Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

BassxForte (talk · contribs) / Vilerocks (talk · contribs) shares his password

User BassxForte, who is also user Vilerocks (as claimed on both user pages), admits he shares his account password with other people here [1], who apparently use it for occasional joke edits.--Atlan (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him go out onto the actual articles without my supervision, my userpage(s) are the only things I let them run wild at. BassxForte 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has a history of unproductive editing and behaviour going on since January, and he is on very, very thin ice at the moment. I have made unsuccessful attempts on ANI, RFC and CN already. I plan to take it to Arbitration very soon. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. I just accidentally stumbled upon his comment on that talk page. His history of unproductive editing is therefore not really an issue here.--Atlan (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying how it's relevant. The relevant part is that he is extremely unlikely to change any of his habits, so if you want to try to make him stop sharing his password, it won't work. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that, I, the correct user of this name, was in complete control of those edits when they were made. Vilerocks 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does one person have two user names? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? --myselfalso 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was probably due to this whole password thing, but he got his old account back. He probably doesn't know what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the rule existed until just now, when you mentioned it. Furthermore, the rule you gave mentioned that it is "discouraged", not that it was against the rules. Vilerocks 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, on one userpage I provide a link to the other, making it bluntly obvious Vilerocks and BassxForte are one and the same, and I havn't attempted to use the Vilerocks name to bend the rules to my advantage. (In other words, I haven't voted twice on a poll, used them ti suggust that there are more people arguing in my favor in an argument, etc.) BassxForte 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have an issue if you have two user names. I just thought that Sock puppetry didn't allow this. Obviously there are cases that having an additional user name might be necessary. But the issue at hand isn't having two user names, the issue is that you've shared your password. --myselfalso 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him just run around wikipedia wth my password randomly, looking through my contribuations history( for both accounts) the only thing he ever edited without my supervision was my userpages. Vilerocks 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's just not allowed to share an account.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vilerocks just finished a 24h ban for 3RR(hence the lack of reply), and I don't know much about the bot archival on this page so I'm killing two birds with one stone here bu notifying you about the ban as well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate undeletion of HHO gas?

Moved to related thread at WP:AN.

User:MONGO

User:MONGO is going on a rampage altering archived project and talk pages, etc., to "enforce" his interpretation of policy on linking to sites (in this case, regarding Wikitruth, a site that has a page on Wikipedia, and about which MONGO only very recently changed his mind about whether it was an "attack site"). It is my understanding that archived pages are not to be edited by anybody for any reason; they are there to preserve history. *Dan T.* 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the full record of that websites mirroring of deleted pages and other attacks. Once I was, I saw it as necessary to delink to that site as much as possible. Someone please tell Dtobias to stop wikistalking my edits. Archived pages are not exempt from being edited to remove attacks. The banner on the top of them is there only so people understand that if they have new comments to make, they should do so on the active discussion page since no one will likely be responding to them on an archived page. Dtobias, do not wikistalk my edits.--MONGO 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• While utterly pointless, removing links to attack pages out of archives isn't really inappropriate. In general, he should probably be leaving a template or such in their place, but whatever. WilyD 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that we routinely are removing fair use violations from archive pages. Archive pages are not inviolate. NoSeptember 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  He's indiscriminately removing all links to the sites in question, as usual. See my essay for some reasons why this is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unarchiving to comment. Please see instructions at the top of this page: Please don't try to stop other people from discussing by inserting the {{discussion top}} — {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions. WTF? My own talkpage archives keep popping up on my watchlist because some bot has had its mysterious way with them—"substituting user signatures" and whatever. Here's one at random. And as NoSeptember points out, FU violations are continually being whisked out of there. I've never seen a template left in place of the removed material. Should I start reverting the bots...? Please cut it out, DTobias. We don't do edits that have no other purpose than to annoy, no matter what the banner at the top of archive pages says. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

So once again MONGO gets off scot free, while the person who criticizes him gets slapped. There really does seem to be an "untouchable caste" here. *Dan T.* 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This racing through Wikipedia with a black censor's pen is just embarrassing to the entire project. The primness, the hysteria, the hypocrisy.--G-Dett 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the harassment and the offsite attacks. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could I have missed that?--G-Dett 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are attack sites whether or not the links exist on so called "archived" pages. Who cares if their links get deleted? --Tbeatty 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mongo's actions are clearly disruptive. This is an attempt to enforce a failed policy proposal via edit warring and must not be tolerated. *** Crotalus *** 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was an ArbCom ruling, as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom dont create policy they interpret it, and in that sense we are a democracy, SqueakBox 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• It is an Arbcom ruling (in addition to common sense), that unneeded links to attack sites should be removed with extreme prejudice. That does not mean that someone can arbitrarily declare something an attack site and then remove all links to it. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• And Arbcom, as is its right, has chosen not to confirm that principle in subsequent decisions[2]. Risker 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try again. The arbitrators who voted against that principle did so because they thought its language was too broad, not because they were against the principle per se. jpgordon made the point that the language should have said something like "sites that commonly include attacks". And the very next principle, which passed, illustrates this, because it is a ban against ED links - and ED is a site that most certainly "commonly includes attacks" and outings against Wikipedia editors, as does WikiTruth, as can be seen by a 5-second perusal of its front page. - Merzbow 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mongo actions: he is doing the right thing Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikitruth an attack site? Does there need to be some kind of clarification by ArbCom like what was asked for with WR? Can't a bot be written to remove the links that MONGO is removing? Is Miller lite less filling or does it taste great? daveh4h 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:BADSITES would be good as it would state clearly which ones should be removed. Right now say for Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review while obviously links to pages that contain personal attacks should be removed as personal attacks, links to their main page or parts of the site that don't have attacks are unclear. Without WP:BADSITES all we have is the spam blacklist and I think people are allowed to remove links to that. If anyone can get ahold of Kelly Martin who appears not to be on Wikipedia anymore but is on IRC maybe, she knows more about how Wikitruth is an attack site. SakotGrimshine 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. EITHER ArbCom's decision may be taken as a statement of policy, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong, OR policy is established by the community by individual bold actions, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong. No administrator action required. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is edits like this one and this one that are relevant here. In these edits, MONGO removes whole citations from articles not because they are bogus but simply because they contain URLs that hyperlink to a site that xe thinks should not be hyperlinked to. The use of such pages as sources is bad because there is no evidence of a process of peer review and fact checking being involved in their publication, and because they are the subject talking about itself and not independent of the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources.) But challenging them, and the content that they are the sources for, should be on that basis (and indeed had already been raised on that basis, per the notice at the top of that article), not because of the domain name portion of the URL. Uncle G 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a distressing circularity to arguments that "it's policy because it's what people like MONGO do"... anybody (like myself) who disagrees and tries to revert such edits gets called a "stalker" and threatened with blocking (see comments left by an admin on my talk page)... once the opposition is intimidated into silence this way, then it becomes "policy" because it's a BOLD action that was unopposed. *Dan T.* 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should link to wikitruth or are you arguing for the sake of procedure? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. SchmuckyTheCat 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to present an argument, I'm am trying to clear up Dan T's position. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we should link to it when and where it makes sense to do so, and not link to it when and where it doesn't make sense to do so. Of course, probably everybody believes that; they just differ on when and where it does or doesn't make sense. I think it makes sense to link it on the article about the site itself, possibly on the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, and probably nowhere else in articlespace; in project, user, and talk space there are occasions when it might make sense to link it in the course of making a point of some sort. Going in and unlinking it all over the place in archived talk pages and the like almost never is justifiable, unless the links are directly being used as personal attacks. *Dan T.* 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?

I've just blocked The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for this. I'm getting ready to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message, but I'm wondering, has this user ever been constructive? Is there any reason not to just go to indef now? ··coelacan 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A no brainer, Coelacan. Indefblock indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is if we indef, this one might just sockpuppet, whereas this account is not hard to keep tabs on. I know this is hard to predict, though. =/ ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, has his account been compromised? Based on his edit histories, It is very unusual of him to go rogue. Indeed I agree with the indef block, but only as a temporary measure until things sort out.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised. I don't think this is unusual; are we talking about the same "Anonymous One"? He's been planning this. I knew when that question showed up on the reference desk that there was trouble ahead. Other users warned him not to "make an ass of himself" but I'm honestly starting to wonder if he understands what that means. ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• What the--?! That behavior is unacceptable. Based on this diffs above, I support the indefblock. Again, that behavior is not tolerated.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. There's absolutely no excuse for his actions tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reported him to Coelacan to begin with, I strongly support this block; however, there should be no problem allowing him back if and when he apologizes for his behavior and pledges not to repeat it, or anything remotely like it, again. Perhaps he should individually apologize to each and every user he harassed.

Though having looked further through his contribs, there seems to be a good deal of religion-related disruption; more than a matter of a simple apology would be needed, more like a very broad topical ban. Not sure.Proabivouac 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my…User talk:The Anonymous One#BlockProabivouac 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is persistently and perversely disruptive on topics of religion. He has form for this behaviour. His indignant responses to warnings and blocks show no sign of acceptance that his behaviour is unacceptable. Support indefblock. Worries about socks should play no part in the decision making on this issue. --Dweller 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock, per lack of contrition shown on his talk page. Rationalizing that kind of harassment is not acceptable, ever. I dunno how much weight my opinion carries as a non-admin, but under no circumstances should he be allowed back.--Blueboy96 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been an unmitigated pest ever since he got here. His latest tirade of attempted self justification indicates that he still has no grasp of what this project is for - and more importantly what it's not for - despite having it explained to him a number of times. He is here for only one purpose: to seek out people of various religious convictions and confront them with comments which he knows full well are going to be inflammatory. Since he shows complete inability to take on board what is said to him and modify his behaviour accordingly, I am definitely in favour of an indef block. His disappearance will be a positive benefit to the community here. --Stephen Burnett 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it depresses me, endorse. He was told from the second he got that list (well, category) to be responsible and courteous with it, which he blatantly went against. That was bad enough, but then he tried to defend his actions... I don't feel it's possible for him to have any positive effect on Wikipedia or it's community. A quick glance at the numerous warnings on his talk page is sign enough for this -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone please do something about this user: Filips 85 and his anon alter ego 91.150.121.215 (the IP is probably the same person before he registered). He did blatant vandalism to several articles regarding Dražen Petrović, Goran Ivanišević and Marko Perković. His only aim is by my first impression only to vandalize articles, especially ones regarding Croats. For what reason I do not know. --No.13 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum;WP:AIV would be. Second, he's not correctly warned. See WP:WARN. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I registered only recently. Thank you. --No.13 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible disruption

User:Hubier (his contribs) has been uploading dozens of images with no sources, no fair use rationales and using them to replace all of the James Bond film posters. Just about every one was deleted by a bot for having no information, so now he's just replacing the current posters with red links. I don't know if he knows they are all deleted. I didn't know where to take this, because it doesn't seem to be a clear case of vandalism, just plain disruption. The posters he was trying to use, even if they had sources, were not better than what was already there, some looking fan made. He was asked to stop several times by myself and another editor, but he refuses. I was hoping for some assistance on how to handle this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I will unblock this user if he agrees to abide by our non-free content policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like he's decided to simply not log in. User:72.205.56.90 put in the image that Hubier uploaded. Diff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated NPA

Not sure if this is the correct forum but don't know where to go. Omegatron has in the past days taken it upon himself to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.[3][4][5][6][7][8] (I provided the discussion since just reading his comments suffices, if needed I can of course add the seperate diffs) For some reason he ignores my repeated requests to stop this behaviour. His most recent response is that I should start an RFC.[9][10] While I don't think it warrants that I do want him to stop using ad hominems on my person. Specifically, how is does adding tags to his article to ask for WP:RS qualify as being disruptive? Could somebody advise/intervene in this matter? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time Omegatron has been warned for his repeated attempts at making false claims of disruption, his use of ad hominem and misrepresentation to try to browbeat someone and then using the "report me" taunt. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Fnagaton 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC is more appropriate here? Evilclown93 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing where Omegatron is acting significantly out of line. Simply stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith. If/when he stated that you were trying to be disruptive, then this would be frowned upon.

In your own links, I see Omegatron attempting to contact you only to be stonewalled, while his attempts to contact other people with opposing viewpoints have resulted in a civil consensus. I imagine this situation is very complicated and nuanced, but from what I've seen, there is no need for administrative intervention against Omegatron. –Gunslinger47 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In my links you see Mr O going around calling me disruptive and tendentious. Have you understood why? Because he does not want to produce WP:RS, and let an advertisement be either altered or deleted. In any case, I think if all editors were allowed to call opposing editors all sorts of names we mights just as well get rid of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Heck, what is the point if "stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith." Let me state the belive that that particular user is a (fortunately I do accept that I need to refrain from such statements) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that Omegatron is making false accusations of disruptive behaviour when editors make changes he doesn't agree with. That and the general bad attitude. Fnagaton 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious sockpuppet User:BryanFromPalatine is back

Resolved

 – Already blocked -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Dean Hinnen, he claims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.163 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs on which your claim is based? Looking at your edit history, all you've done on Wikipedia so far is claim FreedomAintFree is a sockpuppet all over the place. I wonder how you've come to that conclusion.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. - Merzbow 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the above user (Xboxwarrior) quacking? Interesting contribs. - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is back

Resolved

IP blocked (several, actually) (But really, use WP:RFCU for this.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One of our favorite puppet shows, JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is on the loose again. Three socks have popped up today:

• BBPscar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CICPpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scream Machine 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hopefully he'll eventually give away his open proxy so we can shut his mic for good.--Blueboy96 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And Scallop pope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not blocked yet. --YFB ¿ 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out 219.71.242.145 (talk · contribs). May be the range -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, he's not really "back" -- it's more like he never left. But yeah, Moeron; that IP looks suspicious. --Haemo 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Next up, Homie quarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ! --Haemo 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this corner, 68.14.37.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Haemo 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ding ding: 24.109.87.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trumpscoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you get IP addresses, don't bother hitting them with 48 hours. Assume they are open proxies unless you have evidence to believe they are not, and in def them (had a discussion with jpgordon, who is the checkuser on this) we can confirm it by looking them up on the RBLs list. SirFozzie 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated purging of text

Akhristov (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes text from the article Podilsko-Voskresenska Line w/o any real reasoning [11], [12], [13], [14]

Considering that there was no consensus on the talk page, I was wondering could this kind of extreme WP:POINT-violating behaivour be classed as Vandalism. I mean the article is a subway line and the text he is removing is of the language that the whole city speaks. And his only reason is I really have a strong point of view on this.... Do politics justify disruptive behaivour? Considering that these four (as of me writing this) edits are the only ones he did to the article so far. --Kuban Cossack 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the user is violating WP:3RR. I will place a warning in his user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is real, and a consensus was reached prior to the edit war. User:Kuban kazak has a prior history of edit warring, see [15]. My reasoning is on the talk page, and Kuban kazak was continuously reverting to his revision, which didn't gain consensus yet. This is why I reverted to my revision, since it gained prior consensus. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I marked this incident as unresolved until my comment above is commented on. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not a unilateral near-violation of 3RR. Both parties should have been notified of that. Anyways, protecting the article was the right call. Also, the comments by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) at Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line#Russian name seems to be assuming bad faith. His contibs history shows him as a good editor, but block log suggests he is a bit over zealous.Corrected username. — Alex^(U|C|E) 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that umber of edits is not the yardstick to measure the validity of an edit. It should be on the merit of the edit in question. --soum ^talk 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that two days back he was blocked for edit warring for one and a half days on another Russian/Ukranian dispute. As soon as he gets out of the block, he starts doing it on another article. That aspect does bother me. --soum ^talk 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want sysops to do? To support one of the parties to this content dispute? This noticeboard is not part of dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not take sides, be impartial. Both sides should have been warned for impending 3RR violation, thats my point. Its us admins who have to act on the merits of the case, not merits of reporting. Its our responsibility to ensure that content dispute does not end up being disruptive. --soum ^talk 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the dispute has matured into a WP:MEDCAB, if anybody is interested please participate. --Kuban Cossack 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

Could someone please take a look at what this administrator user:Alkivar has been doing. On more than one occasion he has removed huge chunks of information from an article, then proceeds to fully protect it so that no one else can edit it! (like in this case [16] [17]). Surely there is no policy that allows this is there? Where we have to seek the permission of an Administrator to edit an article? 124.176.27.127 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that doesn't look right at all. An editor has contacted Alkivar on three occasions about this article without receiving any response. As it does not appear to be a correct use of an indefinite full protection, and as Alkivar has given no response to inquiries, I'm going to restore it to semi-protected. I'll leave a note on Alkivar's page linking back to this discussion. -- Merope 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Biographies of living person, the policy which governs biographical articles, says to remove any text that is not attributed to reliable sources. So, the removal is justified. As for the protection, people were reinserting the unsourced content without addressing the concerns. So, protection is also justified. Though whether an indefinite is proper or not I'm not sure. But indefinite is not infinite. Please find references that you can attriute such content to, without which they are not allowed here. Even if the article is protected, you can discuss the changes on the talk page. Once you are done aggregating the sources, request an unprotection. --soum ^talk 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hum and look at the differences it's burntsauce again. I've got to ask - is Alkivar in his pocket? --Fredrick day 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like enforcing BLP to me. ^(H) 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that this was all "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" (emphasis added)? Seems a bit excessive to me particularly when the admin in question has not responded to multiple questions about his edits. --ElKevbo 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that removing that much material went too far. He even took out basic information like a description of his role on AFHV and what he's currently up to. I would say about 75% of the removal was inappropriate since it wasn't nearly contentious.--Wafulz 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support bringing this back to semi-protection (I semi-protected it last month due to libel concerns) — if the material was unsourced, which was largely the case, then it should have been removed according to policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This Day In History error on main page

Resolved

I'm not sure where to post this and I think time is probably of the essence here. The "On This Day" section shows that the U.S. paid $6,000 for ransom of U.S. prisoners in the First Barbary War but the article says $60,000. I think someone left a zero off. Since admins can edit the main page perhaps someone can fix it. I posted this at the Anniversaries page too. Thanks JodyB _talk 10:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Merope has corrected this. —freak(talk) 10:44, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

(this argument is identical to the one a bit below this, resubmitted in some sort of lag-time glitch. The only difference is that an additional admin weighed in below.)

Arcayne (talk · contribs), who has been involved in a five-month, protracted conflict with me on Children of Men, has begun following me to other articles in order to disrupt, this time ALF.[18] I politely asked him to stop, [19] at which point he ignored my concerns and responded with a series of personal attacks and incivility on my talk page and other places, consisting of "You have absolutely nothing to say that I find compelling or interesting", and "That I happen to notice that a disambiguation that I happened to visit is being messed up by someone means I will contribute" and "You are a pariah in the Wiki community." [20] [21] [22]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [23] [24], in the process ignoring the consensus on talk and reverting myself, User:JHunterJ, and User:Bkonrad. An ongoing discussion about this topic is also occurring on Talk:Alf (disambiguation). He has now attempted to add nonsensical comments to a closed move request from 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC), in the process voting "strongly oppose" based on nothing more than opposition to me.[25] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[26] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it is ammusing to see double, I would suggest that dispute resolution is that-a-way -->. Viridae^Talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and personal attacks are a dispute? I'm just asking for the behavior to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while Virtiditas and myself have disagreed mightily on content within the CoM article, that was the only place wherein we really had contact. I believe that the user has made more than enough personal attacks to warrant a stronger AN/I report against him in the past, but it was just myself (other editors wanting nothing to do with him), which wouldn't meet the 2-editor requirement. Reporting him for past 3RR violations has actually gotten both of us blocked for edit-warring in CoM, and has caused me to withdraw from the article significantly (this would not be the first time an editor has withdrawn fromt hat particular article due to Viriditas' behavior) Clearly, I dislike the editor in question, and will make every attempt to ignore the young man in future dealings, but being accused of wiki-stalking is rather serious.

No, I haven't been wiki-stalking Viriditas. I have over a hundred articles on my watchlist, and came across the Alf dispute by happenstance. It wasn't until I was already involved that I learned it was one of Viriditas' edited articles. That's when the accusations of wiki-stalking arose from him repeatedly. Actually, I have noticed a great many other times where I have made a comment in many different areas wherein Viriditas injected himself into the conversation, seemingly out of nowhere. This rather tells me that my contributions are watchlisted by him, which is frankly rather creepy when the editor watchlisted isn't a friend or a like-minded contributor. I could pull up these instances, but I pretty much brushed off the occurrences as bothersome but not really all that important. But I can provide them if requested. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it bears mentioning that this would not be the first time that Viriditas has made unsubstantiated claims against me. Back when I first started editing in WP, he accused me of sock-puppetry, when someone else disagreed with his edits in Children of Men. Later, he accused me of meat-puppetry in the same article, nearly ruining a WP newbie's impression of the Project in the process. This is just another one of those times. I am not making excuses for my less than polite addresseing of Viriditas (I was wrong), but I think there is just so much you should have to take from a bully before pushing back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Password requests from an IP address

195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has sent me 4 password requests over the course of an hour, can someone please block this IP address for me?? I reported it at WP:AIV but was told that here was the best place to mention it, so I'm mentioning it here.

If the IP address is blocked it'll probably stem the flow of password requests... --SunStar Net ^talk 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from AIV, once, before you reported second time. Like I said there, I dont see the anon making any on-wiki edits requesting password. Nor were the edits vandalism. How was the request made, then? Email? If so, blocking wont have any effect. You better create a filter in your mail service. --soum ^talk 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the change password requests, unless you enter the password it sends you then your account will remained unchanged. It is just a way that people can bug you. ^(H) 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been getting one or two of these a day for the last few days and I've been studiously ignoring them. I suppose it is just low-level irritation, presumably from some problematic user one has warned or blocked. --John 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten these too and did not know what they were. I think this type of harassment should be considered a reportable offense, with a warning message put on the talk page of the IP address just as one would warn for any other type of vandalism. Is there a set of standard warning tags for this? Buddhipriya 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Physik/User:Dude user page issue

Resolved

Physik wanted to change his name to Dude, so he moved his user page to User:Dude. Obviously, this is not the proper way to rename an account, but he didn't know that and I've directed him to Wikipedia:Changing username where he said he wants a different name. Could an admin move User:Dude back to User:Physik over the redirect and delete User:Dude? Also, he's got some images on there that he probably shouldn't. This may be a good time to discuss that with him. Leebo ^T/C 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I've removed the fair use images from the userpage too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll continue to answer his questions when he has them, but this was a great help. Leebo ^T/C 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like User:Seewolf

Someone seems to hold a grudge against Seewolf (talk · contribs) and Benutzer:Mnh, both admins on the German Wikipedia. I have just blocked Harald "Seewolf" Krichel muss weg! (talk · contribs), but a quick look at the history of Seewolf's userpage shows a lot more vandals:

• Mnh lutscht den Schwanz von Harald Krichel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (translation: Mnh jerks Harald Krichel's cock)
• Mnh stinkt! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Mnh smells!)
• Harald Krichel ist ein Grüsel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald Krichel is a freak!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel stinkt wie ein Jauchefass! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel smells like a manure tank!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel wixt beim Scheissen! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel masturbates while taking a crap!)

In the user creation log, I've found the following accounts:

• Mnh du dreckiger Arsch! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mnh lutscht fremde Schwänze! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harald Krichel hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf steigt mit Mnh in die Badewanne. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The vandal also seems to be active on other Wikipedias: nl:Gebruiker:Mnh lutscht Administratorenschwänze!, nl:Mnh ist ein Arschloch!, nl:Gebruiker:Da hat er recht. Seewolf ist ein Schwein!, it:Utente:Mnh onaniert beim Scheissen!. This doesn't include IP vandals. Please keep an eye out for anyone targetting Seewolf or Mnh, either in username or in edits. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen and other stuff

68.60.137.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making unsourced and POV edits, particularly with the Hayden Christensen article, which s/he has "warned" me not to change. Ironically, I've incorporated some of hir changes into the article, but that's apparently not good enough for them. They have been previously warned and blocked, but continue with the same behavior. If they could please be blocked for whatever the maximum possible length might be (like, at least a week?), that would be lovely. Thanks all. -Ebyabe 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I reported this at WP:AIV, but they referred me here. -Ebyabe 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP a little note about owning an article, and that improvements should be encouraged. Keep us posted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankee! Although I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of warning them, based on the prior pattern of behaviour. I know, I know, assume good faith. We'll see what happens, but sometimes a leopard just doesn't change their stripes. Or something like that. :) -Ebyabe 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

user: LessHeard vanU has assumed bad faith and lied that I have trolled

I am just here to make sure someone keeps an eye out on this administrator and talks to him about assuming bad faith and lying that I have trolled. He told me I was trolling and trying to cause trouble for no reason, so I'm afraid he might block me for no reason like he's done in the past. What he is referring to as trolling is actually about an observation I made about user Danielfolsom. I have actually been more than patient with user Danielfolsom. He told me he was going to get uncivil with me and he didn't care if he broke the rules, and instead of reporting him, I responded very politely towards him and instead complimented him if you look here. [[27]] [[28]] Anyway, I let Daniel get away with that comment without reporting so the user and I should be on good terms.

Anyway, I have taken a look at the Migospia talk page, and there's a very long, drawn-out argument going on between Rockpocket, user: LessHeard vanU and Danielfolsom. I know Rockpocket and Danielfolsom have a tendency to gang up on people, and it really wasn't fair to the editor they're ganging up on. Anyway, I notice Daniel has agreed with Rockpocket about how unkind it is to use the word newbie and berates Migospia about it for the majority of the argument. However, Daniel only used the word a couple days ago without ever being told it was wrong. I point that out to Daniel right here. [[29]] I also do it in a friendly manner as noted by this [[30]]. I was hoping the editor would understand since I didn't report him when I could have a couple days ago.

However, Administrator User: LessHeard vanU calls it trolling, in the 2nd to last paragraph right here [[31]]. I'm only informing the Administrative noticeboards so they can keep an eye out on him. He HAS unfairly banned me in the past, only for 3 hours so I never even knew I'd been banned until it had been over for a great deal of time so I chose not to report the administrator here at the noticeboards. I mean, just by the length of the ban, I think he knew he had no right to ban me at all. He actually banned me only because I said I was going to show the warning he gave me to wikipedia because I felt he wasn't willing to discuss things with me, but only get defensive with warnings.

The point is, I certainly wasn't trolling in this issue where I point out, in a very friendly way, that Daniel has used a word that he is berating another user for directly after Rockpocket has already talked to the user about the word being bad. I have brought the issue here for someone to talk to LessHeard VanU because I wasn't trolling and he may try to impose another unfair ban at some point and abuse his powers again. If you could talk to administrator and let him know that I wasn't trolling and to use good faith, I would very much appreciate that. EverybodyHatesChris 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing people of lies, in bad faith, is trolling. You're arguing over the use of the word "newbie". How dumb is that? Not to mention you're stating " I won't let <administrators name here> abuse their admin powers the way that rockpocket abused his. FOMG admin abuse. You all need to just drop the issue and stop whining about stupid things. [32][33],[34],[35],[36] ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why EHC was there in the first place. But yes it was stupid at first but it sooned turned hateful and hurtful and did not need to happean and Daniel needs to like EHC not be a troll. A troll is someone who comes into a conversation trying to start things for their sick pleasure thats what Daniel did and needs to stop because it was hurtful. That's all I am sayin there was no need it was pointless just a ploy to hurt people--Migospia†♥ 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully Swatjester. You're making incorrect remarks. I AM NOT arguing over the use of the word, "Newbie!" Daniel and administrator Rockpocket are the ones upset at Migospia for using the word newbie. I did not bring up newbie being a bad word. User Rockpocket and Danielfolsom are berating Migospia about it, so I point out that Daniel has used the word as well and Lessheard told me I was trolling. EverybodyHatesChris 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone just AGF for a moment?? --Dark Falls ^talk 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have. It's administrator LessHeard that has not if you read what I wrote. It's most important for the administrators to know the rules because they can ban and block people and do so unfairly. He really does need to be talked to, guys. I can't stress this enough. Someone really needs to step in and make sure he's assuming bad faith and lying about me being a troll like he just has, and then abusing his administrative powers by banning me for telling him I was going to go to the administrative boards because I didn't think I deserved a warning EverybodyHatesChris 03:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin blocking an IP indef

Resolved

86.146.160.218 only made 5 edits to articles, which looking at the contributions didn't even seem to vandalize anyway, and it has been blocked indef by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs) for some reason. Is there any particular reason he did this? because inef blocking an Ip seems unfair. Francisco Tevez 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its fine, he reduced the block duration. Francisco Tevez 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little note: the future, it would be better to discuss things like this with the admin before posting here. Have fun wikiing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive revert warring

Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are currently engaged in a massive revert war concerning external links on a large number of pages. Both users have been warned extensively about their behavior, but continue to persist in it nonetheless. See, for example, the page histories of Hideki Matsui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ichiro Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kevin Youkilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hank Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ross Baumgarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It may be advisable to enforce the portion of the three-revert rule which states that

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

John254 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

• Nishkid64 is now mediating and this seems to be more chill for the moment.--Chaser - T 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the links are "Yankees Suck" I'm fine with it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Red Sox fan, there's a joke in there about Yankees Suck being NPOV.. but I won't go there ;) SirFozzie 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl isn't stopping. On the Wikiproject baseball talk page there was consensus about certain external links which he agreed with...then he turned around and deleted them from article anyway [37]. He is also deleting wholesale information from Kevin Youkilis again. IrishGuy ^talk 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, when I tried to contact him about it on his talk page, he blanked it with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. Another attempt at contact was again blanked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend blocking in this circumstance, it's clear at least one of them simply isn't listening. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has blanked my attempts to communicate three times. He doesn't seem to care what other editors or admins think. IrishGuy ^talk 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl does not respond well to any suggestions that his actions are not the correct ones. I had a recent disagreement with him over my asking him to only tag articles for speedy deletion that actually met the criteria, and he got very haughty indeed. The usual thing to do when an editor fails to respond to requests from multiple others to stop what they are doing is to make them stop what they are doing for a period of time. Neil ╦ 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh you guys have got to be kidding me. First of Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable. I have started blanking my talk page because everyone and their mothers comes by to drop a Warning or threat. I have engaged everyone where possible, including irishguy. I too fell victim to something that Neil did to me and called IrishGuy an idiot. I promptly appologized on his talk page and will be happy to provide a link if need be. That aside, more people like to talk about me than the actual issues. I have read WP:EL many times, I have asked for advice from outside parties, MANY times, and all i get is a bunch of people who cry about the fact that i am BOLD. I am receptive to open discussion and happy to go along with consensus, but I am not going to let a few misguided people "put me in my place". You guys come out of the woodwork to do nothing but complain - JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER!!!! I tagged a number of pages as CSDs because they are not for notable people. Was a discussion started? No, I was called an idiot and a disruptive person because the nominator feared the content would be removed. Might I point out that CSDs allow Admins to review the situation before they act on it. I removed ELs in favor of incorporating content into the articles. Was I engaged for discussion appropriately? No, I was told I was violating every "rule" under the sun. And far from it. People - I'm here and I'm bold. Deal with it. Beyond that, JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT AND MAKE IT GOOD!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We would all love to "stick to the content". However, when your sticking to the content impinges on the work of others, it becomes a problem that needs to be addressed. Also, "Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable" - I would like to you either back this statement up (I don't believe you could) or rescind it. Neil ╦ 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If any blocks are issued (or this is solved in another way), Hideki Matsui should probably be unprotected. I gave it a few weeks of full protection after someone reported a revert war to WP:RFPP. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has little (as in no involvement with baseball articles) and just happened to be watching the project page for other reasons when this went down, and who had had no contact with any of the parties at all before, I'd like to say that other than the revert warring, Tecmo's behavior has been pretty above board, and almost everything else I witnessed has not. I'm very tired of everyone going on and on about Tecmo's behavior when at least on the pages I've been watching there's been almost no content discussion, and often no attempt at content discussion, but a straightforward focus on personal attacks, vendettas and commentary. Even when it's not mean-natured, too many editors seem far too interested in what other editors are doing when and why then in the actual content of the articles and it's a real problem. I've been trying to moderate a few areas of discussion and steer that discussion back towards content and it's been working with too few of the editors. This is being discussed further down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk  23:43, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:209.247.21.121

I received a message in my email that this user attempted to retreive a new password for me. Looking through the contribution history, I see nothing but warnings and vandalism. Would it be appropriate to ask for a block? -N 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me after I blocked 204.108.96.19. The next day I received an email stating that I'd requested a new password from the IP 204.108.97.205. Both are registered to the Los Angeles Unified School District. I don't think it's much to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

Arcayne (talk · contribs), who has been involved in a five-month, protracted conflict with me on Children of Men, has begun following me to other articles in order to disrupt, this time ALF.[38] I politely asked him to stop, [39] at which point he ignored my concerns and responded with a series of personal attacks and incivility on my talk page and other places, consisting of "You have absolutely nothing to say that I find compelling or interesting", and "That I happen to notice that a disambiguation that I happened to visit is being messed up by someone means I will contribute" and "You are a pariah in the Wiki community." [40] [41] [42]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [43] [44], in the process ignoring the consensus on talk and reverting myself, User:JHunterJ, and User:Bkonrad. An ongoing discussion about this topic is also occurring on Talk:Alf (disambiguation). He has now attempted to add nonsensical comments to a closed move request from 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC), in the process voting "strongly oppose" based on nothing more than opposition to me.[45] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[46] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it is ammusing to see double, I would suggest that dispute resolution is that-a-way -->. Viridae^Talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and personal attacks are a dispute? I'm just asking for the behavior to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you, in this case, Viriditas. You've taken unreasonable control over Children of Men, and have prevented other users from adding any material that you personally don't like, whether it meets the standards of the policies or not. Arcayne was a new editor when you first did this to him, and was understandably bewildered by it. As for the other examples you give above, you're telling only half the story, as you know, and I see that Bkonrad has abused his admin tools during the dispute, perhaps because you requested his assistance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while Virtiditas and myself have disagreed mightily on content within the CoM article, that was the only place wherein we really had contact. I believe that the user has made more than enough personal attacks to warrant a stronger AN/I report against him in the past, but it was just myself (other editors wanting nothing to do with him), which wouldn't meet the 2-editor requirement. Reporting him for past 3RR violations has actually gotten both of us blocked for edit-warring in CoM, and has caused me to withdraw from the article significantly (this would not be the first time an editor has withdrawn fromt hat particular article due to Viriditas' behavior) Clearly, I dislike the editor in question, and will make every attempt to ignore the young man in future dealings, but being accused of wiki-stalking is rather serious.

No, I haven't been wiki-stalking Viriditas. I have over a hundred articles on my watchlist, and came across the Alf dispute by happenstance. It wasn't until I was already involved that I learned it was one of Viriditas' edited articles. That's when the accusations of wiki-stalking arose from him repeatedly. Actually, I have noticed a great many other times where I have made a comment in many different areas wherein Viriditas injected himself into the conversation, seemingly out of nowhere. This rather tells me that my contributions are watchlisted by him, which is frankly rather creepy when the editor watchlisted isn't a friend or a like-minded contributor. I could pull up these instances, but I pretty much brushed off the occurrences as bothersome but not really all that important. But I can provide them if requested. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it bears mentioning that this would not be the first time that Viriditas has made unsubstantiated claims against me. Back when I first started editing in WP, he accused me of sock-puppetry, when someone else disagreed with his edits in Children of Men. Later, he accused me of meat-puppetry in the same article, nearly ruining a WP newbie's impression of the Project in the process. This is just another one of those times. I am not making excuses for my less than polite addresseing of Viriditas (I was wrong), but I think there is just so much you should have to take from a bully before pushing back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq (talk · contribs · logs) and Personnal attack

• Would not this deserve reaction : [47] ? Alithien 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Jones articles

Resolved

There are two Jack Jones, British politician and Labour Party MP articles: Jack Jones (politician) and Jack Jones (UK politician).
I'm unable to move the articles and request that they be moved to the existing named pages.
The Jack Jones (politician) article to be moved to John Joseph Jones,
and the Jack Jones (UK politician) article to be moved to John Henry Jones.
Cwb61 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please make sure there's no double redirects left. Neil ╦ 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pages. I've made sure there aren't any double redirects left.

I request the #REDIRECT pages Jack Jones (Rotherham politician), Jack Jones (politician), and Jack Jones (UK politician) to be deleted. With too many #REDIRECT pages with Jack Jones and politician, causes confusion. Cwb61 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the last two to Jack Jones, the disambiguation page. The first one is fine. Neil ╦ 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cwb61 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

I should mention from the start that I do not and have not edited baseball articles, except for gnomish and fairy-type edits. I happened to be watching the WikiProject Basebal page when a "discussion" about WP:ELs got a little out of hand. I should also point to these comments on my talk page that were posted while I was writing this up.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Deletions by Tecmobowl of hundreds of baseball urls w/unique information; failure to discuss; edit warring.

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche and Tecmo had been edit warring for days about ELs. Tecmo had started doing a clean-up of a lot of baseball pages. A large portion of his edits were and are completely straightfoward. Most of the pages had and do have a TON of ELs and in addition to individual ones being totally inappropriate, the list itself was way to long. He removed a lot of:

• open-wikis where no stability decision had been made
• bios that included no unique information (often being used as a crutch to add more to an article that was very short)
• pages with excess advertising
• pages that related indirectly to the subject of the article

The part that seemed to be a sticking point was removing duplicate statistics sites. A lot of baseball articles seem to have four or five statistics sites as ELs. People didn't understand what the problem was with keeping all of them, and even the people who saw the problem couldn't agree on which to get rid of as the content differs slightly between them (some say). That part is a content dispute that the community has to work out.

Rather than a clean-up, the deletions were of urls with unique information. The current substantive discussion has centered on Fangraphs, which contains 69 unique categories of information. It is not clear to me that Miss M appreciates the significance of those statistical categories. It may be that someone with a greater familiarity with baseball statistics might better appreciate how that renders the url unique. There has been no disagreement that any urls that are wholly duplicative in data and functionality are appropriate candidates for deletion. That has not been evidenced, however, in the urls under discussion. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But the behavior needs administrative intervention. I first commented after a few days pointing out that while Tecmo was explaining his edits, no one was commented on content, but going on about who did what to whom. My comments at the wikiproject on both behavior and content can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Comment from Miss Mondegreen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Consensus ignored; More urls deleted by Tecmo.

As to which I responded, in part, "The second focus of the above conversation consisted of discussion by a number of editors as to why they thought the urls should not be deleted. I gather that you missed that. I'm confused as to why. You indicate above that the discussion makes "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the above you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has clearly had some problems. He's gotten in trouble for a 3RR block, and he's been doing more than a little reverting. But if what I've seen extends elsewhere, I understand why. One clear problem he has is that it may take him a day or two to respond. People are commenting anywhere and everywhere they think that they can get attention from the person they want it from and discussion is spread amongst several talk pages, the wikiproject and user talk pages. Just the incessent blanking of his talk page every time Epeefleche warns him has to take up time. If he warned Epeefleche the same way, neither of them would ever do anything.

Actually, Tecmo has a history of making deletions daily. Except when he is blocked for violations. In addition to the two 3RR blocks mentioned in the above paragraphs, Tecmo was blocked on June 10th.[48] That's 3 blocks in the period of June 7-10. And as to the discussion, it has been centralized at [49]. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But, Tecmo has explained his edits and been willing to discuss. For the most part, he hasn't really gotten content related responses back, or he's gotten ones back that are irrelevant or on another planet. When he has gotten content related response back, they tend not to be from the editors personally involved in this ongoing struggle. To often, the dialog trends to personal attacks and commentary. The wikiproject discussion started out as an attack on Tecmo--Epeefleche came there to ask for help dealing with him, and help reverting his edits--he'd run out of reverts. And he got it.

This is untrue on many levels, as [50] demonstrates. He has failed to discuss, and failed to hold off on his deletions during discussion. He has received enormous amounts of thoughtful, analytical, substantive response -- including from 2 admins on the baseball wikiproject, and at least one statistician. Miss M -- who do you suggest track down the deletions that he has made in the past, as to which there is consense that they should not have been deleted? Deletion before discussion had a deleterious effect on Wikipedia in these instances. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo was also attacked for not responding to comments on his talk page, when discussion was already occuring in at least two places. Harsher comments sounded like, "let the bully have his way".

Baseball Bugs then came to my talk page (persumably noticing that Tecmo had been there) and literally spammed me with every thought that came into his head. They weren't real attacks, they weren't real defenses, he was just telling me what he thought and what and what could possibly might be happening that should be checked out. My attempts to get him to focus on content only brought me more comments about personal issues, and my replies to him on talk pages were again answered on my talk page and not the article one.

I also attempted to mediate the issue of one particular link on the Shoeless Joe Jackson page. It took me days of commenting on the talk page mainly to myself to get Baseball Bug's attention, and I'm now spending way too much time attempting to get him to answer straightforward questions (formatted as a straw poll for convience), and I really can't mediate this screwed up party anymore.

Baseball Bugs wants an Rfc on Tecmo--who is possibly the only involved editor who I don't think needs an Rfc at this point. He's at least been explaining his edits and willing to participate in a content related discussion and doesn't fly off the hot seat every five seconds. He also seems willing to listen to other editors comments about both content and his editing habits, which means I'm not as worried about some of his bad habits--he seems much more willing to work towards consensus, and willing to change.

Some editors have advised dispute resolution, and I really don't think that's what's needed here. There are some content issues that need to be solved, sure, but there's not point in discussing those or anything if the editors in question won't focus on content, or the issue at hand. I think administrative intervention is at this point become necessary to even get to the point of dispute resolution. Tecmo has just had a been blocked for 3RR and I think still needs to go more slowly, lest he be blocked again--edit warring and communication via edit summary are NOT the way to go, but I think that Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs might need thwapings: personal attacks, edit warring (getting others to edit war for you), and comments that do nothing but stonewall are not the way to go either.

I might need a thwaping? It would be most appreciated if you would elevate the level of your comments. Thanks. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Be kind, be cool: While my comments sound harsh--I am only posting here as a last resort--this has escalated and escalated and I did not see this stopping. Harsh comments and diff pulling from months and years ago will only escalate the situation further. I'm looking for help cooling the situation not escalating it. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:52, June 10 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for a summary, please. Admins are loath to read long entries. —Kurykh 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure there is a way to summarize, what Miss Mondegreen said pretty much nailed it on the head. I'm happy to have polite and engaged discussions about the content at hand, but I'm also a big fan of WP:BOLD. I have gotten in the habit of blanking my talk page (even of things that are very complimentary) simply because it is so hard to follow all the different conversations and because the aforementioned users simply spam me with bogus warnings and such rather than engage in discussions on the content at the relevant pages. I'm happy to talk further if need be and I will say that I am aware of the 3RR and my violation of it. And happy to expand on that, but can we get away from the "who did what to whom on what date at what time and why" and just get back to the content. //Tecmobowl 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a summary is not necessary; however, it would facilitate a quicker and clearer response if or when needed. —Kurykh 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's actually a summary. The problem is that widespread and out of hand. The very, very, very short version is--there's been a massive edit war between Epeefleche and Tecmobowl ranging across probably 100 baseball articles--maybe more. Tecmobowl started to go through the baseball articles and make them compliant with WP:EL, and Epeefleche started reverting him and once this had hit over a dozen articles and Epeefleche was out of reverts, Epeefleche came to the wikiproject and asked for help (i.e. dealing with Tecmo and reverting the edits he continued to make). He got help--if you count a lot of editors screaming and some helping him revert Tecmo help. Almost all of the discussion on the project and other pages has been personal in nature, a lot bordering on or outright personal attacks.

The content issue is that of the multiple statistics sites. The articles Tecmo has been cleaning have four of five sites that have almost identical statistics for each player. Tecmo is almost always reading WP:EL perfectly--doing absolutely straightforward edits. There are some judgement calls, but it's a ratio of 6:1 probably, maybe more.

Problematic editors I have encountered in terms of personal attacks and unwillingness, or inability to discuss content have been Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs (though I'm watching a fraction of the pages). Tecmo is losing his cool (though I understand why), but I'm less worried about that as he's continually comprimised, returned to talk pages to discuss and answer questions and work towards consensus and his behavior seems malleable. Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and some of the other editors who have been particular vitriolic are worrying me at this point. This has gone on for a while now, doesn't show real signs of slowing or stopping and there's been no real changes in some very problematic behavior (though with Baseball Bugs it may just be a real lack of understanding--it's hard to tell). Miss Mondegreen talk  23:57, June 10 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously complaining about vitriolic comments from others when you said You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up. to me? Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Polite discussion? Three times I tried to contact you about blanking sourced content on your talk page...and three times you blanked it. Once with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. IrishGuy ^talk 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This same issue is also listed above: Massive revert warring. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note to your previous comment in this section, I responded to you several times on your talk page (where I subsequently appologized) and then engaged you in a most friendly manner on the article where you had an issue. This is deplorable people - JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT. //Tecmobowl 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm gonna make this short and then I'm going to only chime in where necessary. This is the history for my talk page and this is yours. I blanked EVERYONES comments for some time and responded to you five minutes after your last post to my talk page. I don't think anyone here would call that unresponsive. You introduced your self to me with a warning, not exactly WP:AFD. As I said on your talk page, I am sorry for the edit summary where I blanketed a number of people as idiots. Rather than skirting the issue and pass it off for what it really was - a reaction to ludicrous behavior - I appologized to you promptly. You continue to harp on that, and I'm sorry. At this point, we can either move on, or you can continue to bring it up. If you want to cite me for violation of WP:NPA, then do it. But I am not unresponsive and I am BOLD. MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER PEOPLE!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I look forward to an admin resolving this information.

Summary. In short, Tecmo has deleted 100s of urls from baseball bios. His initial reason, since disproved: "they are not unique." Other editors differ with him. First, Tecmo refused to discuss this on a talk page before deleting. Now, he discusses, but deletes concurrently. There have been multiple requests that he desist with his deletions, including requests from 2 admins in the Baseball Wiki project. He has ignored them, asserting that to do so would not be bold. We have therefore discussed substance while Tecmo continues to delete. We have obtained input from 9 editors as to 4 of the urls, as a starting point. There is consensus, in my view, as to each url. Tecmo refuses to respect the consensus as to the Fangraphs url, and has not reverted his deletes as to the other urls.

Full Discussion. [51] contains most of the pertinent discussion.

Disappearing Entry. I made an entry on this page 6 days ago, concerning Tecmo's behavior, at Miss M's suggestion. It has somehow diappeared. It was at: 06:30, June 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring). Can someone please explain how it was lost (or deleted)? Similarly, all of my entries, and warnings and bans from admins, have also been deleted by Tecmo from his talk page. I'm not experienced enough to determine how it was deleted, and by whom.

Edit Warring; Initial Failure to Discuss; Deletion of 100s of urls. I initially asked Tecmobowl to not edit war after he removed a Fangraphs url (which I pointed out has unique information) from the Sandy Koufax external links section. Instead, he continued to RV. His only comment was an unsupported one, later proven to be quite untrue, inserted in the edit summary of his changes, that there is nothing unique about the Fangraphs url.

I asked him concurrently to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing. Instead, he again deleted the link.[52] While he failed to talk on a talk page, he instead deleted unique info urls from additional pages I had edited, such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, and Brad Ausmus. Even as I complained about that on the talk page, he made similar inappropriate deletions to 12 more bios. On his talk page I asked him to desist, discuss, and bring in a third party to discuss if necessary. Instead he ignored me, and deleted urls from nearly 10 more baseball players. I made the above-referenced posting on Baseball Wikiproject asking for help, and asked the 2 admins on that project to help. Tecmo then wrote, in his first talk page response: "The burdon (sic) is on you to explain why these sites should be linked to on the pages they are. Until you do so, they are expunged. //Tecmobowl 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" Admin "Nishkid64 then responded: "Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at ... any other baseball statistical website.... Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page." Admin Wizardman then wrote to Tecmo: "I assumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop." Tecmo subsequently, during the substantive discussion, deleted what are now hundreds of such urls. I requested help in someone stopping the deletions. Tecmo deleted more urls. I wrote: "I reiterate my request that Tecmobowl now, during the pendency of this discussion, restore the urls that he deleted from the talk pages."

Fangraphs. I discussed the substance of the Fansgraphs url. Summarized how 7 of the 9 people discussing it found it useful. Tecmo's basis for deleting Fangraphs had been: "it is not unique information." It's been demonstrated, however, that to the contrary the url has loads of unique information. I detailed its 69 unique categories of information, and indicated that it provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections, a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Also, as Sanfranman pointed out, it has unique formating. Tecmo had written himself, as to that observation, "THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING A VALID ARGUMENT....For you, it is how the data is presented...Can we at least all agree that the data is not unique ... The presentation is however." Still, Tecmo maintains now that there was no consensus. And continues to delete the Fangraphs urls.

Next Steps. I would greatly appreciate an admin's help. Tecmo has deleted a large number of urls as to which he lacks consensus for deletion. I would appreciate his: 1) desisting in deleting such urls (or being blocked therefrom); 2) his restoring those urls that he has deleted; and 3) his restoring other urls that he has deleted as to which no consensus for deletion exists -- we can discuss the others on the Baseball project page as well, once this has been addressed.--Epeefleche 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're asking admins to explicitly intervene in and enforce your side in a content dispute. I can't see that happening. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not been here before. What can I ask for? Problem 1 was Tecmo's deletions while failing to discuss. Problem 2 was deletions during discussions. Problem 3 is deletions contrary to consensus, as to 4 urls. Thanks for your guidance.

Also, can you tell me the answer is to this question: "Does one need consensus to engage in large-scale deletions of this sort, or to stop large-scale deletions of this sort?--Epeefleche 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of wanting admins to step in to bring a halt to an edit war. That sounds reasonable. Protect the article, thrash out a consensus through civil discussion, implement it when an accepted outcome develops. Any volunteers to be umpire? --Pete 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tecmo has deleted urls at many dozens of articles. Is there an easier approach than protecting each one? Tx. --Epeefleche 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Look, I don't care about the fangraphs link and that's certainly not why I came here. I came here because I see one editor, who I don't think is behaving particularly well, getting completely railroaded by editors who are behaving badly/abysmally/ not paying attention to the situation.

After days of focusing on the editor, discussion finally did turn to content--editors focussed on one EL. Not even the issue of the statistics links in general, just one of them.

When Tecmo is approached reasonably, he reacts reasonably. I see no reason for him to stop removing ELs (though he shouldn't edit war the way he does). He's supposed to hope that editors stop focusing on personal issues and start focusing on content and this time actually address more than one EL? That's ridiculous. Had the wikiproject comment, or any of the comments aimed at Tecmo said--"don't remove multiple statistics sites yet, give us a chance to agree on which one or ones we think should be used", I think, or hope he would have not deleted them. There would have been good reason to. But that issue wasn't even raised until I raised it, and I got about three responses. That's not helpful.

And then there are all of the other links he removed that people reverted him on, Epeefleche especially but they didn't ask for an explanation on which part of WP:EL said it was a bad link, or when given one say "I disagree that number x applies, look at number y". And yet, these reverts stand. WP:BASEBALL members are violating WP:CONSENSUS (they won't discuss the issues and they're ignoring the consensus that WP:EL has), they're making personal attacks right and left, they're ganging up to revert one person--in fact, Epeefleche can to WP:BASEBALL for help because he was out of reverts and he got it--from admins too because they wanted discussion to take place but no one did anything when one side refused to participate in discussion. Discussion can't happen when one side won't participate--and it's editors on editors and whichever side has more reverts is going to win, regardless of what our guidelines say, and this isn't how editors are supposed to behave.

They've asked for comments from outsiders at various points, but then when they get them, the comments are ignored. I asked content questions and I heard about who did what to whom. I warned people that they were breaking policies and guidelines right and left and was ignored. I post this, and I'm told that I'm wrong, this is really an issue about one statistics EL--even though half of the ELs that are being reverted have nothing to do with statistics. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:21, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets by two Ryans

Hi, recently I started to chime in on AFDs. One of them was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_voice_actors. After I voted delete 1, Ryanasaurus0077 wrote this 2. Later after I replied, his "twin brother" Ryanasaurus007 replied with this comment. 3.

I felt this was suspicious, and I reviewed there contributions, and there very similar to eachother. Is this a violation of WP:MEAT?

Thank You BH (T|C) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Likley WP:SOCK and not meat, but who knows? Luckily for us the rules are the same for both instances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that on the userpage says he is 12 going on 13, yet his birthdate would make him 15, and the fact that he said his twin brother was drunk, and that nobody would name both of their twins Ryan, I am afraid that something isn't right here. --MichaelLinnear 22:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these two users appear to be an example of very poorly thought out sockpuppetry. Perhaps if one was Bryansauraus, and the other Ryansauraus, they could pass off as twins. But two Ryans? They also don't know theyre own ages, and very young to be drunk. BH (T|C) 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that whether they're meat or sockpuppets is irrelevant. I think what's more importnat is that some action be taken against the two accounts. BH (T|C) 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of that AfD, could I ask someone also explain WP:CIVIL to whichever of these Ryans is the master here? He accused me of being racist and even though I calmly explained on Ryanasaurus0077's talk page why I nominated the article for deletion as well as the general community consensus on certain content he was adding, he continued the personal attacks, continuing to call me racist and comparing me to Tokugawa Iemitsu and Hans Gruber on my talk page ([53]) and on the AfD ([54]). Is this kind of name calling really acceptable on Wikipedia? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above as I was threatened because I voted to delete, i believe the threat is in Diff number 2. BH (T|C) 23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on WP:Civil in re User:Ryanasaurus0077, I was accused of this: I responded here. You will note that my marking both pages Francisco Colmenero and Jorge Arvizu with {{references}} was legitimate. His response to the articles was to change "Latin American" to "Mexican"[55] and [56] with the non sequitur comment that changing that was "Here's proof that they exist" (edit summary). Neither article has been given any references. SkierRMH 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial expletive

User:24.17.83.230 has been warned for other articles, though I am having a hard time understanding why they have not been banned for their use of a racial slur in the Wayne Shorter article. I can see no reason why we would give someone a second chance after inserting such extraordinarily disgusting garbage. This user has made it clear from the start that they do not want to be a part of this community. I believe that racial slurs, especially in biographies of living persons, should be a first strike and you are out offense. Thoughts? Relevant discussions to see why this action has not been taken? Thank you. (Mind meal 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

We block people to stop them doing bad things. The problem edits to which you refer happened more than a day ago, with no edits since, so a block would serve no purpose. And don't fall into the false notion that an IP is a person: the two are generally only very loosely related things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If this IP continues his behaviour (within the next few days, so it's reasonable to assume it's the same person), report him at WP:AIV.--Atlan (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks to you both, but if it were up to me that IP would be banned in an instant. Finlay McWalter, I'm unsure why the lack of editing since then makes a block purposeless. If you could explain that to me I would appreciate it. You can count on my reporting this offender the second they add this kind of garbage again. Is there somewhere I can voice my opinion about offenses that I feel deserve instant banning with no warning? I cannot think of a more vulgar edit. (Mind meal 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Your proposed block would stop nothing (because nothing is happening) and has as much (or probably much much more) change of stopping a future legitimate person from editing than the person who made the malicious edits from that address. WP:BLOCK and particularly Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses cover this stuff in detail. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose calling Wayne Shorter a "nigger saxophonist" is just nothing? If other users would become affected by such a ban, they could always create an account like the rest of us and add all they like. How are they prevented from creating an account and contributing (ie. other users possibly using the same IP address)? (Mind meal 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

What Finlay is trying to say, is that an IP address is not bound to a person. It could be part of a DHCP pool of addresses, or maybe it's the IP address of public computer, like in a school. Therefore, the next time someone edits with that IP address, it might be a different person altogether. That means the vandalism has to happen right now, otherwise we can't block it.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP last edited at 05:08, 9 June 2007, nearly 2 days ago. Even if it had been immediately blocked, the block would have expired nearly a day ago. I know you don't want that guy editing again, and neither do I, but preventing that individual person from editing again is impossible - that's just now how the internet works. There is no reason to believe that the IP address is assigned to the same guy. None whatever at all. Nada. Zip. So blocking the address now would be pointless. As I explained to you, twice, above. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I can't see why they were not banned immedietely myself, but that's water under the bridge now. Is there not a way to do an IP lookup to see if this IP address is a school, non-static addresss, et cetera? That's all. It just seems that the edits they had made so clearly rose to the level of a ban, that I had a tough time understanding how anyone could have let those edits pass. Seems common sense to me, but I know how the beauracracy can work. Thanks anyway. (Mind meal 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

IP addresses should never be banned (which is permanent), only blocked for a a lengthy period, for reasons stated above. This IP probably wasn't blocked yesterday because no Administrator noticed the vandalism or was notified of it.--Atlan (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, certain IPs (such as open proxies) can be indefinitely blocked. And IPs can often be softblocked (allowing accounts but not anon edits) indefinitely - a lot of school IPs are blocked in this manner. Neil ╦ 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonic.jpg

The image was deleted but there's still the upload history. Clicking on one of that links returns a 404 error. Please either undelete the image (if deletion reason was wrong) or delete the rest too. --32X 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with {{db-noimage}}. HTH. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem (and the problem persists now that I've re-deleted the image page). It's probably some kind of db screwup, somehow showing revision history regardless. But as this problem is confined to this one image, I suggest we ignore it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an isolated issue. I've seen this multiple times before and didn't think much of it. I can't show you any others, though, since I ignored it too. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've purged the page; now instead of showing a standard image description page, it shows MediaWiki:Noimage. But the file history is still there... could be an item in the job queue, or just an odd quirk. Gracenotes^T § 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it displays the image description page again. Odd, odd. Gracenotes^T § 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just filed this as bugzilla:10213 in the MediaZilla. Jesse Viviano 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

An odd speedy...

Resolved

I just deleted User:Chris Dreyfus and I've got to sign off for the day...Could an admin or two check it out? The page was initially created by Chris Dreyfus (talk · contribs) as a full article, some sort of cut & paste of Alfred Dreyfus with a few changes. It was edited by Islingtonlad (talk · contribs) to seemingly make it applicable to a real-life Chris Dreyfus, apparently Ukportal (talk · contribs), who blanked the page & subsequently asked for the speedy.

I speedied it to be on the safe side with personal info, and I'm bringing it here for more eyes. I've got to go now, so if anyone thinks an RFO is a good idea, please do so. I certianly don't have time to email the user to verify anything right now...is there anything that should be done? Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was there, but based on the information I have it looks like the speedy deletion was a correct decision, and nothing more needs to be done. YechielMan 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back...I appreciate the support, YechielMan. I think all I'll do is message the parties involved of my actions and be done with it. I'll give Ukportal a link to the RFO page. — Scientizzle 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lizziebor

Could an admin or two review the block/unblock/reblock of Lizziebor (talk · contribs)? This newbie may have used a sockpuppet IP and inserted false information into the article Lucille Ball, but I'm not sure if these offenses are enough to merit an indefinite block. The user is rather new, and might not know better; on the other hand, he/she may have bad-faith motives. Any opinions on the matter? Gracenotes^T § 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, giving them a second chance. I rarely support indefinite blocks for first offences. Would be happy fot eh block to be re-instated if she is caught again. However I am hoping that won't happen. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry

In reference to this discussion and this one Baseball Bugs and I have discovered the following:

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [57] [58] [59] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [60]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [61] [62] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [63] as well as just add it himself [64] [65] [66]

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [67]

I am convinced he has been using multiple accounts over a long period of time to add his own links into articles but I would like another set of eyes to look this over. IrishGuy ^talk 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional input I saw some of Tecmobowl's early edits deleting external links. In almost every case where links were deleted, the links were removed without any explanation other than the claim that they were a "link farm". In every case that I saw, the links provided specific relevant information, and in no case were they excessive. In many cases, Tecmobowl eliminated links that provided clearly unique information from hundreds of articles, including clearly-relevant obituaries (see here for one of many such examples of articles where clearly useful links were removed). Efforts were made to encourage all involved parties to reach a common ground. Unfortunately, Tecmobowl persisted in deletion of links, despite repeated requests to respect the status quo while discussions were still underway. Tecmobowl is clearly capable of excellent work (see here for a specific example) when on his own, but seems to have great difficulty understanding that Wikipedia requires building consensus with ALL editors; unfortunately, Wikipedia involves working as a group and respecting the collective consensus built as a group. I had rather clearly warned Tecmobowl about potential/likely WP:3RR violations (see here) which simply went ignored and resulted in a 3RR-related block. It truly disappoints me that someone who can be so productive, can wreak so much chaos in his efforts to impose what he has deemed to be right, despite persistent efforts to try to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus. It is unfortunate that, at this point, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Alansohn 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this edit summary Tecmobowl states: most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh. If they aren't socks, they are most assuredly meatpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson and Tecmobowl is pushing that link waaay too hard for me to have any AGF about it. I removed it and removed a few of the other card-pricing links in other articles. This type of stuff shows up in baseball articles all the time and I've removed it on other occasions. See WP:WPSPAM#Assuming_good_faith for some discussion of the linkspammer profile. 75.62.6.237 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Added: There are edit warring problems on that page from many people).

Actually, Tecmo stopped pushing the link and said that he would let it go because discussion was ongoing and he'd trust talk page consensus. All he has done is revert people who have since removed it, and I have said that I'm comfortable with the site on while discussion is ongoing. IMO, it's an ok EL.

• It's unique
  • the list will never be included in an article as it's too long
  • also, IMO, a gallery is unlikely to be included in the article
• While the website does sell product, it doesn't on that page and it's not overt--it took me a couple clicks to figure out how to get to the selling people were talking about. It's also not the SOLE purpose of the website, or even necessarily the MAIN purpose--the website has a lot of unique content included a lot of documents that they host online in PDF format--in additional to trying to make money (or maybe just pay for hosting), a resource is clearly being provided

Maybe Tecmo has a COI, and maybe his adding it was a spam link but I think that it's a good EL. I also don't want it off of the article while waiting for discussion to go anywhere because most of the editors who care about this link are avoiding the discussion--they'll come to the article to revert three times in a day but not to talk content or answer straw poll questions. I personally think it's a good link, and I think that the editors who don't want the link included also have a COI, though a personal on-wiki. They all have the opportunity to voice their opinions--they haven't. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:06, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Benito

Once again, the user "Benito" (a.k.a. Benito484847, Benitothedon, and Benitoisback) has returned to harass me and vandalise my user page. He's now "OTINEB," which, as he points out on my talk page, is Benito backwards. This is the third time he's flouted the block. Is there anything more permanent that can be done to stop him? --Juansidious 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I'd suggest reverting and ignoring, denying recognition, etc and he'll eventually get tired and decide to go outside or something. If talk-page harassment becomes an ongoing problem, let me know and we could consider temporary semi-protection. You could also consider a request for IP check at WP:RFCU, although I couldn't say for sure whether they'll go through with it. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Manchurian candidate

This user fabricated a vandalism warning on another user's talk page and signed it with my signature (diff), probably in response to a couple warnings I gave him on his talk page (see User_talk:Manchurian_candidate#June_2007). He has been trolling quite a bit in general, but he does seem to also have a number of good faith edits. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's totally inappropriate -- it's not acceptable to fabricate warnings like that. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the template might do that, but I don't think that's the case here. --Haemo 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear that he purposefully fabricated the warning. What's worse, the the warned user was actually blocked after the warning (and then unblocked, thankfully), and he actually believed that I made the warning and left a notice on my talk page asking why I had warned him so severely. Does this warrant a block, considering his past malicious activity? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Drennleberrn

This looks like an ED attack by User:Drennleberrn. Per arbcom ruling, I believe this warrants a block? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could see a block for personal attacks, disruption, trolling or harassment, but what does an arbitration ruling have to do with that? Anyhow an administrator has already warned him for it. --MichaelLinnear 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Drennleberrn hasn't been involved in a case. Warning is enough.--Chaser - T 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling referenced is, I believe, a statement that links to attack sites should be removed. Whether this constitutes a "ruling" is a question I'm not going to answer. Natalie 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point; Drennleberrn is now indef blocked. Given the trolling history of this account I'd have to say that was a good block.--Isotope23 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) blocked and unblocked re: Chiropractic - review requested

This has been a rather strange issue, but earlier tonight I addressed a report on WP:AN3 that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) violated 3RR on Chiropractic by reverting the removal of a sentence by other users who were working on the article at the time. There is a discussion on the talk page about it, and the 3RR report can be found here. I blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours for what I believed was a 3RR violation, but after looking at this diff, I'm not so sure I should have. Steth reverted an attempt to compromise on the issue shortly before I blocked QuackGuru, and he has been warned for edit warring on a related article. Steth appears to have a conflict of interest on the issue and pushing a pro-traditional chiropractic POV on various articles. Given these developments, I've unblocked QuackGuru. I need to know if this was the right decision, and whether it was or not, what should be done about this. --Coredesat 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring and WP:3RR makes very few exceptions. I can't see what the status of the other party (unless the sock of a banned user) would make. --pgk 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Steth has now continued the edit war against AvB, which might help clarify who is the real problem. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Should I have blocked them both? --Coredesat 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs) II ban evasion

ORIGINAL POST EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [68] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [69] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [70] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [71] ,[72]. He has been warned numerous times [73], [74], [75] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [76] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order. New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [77] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [78] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [79] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [80] refering to other users as idiots [81] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [82] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [83] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [84].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [85] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [86] [87] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

END OF ORIGINAL POST

new incident following original ban for ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban.

utilizing more IP's to evade original ban 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . original ban on account EdwinCasadoBaez hasn't been extended. YoSoyGuapo 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  ; 24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Original postUses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary 24.190.180.244[88] which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question [89] and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications [90] and when he gave a fairwell speech [91]

Warnings for 3rr violations [92], Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" [93] [94] His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda" [95]
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing credibility...you wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my country...so i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home..[96] "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [97]
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks [98] with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. [99] Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR.."[100]. Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking [101] [102]. Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. [103] Non- NPOV opinions, [104] Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " [105] Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material [106] , rationale behind support of a president [107].
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user [108] As well as removal of warnings on talk page. [109] YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

end of original post There is no campaign against this particular editor. There was a huge sockpuppet issue on article dominican republic which was reported on AN/I [110] as well as the use of multiple accounts. One sockpuppet case was proven to be inconclusive, [111] but another was found to be confirmed [112] Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . The talk pages were frequently vandalized with personal attacks even after the page was protected.

User:Avfnx leaves many vandalistic commentary in addition to those mentioned above with reason for edits to include [113]

12:11, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)
11:41, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (USA won it independents in July 4, 1776 should we put that in here too, haiti facts on Haiti page)
01:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Juan Pablo Duarte (let the editing war start..wohooo)
16:40, 20 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Dominican Republic (Trinitario weren't racist, stop this propaganda against Dominican...I know there a anti-Dominican movement going on but don't mean we going take this laying down.) . These types of behavior are in violation of WP:Civility as well as vandalistic and the utilization of trolls. YoSoyGuapo 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User using copyrighted images for userspace

User has been U/L copyrighted images in order to use for his/her userspace. He also modified a logo from an EA Sports Sims Game, but I talked to Becca and she deleted the image, but the person re-uploaded a blank image which is not used in any userspace. This is clearly in violation of WP:USER. Also, could someone delete the copyrighted images on his userpage located via...starting here because 1.) they are blank images 2.) they aren't being used in mainspace or userspace. Thank you. Miranda 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussions:

• Deleting images, revert, hiding, revert.
• Image talk
• Logo of my site
• Deletion of Images discussion on my talk

If there are any unfree images on the user page, then they should obviously be deleted. However, I want bring up Image:S2R.jpg. Context about this image may be found at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Logo_of_my_site, where Blacksmith asks about the image, which was created by some person on a forum by combining non-free logo with some new lettering above the image. I told blacksmith that if he deletes the logo part of the image, then the remainder is just three letters, which are ineligible for copyright in the US. Blacksmith did so with my advice, and so I don't want him to be sullied on that point. Also, I want to say that I am still confident that my advice is good, and proposed a way to discuss this on the thread in the media copyright questions page. nadav (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

may i be allowed to keep the blank images for a couple of days, i,e, 24-48 hours, just so i can make new ones, if not, dont delete the links from the page, just hiddebn like they are now, so i can upload new images.Ω§|Blacksmith2 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are non-free, then make sure that they add significantly to the articles and to add a fair-use rationale and an appropriate copyright tag. I can help you out with that, but be careful not to upload them just for the sake of your user page. nadav (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how about free images for the use of my userpaghe?Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media should not exist within the userspace whatsoever. Although, as far as I know by current policy, one can link to the images by doing something along the lines of Image:Example.jpg as such not to have the image on your page. If you created them, then they should be free. If the images are used no where but your user page, and they are non-free, then they will be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, edit the images accordingly, see you all tomorrow,what time is it again? Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, I am concerned about the copyright status of Image:Bustamove.jpg, a screenshot taken from the game The Sims 2. Blacksmith2 believes the copyright on the image belongs to him, because he composed the picture in some significant way[114] Anyone want to take a gander? nadav (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing the question, if a game includes a map editor, and I create my own map and take a screenshot of it, whats its status? Further generalizing, if an image editing software includes textures (or primitive objects) and I create a scene composed of the objects and textures, what would be the copyright status?

If this discussion goes on for long, I think this should be moved from AN/I to AN. --soum ^talk 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well IANAL, but creating new creative works using game graphics and such may entitle you to a copyright on your creative input, however it's not exclusive. The image is still made up entierly of material copyrighted by the game developers, and just because you use it in a creative way does not invalidate theyr copyright. As such you won't have the power to release the image under a free license on your own. If you create new maps and models for a game those will be copyrighted by you, but again taking a in-game screenshot of them in action will most likely include textures and other models not copyrighted by you, making the screenshot itself a derived work even if the map itself is entierly your work. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's copyright by both the game company and you if you create a creative work using game content, I suspect, which would mean that both you and the company would need to release the content under the same or compatible free licences for the image to be free use. There are some situations in which this happens (for instance, {{Second Life screenshot}}), but it isn't going to happen by default. --ais523 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works of game producers. There is nothing further to discuss here, it is a clear cut case. -- Cat ^chi? 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eyeballs requested on Glenn Greenwald

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been adding poorly sourced and probably libellous claims to Glenn Greenwald (see e.g. [115]) and related articles, including Sockpuppet (Internet), How Would a Patriot Act? and Michael Barone (pundit). (See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn Greenwald.) I've indefinitely blocked the user for repeatedly ignoring BLP warnings, evading blocks by using numerous open proxies and repeatedly posting personal attacks against a number of editors - this has been going on since the end of April. However, the user now claims to be working with others on an external forum to coordinate further attacks on Wikipedia articles (diff). It would be helpful if editors could watchlist Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act?, Michael Barone (pundit) and Sockpuppet (Internet) for a while. -- ChrisO 09:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted! --Haemo 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Ryulong (who never seems to sleep!) - usual Rms sock stuff, NYC IP address, etc - Alison ☺ 10:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

216.194.0.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com, currently stalking and reverting my edits, including reverting back to this egregious BLP violation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Libertycookies

Longtime disruptive editor. Pushing own extreme agenda. Refuses to abide by Wikipedia rules despite repeated explanations. See User talk:Serendipodous, User talk: Libertycookies, Talk:J. K. Rowling#Politics again. Serendipodous 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a content dispute - what in particular is the problem? --Fredrick day 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also an arb case of interest here - Alison ☺ 11:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a case of content dispute, and misuse of deletion of content rather than calls for citation and 'request for comment'. Serendipodous has been a long time editor of the J.K. Rowling entry and seems to be overly possessive of the article. I probably have not responded with kindness to what I see as censorship rather than a productive editing process, but I am not adding material to harrass Seren, I believe the content to be relevent, verifiable (if tagged with a request), and worthy of inclusion. Seren has abbreviated the wiki-mediation process by selecting friends rather than posting a call for impartial comments. I see no reason to block him for his wanton deletes, but he feels a need to drag me into this forum. Libertycookies 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to be personal, Liberty has added very little of any value - the vast majority has been complete original research which Liberty attempts to support with a plethora of unrelated citations and lots of inference. Liberty may not have posted content to harass Serendipodous but has certainly made plenty of ad hominem attacks against Serendipodous in various talk pages. Liberty cookies has been warned by several editors and admins on numerous occasions about posting unsupported content but continues to flout the rules. To put it simply, Liberty is an extremely disruptive user who is pushing a personal agenda with no real benefit to the wikiproject or to wikipedia as a whole. Further, Liberty is draining excessive amounts of editor resources in policing these edits and is seriously jeopardizing the featured article process for Harry Potter. AulaTPN 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · logs)

Resolved

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reason – Single purpose account to promote a non-notable group/object – This user had created an article – 10 dollar e-reader, which obviously was spam and fits under WP:CSD#A7 criterion. The problem which I see with the block is that Wikiboxatgmail was not warned even once before the block. His article was deleted and he was blocked *poof!*. Wikiboxatgmail, who is a newbie user, has over an email, informed me that he had created an account Dejabox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was also blocked, although I am not sure about the reasons, as it had been created on 4th June, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. He had previously created another account which has a fair amount of productive edits – Bomardv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My contention is that, as this user was blocked without any prior notice or warning, his block should be undone and policies explained on his talk page, so as to assist him to become a valuable user. In any case, should he start re-creating the deleted article again, he can be blocked. Relevant discussions – [116], [117]. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to be on for a few more minutes, so I will state my own case before this whole thing gets blown out of proportion.

Wikiboxatgmail was blocked for the very reasons stated in my block message. He was here to write a page on a proposed project that he is working on and involved with, and then use it to link back to his own home page, which is currently linked on my user talk as well as Nick's. The only reason that his account was created was to promote his object and not contribute to the encyclopedia in any other fashion. While there was no knowledge of the other account (the one from December/January) and that one was used properly, the Wikiboxatgmail one had not been. He, was as I saw it, spamming, and when he posted to this board to try and keep the article on his personal project that he has linked from his personal webpage, I saw the spamming even more, and blocked, and deleted the article, a redirect he made for the article, as well as a disambiguation page that was essentially a soft redirect to the article, and the images off of his website that were for the article.

When he responded to the block message with, "It has become obvious that you misuse your rights as an administrator to compensate and promote yourself I will recreate the article and come back and talk to you" I contacted a checkuser via e-mail to see if he had any other accounts, and Dejabox was uncovered. I didn't want to have another MyWikiBiz on our hands, so I blocked the Dejabox account, as well. If the "second chance" he is given is accepted, I will not interfere with his actions, but if I do see the article again, and he's the source, I will block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators and established users alike are supposed to leave appropriate notifications and warning messages before blocking or reporting for blocks. This user was not even warned once. And in the end, you fished and got another one of his account, which neither has any edits nor is liable for abusive sockpuppetry. I think his statement on the alleged abuse of your tools cannot be said to be entirely inappropriate, since you chose to block him without talking. What else would you expect from a newbie user? On what basis are you making the Wikibiz connection? I ask for another administrator to look over the situation and unblock as soon as possible. The block can be restored if Wikiboxatgmail is genuinely disruptive, but from what I saw on the talk page of the article deleted, he was trying to engage into discussions with another user. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but from the prior messages left on his talk page, he was told to go about things other ways, and then came here (or WP:AN, check his contribs) to try and get his way and retain the article. If you want to unblock him, fine. I'm getting tired of being scrutinized for these kind of blocks where I use my discretion on newish accounts that act somewhat disruptively.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I will leave him a note on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Ryulong's actions here. While maybe 1 in 100 spammers and trolls might be reformed into a useful editor, it is not worth treating the other 99 with kid gloves to get the 1. I don't believe for a second that Wikiboxatgmail didn't come here specifically to abuse the system, and should thus be blocked on site. --Spike Wilbury 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Matter resolved. Rambutan has been blocked for disruption. Unblock request has been denied. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Utopia (Doctor Who)

Two users, Rambutan (talk · contribs) and Sceptre (talk · contribs) insist on adding an image to the article which fails three of the WP:NFCC (#4, #8, #10). When challenged about it, they first claimed (falsely) that there was consensus support for it (notwithstanding that "consensus support" does not override policy. Not being content with this, the two users proceeded to revert in concert. Rambutan (talk · contribs) then proceeded to try and gain the upper hand by requesting semi-protection. When picked up on this, then decided to brand me a vandal (again and again). When none of these tactics worked, they gave up and reported it to AIV instead.

As of right now, the image remains in the article, despite its failure of the NFCC. 81.104.175.145 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted, redlink removed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, Mr 81.104, you did the correct thing by bringing it here. Reporting you to AIV was appalling. Neil ╦ 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both for your opinions, and to Sir Nick for seeing sense. This comment only here because Nick's talk page is SP'd. 81.104.175.145 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that. I have had troll problems. Why don't you create an account and edit? I must also apologise for the unkind treatment you have received. Keep up the good work! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Utopia talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan - I've asked you a number of times now; you need to drop this and move on with editing. You've already filed one rejected WP:RFPP request (where I got involved) and one vexatious AIV request, as well as blanking good faith comments from the anon editor above as well as my own. - Alison ☺ 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not breaking a policy by responding to a thread about my actions, which was described by Sir Nick with no Head as "ongoing".--Rambutan (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the talkpage, and I see a person, Rambutan (talk · contribs), publicly shaming himself for reasons beyond my ken. Was this meant to be a defence of your actions? It didn't work. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that you look there because it contained five users' explanations as to how the image wasn't a copyvio. I'm not shaming myself, I'm responding to unwarranted and unnecessary and unconstructive and hostile criticism.--Rambutan (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan - please. It's over. Your behaviour has been far from exemplary here & right now, you're just compounding it on ANI. Back to editing now? - Alison ☺ 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear Rambutan has no intention of doing so. 81.104.175.145 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

She did see that, and I'm in the clear, I'm not breaking a policy.--Rambutan (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If I'm being insulted and criticised, I'm allowed to defend myself. Go and read the law (of the land, as well as WikiPolicy).--Rambutan (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... "lulz"? Matthew 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since that means absolutely nothing to me, I'll ignore it.--Rambutan (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read this then; WP:POINT - Alison ☺ 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about that, but I'm replying to criticism. If people stopped criticising me, I'd have nothing to respond to, would I?--Rambutan (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - this has gone on too long. Rambutan is repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, has filed vexatious reports to ANI, made requests to WP:RPP to block out another editor from a content dispute and is still going on and on and on about it. I'm blocking him for 12 hours to allow him time to cool down and reflect on his actions here - Alison ☺ 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone review this guy's block, please, as he's requested {{unblock}}. I've already started to receive emails from him - Alison ☺ 13:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good move, I tried to deny the unblock request but was beaten to it. ^(H) 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed and denied. I would like to propose that we mark this as resolved; the image was clearly in violation of policy and the disruptive party has been blocked. Moving on, now... -- Merope 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm very annoyed that I wasn't told of this thread at all, and that it was archived and resolvedwithout anyone telling me. I think it's rude that I should be called disruptive, and I don't think Rambutan should've been blocked at all. As Rambutan did say, several users did agree that it fell under NFCC (#4: yes, it was in the trailer. #8, yes, it did discuss Derek Jacobi in the trailer. I'll concede on #10, but as I said on the talk, I'd be able to add a rationale as soon as I could.) I don't know why we're getting called disruptive when we are following consensus. Will ^(talk) 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you've decided to take your campaign on to the Derek Jacobi article, where I have removed another image which equally does not meet criteria #4 and #8. Leave it. 81.104.175.145 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image - I suggest both parties make their case on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 15:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the case for failure to meet NFCC has been made (at great length). 81.104.175.145 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan was not blocked for disagreeing, it was the manner in which he disagreed. ^(H) 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor was Will ever called "disruptive" I'm not sure where this "we" is coming from - Alison ☺ 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-jkb-'s repeated revealing of my personal data

Since 23 December 2003 I used to have another account (V. Z.), but I dropped it, because -jkb- used it as a pretext for wikistalking and harassing me.

I have to choose another account (Zacheus). But -jkb- had spied it and since that time he use it for repeated revealing my real name (last time here, although he was warned not to that: "First, there is no reason you need to continually bring up V. Z.'s former name. All his edits are reattributed to User:V. Z., and the harassment policy specifically mentions not bringing up user's real names after a name change. You may certainly point out that User:V. Z. now uses the account User:Zacheus, and you may have a case to make that V. Z./Zacheus are disruptive and harassing you. But please do it without using his real name." by Thatcher131

That's why I seek his ban to edit the Wikipedia. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that -jkb- called me a vandal ("the deletion supported some more vandals who were forcing the deletion here and also in other wikipedias; two of them, User:Zacheus and the user editing like 71.99.xxxxx"), which is the personal attack. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it will be an arbcom case but with him accusing you of the same. If they accept the case, that will be the best place to thrash this out. --Fredrick day 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See please Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Personal attacks / publishing of personal data by user Zacheus etc., thx, -jkb- 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well, see also the answer on User talk:Jimbo Wales#my statement to a deletion fyi, :-), -jkb- 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty bold of jkb to file an arbitration case against VZ for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing today. I have half a mind to ban them both. Thatcher131 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what did I do bad? Have I repeatedly breached -jkb-'s privacy? Obviously, I did not. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only "Cool Cat" accounts

• Tom cat is cool (talk · contribs)
• CoolCatzzzz (talk · contribs)

I do not know, I just noticed a similar repeating pattern for some time. It seems like a bunch of high school kids with too much time in their hands. I thought it would only be right for me to bring this to community attention. -- Cat ^chi? 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I indef-blocked CoolCatzzzz as a pretty clear vandalism-only account. The other one has only one contrib I can find, to a now-deleted article. I agree with your assessment but would be inclined to give the Tom cat account one more chance. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh there had been a ton of "cool cat" accounts in the past not listed here. -- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)