have noticed. Raul654 has recently been discussion with other users here the problems he has with the Today's featured article (TFA) requests process. I have certain problems with what he is suggesting (and certainly think that it is not within reason) but that is not why I am coming here.

We have been having good quality discussion recently about how the process is not working and how it should be fixed. Raul asserts that the idea of requesting dates is not good because he is getting too many complaints from people who do not get what they request for a TFA. Fine, whatever. But my problem is that the discussion on his part has not been civil and he constantly bashes any ideas or proposals of him stepping down as the sole TFA selector (which other users think would be a good start to fixing the problem). But this still is not the reason I am here.

I'm not sure when, but very recently, Raul deleted two templates which go on talk pages of TFA requested articles: {{Main Page request}}[44]; {{Mainpage date requested}}[45]. Now, he gave no notice of deleting these, no edit summaries as to why he did so, and had removed the template from every page it was on without discussion. Now, he certainly knew what was going on at TFA requests and certainly there would be some disagreement with the deletion of these templates, so I come here to report that Raul has exceeded his duties and thinks that his position places him higher than everyone else in the community. I urge this entire situation to be looked into further, and, again, it was not my wish to come here and complain, but I felt it was my duty because of a wrong doing to everyone here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jared has taken it upon himself to cause as much trouble for me as possible. (And has publicly said so: "I'll have to figure out the solution to the obvious problem of having only one person as FA coordinator myself."). The templates were discussed here, where everyone who commented on the matter expressed great dislike for them. Furthermore, as anyone who looks at the templates can see, they serve (literally) no useful value except to direct people to the requests page to vote for their article (which is prohibited by the directions on that page). Jared above claimed I gave no notice of deletion - this too is false. Basically, this is Jared's attempt to stir up trouble for me. Raul654 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, actually Raul, I must be missing something, but why do we even have a featured article director? I'm sure there is some reason for it, but I've just never seen it. Thanks ahead of time :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because when we switched from an all-text main page to the 4-pane view, some form of decision making was needed to allocate limited main page FA space. After 6 months of me doing it all by myself, a troll tried a breaching experiment and challenged my informal authority. A poll was taken, and (by near unanimous margins) I was given the title of featured article director. I also set up the FA criteria, FAC and FAR pages, set their policies, 'etc. In short - I more or less set up the whole show and since then, I give order to the process. Raul654 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting how my next statement in that first diff there (supposed to be bashing me) was "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." Seriously, I do not want to cause him any trouble; it's too much trouble for me (and I have a lot of homework I could be doing right now, but I am choosing to ensure that this problem is righted). Anyway, I don't feel it was appropriate for Raul to just delete the template because there were adequate reasons not to delete it. It also didn't formally go through the process for deleting. Templates shouldn't just be removed from pages at a person's will. Overall, I don't think Raul was in the right to delete this and I would just like comment on this. I repeat that I am not looking for him to get into trouble, I would just like to right an obvious wrong. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, I can go with that. :) If the community is some how unable to figure this out on its own and it requires one person, fine. Though honestly I do think at this stage, the community is mature enough to think about maintaining the main page itself, but I won't go there :) As far as the templates, if you feel process was violated , we have deletion review for a reason :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of going to DRV, but I quickly realized that my issue was more about the ideas behind the deletion than the deletion of the actual template. Plus, it would be too much work to revert all the edits he made to fully remove the templates from all the pages. Again, I don't think this is just a deletion issue; I think it is an abuse-of-power issue on a small but growing scale. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You're forgoing doing your homework because you feel Raul654 is being a dick by deleting a template on article talk pages that says that a specific date is being requested for a featured article to be on the main page? Exactly why is this a big deal that requires administrator attention? Grandmasterka 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, if you've been following it, is not straightforward at all. It all, however, stems from the fact the Raul is in a position where he has been given the sole rights to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure an article appears on TFA each day. The latest problem was, yes, the deletion of these templates. But certainly there have been other problems, including a poor attitude, a lack of ambition to work with others to fix problems that may (or may not) exist, among other things. I really am not sure myself what I'm looking for here because I certainly don't think he should be blocked or desysopped or anything else. I just want to have other administrators assess the situation because I think his actions are going unchecked. (And FYI, the homework reference was for effect. Haha.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that if "the community" wants to have some sort of conversation about how long the "Featured Article director" appointment lasts, this isn't the right venue for it. It's not clear to me what admin action is needed here. Jkelly 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." is a clear statement by Jared that he wants to take over from Raul, and given the manner in which this is being pursued, Jared replacing Raul is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Nick ^t 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I certainly don't want the position. It is too high stress and time consuming for me. I do, however, think it is worth the time to think of a logical solution. Please dismiss this whole thread if you don't believe there is anything an admin can do to fix the situation. If you can fix it, please do. If it is an unfixable situation, though, I we can leave this issue be right here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. Raul654 does a superb job keeping that whole thing organized. It's a potential problem any time someone's article doesn't get promoted, or doesn't get promoted when they want, or if it doesn't end up on the main page at the right time or at all. All that can reasonably be expected is that he handles it gracefully any time there is a bone of contention. It might be wise for him to have an interim coordinator ready in the interest of cross training, but that is nothing that belongs on this page. --Spike Wilbury 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that too many interests are at stake to solve Main Page problems individually by consensus--everyone just argues fervently for their favorite article. There are two possible solutions: employ a rigid system, which is the solution for pictures (they appear in the order they were featured), or have a director. Since we've never had any kind of consensus about what the rigid system would be if there were one, we're left with Raul. It's imperfect, since people bug Raul constantly and he gets (understandably) grouchy about that, but it's the best compromise we've got so far, and Raul stands in the way of total chaos. Chick Bowen 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussions were going fine on the various talk pages in question. The deletion of the templates could have been done at TfD, but there are arguments for db-author and WP:IAR in Raul's favour. Not too much to discuss here. More input at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests would be more helpful. Carcharoth 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On the note prior, Jared couldn't be the FA director even if he wanted to be, as he hasn't been given the trust of the community to edit protected pages at this time. Daniel 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Raul654. Oh, wait, that wasn't the question ws it? Oh, no, I see it was. Endorse, then. And also endorse application of the Wikitrout to Jared if he continues this silliness. It ain't broke, and even if it was, this would not be the place to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there definitely are some problems, but I am definitely not trying to solve them here. That's what the talk pages are for. What I was trying to do here was right a wrong whereby Raul deleted something with little to no community support, knowing darn well there were active objections two sections below. That's what's really irking me here. I just think he thinks he's able to do whatever he wants in regards to the FA/TFA process, and I think he's sadly mistaken. Sure he was ratified as TFA coordinator, but that was a long time ago, had a limited group voting, and frankly, times have changed since then. I was just hoping that someone here could have some sense to talk to him admin-to-admin, telling him that he has overstepped his limits because apparently he doesn't think he has any, or at least that's the impression I get from him. And once again, I not, have never, nor will ever wish to become the TFA dictator; the whole idea of doing so would be against what I've been fighting for for the last couple days. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is a procedural issue. Any further discussion of the way FA and TFA is handled should take place at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, Village Pump, or a similar venue. nadav 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? This is nothing to do with Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Raul's only involvement with WP:FAC is to carry out the promotions based on the community discussions there. I think you meant Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. The template discussions could take place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Village pump is also not the right place to discuss these issues, though a link there advertising the discussion might be appropriate. No offence, but if you are going to direct discussion somewhere else, at least try and link to the right place. :-) Carcharoth 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • or a similar venue was a catch-all for any place but here. Jared has very controversial ideas that would radically affect a component of Wikipedia that has become fundamental: the whole featured content scheme. My point was that discussion of those ideas should take place somewhere where there is a lot of room for long debates, strawpolls, etc. nadav 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing any real issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor do I. Nothing here requires administrative intervention. If Jared wants the templates undeleted, he can go to Deletion review, but I'm afraid that would be an exercise in futility. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Unblock of User:Heatedissuepuppet

I am concerned that User:Heatedissuepuppet has been unblocked by User:Viridae. The user was originally blocked for disruption by User:JzG after this original request [46], who said:

Your username and behaviour make it abundantly clear that this is a single-purpose account, almost certainly operated by an experienced editor, set up and operated for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have blocked this account. A sample review did not turn up a single productive edit, and your edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal was the final straw.

The user admits he 1. created the accout to deliberately target User:Sparkzilla and has used the account for extended editwarring over trivial issues, such as the length of time a merge discussion was open, and not allowing such discussions to be closed. He has created a "heated issue" where there was none and has not made a single constructive edit to the pages.

Details of the block are at User Talk:Heatedissuepuppet

Why, when there is a consensus to keep blocked (two admins and myself oppose this unblock) should a disruptive user such as this be unblocked? I would like more advice and opinions on this situation. Sparkzilla 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step is usually to ask the person in question themselves. Any reason why you haven't spoken to Viridae first? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did merging a frigging article become so bureaucratic? If in doubt, an article remains un-merged. That having been said, if a user is being disruptive, block him for that (and of course, block him indefinitely IFF there is evidence his other account is still active and being advantageously used in the same foray). —freak(talk) 01:05, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. Secondly, per WP:SOCK a sockpuppet account may legitimately be used to deal with heated issues to stop them affecting the persons main account. Yes, there was edit warring, but the block reason is not in my opinion legitimate, because the sockpuppet was created under a legitimate policy quite obviously for the purposes of seperating normal issues from those which may erupt, as shown here. Yes, he has been edit warring (and issue I haven't really looked into very deeply, mainly because it wasn't denied) but as such he had both accounts blocked (block and autoblock) for 2-3 days - which is a fairly normal cool off time in the case of a first block for something like edit warring. I asked the user to email me with the name of his other account, and I have verified that the other account is not being used for the purpose of edit warring - or for that matter interaction on any of the articles/issues that the heatedissuepuppet account has been used for. Summing up I am now confidant that this is a legitimate use of a sockpuppet account (provided he doesn't continue to edit war with it) and time served is sufficient punishment/cooling off for the edit warring offence. Viridae^Talk 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Heatedissuepuppet and User talk:JzG (where I notified Guy, the blocking admin, of my unblock). Viridae^Talk 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the account is clearly labeled for what it is, and since you've confirmed that he's not making abusive use of multiple accounts, and since his disclosure to you makes it significantly less tempting for him to do so in the future, I'd say there's nothing left to see here, folks. —freak(talk) 02:25, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

This is what it says at WP:SOCK#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

In other words sockpuppets can be used, in some cases, to protect a user's identity. This is not the case here. This editor is not using the account to protect himself from attack, but using it to attack. Sparkzilla 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When delving into a heated issue or one that may become heated it may be preferable to use an account such as this to stop disputes spilling into your other editing, and I believe this is what is happening here. It is unusual, sure but per that policy I believe it is allowed. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think you have the right to unblock when two other admins and myself do not think the account should be unblocked. There is no consensus to unblock, so the account should stay blocked until such a consensus is reached. Sparkzilla 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start, I was (as previously stated) not aware of the other discussion, I merely answered an unblock request. Secondly the unblock occurred BEFORE this most recent discussion, in which several people have supported the user being blocked and at least one apart from myself have supported the unblocking. As such there is no way he could remain blocked untill consensus in this discussion was reached because this discussion didnt start untill after he was unblocked. Might I add that I unblocked him after careful consideration of WP:SOCK and the contributions from both accounts. Even if the consensus reached is for that account to be reblocked, as it was a good faith account - ie made in line with policy (or he believed so) autoblock should NOT be enabled, to allow him to edit from his other account in peace. Viridae^Talk 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but I do not think that this is the proper use of a second account. They are not intended to allow an user to edit war and keep there original account clean. To me this is abusing a sockpuppet account because it gives the users an advantage over other users that must settle their disputes using our dispute resolution process. I have commented about this to Heatedissuepuppet and asked him not to use the account. FloNight 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I second FloNight's opinion and actions. Which is Heatedissuepuppet's main user account, by the way? Cla68 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

He asked me not to reveal that, so I won't. You can either ask him yourself or ask for a checkuser - but given the nature of the account (ie an account to keep heated issues away from his main account) I am biding by his request for me to not reveal the other account name. Viridae^Talk 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your mother's maiden name? —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with using an account to keep heated issues away from the main account then you had better propose a change to policy on WP:VPP. If you don't like the use of an account like this in such a manner, I believe he has learnt his lesson - heated subjects occasionally bring editors into arguments which result in eit warring. They usually get blocked for a short amount of time to cool down - and since this is exactly what has happened in the long run (ie he was unblocked after 2-3 days) I believe that that time served is enough, provided he doesn't repeat the offence of edit warring. Viridae^Talk 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that it is very poor form to unblock a user without looking at the original dispute and user history first. Problems with this user are outlined here: User Talk:Heatedissuepuppet#User_behaviour

If the user has been involved in any previous edit conflict with me, and is using the account to hide that fact in these disputes, then I do not think that is a fair use of this puppet. If he has not been involved in any edit conflict with me before then perhaps the use of a puppet is reasonable. Could you confirm this?

I can accept that his primary account be unblocked, but I would like to ask that this user does not use the puppet account to try to deliberately target and disrupt any page on which I have posted in future. Sparkzilla 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "target and disrupt" you mean "make any edits to", it would help to remember that you don't OWN your contributions, or any pages for that matter. That may need reminding, given the rather narrow scope of your edits.

As for confirming or denying that it is a user with whom you have previously interacted, a decision by Viridae (or a checkuser-er) to do that (and only that, for now) would probably benefit everyone involved. —freak(talk) 04:50, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

My history makes it clear that I am happy to work with any editor that does not make frivolous and timewasting edits with the intent to disrupt. I don't really know much about the checkuser process -- can you help? Sparkzilla 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On the other hand, it could just as easily get shot down as fishing expedition. —freak(talk) 05:01, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair enough to say that if the user has already been in conflict with me that he has no need to use such a puppet. Perhaps Viridae could enlighten us? Note, I am not interested in finding out the user's main account. Sparkzilla 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the contributions of the main account back to july last year and see no evidence of interaction/dispute. Viridae^Talk 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In perusing his contributions, forgive me if I've overlooked an egregious violation, but I did not see where he has attacked anyone. I don't know his other identity, obviously, but it could be that account was registered under his real name, or could easily be traced to his real identity by anyone wishing to do so. As far as I can tell, nobody would have pegged him as an "alternate account" if he didn't volunteer that fact himself, specifically by choosing a name containing the word "puppet" (which, in itself, would severely limit the owner's temptation to use it for vote-stacking or tag team reversions, I would think!). If he had been doing anything untoward, I doubt he would have revealed himself to Viridae. —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

I second freak's comment - I can't find any evidence of a so-called attack. In fact user Heatedissuepuppet has been a model of civility, even during edits in which the same courtesy was not reciprocated. David Lyons 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• A single-purpose account registered solely in order to argue on contentious articles, in fact mainly to pursue an agenda against a single publication and a single editor (Sparkzilla). I don't see that as one of the permitted uses of puppet accounts myself. It's not about containig contributions to a contentious area, it's about limiting the damage an edit war and transparent vendetta would do to his main account. Would have been nice to be consulted in some respect before my block was undone, too. Do we really need single purpose accounts that exist solely to pursue an agenda? Guy (Help!) 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"To pursue an agenda"... I have a perfectly good reason for that "agenda". Most people have a reason for getting involved in a specific article/conflict - may it be to counter off-site canvassing which is damaging an article, or the obvious bias of another editor - "to pursue an agenda" is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are good reasons for that agenda to be pursued. A legitimate use of a "heated issue puppet" will most likely end up being a SPA, with ONE agenda - but how is that not in accordance with the policy on the matter?

I have evidence that I think will satisfy most that Sparkzilla IS Mark Devlin (the owner of disputed company/magazine). My purpose has only been to make sure that Wikipedia is not used as a vehicle for promotion for his company/magazine, which it currently is, I'm afraid to say. As Viridae can vouch for, I have not previously been involved in any conflict with Sparkzilla, so calling it a "vendetta" is obviously untrue. I have only strived for the upholding of Wikipedia rules and for that purpose, I created an alternative account. I'm certain most will agree with me when I've posted about this problem at the WP:CoI noticeboard, and I'm also certain nobody will refer to any of my edits as disruptive. I do however understand that those who haven't looked into the conflict and just hear these allegations of "edit warring" might doubt my motives. That said, I'd also like to point out that any edit-warring from my side has been extremely small-scale and limited, and has practically always ended with me being reverted by sparkzilla one time too much, resulting in me letting it be. I've kept well within the boundaries of what's allowed on Wikipedia, and I've avoided resorting to any incivility, which David Lyons and others can vouch for (unfortunately, the same is not true of Sparkzilla, see my talk page, below the unblock request, for links). I will try and post on CoI today, but before that, I am prepared to share my evidence with anybody interested through e-mail.Heatedissuepuppet 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not about to revert any of Sparkzilla's edits to the disputed articles (something I haven't done since 3 May, if I'm not mistaken - those who accuse me of "abusing" this account, please look into mine as well as Sparkzilla's edit histories), so don't worry, I'm not about to engage in any edit wars of any kind. I'm just gonna re-post my comments on the Nick Baker RfD (removed from there by Sparkzilla, without any support in actual policies/guidelines), and post a CoI later on today. Heatedissuepuppet 09:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from the above statement that this editor is using his SPA as a way to to attack me. If he was really interested in improving articles he would find proper sources and not indulging in editwarring, trivial reverts and posting of poorly-sourced negative information. The addition of this threatened CoI proves that the editor is only interested in further harassment. I ask for the block to be reinstated. Sparkzilla 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are innocent of CoI, you don't have anything to worry about. If you indeed are innocent, I don't see why it would be harassment to have it investigated at the CoI noticeboard. Heatedissuepuppet 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Using CoI as a way to influence content disputes is not allowed. CoI clearly states "attack the article, not the editor". You simply did not have good enough sources for inclusion. It is incredible that you are being allowed to continue your harassment, when you have made no positive contributions with this account at all. Sparkzilla 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of "harassment", please provide "diff links" sustaining these allegations. Heatedissuepuppet 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are sock puppet with the single purpose of demonstrating that Sparkzilla has an undeclared conflict of interest. Could I politely suggest you present your evidence on the COI noticeboard instead of continuing this debate. Addhoc 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, what kind of a comment is that? That's exactly what I've suggested I will do, but I do not see why I shouldn't have the right to respond to unsustained accusations by Sparkzilla?Heatedissuepuppet 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is not a "sock puppet account with the single purpose of demonstrating Sparkzilla has an undeclared CoI", it's a sock puppet account with the single purpose of making sure Wikipedia isn't used as a vehicle for promotion. I did not originally strive to "demonstrate" that Sparkzilla had a CoI (even though I did ask him once, politely, if he were Mark Devlin or a close associate of his), but rather to deal with the problematic nature of the Metropolis/Crisscross articles. The way things have escalated (esp my indef block), I doubt that there's anything I can do about the situation but go to CoI. That's why my "single purpose" now is to demonstrate Sparkzilla's undeclared CoI. Heatedissuepuppet 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of your actions so far: User_talk:Heatedissuepuppet#User_behaviour. I will not respond further to you here. As they say, don't feed the trolls. Sparkzilla 09:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no involvement or interest in the dispute between Sparkzilla and Heatedissuepuppet. But I do believe that the use to which the Heatedissuepuppet identity has been put is clearly legitimate and within policy. In fact, it is explicitly within policy. I also find it somewhat disingenuous that Sparkzilla writes with such outrage about being attacked, given how hard he is working to have the block reimposed. It is clear to me that the attacking in this situation is at the very least mutual. FNMF 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not give an user the right to a second account to edit war with another user and keep their main account clean. That is exactly what is happening here. FloNight 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not know the full extent of my reasoning behind the decision to use an alternative account, so I think the categorization you just made is really unfair. If you saw my main account, you'd see I'm not afraid to "dirty" my talkpage with long-winded protests from disruptive users. One thing I am prepared to divulge about my reasoning, is that it is FRIGHTENINGLY easy to find out my real name if you know my main account. I've recently had problems because of this, but it is related to an incident I cannot describe further as it would reveal too much about my identity.

Finally, I think it's worth mentioning that I've had an account on Wikipedia for almost 2 years and this is the one and only time I've decided to use an alt. Heatedissuepuppet 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First, if your real name is trivially identifiable and you'd rather it were not, then consider changing WP:RENAME or dropping it altogether. Second, if you want to use an alt in certain subject areas it's probably best if you don't start by being gratuitously contentious and pursuing a battle with another editor, because as FloNight (an arbitrator, in case you hadn't spotted) notes above, there is no right to use multiple accounts, and they are only permitted (in the sense of not being blocked on sight) where their use is not disruptive; avoiding scrutiny seems to be your main aim here and that is not listed in the permitted uses, nor is wikilawyering about the permitted uses a good way forward. This use has been seen by several people ad disruptive. It is expected that any user will have a balance of edits, not just pursuing an agenda. Accounts which do nothing but pursue an agenda tend to get kicked off, sooner or later, whether they are alternate or sole accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the sad irony of an editor who doesn't want his identity revealed, desperately trying to reveal that of another editor. BTW, what is Wikipedia policy regarding HIP's attempts to expose a user's identity? Sparkzilla

I'll note that I also see use of a secondary account for areas known to be in dispute to be explicitly authorized by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, provided the primary account does not edit in those areas. Viridae's actions of confirming the primary account to not be active in the same area(s) is correct action. So sockpuppetry is not a basis for a block here anymore. Edit warring itself is a separate problem, and I think (from comments here) that both Sparkzilla and Heateddissuepuppet are engaging in this type of problematic behavior, and I think either or both of them could end up with sanctions if they don't start working better together. GRBerry 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or not?

I just want to inject a little common sense here. Can we stop focussing on the legitimate vs. illegitimate use of an alternate account here? It seems like if this account is being disruptive, it's an illegitimate use and it should be blocked indefinitely. If the account is not being disruptive, then it seems like the use must be legitimate per the WP:SOCK policy. Yet, there has been very little examination here of whether Heatedissuepuppet's behavior is disruptive, or merely involved in a controversial issue. Can we focus on that a bit more? Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and I'll pre-emptively defend the action which JzG, in blocking me, characterized as "edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal [which] was the final straw". What actually happened? 2 votes against the merger, 1 saying "perhaps unnecessary", and 1 for. Sparkzilla, who opposed the merger, chose to call this a "clear consensus" and closed it after 4 days of silence. I strongly disagree that 2-1-1 is in any way a "clear consensus", and it vexed me that Sparkzilla had closed it prematurely - WP:MERGE states that at least 10 days of silence should be observed before closing a merger vote if there's no clear consensus (also, I was waiting for responses from other editors). What "disruptive action" did I then take? On the Crisscross talk page, I put strike code over Sparkzilla's "No merge" and posted "No consensus" below[47]. Next I replied to Sparkzilla's protest and removal of strike code (I did not put it back): [48],. On the Metropolis talkpage, I changed the tag Sparkzilla had put up to "No consensus"[49]. Sparkzilla and I reverted each other's edits twice each and then I was blocked indefinately by JzG.

Did I revert the removal of the Merger-tags on the actual articles? No. Did I attempt to "un-archive" Sparkzilla's archiving, or did I try and open a new merger proposal? No and no. I just wanted to point out that there hadn't been a clear consensus at the time of closing. Heatedissuepuppet 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the "frivolous adding of notability tags to Metropolis and Crisscross articles" (as Sparkzilla refers to it on my talkpage), all the tags are gone now, who do you think removed them? A hint, it was one person and one alone. People posting similar tags on these pages have on the other hand been plentiful, for example User:Dekimasu [50] and User:SebastianHelm [51] (I'll post many more in the CoI tomorrow). Btw, who do you think is the most "disruptive"? An editor who posts quality-related tags on articles, or an editor who removes said tags, without posting on the talk page and without any attempt to address any of the problems the tag was there to draw attention to?Heatedissuepuppet 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses that amount to 'But he's doing it too!' don't really cut it, I'm afraid. Despite your assertions, I feel that you would be behaving better and with more circumspection if you were using your regular account to do this. Using an alternate account so you can war with impunity is not within the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy as the arbcom and others generally interpret it. Whether Sparkzilla also is behaving inappropriately is irrelevant to the question of your behaviour here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "He's doing it too" is a pretty poor excuse, but look at my edit history, do you really think I've been disruptive? I may have reverted Sparkzilla a few times on a few different issues, but there was no single issue that went on for a long period, and it always ended with me being reverted by Sparkzilla, and me letting it be. As for the accusations of not "being within the spirit of the policy", enough already, it IS within policy, please read it. Sure, some have suggested it isn't, but others have suggested it is. Also, my motive has never been to "war with impunity", nor have I actually done that, and I'd very much appreciate if such allegations could be sustained with some evidence. Heatedissuepuppet 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like they blocked the wrong editor. Sparkzilla really needs to try a bit harder to get on with the sockpuppet. Grace Note 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sock

Resolved

Slazengerbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non morir, Seneca...nope, too late. Whacked. Moreschi ^Talk 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one

• Sentinel Witness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

as well as more here that need blocking. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fraudster

As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert de Jonge this afd someone posted this here, clearly someone impersionating me. What can be done about this kind of harrassment and intimidation? SqueakBox 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Grow a thicker skin, is about it. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldnt be editing these articles without one, SqueakBox 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe you should warn people that clicking on that link brings people to "boychat" website! Not impressed.--Vintagekits 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clicking on that link will be hard to explain, i'm going to anotate the above link to protect editors. Hypnosadist 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link my apologies for not warning people what the site contains, SqueakBox 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion of well-supported project page

Resolved

 – Discussion happening at relevant talk page.

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) (and later JzG (talk · contribs), seemingly to make a WP:POINT) have unilaterally page-blanked Wikipedia:Service awards, redirecting it to Wikipedia:Barnstars, despite the former already having survived a WP:MFD without much trouble, and the entire gist of that MfD being whether or not WP:SERVICE is redundant with WP:BARNSTAR (the consensus conclusion being that it is not). I think both of these experienced editors should know better by now than to randomly decide a page they don't care for shouldn't exist and just go make it so, especially when its talk page MfD tag indicates that there has already been a concluded debate about that idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion ensuing at Wikipedia talk:Service awards; confident it will resolve itself there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Disclaimer: I was patrolling my 1200+ page watchlist for vandalism when I encountered this and reverted the page-blanking with an edit summary of "Rvv", not noticing at the time that the editor who did it isn't a newbie; that flub seems to have ticked some people off, but it wasn't intentional. I left comments on Sidaway's page that I recognize that he is not a vandalizing noob (and that I think he knows WP ways well enough that blanking that page was not appropriate). At any rate, the "Rvv" wasn't intended as an insult to Sidaway, it was simply a reflex action. Virtually every time I reload my watchlist there are a few new cases of (actual) vandalism to be dealt with; given the numbers, mistakes are bound to happen. My position is not that Sidaway is a vandal (which is why we're at WP:AN/I not WP:AIV), but that Wikipedia:Service awards isn't in a position to be removed because one (or two) users don't like it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more than "one or two" users who dislike this page. There's a very large group. Sean William 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Take it to MfD again, then. Last time there were a grand total (counting nominator) of three "delete" !votes that were not rescinded-by-author, and all three engendered rational objections that were never answered; they all amounted to "I don't like it" rationales. If you really hate it, MfD awaits. Maybe you can make a stronger case than was made last time. <shrug> NB: It should be noted that Sidaway was not objecting to the existence of the WP:SERVICE templates, which you seem to be, but rather thought that the separate page was a redundancy, so you are not actually making the same point or supporting his (I'm not making any particular statement here, other than, basically, "there are three, not two, points of view on this"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And on the plus side countering the I don't like it? Since most wikipedia policies like notability, verifiability, neutral point of view etc. don't apply to wikipedia space, exactly what arguments were you expecting? Delete lack of reliable sources ? --pgk 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, etc. There are numerous delete/merge/rename criteria that apply to non-articles (some of them speedy even). None of them were raised here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So this list of valid (in your eyes) arguments doesn't actually exist anywhere but within deletion debates, and no doubt all could be written off as "I don't like it" arguments if it suited anyones particular purpose. What was the policy based reason for the page existing in the first place? Were the keep votes based in policy or were they just WP:ILIKEIT comments? --pgk 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirection <> blanking. Redirection is just that: redirection. I am not clear as to why we need a fork of Wikipedia:Barnstars. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When content is 100% removed and the page redirected to another page that has none of that content, it is indeed blanking. WP:POINT gedanken experiment: See Johnny delete all of the content of Marilyn Manson and redirect that page to Satan (or John Denver for that matter); See Johnny get blocked or at least get half of his disruptive butt chewed off. (Feel free to remove the "Resolved" tag from the top of this thread if you feel that this topic needs further discussion in this particular venue rather than at Wikipedia talk:Service awards or my user talk page.)

There is no fork of WP:BARNSTAR; WP:SERVICE has no content in common with that page (other than, of course, basic words like "the", etc.), and never has. The two concepts are completely separate, though they could conceivably be merged (cf. {{Mergeto}}/{{Mergefrom}}). The discussion of this is extant in much greater detail at Wikipedia talk:Service awards (and, as already noted, at its MfD page from a few months ago; none of this is exactly new). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

personal attack during AfD debate on related discussion page

Hello, I just removed an edit on a talk page where John Spikowski listed other wikipedians in bad faith (including me). That list definitely looks like some kind of pillory to me. As the person who initiated the AfD process for the PTgui article he should know (and follow) the AfD etiquette. Even if that "list" counted as something else than a personal list of people that just happen to have a different opinion (to put that in mild words) it doesn't belong to the talk page.

As documented on his user talk page (conflict of interest, vandalising, more vandalising and the above mentioned list) he has been warned several times in the last few hours by different persons to take part in the ongoing debate in such an uncivilised manner. He refuses to do so. The problem is that he doesn't accept other opinions than his own in a AfD debate inrtoduced by himself and keeps behaving very uncivilised. I need some assistance here, please. Einemnet 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to report that User:Einemnet (non-contributing editor) is removing my edits in discussions and TALK pages. I have asked him to stop and he continues with his abuse of other editors contributions. Can this user be ban for his actions? I see no other solution to making him stop. John Spikowski 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic here and refrain from false accusations without proper claims. I removed your edit that was against AfD etiquette. You reverted that which is not at all appropriate for you as the nominator of that AfD. May I also ask why you closed a different (but connected) AfD after one day with the comment (remove nomination retracted - waste of everyones time)? The Guide to deletion tells me something about a different process. Einemnet 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MLB Infoboxes debate

User:MetsFan153 keeps adding current teams to Former teams list in MLB player infoboxes. While there is an ongoing debate about this, it is currently untrue. Now is is accusing me of vandalism, although I'm only keeping all the information correct so I don't see how it is. I've probably violated 3RR, but I'm trying to keep it all accurate and he is changing that.Chris Nelson 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User Chrisjnelson after already seeing that all current teams on player infoboxs should be kept until a decision is reached, continues to delete them, after being told by myself and one other too stop, user has already been reported on the 3RR. User also has past instigations with other users, over like items.MetsFan153 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Any admin, just answer me this: Should a list called "Former teams" include the current team, especially when the current team is already listed prominently earlier in the infobox. Listing a current team in a list called "Former teams" is 100% UNTRUE, which Metsfan seems to not realize. I have already expressed my opinion on the infobox debate (he and I happen to agree) but UNTIL the template is changed only former teams should be listed for the sake of presenting true information.Chris Nelson 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since you can't get, "Leave it alone until a decision is reached", a player playing for a team in 2007, who was still with the team in 2006, that is a former team, past year, old roster, different year, different team. MetsFan153 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while he is telling me to "leave it alone until a decision is reached" he has ADDED current teams to player articles over the past few days. God this is so immature.Chris Nelson 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking your the one who escalated this nonsense, and reading your thing with the Eagles roster, that was pretty immature too, how many edits did you make over one player. Probably double digits.MetsFan153 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right: he should ignore it until consensus is reached, you should continue doing what you're doing on the assumption that you are right, and it's his fault for bringing your stupid bilateral content dispute to the admin noticeboard, yes? Guy (Help!) 11:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue at hand. ;-) Chris Nelson 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares, baseball sucks, college football is where it's at ;). Ok in all seriousness, this sounds like a content dispute to me, over whether "1998 Phillies" or whatever counts as a former team. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can honestly say "Former teams" was intended to include past years with the current organization. One organization is one organization, it is not a former team. He's twisting it, but his arguments are illogical unlike mine. There is only one logical route here.Chris Nelson 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That logical route being "This is a content dispute, and does not require admin attention, rather it should go through the dispute resolution process?" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani

Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and I restored. Admininstration, please involve above article to resolve and fix things. Lustead 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, which is not what this noticeboard is for. Head for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica

Resolved

Spam filter prevents me from adding links to encyclopedia Iranica. I think Iranica was blacklisted by mistake or as a result of vandalism. Can someone please fix it? This is a message that I received:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: www.iranica.co

Thanks. Grandmaster 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if it's the same problem but loads of required links for sources on pages that I edit have been blacklisted too. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Regex error in spam blacklist, now fixed. See below. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is OK now. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can someone see this message here [52] and tell me what is going on - I seem to be banned from editing certian page, I have no idea why, it doesn't seem to be proper ban - somebody explain please. Giano 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The spam filter went berserk for a few minutes, preventing links to legit sites like msnbc.msn.com and even time.com. Apparently, it was confusing ".co" with ".com". It seems to be OK now - the blacklist itself hasn't changed; maybe the devs were testing something. *** Crotalus *** 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam filter running amok

The spam filter seems to be blocking links to major news sources . Could this be a vandal attack? See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist Lumos3

• Try it now. I was getting spam errors for MSNBC links for a couple of minutes but then the problem went away. It must be a software bug of some kind, because the blacklist didn't change in that time period. *** Crotalus *** 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• There was a regex error in an addition. Eagle 1010 has now fixed this, everythign should be back to normal. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is now fixed, in short another meta sysop screwed up some regex. Its not a problem now as I've fixed it and I am now cleaning up the mess made on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I left the following message:
    •  Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on m:User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IP spoofing Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry spammer

Rants or spam are repeatedly being added to various Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry articles by a vandal spoofing a series of IP addresses, and boasting about it here. See edit history of In Touch Ministries for example of recent identical vandal edits, all from different IPs, e.g.: 65.110.36.50 (open proxy), 72.20.2.30 (now blocked), and 74.228.91.7 (still unblocked). Several of his IPs have been identified on WP:OPP as open proxies. Those that haven't he's somehow still managing to spoof. Liberty University has been protected to stop repeat attacks. By the way, someone's nicked my edit / history etc. tabs from the top of each page, and not moved it to navigation. Can't we leave them where they were? Anyway, that vandal needs to be stopped. ... dave souza, talk 08:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell's going on around here? First we have the forced takeover and subsequent rogueness of several admin accounts, then all sorts of technical problems, from the nuclear IP block to the spam blacklist going crazy to the editing tabs going bye-bye (mine are just fine.) It appears we only have to put up with this nonsense until tomorrow, so semi-protect all relevant articles until then. Then again, maybe I'm too hopeful. Grandmasterka 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• In breaking news, Jimbo has mandated that all articles be upgraded to full protection to prevent abuse, and Daniel Brandt has been granted sysop status to allow him to edit his own article... Guy (Help!) 09:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my tabs still haven't come back though they were working earlier today – so I can't semi-protect the relevant articles. I did some blocking last night, perhaps our hacker has done something to my account? Most of the info above was put on my talk page by Axlq who'd been removing many of the spam edits and did the WP:OPP searches. Time for walkies, hope someone can sort this out. .. dave souza, talk 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Emptying the cache seems to have sorted out the tabs, so much for paranoia. .. dave souza, talk 10:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To give credit where it's due, another admin User:BigDT posted 7 of this spammer's open proxies on WP:OPP and described the problem on WP:VPT#IP Spoofing vandal; I posted only 3 more, and only 1 of them (so far) was found to be an open proxy. You can probably find more by looking at the edit histories from each IP address and then look at the edit history of one of the abused articles; typically the vandal will vandalize the article from more than one IP. I think most are now listed on WP:OPP now. =Axlq 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks well attended to now. Just something else to watch for any repeats. .. dave souza, talk 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shop Boyz

The file Shop Boyz is listed in Wikipedia:Protected_titles/May_2007, but it exists now as at 10:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC). Anthony Appleyard

That happens when a title is added to the page but not deleted. Should it exist? It does have references. If it should exist, there are also songs associated with the band that are on the protected titles page. ··coelacan 11:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An answer - I petitioned User:JzG to undelete it, and someone else ended up doing so, I think User:Friday. He may have forgotten/didn't realize that it was, at one point, listed in the protected files. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.[53] ··coelacan 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Close an AFD that has descended into madness

Resolved

Hi, please could someone pop over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pano2QTVR and close it how they see fit? It has descended into yet another PanoTools vs PanoTools NG argument and an anonymous editor fest. The sooner it is got rid of (either way) the better I think.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever closes these, please note there are many SPA votes in there. (H) 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorised bot

Does anyone know why Saltwynd110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is going round subst'ing infoboxes, and general other templates?? It appears to be a bot of some sort, unauthorised, and should be blocked. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to report the same thing. I can't find any approval of such a bot. Was it even a discussion about this? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be editing at human-like speeds rather than bot-like speeds, but they contibued after warnings (they were substing everything in sight). I've blocked for 24 hours. --ais523 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:cinik's edit warring

I carefully read pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Anna Halman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Halman and I realised that this self-murderer has no other notability that being harassed and committing suicide. She doesn't deserve her own biographical article, because played no public life while being alive.

Since I thought merging was controversial, I'd like to discuss things first to know the oppinion of the community. But known POV pusher, user:cinik has cynically deleted the templates I put to Suicide[54][55] and Anna Halman[56]. Since I don't wish to engage in edit war, I ask to ban user:cinik edit both the article and restore the templates.

I have asked him to discuss at first, but he deleted my petition without edit summary, which is forbidden per se.[57]

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD discussion on Anna Halman closed with a Keep. The proposal to merge this article to Suicide makes no sense. The article itself could use some cleanup, but that's just normal editing activity. You complained about User:Cinik removing a message you left on his User Talk, but that's perfectly within the rules. I note in passing that on the Polish Wikipedia, that article seems to have been deleted (as observed by one with no knowledge of Polish, it's a red link). Since English WP is keeping it, I suggest there is no further issue here. EdJohnston 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I admit that i don't understand what the recent link added to Freedom of speech is actually linking to, but it appears to me that linking from an article to a user's talk page — User:Advocates For Free Speech — is, at the least, unusual. Someone want to take a look? (And if possible, explain what the h... this is???) thanks, Richard Myers 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Advocates For Free Speech's link has been removed, but what concerns me more is his userpage and talk page, if he attempting to be a "wiki-lawyer"? Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it may also be a role account. Advocates, "Our purpose", "We defend", "We inform". --OnoremDil 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy is presumably a sock (role account or not) of indef blocked User:Bully-Buster-007. The way, the truth, and the light 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

already blocked as a sock. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In his defense(?), I did find "The virus in the sandbox" section of his page interesting in a "can anyone really be that stupid" way. --MediaMangler 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Was still being nonsensical (reverting block notices etc.), so page blanked and protected. Review welcome. Daniel 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some background references:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#workforall.net
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#Requestion
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard (Permanent link)
4. User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam (Permanent link)
5. User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction (Permanent link)
6. User_talk:Ioannes_Pragensis#Can_You_help_against_vandalism_.3F (Permanent link)
7. Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link
8. User_talk:Kuru#ciber_bullying (Permanent link)
9. User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C(Permanent link)
10. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#workforall.net linkspam (Permanent link)
11. User talk:Jitse Niesen#80.200.73.228 (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put his talk page back up. It doesn't seem to do any harm and may stop him from creating another sock for the same thing. It's protected now anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it's a copy of User talk:Bully-buster-007. The way, the truth, and the light 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As the victim of the majority of workforall.net's abuse I just want to say that it's fine by me if the comments / propaganda are reinstated. As User:A. B. mentioned, it might prevent future re-creation of the same thing. The discussion at User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 might also be a useful record of the events that transpired. I leave this up to your better judgement. (Requestion 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Hallo. I am mediator1, and I am in the business of mediating in conflicts and disputes. I was contacted by The Work and Wealth For All staff to make an ultimate proposal to come to a reasonable concensus in this escalating conflict [User:Requestion] versus [User:Bully-Buster-007] case ( see: [58]. Both parties now seem to agree that the present way of handling this conflict is leading nowhere. Let us interrupt the escalating madness, and use our energy to positive contribution of WP quality. Both parties have reasonable arguments which can lead to sensable conclusions as to the appropriateness of external links.

User Requestion is kindly invited to reflect well before declining this ultimate offer. Alternatively WFFA staff is also willing to accept arbitration in this case. WFFA staff asks the bans and blockings and blacklistings to lifted during the debate considering :

blockings and blacklisting should be preventive not punitive, and WFFA assured to have no intention add any links.

blocking was illegitimate as the administrator being spamfighter himself was party in the conflict.

uninvited neutral users have already requested (local) lift of the ban on several cases

so far no other motivation for the qualification "Spam" was provided other than the mere number of contributions

WFFA staff tell me that incident about the parrot WAS true, and is worth investigating.

Mediator1 --Mediator1 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Before getting too fixated on Requestion, note that the workforall spammer was repeatedly warned and blocked by multiple administrators and experienced editors. Here's a list of those that I'm aware of:

1. Requestion
2. Matteo
3. Nlu
4. Kuru
5. Hu12
6. ErikWarmelink
7. Ioannes Pragensis
8. A. B.
9. BozMo
10. Femto
11. Beetstra
12. The way, the truth, and the light
13. Daniel
14. Meta:Eagle 101

Additionally, there are five more editors commenting unfavorably on this page above. Contrary to the workforall accusation that this was done by some cabal of spam-fighters, the preponderance of these people are not normally involved in spam cleanup as Requestion and myself are. There has been clear consensus that workforall's behaviour on Wikipedia was wholly inappropriate and that this person persisted in spamming and harassment despite the community's best efforts to stop it. Now it appears that a mediator^[59][60][61] is presenting the Wikipedia community the "opportunity" to "mediate" which links it should have to accept in contravention of its editorial standards.

It's more accurate to view Requestion not as the source of workforall's problems but rather the most visible editor in the Wikipedia community's efforts to deal with the workforall problem.

I leave it for the more technically-minded of the community to evaluate the problem of workforall's Phallic Fire Phoenix of Doom^[62] in our Sandbox. In the meantime, workforall may wish to consider updating their anti-virus software.--A. B. ^(talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

workforall.org repudiates any connection to workforall.net

See this disclaimer posted on workforall.org:

WorkForAll as an independent thinktank maintains the website www.workforall.org
WorkForAll.org has nothing to do with workforall.net...

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

using Wikipedia as an advertising agency

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

Outcome: User:Olivierdb has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite as a Smelly trolling sock -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there could be a problem with advertising on Wikipedia. I noticed that a user MikeGogulski is using his userpage as a vehicle for advertising. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of userboxes. [63]. These userboxes contain his various skills and services and his personal website. He explained his userpage as follows

"...if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array if personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV." diff [64]

By the user's own admission his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage. The profile he wanted to advertise [65] and his personal webpage [66]. These contain statements like "I can accept payments in USD, EUR and SKK via bank transfer to US or Slovak banks, PayPal, Moneybookers and e-gold." and similar. While this may not be a major case, if this type of behaviour goes unchecked Wikipedia will be flooded with personal userpages advertising every type of service imaginable not just translation. I know that wikipedia has a tough stance against advertising by companies but I'm not sure about individuals offering services, so I'm bringing this to the attention of administrators requiring some type of action to be taken.

This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable in my opinion, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for anyone to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that he is not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems he is pretty successful already in advertising his talents and services, already rank 4th on google with a few weeks old account. [67] Olivierdb 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• At a minimum, I think you should give MikeGogulski the courtesy of letting him know you're discussing his userpage here. That would give him the opportunity to respond. --ElKevbo 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since Olivierdb did not notify MikeGogulski of this conversation, I did. --ElKevbo 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Considering the fact that I can't find evidence of these links to his pages, I'm a bit confused about what action should be taken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The link is in the "this user has a website" userbox Olivierdb 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (e/c) While the talk page diff might show some uncivility (I would need to read the whole conversation first, to see the context) I would hardly call a "This user has a website" userbox advertising. He seems to be a decent contributor, not what is usually seen by advertisers. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) Indeed. Unless I've missed something, MikeGogulski has done nothing wrong. In fact, his user page is pretty toned-down and nondescript as far as these things go. There's nothing wrong with including links to one's own personal sites on one's user page. Mike has plenty of mainspace edits and it doesn't at all seem like his intent on Wikipedia is merely to promote himself. His "admission of commercial intent" that you linked looks like a defense against your accusation of sockpuppetry, not him announcing his plans to advertise himself on Wikipedia. You definitely should have raised your concerns with Mike before reporting this on the noticeboard, your accusations seem pretty groundless. -- mattb 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My main concern is not his userboxes, but the fact he uses his whole account (all his contributions) to advertise his real name, to gain hits from google to his service(translation). If this pratice spreads who out of all Jack Smiths et cetera gets to have the name and the userpage as advertising space? I titled this thread the way I did because also wanted to ask about the general issue of advertising on userpages and account names if it is permissible. My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general. Olivierdb 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a pretty common practice (and it used to be the standard) to use your real name for your Wiki-Username (from Wikipedia:Username#Choosing_a_username: "The choice of username might be based on your real name or a familiar Internet nickname..."). Furthermore, all external links not within the "article" namespace are done with the nofollow tag (see [68]), so he won't actually gain much PageRank from that listing. I don't think there's a problem here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Can you please specifically link to where this editor has explicitly said that "his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage." I am not seeing that it in the information you have provided. --ElKevbo 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• His user page seems unobjectionable to me. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think that at this point it is worth looking at the contributions of Olivierdb (talk · contribs) instead, in particular this edit. This noteboard section appears to be a bogus charge of advertising aimed at an editor who questioned whether Olivierdb was a single-purpose account created in order to disrupt discussion, by re-making controversial edits that were currently the subject of a lengthy talk page discussion (see Talk:Bratislava#Names). That this is the only editor in that discussion to have strayed from discussing the article onto the subject of other editors' names and user pages indicates that the sole purpose here is to disrupt, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I suggest that we give our attentions to other matters. Uncle G 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Defendant responds Thank you, ElKevbo, for notifying me of the accusation. Obviously my own words on the subject will speak less loudly than my actions, but I will state unequivocally that my work on Wikipedia is based on a genuine desire to improve, expand, and add articles in areas of interest to me, and where I feel that I can make valuable contributions to the project. The notion that I suddenly appeared with an "army of userboxes", and that this should somehow be taken as evidence of my ill intent, befuddles me. I've used wiki software in several professional engagements in the past, and was a long-time user of Wikipedia prior to starting my contributions here. This included using wikicode I found implemented here on internal company projects. I based my own userbox population primarily on User:MarkBA's user page, and it was MarkBA's contributions which formed a big part of my inspiration to become a registered editor. I choose to edit under my real name for purposes of open and honest attribution. That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence, not dependent on me placing a (permitted, small) link to my website on my user page. In agreement with mattb's position above, my motivation to point out my website link as part of the sockpuppetry argument was to provide evidence that my Wikipedia identity is identical with my real identity, with the thought it mind that it would be pretty ridiculous for some pseudonymous user to create a sockpuppet in his real name. I'm treating this as controversy for the sake of controversy and nothing more. By the way, User:Olivierdb, thank you for telling us that you're Hungarian by means of the Google link you pasted above; we'll take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV in your edits. To your response that "My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general", well, LOL. It seems to me you're here to start (or perhaps continue) a war, and to do so by sounding reasonable. MikeGogulski 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Olivierdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously a sockpuppet account and no newbie. He/she knows WP:ANI and his/her only edits have been disruptive reverts, not real contributions. As Mike pointed out above, the google links posted by Olivierdb suggest he/she is from Hungary. Olivierdb's POV is to change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version.[69] He/she abuses WP:ANI to accuse opponents in a POV dispute.[70] I might be wrong, but all three things also characterize the only known Hungarian sockpuppetmaster, banned VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Olivierdb account was founded just three days after VinceB's last attempt to evade his ban using sockpuppets was stopped by administrators.[71] It may be all a coincidence and Olivierdb may be a sockpuppet of someone else. But even in that case, it seems to be a "bad hand" account, forbidden by WP:SOCK. Tankred 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent the gross incivility and personal attacks against me above also violating WP:AGF. I find the comment regarding my alleged ethnicity "take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV" bizarre to say the least. The same can be said about the "here to start a war" part. MikeGogulski also solicited comment on the talk page of Bratislava [72] urging other editors to defend him, the result of this is Tankred's comment above who is an active editor of Bratislava. I also think the actual advertising taking place is undeniable, indeed he admits it again now a second time above "That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence". This time he calls the advertising effect inevitable. The fact that his very first action as a wikipedia editor ever was to construct those userboxes suggests otherwise. I think advertising is a serious issue on wikipedia and when not done by companies but individuals is not taken seriously enough. With that said I accept if the consensus is that nothing really happened here, but I ask others to refrain from off topic personal attacks against me, especially if those were solicited by MikeGogulski. Olivierdb 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my time on WP I've noticed that it's always the sockpuppets who cry "AGF!" the loudest. Reviewing the activity and contributions of Olivierdb leaves little doubt that this is a sockpuppet account. Using a sock is bad enough, but using one to bring accusations here against a legitimate editor is especially reprehensible and should be dealt with accordingly. Doc Tropics 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please, Olivierdb, we're not idiots. New accounts don't file ANI complaints two days after creation. You are transparently a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My word, some wicked rouge admin appears to have blocked him. Mwuhahahahahaha! Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the complainant has been blocked, and I've seen nothing but support from the admins commenting here (thanks, all), I'm removing this page from my watchlist. I'll be happy to respond to anything further about the matter on my talk page. MikeGogulski 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Vandalizing at Afro

User:71.112.142.5, who has vandalized the Afro page as User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35 is once again vandalizing. This user has been the subject of a RfC, has been blocked several times, and now is using multiple IPs. They engage in disruptive editing and WP:Game the rules so they just slightly dance inside the system. They are continually reverted. A review of their most egregious behavior is found at User:71.112.7.212, but now that they are slipping in and out of IPs, they try to only troll selectively. I'd like to ask for the above IPs to be blocked from Afro or, at the very least, have some admins take note of their behavior and engage them. --David Shankbone 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected. The IPs you cite are Verizon DSL addresses. If we block his address today, it is very likely that he can force Verizon to assign him a different IP tomorrow by simply unplugging his DSL modem for a few minutes. The best answer is often to simply revert and ignore, report the IP addresses at intervention against vandalism or ask for page protection at requests for page protection. Thatcher131 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalizing

At first sight, a few hours ago, this issue appeared to me like a report on a vandal and a request for blocking an IP. Nothing suspicious at all. It is just like an edit warring and we don't fix those kind of problems here. What i don't understand is why you're calling the IP/S vandals. They are doing the same thing you are doing. They do replace "your" pic by another everytime you do the same w/ User:Steve-o's which was uploaded very recently.

That said, i believe there is a conflict of interests in here. What i don't understand also is that you are saying that that user has been the subject of a RfC. Who is this user and when was that? I can think of 2 possibilities: User:Urthogie or User:Rbaish. The thing is that no one of those has been a subject of an RfC as far as i know and correct me if i am wrong. So who is the user you are referring to and how do you know s/he is the one?

To sort out this issue, why not use Image:LaurynHill.jpg? It is of a very good quality and encyclopedic because it reflects many things the article discusses. Can you explain please what is particlar about "your" picture Afro 2 by David Shankbone.jpg? Does the article talks about social activities like drinking related to Afro style? The article talks about the relationship between the style and some artistic activities except drinking. I strongly believe that the pic of that Afro style girl w/ a drink (some of it poured on her dress at the right side) and a napkin on the other was taken at the Tribeca Film Festival 2007. Am i wrong?

Please gently refrain from calling contributors vandals and trolls when they are not and discuss objectively the issue at nice photo! here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

To answer:

1. We can't use the Lauryn Hill photo because the article neither talks about Lauryn Hill nor does WP:Fair allow us to use a photograph that is "fair use" when there is open media available.
2. What is particular about my photograph? It is a high-quality photograph of an Afro. What is the difference between what I am doing and what this one person is doing in the guise of three IPs? The difference is: I am not being reverted by anyone but this IP; the IP has been reverted by at least five/six other editors. I've been reverted by none. The photo depicts an afro; you raise questions that are harder to answer for your Lauryn Hill photo than they are for my photo. I chose to do a full body, but just as the article doesn't talk about an "afro and smiling" or an "afro and standing" a photo of an "afro with a drink" is just as benign.
3. This User was the subject of a sock puppet review here. Additionally, they have countlessly edit warred or disruptively edited Wikipedia. If you need a previous list of examples, you can find them here.

• The user is both a vandal and a troll; I don't throw around those terms lightly, thank you. And I am not the only one who has called them out on it. Perhaps you should review their three different IPs and their histories, and how they are continually reverted for their edits than "gently" admonishing me for calling a spade a spade?

--David Shankbone 02:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good explanations and i apologize for my tone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like things are cleared up (and the protection is only for 48 hours, to encourage a little more discussion) but I do want to note that the Lauryn Hill photo is free licensed under Creative Commons and isn't subject to Fair Use restrictions. I think it would be an excellent main photo for the afro article. Kafziel ^Talk 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to insist that it is free licensed. Thanks for the reminder Kafziel. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found this. I find this user very offensive. He has called me a "vandal" and so on many, many times. I have never vandalized and to anyone watching, you'll notice he never points to any piece of vandalism, he just claims I am a vandal. When any of his images anywhere on wiki are replaced he starts slinging names around. Today Im a "troll" and a "vandal" who has been subject to an RFC. And today he filed this report asking that I be blocked, because I replaced his photo with (IMO) a better one. I even asked him for discussion on the talk page at Afro. A real bad character. 71.112.142.5 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why people leave Wikipedia

• I have over 1,000 photographs on Wikipedia; one photo of an Afro really means little to me. But the IP above tried to replace it with someone wearing a wig -- and I wasn't even the editor who called them out on it. The IP, in all its incarnations, has found nobody to support them in their trolling and vandalizing. They have been reverted in 90% of their edits. One need only look at the histories and Talk pages (and, especially, talk page edit summaries since they delete most comments) to see. If others want to put up the Lauryn Hill on the Afro page, go for it. But a blurry photo of a kid wearing an afro wig? That's User:71.112.142.5, AKA User:71.112.7.212, AKA User: 71.112.6.35 (and, probably, soon User:71.112._.__ idea of a better photo. I'm not sure why a celebrity photo (and I have generated the most celebrity photos on Wikipedia) need replace a decent one of a good afro, but if others want to do so, I won't revert. But it's a shame that a troll and vandal would inspire a change--what's that say about the Wikipedia community? I'm nearing the end of my contributions on the site anyway; mainly for the "shoot the people who show dedication" attitude on here, that has caused many editors to leave. Thanks for the apology FayssalF, but in the end, I'm an accomplished editor and you rushed to the defense of an IP who only likes to toy with those who have strived to build a good encyclopedia. No wonder so many of us leave. I'll be going soon; I've given it a good bit of thought--it's ANIs like these, where others let the IPs get the upper hand instead of those of us with pretty big accomplishments, win out. Remember, the less we stick up for those with experience who have put countless hours and creativity into the site, the more you'll be stuck with people like this IP and less with people like me. I've given enough. I'll be finishing up some work on here, but my contributions will be limited and then cease. --David Shankbone 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following this particular controversy (I've been hip-deep in other disputes this week), but I didn't see any replies here, so I'll be the one to say to David that your contributions are appreciated and I hope you'll reconsider, because we'd be sorry to lose you. Newyorkbrad 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider that. We receive tons of complaints against IPs here and sometimes we do mistakes (i.e. blocking innocent people). Your report wasn't backed w/ diffs. So i wanted to know more about the issue. While investigating i found out a legit request for discussion at the article talkpage and that you insisted on the fact that he's a vandal instead of answering objectively. Now that you have provided the diffs i apologized for my tone though the issue as i pointed out (as well as Kafziel) is not limited in vandalism but edit warring. The IP could have been a registered account and at that point we'd not be talking about vandalism. This is how i see the situation. So, please reconsider your decision and if you want help at the article, we'll provide it for you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is isn't a 'shoot the good contributors' attitude, its a fundamental philosophy that no persons worth more then another. The IP disagrees with you. Doesn't make him a vandal, he's a user with a legitimate, albeit different from yours, view on the subject. This sort of 'I'm better then people who are new or unregistered' is exactly what we don't need here. Either step back from that view and contribute to a wiki or go find a website with an elitist attitude toward others. -M^ask? 22:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comtheo sockpuppets and John Moyer article recreations.

Hello. 2 days ago, there was an incident with a rather intrusive guy who replaced an article with his own multiple times. It was resolved for the moment, and is archived here. After that, the user created many sockpuppets and article about his hero with them, resulting in the users being blocked and the article being deleted and ultimately protected from re-creation. It went on and on, as administrators were able to delete the articles / block the users when they saw the article as candidate for speedy deletion. Today however, Comtheo is very fast. He removes the speedy template within a very short time period after they are set-up, so i decided to come here again. The current article is John Moyer: comedian by the current puppet ComtheoJR (talk · contribs). Some more info on recent articles and puppets is in the speedy deletion message, which i'll just re-post here:

A7 - Multiple re-creation from John Moyer (comedian), John E. Moyer, John Moyer (writer, comedian), John Moyer (stand up comic) and John Moyer (stand up comedian). (All of that only after vandalizing John Moyer many times over a 2 day period). Author of this article is one of many many sockpuppets of User:Comtheo (here are some of them: User:Comdytheorem, User:JzyDy, User:1277MM, User:ChrisPUT, User:ComedytheoremJR, User:comedytheorem, User:ComtheoJR) - Please delete & protect, and block puppet.

Is there a more permanent way of drawing him off, instead of just deleting the article and blocking the user, forcing him to just register a new account and creating a new article with a slightly different name? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody's forcing him to keep re-creating his vanity article. In fact, by now, it seems that he is wilfully ignorant rather than just clueless. It cannot posisbly have escaped his notice that we do not want his vanity spam, but when was the last time a Mormon took no for an answer? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Glad to see bigotry and deragatory comments about particular religious groups are alive and well on Wikipedia. Maybe you can add that insight to the article about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I'm sure it will be appreciated since there's such impartiality and objectivity here. Tchoeme 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Checkuser-IP Check has been completed, and the IP blocked. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Realg187's attacks

Resolved

 – User:Realg187 warned; both participants asked to disengage.

Realg187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - After this user's block expired, he came back insluting me and calling me a white supremist. He was originally blocked for being disruptive and using talk pages as a forum, and when I tried to explain it to him, he went off: [73] Paul Cyr 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the Realg187 (talk · contribs) talk page, asking him to stop the attacks and contribute constructively or be blocked. If he continues, let me know or bring it back here. In the meantime, please disengage with him; it will make things go more smoothly. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Cyr 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:AFUSCO

He is doing strange edits on Wikipedia. Adding protections templates to non-protected pages. He also nominated himself for adminship. Just a new user or a sock? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/AFUSCO

More inclined to think this is a clueless newbie doing disruptive things - I'd let the usual uw- templates take care of it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef block to User:Billy Ego

Billy Ego is now blocked indef due to more sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego is the case. The account was blocked for 1 year prior to this. I've now extended the block to an indef block, due to 17 new sockpuppets. Open for review and possible reversal. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly endorse upping the ban to indefinite. His ban timer has already been reset once for sockpuppeteering, and he's openly declared that he's not stopping. Revert. Block. Ignore. Sean William 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

17 is enough. We won't let them achieve a Wiki record! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be surprised if there is anyone who will contest this.Proabivouac 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason in my mind the community should not consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse. I just blocked another one of his socks who was trolling on Jpgordon's user talk and on WT:IAR. --Coredesat 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Billy, and old friend of mine. Endorse block. Daniel 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the prolific nature of the sockpuppetry, is a subpage at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, and/or an abuse report to his ISP, warranted? He tends to show up and argue the same points in the same tendentious way over and over, and it wastes editors' time to unknowingly deal with him in good faith, only to have the sock eventually blocked. His MO is pretty easily described and recognized: fringe POV-pushing from an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/Austrian school perspective, worshipping at the altar of Milton Friedman, occasional ham-handed attempts to use "good cop-bad cop" accounts, etc. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is what should be applied.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Juro indefblocked

I have indefblocked Juro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per this 3RR report: [74]. The editor has a long history of being blocked for various reasons from civility to edit warring to block evasion. I'm assuming from this that there is no need for Wikipedia to put up with this editor any longer. As I'm not too familiar with the editor's history, though, I've decided to post here for review. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the block log:[75] and this comment by the last sysop to block the user:

Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) unblocked Juro (contribs) (giving one more chance.)

Pretty much sum it up.

I'm curious though, why something like this shouldn't be on the WP:CN? Anynobody 07:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I don't really believe in that noticeboard. I don't think it's really worked out. Feel free to mention it there, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN is for those who want to get it done. WP:AN/I is where admins say they did it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. When editors report various incivilities here would it be appropriate to refer their issues there? It's practically empty, and ANI is anything but. Anynobody 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm also not at all sure if this user is community banned or not. I think it is likely, given the block log, that he has exhausted the community's patience, but I don't know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point too, some people may feel the editor hasn't exhausted their patience.

I don't mean to give the idea that I'm second guessing your decision, after what Ryūlóng (竜龍) said this is the right place for it. I have just been wondering about ways to cut down on some of the unnecessary posts here. It sounds like user v user conflict issues should be over there. Anynobody 07:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be only 2 editors, whom feel Juro hasn't exhausted patience. Only because they agree on every questions, so their patience will never be exhausted. On the other side, there are 20+ users, whom have fed up with Juro's style, behave and edits in the previous years, many of them even left editing wikipedia. "Pop the question" on Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board, how Juro harassing all the Hungarian users for more than 2 years now. It would be the shame of Wikipedia, if this user would be unblocked again from indefinite ban. Because this is his second indefinite ban, and he absolutely deserved the first one. PS, Juro is a notorious puppetmaster also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juro (13 on this cu), but I'm sure, another checkuser is needed, since Juro also a known and proved ban evader (5th block from top to bottom) [76]. Anyway, do you really thinking it need any discussion? a 6 times temporary (24,48,1 week), and so far twice (this is his second) indefinite blocked user worth any extra extra extra chances??? --195.56.230.195 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

please, also place the tag "sockpuppeter" on Juro's userpage. His buddy (or sock?), user:Tankred continuosly deleting it [77], like if it would not be true and proven, and blocked for that. I also suggest a checkuser, but I'm not sure in it's succes, however. But Tankred is definietly acting like a meatpuppet for a long time now. --195.56.211.177 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another JB196 sock

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Himp skimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are to the Steve Rizzono article created (and constantly edited) by JB196 socks, please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please list these at WP:RFCU; otherwise checkuser people may or may not notice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Already done, just checkuser sometimes takes a while and blocking sooner may be preferable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Full list to be blocked please, including the one above:

1. Dom galvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Heshchich2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Himp skimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Hoboso4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Shacksonq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Ship Sea Float (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. SimileSmileS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. V21Shift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. WEstside Ep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Fixed Income Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. PrPlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Schwab Lynch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Hakhardcore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. V21Shift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put his latest target Steve Rizzono up for speedy, per G5. He is the only major editor of the article (through all his sockpuppets) SirFozzie 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna block them? The Evil Spartan 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the checkuser case please? I can't find it. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the checkuser. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive edits by SatyrBot

Resolvednot an AN/I issue. ··coelacan 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have remarked on the aggressive editing of the Chicago project before on this page. Their bot has just included Juan Cole, who has no visible connection to Chicago at all. Please act; my last comment on the bot talk page has been ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the last categories that the bot tagged, and the categories Juan Cole is in, and noticed that Juan Cole was in Category:Northwestern_University_alumni. That category was tagged by the bot in question. Funpika 23:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here for administrator intervention. Talk to the bot's operator directly at User talk:SatyrTN if you don't like the bot's behavior. ··coelacan 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arielguzman (talk · contribs) suspected sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Block by Trialsanderrors

Very likely another sock of Infomanager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Contribs show an immediate fixation on the PGNx article. Which was previously infested with puppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Infomanager. On the editors 4th edit they post content to their user page from the deleted article [78]. This is significant because it contains links to long deleted images which a new user would have no way of recovering the names for unless they could view the old deleted content (or had access to it having worked on it under a previous account). [79]. RFCU doesn't have a code for this and says to post here. They claim to have gotten the content for the article from another site, however the external site doesn't contain those links to those old images, they have their own image code.[80]--Crossmr 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubai International Airport

I was just sort of wondering what was happening at Dubai International Airport. CambridgeBayWeather just removed a bunch of content citing "Stupid fucking copyvio". Was this copied from the website or something? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That article, Emirates Airline, and related articles, have been the frequent haunt of a serial miscreant, who has been deleting content and replacing it with large chunks of advertising text clearly culled from corporate sites - stuff about how luxurious the planes are and how opulent the airport lounges are, etc. He's persistent and prolific, and I've no doubt that we've missed a lot of the junk he's been adding. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you brought your question that, essentially, is asking what CambridgeBayWeather's intentions were, as opposed to asking CambridgeBayWeather at his or her talk page, but I can comment (as an involved editor who is active on that page) that multiple editors have repeatedly posted content directly from pages within http://www.dubaiairport.com/. Searching Google (within the domain) for unique phrases reveals that the copyrighted version comes from multiple pages. --Iamunknown 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the history. Then the copyright version which can be found here, here and here. You could have asked me about it. I just blocked the last IP for a week due to them reinserting it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremybub (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked by AndonicO

This editor has been attacking editors (including myself) and creating attack pages. I don't feel comfortable blocking him (as I am an involved party) but can someone review this user's actions and take action? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I reported him to WP:AIV after his recent set of attack articles/edits if that's any help. I'm not an admin obviously, but I figured any help here can't hurt. Wildthing61476 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Attacks like this are more complex than simple vandalism, which is why I posted it here, but I guess either way works. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to add, the attacks made on my talk page, and yours ikiroid are of a threatening nature. Understandbaly this is a kid acting like a toughy on the internet, but death threats are something not to laughed off. Wildthing61476 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right, if anything of the sort happens again I'll just ignore policy and indef the editor. Because the editor had made some constructive edits and I've only been an admin for two and a half days, I was uncomfortable making such a difficult block. Don't think I was going to let it blow over though. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio allegations with no immediate proof

Not sue how to move here. Phoenix Arts Centre has had an IP repeatedly either blanking or adding speedy delete tags. Finally they agreed to communicte on the articles talk page, and I have no issue now re: 3RR etc. The problem is that the anon asserts copyright violation but as it stands I can't see how they can offer any proof (after all if they turn up with it now who's to say which was first?). I have checked the homepage of the articles subject and find no vio at all. Here? Or direct me to another department please admin type people !!! HELP!!Pedro |  Chat  19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This collection of anon edits adds some really obviously ripped-off text. The Centre's website is a study on shocking unusability, but certainly some of the stuff added by that anon is straight from this page on the centre's website. Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the main body seems okay. Or shall we just RFD the whole article - it hardly seems that great as it stands I have to say and notability looks dodgy. Also - anyone want to comment on the 3RR thing, or am I now in breach myself ????

Pedro |  Chat  20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to assume 88.108.154.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s contrib to the article was all copyvio. If we take a diff between his contribs and the current article it's clear that not much has happened bar routine tidying. We've no choice but to delete; I don't have an opinion about whether we should then create a copyright clean version, and as acquiring an opinion would entail my looking at that eyewatering website again, I'm not going to. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure is one sexy site. I particularly like the onload action - fresh from the late 90's!!! :)Pedro |  Chat  20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio - how does that work? Derivative works of copyright works are still copyrighted... and our article is, as you admitted, a derivative work of the website, yet its not a copyvio? --Iamunknown 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I wrote "I do think it's a copyvio". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. (Sorry :-( ) --Iamunknown 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The IP asserts that they created the text but it was not used by the company (a school project). How can we resolve this ? The IP has only basically edited this article, here for more, yet seems reasonably adept at inserting images and sd tags but unsure of how to use talk pages etc. I really am not fussed - I found this on RC Patrol - but it does seem to need attention. Pedro |  Chat  20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed wikipedia about this, i can provide a copy of the orginal site it was copied from, if you look at the history of teh page, you will see the orginal article was cut down because it was written as an advertisment, it was written like that because on a website you try to sell the company.

After reading your comments, I would once again, love to add that the website they currently have displayed is NOT my work, I have more talant than that.

That was just a bit of humour and I don't doubt you could do better. Why not rewrite the article rather than tagging / blanking ? If you are happy to do that under WP:GFDL then the problem is solved. Alternatively put it to WP:AFD. Pedro |  Chat  20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm not going to rewrite the article because i'm pissed at the company for using it in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.140.194 (talk • contribs).

BTW, i have a new IP address, some loser put a block on my old one. He actually caused me 4 extra clicks to get a new IP. I'm still here for discussion though

Off I go to WP:AIV again then.Pedro |  Chat  20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IP dude - do you have a Ticket Number from your email to the email support? If so, I would be happy to conduct my own investigation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this article popping up in my Watchlist from when I categorized it way back when. I went back to the original version of the article and realized that it actually referred to a theatre in Leicester, and not the theatre in Hastings. The original article was overwritten. I have reverted back to the last version that referred to the original subject of the article. This does solve any copy-vio problems, but, of course, the AFD notice is a problem. Should it be reinstated, bearing in mind that it now refers to a different subject? Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would leave it and watch it I guess - to much has gone on there for one evening!Pedro |  Chat  21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont seem to have a reply, i sent the email to [email protected] as i was told to by this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Copyright. Hope that helps.

Your problem has been solved by Flowerpotman. Kindly don't use the IP switching to evade bans in the future. Pedro |  Chat  21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, so i'm just gonna sit on my arse and wait 3 hours when 4 clicks can get me back into the site and aid in sorting it all out.

OK so the article existed before the IP's edits. oldid, and the article was eventually contributed to by the IP. diff. I find it hard to see where any copyvio allegations can be raised, without a link to the alleged violation. Further, this guy needs to stay blocked. He's already being dealt with on OTRS, no need for him to continue block evading on wiki to prove a point. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:217.44.38.77

Would somebody please block 217.44.38.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I've listed him twice at AIV but nobody has done anything. Corvus cornix 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked a minute prior to your comment here by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).  :) --Iamunknown 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Awesome. Thanks, AGK. Corvus cornix 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible legal threats by User:KristinaAlbania

Possible breaches of Wikipedia's policies on civility, personal attacks & legal threats by KristinaAlbania (talk · contribs) at Teki Dervishi; see the article's talk page (permanent link), especially this edit. - Best regards, Ev 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential? I say it's a legal threat. Support block. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely is a legal threat. Looking through the user's contribs, he/she seems to be canvassing admins for support in deleting the article. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

S/he seems to be new to Wikipedia, and may not have been aware of our policies. I think that a warning or a clear explanation would probably be better than a block. I didn't do it myself (and mentioned the issue here instead) because from our conversation in that talk page I fear s/he wouldn't pay much attention to anything I say :-) Regards, Ev 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was a newbie error, it is too much to allow. The soapboxing, the incivility, the confrontational and disruptive editing etc. won't go away with experience. I say a block is justified. A legal threat is a legal threat. Period. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ev, I was impressed by your responses on the talkpage, but her(?) behaviour could hardly be excused by inexperience; threats of any kind are simply incompatible with our working environment and goals. A brief block and a very firm explanation of policy would seem to be appropriate. Doc Tropics 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Doc has said: your behaviour on the talk page has been exemplary, Ev. You didn't let yourself get outshouted, you explained our policies and guidelines clearly, you remained civil and you never bit him/her. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; page protection helps a lot :-). To be honest, I simply don't like the idea that "everyone can edit": too much time & effort is lost because of incivility & plain disruption. And yet, since account creation doesn't include some "be civil and follow policy or be blocked" wording, I would feel uneasy about personally blocking new users that may not be aware yet of what Wikipedia really aims to be. In any case, since -luckly- I'm not the one making the decision, if you think a block would work better than a clear warning alone, I won't object: arguing with such emotionally-involved users is too often futile. - Regards, Ev 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Request uninvolved admin to look at spamming situation

Hello. Can I ask an uninvolved admin to have a look at HIPAA Compliance Validation Services and perhaps have a word with User:LokiThread? S/he is continually adding promotional links to the article. In fact, this user created the article as a fork after being told not to keep inserting their links at HIPAA. They've continually de-tagged the article and reinserted the links ([81]), and apparently believe that I'm making up the provisions of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I'm involved, so would appreciate input from an uninvolved user or admin. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the text seems to come from other websites verbatim as well... I put one link on the discussion page. --Cheers, Komdori 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that pickup - I missed that. We had a pretty persistent spammer from the Supremus Group (one of the copyrighted sites) some months back, so this may be a redux. HIPAA is a spam magnet. I should probably add some (sourced) content to the HIPAA article about how the regulations have led to a cottage industry of "HIPAA consultants" and their attendant spamming/promotional efforts... MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

The images on that page may be copyvio as well. Eventhough they are tagged PD, it states "proprietary image of autor". --Edokter (Talk) 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. I asked LokiThread (talk · contribs) to explain on his talk page. Thanks much for all the extra eyes on the article... I don't think I'd have picked up the copyright issues. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please disable TWINKLE

As mentioned on WP:VPT, it's currently putting the word "undefined" in a bunch of places. Could someone please blank the source code or something until it's fixed? -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not exactly possible, even if we blanked it people would still use it until they purged their browsers. The best thing to do is to notify the developer of it, and have him fix it ASAP. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Kinda stinks, then, because Azatoth doesn't appear to be currently on. -Amarkov moo! 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It would still be somewhat effective, and it would be increasingly effective over time, right? —Centrx→talk • 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The caches will eventually refresh, which is why it updates automatically. We could blank it. Prodego ^talk 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so, I'll go blank them, I presume its the revert part only? If so I'll just blank that part with a note to the developer :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(Just note that this is not likely to have much of an effect for a few hours). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Prodego made an edit, it might fix the problem. Prodego, I suggest reverting back to the May 3 version (we know it works). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, twinkle is not blanked, but the problem should be solved, I'll do some testing. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the May 6 version is correct code wise, it fixes a mistake in the May 3 version. Looks like it just takes an hour or so before the cache automatically clears, based on when AzaToth made the breaking edit. Prodego ^talk 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Twinkle fits well into my UI, and I'd be significantly less happy without it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll confirm that the existing version of twinkle is working correctly. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Azatoth about it, so don't spam him anymore if anybody has. :-) Evilclown93 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't working. CSD is OK, though, for now. It's only rollback that's glitched. Evilclown93 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It will take a while for my revert to affect you, or you could manually clear your cache, which will fix it immediately. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kizor blocked

I've blocked User:Kizor for 24 hours for a mass reversion of David Gerard's removal of some of our stupider spoiler tags. The intent is simply to edit war, following and undoing every one of David's removals without thought. This is not an acceptable practice. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... why was removing them in the first place, which any reasonable person should know would be disputed, any better? I mean, Kizor didn't even use AWB, while the original removals did. -Amarkov moo! 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A block is heavy-handed in this case, especially since you seem involved in the debate. You should have asked an uninvolved admin. I suggest unblocking to facilitate discussion. --Spike Wilbury 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking long-term block for vandal account: User:Martonte

The editor uses this week-old account to create and recreate (after admin warning) hoax articles about a purportedly "popular" musical performer, presumably the editor himself, and his associates. The editor falsely claims the performer is affiliated with major record labels (in the first version of the article, Epic; in the second, Atlantic) and has released albums for which no records can be found. There are no Google hits and no AllMusic listing for this performer or the musical acts he claims membership in -- or, in cases where the acts actually exist, no record of his association with them.

User:Martonte inserts factually-inaccurate information into articles, presumably for the purpose of self-promotion, either inserting this non-existent or sub-notable "performer" into lists of musical acts or else falsely claiming for him current or former membership in real musical acts: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90].

User:Martonte also ignores warnings against removing speedy tags and inserting factually-inaccurate information: [91], [92], [93]

As well, the editor uploads potentially unfree images with frivolous assertions about their sources and licensing/copyright status: "somewebsite," "don't know": [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]

User:Martonte appears to have been inserting this name into articles from anon-ips since at least 4 August 2006 and as recently as 5 May 2007. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given an indefinite block. See if he finally pays attention to his talk page. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable {{unblock}} (go go second chances), but I have a feeling that the user might not even respond. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevanjak

Stevanjak (talk · contribs) was modifying Bitola inscription. I suspect a problem based on his style of edits (e.g. changing the date to mismatch what is shown on other language versions of Wikipedia and internet sources), also claiming that there is no date visible on the inscription (which I doubt, since internet sources showing an image of the inscription seem to have markers in the general location of these numbers). He's also been known to blank the page previously or otherwise remove content improtant for the article.

He's not active now (although he is a recent editor), but I strongly consider his sources to be suspect. --Sigma 7 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice would be appreciated - ridiculous ultimatum

Situation is resolved, user feels misrepresented, courtesy blanking should take care of that. ··coelacan 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18 and Qian Zhijun

This has got me mad enough to spit. We keep getting admins closing this discussion who are deeply involved in it. User:JzG has closed it twice, despite having participated in the discussion all along. And several other admins have closed it, and other have opened it (I have done WP:IAR and reopened it) . Not to mention that none of this satifies speedy closure, except that there were previous discussions, all of which were improperly speedy closed. I must go, so I can't speak for long. Please look into to this ridiculous policy violation though. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And there are users reopening it who are heavily involved. Pots shouldn't run to mummy complaining that the kettle is black.--Doc^g 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I never heard about this thing before today. And I think this is ridiculous. Funny you calling me a pot, when you were the one involved doing the closure. Nice try. (Not to mention your WP:IAR arguments are wrong: I see tons of hits on google under "Qian Zhijun"). The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole ridiculous charade came about when an admin re-opened the deletion discussion and undeleted the article despite having already !voted to keep the article. I trust any complaint of yours will include this very pertinent fact. -- Nick ^t 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't know about that part. But the admin should have gone to DRV - not that it matters, though. The point is the second DRV, despite this evidence, was to bring back to AFD, and this was completely ignored. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

God forbid we delete an article about a fat kid who was made into a widespread object of derision through absolutely no fault of his own. Thatcher131 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ick. Well, I hadn't known that part of the WP:BLP story. Maybe I should rescind. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get this, are you saying you hadn't actually read the discussions and the article this is about, yet it made you as mad as you described in your first comment in this thread? Thatcher's comment really isn't some big BLP secret OTRS kind of revelation... --JoanneB 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the previous AfD, particualrly the parts cut-off and existing only in the history, you will find significant arguments as to why BLP does not provide a reason to delte this article. Not everyone finds those argumets persuasive. But they really ought to be addressed, not ignored. The recent full-length DRV found, in effect, that thare was a xase to anawer and tha tthe prior AfD close had not done so, so a new AfD was started, wher the BLP arguments (and others) could be made and met, and perhaps a consensus would result. This new AfD was closed, aftre less than one hour, by an admin who claimed that the previous AfDs ( the ones overturned by DRV) had given the subject all the discussion time in needed. That is simply ignoring the DRV result. There had been a numbe rof other irregularities in the previuous AfD, and a good deal of heat in the Drv discussion. This shows that there is not a WP:SNOW situation here, so an early or IAR close of the AfD was IMO celarly inappropriate. Then when this new close was broght back to DRV, involved admisn "closed" the DRV discussion almost at once. This too is IMO highly inappropriate. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I bet the notability of this innocent guy will rise after this mess. → Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the news. Do we have some kind of π here? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no early close. The previous AfD ran for over seven days, the DRV had a weight-of-arguments balance for endorse and ran for over six days, the second AfD attracted a huge weight of deletes form some of the most experienced editors we have (including some of the OTRS crowd who rarely pitch in) and the only reason for the second DRV was the wilful and obstinate process wonkery of someone who I will swear blind does know better but chooses to be an ass anyway some of the time. Plus this thread is founded on a misrepresentation of the facts, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The weight of numbers in the first DRV was clearly on the side of relisting. Judging the weight of arguments in inherently subjective, IMO (admittedly the opinion of an involved person) the weight of arguments, and in particular of valid, relevant, policy-based arguments on the first AfD was for keep, and on the first DRV was for relisting. The second AfD was closed in less than one hour, which is hardly time for a reasonable sample of people with legitimate views to see the page and express those views, so it can hardly be considered as a consensus, and it was in effect closed with the argument that the first AfD (with all its irregularities) was sufficient and there should be no second AfD the first DRV's closure to the contrary notwithstanding. The second DRV was started because this closure of the second AfD strikes several editors, including myself, as outrageous. What is the point of having a DRV discussion if the resulting AfD is to be closed again 1 hour after it opens? If people want to abolish or drastically change DRV let them create a consensus to do so. DES ^(talk) 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(Neutral, uninvolved with this discussion, note) I've speedily closed the DRV due to it being an out-of-process listing. In the meantime, please feel free to join in on the AfD discussion. - jc37 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, which AFD discussion? The first and second nomination are closed already. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no open AfD discussion? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. If there is an AFD discussion going on, why is the article still deleted? *** Crotalus *** 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I noted to another user, I was reading too many pages at once, and missed that it was already closed. I'll fix it momentarily. - jc37 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The DRV discussion appears to be open again at the moment. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new to the discussion, but it is boggling to me how dismisive some of the attitudes of some of the editors have been on this DRV. Myself and several other wikipedians in good standing are of the opinion that the article should be kept, and I for one am more than willing to discuss the issue in a civilized manner and come to a consensus. While I definitely understand that it is frustrating to some of the editors who have already participated in two deletion debates on this topic, it is equally frustrating that the opinions and arguments of several wikipedians are being dismissed as "process-wonkery". Can we return to the DRV and keep the discussion relevant and civil? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... this DRV has been closed again, this time by User:Mbimmler. I am really hesitant to revert the closing as I don't want to get in a revert-war over this, but are people really this reluctant to even discuss it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was obviously out-of-process as the user is non-admin and involved in the dispute, so I reverted it. This is getting ridiculous. Prolog 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article is kept or deleted, in the end, is not all that important. What is important is that both sides get a fair hearing. Instead, there seems to be an insistence by some people that the "keep" arguments be dismissed out of hand. This is unacceptable. *** Crotalus *** 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, according to Xoloz, ArbComm has blessed non-admins closing DRVs -> [100]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's an admin or not is beside the point. What matters is that discussion was still going on, there was currently no consensus, and he closed it anyway. That's clearly not acceptable, nor respectful to the numerous good-faith editors who made arguments for the article to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the DRV, per all the policy arguments (and not the content ones) and relisted it at afd. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... now this new AFD has been closed again, this time by User:Nick. Given the fact that this third AFD was opened after a DRV, the rationale for early closure does not make much sense. I would re-open it, but as I was involved in the DRV and had already voted in the AFD3, I don't believe it would be appropriate. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not reopen it. We've debated this for days. Four closing admins have now viewed there to be a consensus to delete. The process wanking has gone on long enough - if you do it again, it will be terminated again. Frankly, drop it - or take it to arbcom (but expect to be hit with a cluestick).--Doc^g 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed how many admins are on the other side, but had the restraint and good sense not to edit war over the closure, just follow the proper procedure for improper behavior? What's so horrible about actually just letting the AfD run? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)