Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Violation of the LPB rule Anderson Cooper[edit]

On November 5 2006 we requested the elimination of the sexual orientation item about Mr. Anderson Cooper's entry. We were partially pleased with the results, but the item has surfaced again, we ask that the rule will be applied as soon as possible and in full and final compliance. Including the deletion of the discussions of the topic. Thank you.

Reference: 7:56, 5 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Unsourced, poorly sourced controversial (highly questionable) material about Living Person Biography)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldnewsjunkie (talkcontribs)

Hi. The section in question (Anderson Cooper#Personal life) has been edited down to ensure that only a referenced direct comment from Mr. Cooper about his sexuality remains, which he made to the New York Metro. This is in line with our requirements on biographies of living people. At this time, I do not feel that neutral, scholarly discussion of the topic on the article's talk page needs to be removed. Proto:: 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Request review of pagemove[edit]

Hi. I've been closing WP:RM requests lately, and I just closed a somewhat controversial one. You can see it at Talk:Ushak carpet. It's a case where I closed it against the numbers, because, IMO, those supporting the move based their arguments on WP:COMMONNAME, while those opposing the move basically disagreed with WP:COMMONNAME. (That's a guideline, not policy, but there's a one-sentence version of it at the policy: WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things.)

Because I closed against the numbers, which is often controversial, and because I have received feedback on my talk page questioning the move, I request a review of my actions by other administrators, and the community at large. Thanks in advance for any comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You were absolutely right in closing as you did. Proto:: 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, good call. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help properly reverting an article.[edit]

I need the help of someone more experienced than myself. For the last few days, there has been a minor edit war going on at Sealand. Indolences has been ignoring the discussion on the talk page and making sweeping deletes of properly sourced material. The problem now is that there have been several minor edits since his last deletion, and I am not competent to reverse it without just doing a cut-and-paste job on the text, which won't save the history. I invite whoever would help to read the Talk page for Sealand to verify what I claim before deciding if what I ask is proper, or perhaps if someone could direct me to the correct method for dealing with this. NipokNek 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This was probably the wrong place to put this. My apologies. NipokNek 11:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD ...[edit]

... is massive, again. Help if you can! Proto:: 11:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm hopping in. -- Steel 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks, USER:Charles8854[edit]

Long term pattern of inappropriate behavior, personal attacks, and bullying.

This guy needs to be stopped -- there is absolutely no evidence that he will do anything other than continue his bullying, rantings, and attacks. /Blaxthos 07:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although he certainly has a right to his opinions, his description of David Dukes's actions at the recent Tehran Holocaust denial circus as a "noble effort" is disturbing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't wish to censure anyone's opinions, however i respectfully submit that his behavior writ large is disturbing. From name calling to attempts personal confrontation, this is exactly what will push people away from contributing to Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour (especially unchecked) hurts us all. /Blaxthos 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Update and Immediate Block Requested[edit]

After being contacted by an uninvolved third party regarding his prior conduct regarding personal confrontations and/or legal action, USER:Charles8854 has continued attacking anyone who questions his behavior.

This has gone on long enough -- it is apparent that Charles8854 is not going to listen to any reason from anyone, and the administrators now need to intervene. /Blaxthos 02:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read through everything here yet, but about 5 minutes of reading has me pretty convinced that USER:Charles8854 has not yet seen (or perhaps is choosing to ignore) WP:NOT a soapbox.--Isotope23 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but his wonton disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in the face of multiple uninvolved editors offering counsel is habitual and intentional. There is no way that his repeated violation of two pillars can be taken as good faith. /Blaxthos 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I took onto myself to block him. I have blocked for far less than that.Circeus 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A wonton disregard may mean he prefers egg drop soup, though hot-and-sour seems likelier at the moment. -- Ben 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945[edit]

The endless case of a small group of POV-fighters denying international law. The article itself defines occupation, Western sources like Britannica and Encarta call the Soviet acts occupation, the neutral observers agreed the title is neutral, the whole talk page is full of sources testifying so... Nevertheless, Grafikm fr keeps adding POV-title tags, joined by Petri Krohn. The former has written lots of text on talk page, without any sources that might hint that denying the occupation could be an acceptable view. The latter has even refused to comment his reverts, which suggest Soviet POV could be more neutral than Britannica.

Policies: WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, WP:NPOV (Western mainstream POV in that case), WP:Citing Sources, (only those who affirm there was occupation have cited sources), improper adding of tags (such a longterm disput can't be based on personal opinions). Constanz - Talk 11:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Now Petri Krohn has also commented his reverts on talk page, claiming that the the article containing words Soviet occupation is tantamount to Holocaust denial [1]. I take this as a personal offense, and will report as such if necessary. Constanz - Talk 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
User Petri Krohn has participated also in the Continuation War — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:PN.P. p (talkcontribs) 02:42, 16 January 2007
Now, the second RfC regarding the article has been answered. Let's see, if this will calm down the Soviet POV promoters, so that no administrative measures are needed. Constanz - Talk 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat by User:Peterwats[edit]

Peterwats (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (already under an indefinite block) has just issued a death threat against Will Beback. Reported here in case anyone needs to contact the police. (Peter Watson has previously posted his home address to various web pages, so it should be easy to track him down.) —Psychonaut 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we need to recognise the difference between "Death to foo!" and a credible threat of harm. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly. However, it's arguable that conspicuously posting such a statement about a particular person in a public place is attempting to incite murder. I'm not familiar enough with Australian case law to know whether this is the accepted legal interpretation, so I thought I'd err on the side of caution and post a notice here. —Psychonaut 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who cares? You people always make a big deal about nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irgala (talkcontribs)

How closely do we enforce WP:EL on talk pages?[edit]

Over at Talk:Treasure map#Nature of article, there is some debate over whether an external link is acceptable under WP:EL. I'd welcome additional opinions.

Atlant 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages have "nofollow" by default so links are fine there. But my "destroy all links" badge is getting rusty, so others may disagree. - brenneman 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like the user simply picked a link to show one can buy treasure maps. Unless he's posted it lots of times, or has made no other comntributions, I would assume good faith and allow it, rather than making a big issue. Proto:: 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo impersonation. No contribs, needs blocking.[edit]

Just looking through the new users on Recent Changes, and I came across this one. Crimsone 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 6) page[edit]

Please lock the season 6 page so that severe spoilers are not posted until AFTER the official broadcasts (in the US, or the week-later broadcast in the UK, i don't care which). There was an illegal posting of the first 4 episodes, and Wikipedia is being used to disseminate critical plot information. Thank you. Kermitmorningstar 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:RFPP, but I'll protect it anyway. Cbrown1023 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored to spoiling the plot of works of fiction. However, reading the article's talk page the issue appears to be that people are submitting original research that is based upon their firsthand viewing pirated copies of the television episodes, violating both the copyright of the publishers of the television show and one of our core policies at the same time. Uncle G 01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Right... I've been lurking this whole issue (including apparent sockpuppeting and stalking of admins related to this using open proxy IPs) for a couple of days now and the real issue is not spoilers; it is WP:OR, copyright violation, and the inability of a few people to understand that that this information isn't an acceptable addition to this article.--Isotope23 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct of User:BobWilson[edit]

Please see this. Apparently User:Jaybregman left him a message requesting that he stop antics on Ecourier, and he responded with that message on jay's userpage. Also there is a note on User_talk:Jaybregman where someone is accusing him of a personal attack. Could a sysop look into this, please? Geo. 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been referred to posting here by an advocate who I went to for some troubles with user User:Bob Wilson.

First, this user flagrantly defaced the ECourier page (the deletion is an issue being dealt with separately and not relevant here). I wrote a message on his talk page outlining the edits (e.g. replacing the corporate link with a link to Micky Mouse, changing Release 1.0 to "Release the balls" etc. Now, some time later, I have received the following threatening personal attack:

Well, looks like I won after all, you self promoting loser.

You had the nerve to send me a patronising message, who the hell do you think you are?

A moral victory for the Wilson.

I am asking for admin help to address his conduct and prevent further attacks / defacement. Thank you.Jaybregman 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This user was blocked two days ago. Just to throw my two cents in, you're making quite a big deal for an account with one (1) edit that took place over one month ago.bbatsell ¿? 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this. But I respecfully disagree with your comment. First, although the edit may have happened at that time, I've been on holiday and have only just seen it. Second, I think any personal attack is serious, isn't it? I realise more experienced users or admins may encounter these issues all the time, but for those who don't it's quite shocking to see ad hominem attacks on their talk page. It doesn't exactly make you want to spend more time with this community. I am thankful you were able to deal with this so quickly and efficiently and that there are procedures in place to do so.Jaybregman 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, as one gains experience one will be the recipient of a larger number of personal attacks. However, before you pass judgement on whether you want to "spend more time with this community", please stop to think of who "this community" actually is. An editor who has exactly 1 edit (of that form) to their account isn't a member of this community. The community comprises the people who are here (at Wikipedia, that is) editing, week after week, year after year. It does not comprise people who simply pass by and make 1 abusive edit. If anything, such people are external to the community. Uncle G 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to WP:PAIN being deaded (I declare that a word)...[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized once, signed an article once, and now appears to be attempting to flame me. This is the only place this makes sense that I can see. Please do something. -Amarkov blahedits 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked[2]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Response time is down to -1 minutes! -Amarkov blahedits 04:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you are pleased :). Yuser31415 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to report this edit, and some of the earlier edit summaries, here? --NE2 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit summary personal; {{Edit summary personal}}. Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please move List of bus routes in The Bronx back to List of bus routes in the Bronx? I'm not sure where I stand with respect to 3RR; the Bronx makes it very clear which one is correct, but BWCNY is ignoring me. --NE2 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're a good fifty years too late to coin deaded as a word, The Goon Show used it all the time. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • More than 50: deaded Uncle G 17:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/Y2james - Reading through his changes here should make it clear:


  • "The Jihad is for poopie pants"
  • "Jihad as warfare is gay"

When I left a message asking for him to politely stop, I got this added to User:Petercorless:

  • "He contributed be very gay and he is the one that got A.I.D.S started (faggot)"

--Petercorless 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now, but his edits were completely inappropriate and I left a "blatant vandalism" final warning on his talkpage. If he vandalizes again, report him to WP:AIV for appropriate action, unless an admin has blocked him first. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pie vandal[edit]

I was referred here to report information re: the pie vandal, so I assume this is what I'm supposed to do. Basically, a user is editing primarily music-related articles and vandalising them, usually using the edit summary "pie." His edits typically involve inserting the name Michael Alfred Montalbano, or some variant, into the text. These three IPs have been used for this purpose in the article Torn (Ednaswap song) and have also edited other articles in a similar manner: (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs). I'm not sure exactly what's to be done about it, if anything. Thank you for considering this information. - GassyGuy 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Warned by Test4 (see User talk:VinceB/Blabla1) and several times blocked. He has now changed a citation from an academic journal (replacing "nationalist" by a weaker description, not mentioned in the cited article).[3] This kind of vandalism is especially threatening to WP:CITE. User:Wknight94 suggested I post it here. Tankred 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets means, that I was not logged in (aka IP). Not fake users. You were warned several times also to WP:CIV, wich you usually simply deleted. It should be checked too, since it is a vandalism, and pa, and/or disruptive editing. Not to mention that you failed on Cite in Fidesz article, wich I always take care of, so yr second sentence is a LOL. I didn't knew, it is vandalism, but I'll report them from now on as vandalism. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal order to blank[edit]

I just blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for replacing with the following text:

Deleted due a legal action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case number 98-2017 JW') Any additions added will result in a ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT. For verification the case is currently before the Honorable James Ware, United States District Court Judge. Telephone number to his clerk is: <snipped>. A court subpoena has been issued for a current list of anyone who has added information here in violation of the court orders.

It's a legal threat, with page blanking. Still, it seems sort of serious (hence why I'm posting it here). He posted on User talk:AzaToth with the following message: Regarding the following message has been approved by the United States District Court. If you have questions, call the court. Any further attempt to change the web page will result in an order to show cause re: contempt.

What do you think guys? Legitimate legal concern or ridiculous prank? alphachimp 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Prank - unless they plan to stop newspapers talking about the site. --Larry laptop 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If a court really decided that, you'd think, if it's a legit court, they would call Jimbo's office. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and they probably would not use an IP registered in Mexico. (N Californa court, not S). Prodego talk 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) Precisely. Some court staff could be naive...hence the concern. Coincidentally, I sincerely doubt that any US Court would be editing from Mexico City :). alphachimp 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There has indeed been extensive litigation over the domain name before Judge Ware, as is discussed in the article itself. However, the claim that the court would enter an order barring any information being posted to an independent website is frivolous, and the claim that it would be contempt of court for a non-party to the proceeding to violate an order as to which it lacked notice and an opportunity to heard is inconsistent with governing precedent. To me, it looks like the goal of the poster may have been to harass the Court with a deluge of phone calls to the number provided, and I suggest that the edit be deleted. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. I'm not as sure about deleting the revisions (are clerk #s typically private?). I'd think they'd show up in court documents. alphachimp 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That phone number is the main number for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. It's not a private number, but I'm sure the court staff have better things to do than answer random questions about whether users can post to the Wikipedia article on or not. I suppose deleting the edit isn't that big a deal if it's it's just a one-off. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the revisions. No point in allowing anyone to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for harassment. alphachimp 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick peek at the current calendar for Judge James Ware of the USDCNDC. There is no case "98-2017 JW" listed on it. Note that (a) that is not a complete case number (compare it with the real case number for Kremen v. Cohen and the ones on the calendar), and (b) the "98" indicates that it would be a case from 1998. The telephone numbers for Judge Ware's docket clerks (civil and criminal) are published on the court's own web site, by the way. But they certainly don't belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Judge Ware is responsible for a case concerning ownership of the domain name, as is revealed by a quick Google search. The case number given is wrong and relates to a completely unrelated case. I don't think there's a need for any further action on this unless the purported "notice" is repeated. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A real law firm will send a registered letter, not make a posting on a wiki. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume that any real court-order would be enacted by WP:OFFICE and not some anon editor. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be safe, call His Honor's docket clerk. Geo. 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


He received a final warning from Diez2 earlier today, and I just reverted some more of his vandalism. As you can see from his contributions page, it looks like he's done a lot of vandalism over the last two days. Mithras6 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a 31 hour block. This guy wasn't trying to improve the encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, this whole idea of issuing warnings for the removal of warnings is just crap. We've got a dynamic IP here, and quite possibly someone getting caught by someone else's block. The guy doesn't need his own legitimate complaints deleted from his talk page to be replaced with an officious template-turd about not removing warnings. Why does that template even exist? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What a good question. The chief function of the template seems to be to deceive the inexperienced into thinking that removing warnings is a wikicrime, and to go harass users based on that false belief. GTBacchus, how about you put it up for deletion? I'd do it, if I didn't suffer from deletophobia, or fear of deletion procedures. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Maybe I will, but not tonight. It's half-past closing time where I am, and I only do XfD before midnight. O_o -GTBacchus(talk) 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall it used to be considered that material in general shouldn't be removed from user talk pages (apart from archiving), as it showed user conduct, and in particular warnings should definitely not be deleted. Then it was pointed out that some admins regularly deleted material, and the approach started changing, but don't think it's a good thing. If warnings are removed, then it's necessary to search through the history, which seems a needless task. They should be left displayed so anyone can make an assessment of conduct (including of course any response by the user regarding a warning). Tyrenius 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think having to look at the contribution history is such a burden. If I see someone vandalizing, I'd better look at their history, to see if there are other pages they've been hitting. It's generally apparent at a glance whether they've been fiddling with their own talk page, and it takes at most a handful of clicks to confirm it. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this so many times in so many venues it's insane. If you have to rely on the current text of a "vandal"'s talk page to document their previous actions, you're not exercising due dilligence. A much better solution, repeatedly proposed but never acted on as far as I can tell, was to make standard edit summaries for warnings, which would then be inviolate in the talk page history. We deleted {{wr}} and its kin eventually, and I'd support doing so again with this one. Not sure if {{Warnrm}} is even being used, looks like a fork from the August TFD. -- nae'blis 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If I could figure out which template was used here, I'd nominate it for deletion. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Dontremovewarn}}. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Correction: It's a pilotguy special -> Image:Stop-hand-caution.png Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of things that used to be: It used to be that we had a principle of forgiving and forgetting. (In fact, we still have. See Wikipedia:Etiquette.) Requiring that people sport scarlet letters, and chastising them when they take them off, is a gross violation of that principle. It seems that editors are forgetting that the warning templates are actually messages, not badges. Uncle G 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernham testing the community patience[edit]

Ernham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a user who appears to be editing from a strongly nationalist German viewpoint, and has edited tendentiously in the past, most notably on bios of German sportspeople, most notably Michael Schumacher. A look at the block log shows that he has five 3RR violations, four directly on Michael Schumacher and another on 2006 Formula One season, in all cases repeatedly removing negative information about Schumacher's driving tactics. In the October 30 set of reverts, he actually reverts 9 times [4], repeatedly claiming endless reverts as vandalism. He also has a history of being repeatedly rude and incivil (blocked twice), calling editors and edits with different viewpoints as vandals. Editors identified by Ernham as vandals include Mark83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with additional evidence and examples appearing in more detail at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham and User_talk:Ernham). Whilst under block, he was also further blocked for threatening to inciting legal action, claiming that he would report Wikipedia to Schumacher's management. He has also gone round and round at Steffi Graf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), again pushing a strongly pro-German POV. Other disturbing examples include an edit to Miroslav Klose and another to Lukas Podolski, the two strikers in the German national football team, who happen to have Polish heritage, where Ernham deletes info of their Polish bloodline and also blanking a section in David Hilbert, about his university's mathematics faculty being decimated by the Nazi expulsion of Jewish faculty. Ernham also seems to have caused a stir with his participation to various articles about racial groups and IQ, but perhaps others could make a more informed comment about this. At the moment, I feel Ernham should at least be banned from editing Formula One articles, if he has not already totally exhausted community patience. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Where's the diff for that legal threat you say he made? DurovaCharge 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here [5]. Konstable gave him an extra three days last time. There was a previous discussion on ANI about him as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's uncivil schadenfreude, but he doesn't actually threaten to do anything more than gloat. I thought there might be a slam dunk for indef blocking and that isn't it. DurovaCharge 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Checking a little more, the guy got blocked for a week eight hours after the RFC opened. Give him a fair chance to defend himself. Sometimes people do change under community pressure. I'd say come back if he throws away that chance. DurovaCharge 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That was 3 months ago. Since then he did the 9RR on Schumacher's article and another 4RR yesterday, as well as continuing with the claims of vandalism. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Remind me to clean my eyeglasses more're right. Okay, I'll back a community topic ban. Who else wants to weigh in? DurovaCharge 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Support community ban. Cla68 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Oppose community ban. 7 blocks in 3 months? Yikes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Most recent week-long ban seems to have been made in error. The user didn't commit a 3rr violation on the article in question (Michael Schumacher) and in-fact hasn't edited it since January 13, and the block was issued on January 15. I've granted the unblock request. That means his most recent block was in October, and I can't support community ban of someone who has not been blocked recently. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, I don't know how the blocking admin was counting for that 3RR. And although some of the general behaviour of this user has appalled me, I think a community ban seems heavy. Having said that I'm astounded that the RFC was not resolved as far as I can see. In fact, I'm sorry to say this, it feels to me like I wasted a great deal of my time compiling evidence etc. for nothing. Mark83 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


A debate has been going on at WP:RFCN about whether to allow or disallow this username under the Wikipedia:Username policy. Most regular admin / senior editors who keep an eye on the board have opined and it's due some impartial closure, if an uninvolved party wants to weigh the merits of the debate and make a decision we can all move on. Deizio talk 10:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Proto:: 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick note to explain - given that it was 50-50 on whether the user name should be allowed, I've closed it as 'allow'. Particularly given that nobody bothered to inform the user that his name was being discussed. Proto:: 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sweet as... given the inactivity of the user, this was more a wikiphilosophy debate, although it would have obviously been good form for the nominator to drop a note on the talk page regardless. Deizio talk 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a point of interest, a lot of the cases on RFCN involve severely inactive users. EVula // talk // // 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be something to point out that accounts can only be blocked not deleted? Anyone can trawl through special:listusers and find a vast number of users who violate username policies, but until they actually make edits there doesn't seem much point in wasting time on listing them at WP:RFCN. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* Personally, I think it is fine as-is; most of the time these are very clear-cut cases (such as Ken Fogerty and Poopfacekillah) that don't take much time at all. Besides, if we can nip them in the bud now, it saves time overall (especially for cases where they simply aren't going to be productive ever, like Poopfacekillah's). EVula // talk // // 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I have been having a problem with 71Demon (talk · contribs). He uploaded a number of images with false licenses and kept on reverting the no-license tag. Eventually, we received confirmation from a senator's office that the license was incorrect but that the images were released to the public domain (and so usable on the Wikipedia). I corrected the image license. Now, though, I'm faced with a few edits like this: [6]

I believe 71Demon's actions warrant a block for this uncivil behaviour. His statements are also false; the images were not licensed under the GFDL as he falsely claimed. However, it would clearly be a conflict of interest for me to block this user. Could someone else take a look and block or warn as they see fit? --Yamla 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

He's already on a 48 hour block for incivility. I just got done moving all the discussions from the licensing section of the images to the talk page & I left him a little note that hopefully clarified the issue here, namely he didn't license the images correctly and then tried to put the burden of proof on other editors by just providing a weblisting and phone number to the originator of the photos (as well as not helping himself with incivility).--Isotope23 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The uncivil behaviour is continuing:
[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12], as well as [13] from an IP address. --Yamla 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
71Demon has posted an unblock request (at least, I think it is an unblock request) to unblock-en-l. This will be available in the archives. --Yamla 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please protect 71Demon's talk page? He's continuing his uncivil behaviour and personal attacks there and I believe would be best off cooling down until the block expires. --Yamla 20:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism protection[edit]

Please enable vandalism protection on Giant_Panda ICECommander 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll be better off posting such requests on WP:RFPP AzaToth 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I only see 1 vandal (User:Kristelwa) as well as a bunch of well intentioned but ultimately incorrectly done reverts.--Isotope23 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK --ICECommander 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal information revealed (phone number)[edit]

A recent vandal edit to the main page FA [14] included what appears to be a person's name and their phone number. Can someone delete that from the history? Is oversight also necessary? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFO. It is orders of magnitude easier to hide one bad edit in a huge history via oversight than to delete the whole article and restore all but one edit. (suboptimal interface design) Thatcher131 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, have sent an email requesting oversight. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible attacks on userpage[edit]

I noticed, earlier today, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo added a rather inflammatory statement to his user page, calling other Wikipedians liars [15]. Shortly after, he softened the wording slightly [16], but it still implies that other Wikipedians are liars. I know people generally have a lot of leeway for their user page, but I think this is going too far. Also, this user has been engaging in a long campaign of disruption and incivility on Talk:Tokusatsu and Tokusatsu, and given that the edits to his userpage were made in between inflammatory statements he made on Talk:Tokusatsu, I believe these edits may be attacks on some of the people he's picking fights with on Talk:Tokusatsu. jgp TC 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with User:FasterPussycatWooHoo's actions on Talk:Tokusatsu, but unless he is specifically referencing editors by name I don't think this is actionable. Unless he is making a specific personal attack against someone, I'd just ignore it.--Isotope23 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone ask this dude exactly what this is about?[edit]

2m34n (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) seems to be practising how to move a page with my talk page? 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's Primetime up to his new favo(u)rite activity. Will request blocking on AIV. 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and here I was asking nicely why he was doing it...--Isotope23 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed the page move vandalism and blocked him - this is the second time in the past hour this has happened, so someone sure has a lot of spare time on his hands :D. Now just deleting the leftovers. Cowman109Talk 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's fine, I had strong suspicions but wanted to AGF too. It wasn't untill I saw his blatant text dumping I decided that it could only be Primetime and listed him on AIV and RFCU. 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

User:LSLM was blocked for personal attacks [17] and "blocked for violation of the three-revert rule.", "Also for blanking vandalism and incivil edit comments." [18] and finally "blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of" his "disruptive edits" [19]. Now he's doing the same: [20]

"Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea.....Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.....let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence." Lukas19 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More: [21]

"...Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles...." Lukas19 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User logged in and out to make same edits[edit]

At what point does one say formally "I suspect this IP address and that user to be one and the same person"? I've been looking at a set of reversions and edits to multiple related articles made in quick succession by a logged in user and an IP address. The edits have been primarily to remove a template that the user and the IP address feel should not be applied to articles, and no edit history is entered. My perception, which may well not reflect reality, is that the user logs in or out to revert additions of this template and avoid being accused of 3RR, though probably stops just short of it in any case (not that I have tested, I do not do revert wars!).

If one says it formally, where and how does one do it? I see it as a last resort if talk page attempts fail. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Diffs? Logging in and out to evade WP:3RR is gaming the system and clearly invites blocking. Incidentally, the lead of the controlled demolition hypothesis article keeps being rewritten as if the theory has some validity, which is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am trying hard to assume good faith currently. I will point the user quietly at this item and see if that does not solve it :). The CDH article? I am hoping that eventually good encyclopaedic practice will prevail after people get tired of re-re-rewriting it. Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a long discussion about that very article on the mailing list a while back. I believe the consensus was that god encyclopaedic practice dictates a very short article :-) Guy (Help!) 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • God being omniscient, I'm sure his encyclopedia is totally comprehensive, which suggests the articles are vast in both detail and length. -- Ben 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I bet they're referenced, too (grumbles). Proto:: 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Back to the original issue. I am not sure whether the same user is logged in and out to make the edits. It may be several like minded users, which is ok. There are now two IP based users, one is and the current one is each of which appear to track to different US locations. An article that is a case in point for the edits which keep removing the same template is Jim Hoffman whose history may be seen here. One could argue that this is a content dispute with some justification. There is one set of editors that feels the template Template:911ct should be present and another that feels it shoudl be absent. But wikipedia is a vehicle of consensus, and I see no attempts to build a consensus except my own. My reason for raising this is to check if the same user is logging in and out and thus seeking to evade 3RR. If this is multiple users with a similar opinion that is very different, and valid, though reaching a consensus would be far better. I'd like to hand this to a knowledgable admin, please. Fiddle Faddle 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ClearStep deleted[edit]

Why was deleted when is very similar?

Thanks fursty 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is simply a much different degree of notability. (For example Invisalign gets 744000 hits on Google and Clearstep gets 1440.) Slideshow Bob 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There are only 2 types of clear braces in the World both companies use different technics, does it matter that Invisalign is the larger company, surely both should be presented, maybe even on the same page.

fursty 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter. If a company is tiny or has no press about it we have no way to write a fair article on the subject within our guidelines and standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I have briefly blocked Britonamission (talk · contribs) for disruption: needlessly changing one spelling to the other. Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make that an indef block -- the username suggests disruptive intent. -- Merope 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No objection from me. Clearly he is an experienced user, since his first edits were to his monobook. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would support blocking this user indefinitely. His only edits are to change the spelling, even on WP:AN where it was obviously not necessary, thereby breaking every single <font> or <span> tag used in signatures for no reason other than disruption.—Ryūlóng () 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That user was just trolling, but I must say the guidelines are unclear on which spelling should be used, for example I don't see why the article color should use the US spelling other than the (presumed) fact that all editors of the article agree on that title; if they didn't though, how would the issue be decided? The guidelines are of no help.--Rudjek 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me the guidelines are pretty explicit. See WP:ENGVAR. In this case, stay with the established spelling and follow the dialect of the first contributor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
File for CheckUzer, this is strongly reminiscent of the British sockpuppeteer User:Sion glyn and his previous socks of User:Englishpound and User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman. 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison Talk 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page vandalism[edit]

Hello...I come to report incident...Big page Halloween (film) beeing spammed. Content is "CHECK IT MAN" when you click link you go to page...forbidden page... ...very bad promotion of very bad site...assistance requested...URGENT Motherdapearl 22:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism appears to have been reverted (thanks for the report). Hope you don't mind but I've changed the topic title to something a little less dramatic. Feel free to revert to an earlier version of the page in its history if you encounter such vandalism again. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Callous personal attack[edit]

I am appalled to see this comment [22]] by JFBurton (talk · contribs). Read the previous part of the talk page to put it in context, this user appears to have a history of personal attacks, but this particular case is totally insensitive. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please get a thicker skin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irgala (talkcontribs) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Please see WP:PAIN. --InShaneee 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
One problem: that page is inactive. Oh, and look at this. --Majorly 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This process has been discontinued. ??? --Larry laptop 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That happened quietly (though I don't entirely disagree that it was mostly abandoned). --InShaneee 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It was anything but quiet. I kept noticing it no matter how much I tried to avoid it hehe. As for the attack, it is a bit uncivil, but hardly a Callous personal attack. I suggest you give the user a civility warning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean another warning. Check his block log. --Majorly 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your right, I went through the users contribs and found many cases of incivility, I also scanned his userpage history and found the user was fully warned, but simply removed the warnings. I have blocked JFBurton for 4 days. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Its about time you had a weekend off, its all you ever seem to be doing(going on wikipedia)." This is an appalling, callous, personal attack? And people here are taking this seriously? OK, it's painful because of its English, but really... it's not even particularly uncivil. I've had such comments on my Talk page many times, but I've never gone blubbing to Mummy over them. This is exactly why WP:PAIN was killed off — hypersensitive complaints that were too often just a way of edit-warriors trying to get their own way by the back door.

I've just gone through the latest page of his contributions; I found one clear case of incivility, and one of brusqueness in the face of page-blanking vandalism. Could you post here the diffs of all the offences that warrant a four-day block? I'm inclined to lift the block as unwarranted, both in principle and in its extent. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs are posted on his talk page(The most recent example only minutes ago[23] since this thread was created), just a few recent examples I am sure I could have found more. This user has also been warned and blocked for personal attacks before, but simply removed the warnings. I was tempted to double the previous block to make it two weeks, but I felt 4 days would give a greater chance of the user being productive in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at the dreadful personal attack that you think supports a four-day (or even two-week) block:

"Ok Then, but that comment was mearly an attempt to improve mine and FisherQueen's relationship. Its not my fault if I feel she spends a little bit TOO much time on here. Maybe she has some sort off addiction, thats OK. Perhaps she should go and see a couciller or something, you may need it in this sad time of your life. JFBurton 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)"

Now, it's more genuinely uncivil than the one that started off this thread, but it's hardly severe. The othjer diffs

Could other editors offer their opinions on this? It seems to me that the block is dubious in itself, but its length isn't justified by any stretch of the imagination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Mel Etitis. Asteriontalk 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Each action on it's own may not justify a block, but those examples are all from the last couple days. This user has made no indication that he is willing to follow our civility policy as is evidenced by his removed warnings and previous blocks. The fact that the most recent incivility was moments after being asked to be more civil was the clincher. 4 days does not seem like a long time for a fourth civility block, this user already received a week long block for the same thing in December. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not too attached to this decision of mine, and will respect consensus. I just ask that any admin that unblocks this user watches him. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if they had all been made within five minutes they're just not uncivil enough even to warrant more than a very mild "be a bit more polite". I'll lift the block then, and happily watch him to make sure that he doesn't make an idiot of me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So your of the opinion that it does not matter how much a person is uncivil as long as the aren't too uncivil at any one point(correct me if I am misinterpreting)? I tend the think that quantity bares some relevance. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any of the comments counts as genuine incivility (well, maybe one was slightly uncivil, and another was too brusque, but was a reaction to page-blanking). One hundred uncivil comments doesn't add up to incivility, though, no. Nor do one hundred slightly impatient comments, or even one hundred snappy but not really uncivil comments. At least some (at least most, in fact) of the diffs should be cases of clear and genuine incivility. they're not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may add a little context... the reason the comments he made are rather incivil is that they follow immediately upon my note on my talk page that I was taking a little time to grieve over my grandfather's death. The reason that I was particularly troubled by the comment is that they follow a history of sniping against me, including [24], [25], [26], and [27] (when I was not the person who deleted the 'administrator' tag from his userpage). [28] is the first time I met him and the only time that I actually did anything to a page he was working on, when during randompage patrol I reverted an inappropriate edit he made.
I am not asking on my own behalf to have him blocked, but offering context to what made his most recent edits so unpleasant- not that I am oversensitive but that he took advantage of my grief for my grandfather's death to take the most recent in a series of unpleasant comments to or about me.
I have simply asked him to stop posting on my talk page (unless it's needed for encyclopedia-creating purposes) and not to edit my userpage. And that's really all I want from him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse a 4-day block, although that is no longer in effect. The diffs FisherQueen put forth make it obvious that he is incivil and an attacker. I would support a longer duration block and a possible ban if he continues this behavior. If he stops, I will let bygones be bygones as long as FisherQueen is okay with that. Cbrown1023 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm okay with that- I don't think I have ever asked for him to be blocked, although he has several times been blocked for attacks against me. If he is actually willing to stop, that's all I want from him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried repeatedly to post a reply here, but keep getting blocked by the spam filter. I've left messages at Buton's Talk page, FisherQueen's Talk page, and WP:AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this user twice in the past, for the diffs shown by FisherQueen. My primary concern is his targeting of FisherQueen. While the comment was certainly callous and insensitive, we do not block people for lack of manners. However, we do block people for continuing to harrass and stalk users, which is what I feel this was. I will continue keeping an eye on this user. -- Merope 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. A textbook case of how a series of incivil comments that directed to another user in a different context might not be concerning, but here certainly count as disruption. Perhaps this indicates a less legalistic way forward after the PAIN deletion. That is, to take much more into account the reaction and desires of the user who is the target of the incivil comments. If they are iron-skinned veterans who are willing to brush it off, then no disruption has occurred, so no need for admin action.
But the flipside is that users who are affected by incivil comments that perhaps for most people are not that severe, should also have the right to claim that such comments are disrupting their ability to edit the encyclopedia, and should be protected. - Merzbow 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the 4 day block was overkill, but now that JFBurton is aware he should refrain from stirring the pot, and just leave FisherQueen alone, any further snarky comments should be met with zero tolerance. Proto:: 11:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I reduced the block to 48 hours. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, someone keeps harassing me and changing my user page... and I have to keep changing it back... what can I do? (I'm kinda new to wikipedia, but I've used it before)--TommyOliver 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are removing valid warnings that were placed on your talk page. This isn't agaisnt the rules, but it is usually considered to be bad unless you are archiving. I'd say just let it stay on your talk page and shrug it off. --Wildnox(talk) 06:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I will say it wasn't very civil for the continued replacement of the warning either. --Wildnox(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing incivil about it, he's clearly a disruptive force. John Reaves 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's only a tragic misstep by a newbie, not a calculated insult by a troll. Do read WP:BITE, please. --210physicq (c) 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Physicq2. Those who placed the warnings should read both WP:AGF and WP:BITE, perhaps WP:DISRUPT and WP:HARASS. We don't go around harassing newbies here. Yuser31415 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He was told not to delete the warning, and I'll assume WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT are directed toward the offending user. John Reaves 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT are directed to both of you. You (and for the matter, he) are not free from fault here. But this is trivial. --210physicq (c) 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So what if he was told so? There's absolutely nothing wrong with him erasing warnings on his own talk page; there's no policy against it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Right you are, and after Wildnox's initial response, I'd really like to make sure there's no room for misunderstanding here. It's the editors who have been edit warring with Tommy Oliver over his page who are "the offending users". It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages, or to force them to archive. (The History is an archive in itself.) Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment. (Not a good idea to assume that suggested reading has to be about your opponent's missteps, much better to actually click on it.) Also a number of threads formerly on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats for doing it, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. Everybody, please do avoid obsessing about what you would like to see on other people's talkpages. Just leave them alone. Do not harass. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
All said and done here, this user appears likely to be a sock. His second edit was a well informed WP:AFD comment [29], he knew he could get away with removing warnings, and he knew about this noticeboard. He also exhibits the uncivil mannerisms that indef blocked sockpuppets often show. Just throwing in my two cents: I would file checkuser, but not for fishing, etc. Patstuarttalk|edits 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Den fjättrade ankan[edit]

...has been move warring in Sweden Finns. He is a Swedish nationalist and is simply taking revenge from a dispute in another article. He moves the article against the consensus, not even properly explaining his actions. "Finland-Swede" and Sweden Finn are totally different things. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a stern warning about unilateral page moves. I say if he keeps doing it, report back here, or at least give him a {{mp4}} warning. Or a {{comment3}} warning. Patstuarttalk|edits 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Can someone block this user: Universal prints limited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are spaming some scam. I've reverted the changes to date, except for his talk page. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed. Grandmasterka 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, this is the type of thing that Eric Goldman predicts will ultimately cause Wikipedia to "fail" ([30]). I think the administrators are doing a good job preventing the spammers from taking over so far. Cla68 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


RRParry (talk · contribs) User:RRParry has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images including those used for vandalism of articles. The particular image he tries to use at Richard Parry (musician) he has re-uploaded three times despite warnings that it is clearly a copyright violation and there is a cc-by-sa pic available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has also been vandalizing the article on Police as seen here [31] and here [32]. AniMate 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Promised land[edit]

Rikridgeway (talk · contribs) seems to be upset with me for deleting Image:Promised_land_map.jpg which I had deleted as WP:CSD#I3. However...the user seems to be upset with me for...I don't know, being anti-Israel maybe? I don't know what's going on here. Can another admin or two poke a head at User_talk:Metros232#promised_land and Promised land? The user has now 3 times replaced the article with a statement about how the article was grossingly misleading and will be replaced when Rikridgeway sees fit [33]. The same comment (with the thread to have IPs banned) was played on the Promise Land talk page too. Thanks for any insight, Metros232 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We had quite a "discussion" on my talk page about his recent edits. He eventually earned himself a 24-hour block for 3RR. ZsinjTalk 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"scientism" discussion (talk) page rendered inoperative[edit]

Please note that sometime today the discussion page of the article "scientism" was destroyed.

The article itself is hotly disputed and there will be a fight over it. I do not know who was responsible for obliterating the discussion page.

User:ARYAN818 is blocked[edit]

As I said a week ago, I would be blocking ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) because of the potentially offensive user name. He has chosen to argue rather than to come up with a new name. I have indefinitely blocked him. This block is solely because of the User name, I have not become involved in any of his contentious edits, and don't really care at this point. If he chooses a new name which is not offensive, then he can use that. Our policies are clear in this matter. As Wikipedia:Username says, Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned but 818 is neo-nazi code for "Heil Adolf Hilter" (8=H 1=A 8=H). that in combination with "Aryan"... --Larry laptop 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see from reading the user page there are various cultural issues with the indian use of the name Aryan. However I still think the name needs to be changed because it the conclusion I've just made is a likely one for many western europeans to make. Over the long-term it a name change would provide a lot of hassle and misunderstandings. --Larry laptop 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you meant "provide" "avoid". -- Ben 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. He keeps claiming that his name is Aryan and he lives in the 818 area code, but won't listen when it's explained to him that the two things put together are Nazi-speak. If he removed the 818, it wouldn't be that egregious, if he could explain that his name is Aryan, but the two together can't stand. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I was skeptical about this, but sure enough... look here (if you have a strong stomach) [34] Raymond Arritt 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that name, Zoe. While he might not have chosen that combination out of a neo-nazi agenda, it just made me uncomfortable seeing it here on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Would a username like ARIAN103 (one, nought/not three) still be permitted, however much it might distress the Trinitarians among us? -- Ben 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What does the "103" refer to? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it could symbolise the victory of the Arian belief that God has only one (1) nature over (0) the trinitarian view that he has 3 (father, son, holy spirit).--Stephan Schulz 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As the word in parentheses hinted, "one nought three" sounds like "one, not three" -- one God (the Father), not three (the Trinity). Arianism was the losing side at the First Council of Nicea (AD 325), and a theological ancestor of today's Unitarianism. I was attempting a riff on the "Aryan"/"Arian" homonymy, two words with different meanings that sound alike. -- Ben 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me (since none of these religious debates mean anything to me), though it is advocating a position, and therefore probably fails the Username criteria. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It was a matter of heated controversy once -- literally "heated", since later Arians were burned at the stake as heretics -- but why should an expression of the minority view be any more a username violation than an expression of the majority view? E.g. User:Trinitarian (has contribs but no user page), User:Trinitarianism (ditto), User:Trinity3 (ditto), User:Trinitycatholic (ditto), among others. -- Ben 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It just seems to me that there is a big can of worms being inserted into a can opener here. If (say) the Trinitarians were to object to each name that implied a heretical view, while the heretics en bloc objected to the names suggesting orthodoxy, would all those names have to change? Or would majority rule let all the big groups block all the smaller groups' names? Wikipedia is not censored, but usernames clearly are -- is there a discrepancy here, or has it been explained somewhere I missed? -- Ben 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:Username#Rationale. Our aim is to build a encyclopedia of all human knowledge. Censorship of content is not compatible with this goal. Restricting offensive usernames is, and in many cases is even furthering that goal by keeping off-topic conflict between editors to a minimum. --Stephan Schulz 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Back to the user at hand. Assuming he agrees to change names, what are his options? Would "Aryan [lastname or initial]", possibly with the addition "in LA", be acceptable to everyone? Name not in all-caps, area code removed? Would WP:AGF (or the presumption of innocence) extend that far? Or will there now be suspicion of any username he proposes that still includes "Aryan"? How much wiggle-room will he be allowed? Is this a matter still to be discussed on his talk page, or should this go to an RFC? And will all this be explained to him on his talk page? -- Ben 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. This guy's had his fair share. If he's legitimate, he will not mind choosing a name that has no possible associations with Nazism. Drop it.--Docg 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but...have you seen this guy's edit history? It's about Hinduism, Sikhism, the Punjab - nothing neo-Nazi or racist. And yes, 818 is the telephone area code of some Los Angeles suburbs that have a large population of Asian immigrants. This does look legit. What's the fellow supposed to do, break the bank for a Malibu bungalow the size of a postage stamp and that coveted 310 prefix? DurovaCharge 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've not seen the policy that forces you to embed a phone code into your username. Why not use the post code? Or, given that there are many more inoffensive than offensive names, go for something completely different. User:LA_Indian seems to be free. Or use the first name. Or use the full name - some of us manage fine. --Stephan Schulz 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent debacle on ARYAN818s I hope that the following information I have provided was of use. Previously I have had some problems with this user on the Talk:Dravidian people with his inexcusable behavior and intolerance. My first reaction when he posted such a message stating that "we do not exist" was to be calm and cool. I then diplomatically posted a message in regards to his post ending the message by offering him an "olive branch" and to work together. However, he was non-negotiable and continued with his rowdy intolerant behavior puting our culture down. I have asked for some advice with some other users and they have directed me to this page earlier to post reports on such activity. Also, I have posted some detailed discussions on his page.

If this user does get a different name, the question will be whether he will continue with his abusive, disruptive behavior. The Dravidian people need a lot of editing and work to be done on it, since there are other users on there vandalizing the page making it look like a propganda page. I know that this may sound petty, but it is hard having users like ARYAN818 vandalizing, and disrupting sites we are currently working on like Dravidian people and Tamil people.

It was mentioned that he does not belong to a hate group of a kind. However, Amongst the Indian community are many people of different ethnicities and religious backgrounds. User ARYAN818 has taken the privilage to put our Dravidian culture down and state that we do not exist. Furthermore there are others like him on Wikipedia who are on a "revising campaign" regarding anything that has to do with India, changing the history to suite their own cultural interest. This is very un-Wikipedian.

Wiki Raja 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Aryan doesnt understand Dravid=South therefore Dravidian only means South Indian and has no racial connotations.Bakaman 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect in what language does Dravid mean south? If it is in Sanskrit, then south means Daksina not Dravid or Dravidian. The same in Hindi, south means Dahkshina and not Dravid or Dravidian.[1][2] "Dravidian has a venerable history as a label, and given that in modern times it has been employed in Indian phenomena as diverse as language and temple architecture, literature and systems of land tenure, religion and race (ethnicity)."[3] Furthermore the term Dravidian connotates to a family of related ethnicities and languages in and outside of India.
  1. ^ Borooah, Anundoram (1971) [1877]. English-Sanskrit dictionary. Assam: Gauhati, Publication Board. p. 663.
  2. ^ Williams, Monier (1971). A dictionary, English and Sanskrit (3rd ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 466.
  3. ^ Deshpande, Madhav (1979). Aryan and non-Aryan in India. Michigan: Ann Arbor : Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The University of Michigan. p. 153. ISBN 0891480145.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Raja (talkcontribs)

Sorry, I forgot to sign my username : ) Wiki Raja 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev avoiding block[edit]

I recently blocked Ararat arev for 3RR violations (more like 6RR) on two articles. After being blocked for 3RR, he started editing under his IP address. I blocked that IP address for 2 days, and saw that he was back under a new address. I have also blocked this address for a week. I am now upgrading the block on the user from 2 days to one week because he has been avoiding a block that he fully deserved. Nishkid64 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe four days would have been sufficient (the extension being to encourage him to stop evading his block). The articles on which he has been revert-warring have been protected, meaning the additional lengthening would be more punitive than preventative. But a whole week isn't excessive, so I won't make a federal case out of it. -- tariqabjotu 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Prolific edit history, genuine commitment to Armenia-related topics. I don't see the need to go harsh. Consider give-and-take. I've reduced blocks for editors who've negotiated. Suggest you offer to reduce the block to four days if this editor pledges not to make the same mistakes again. DurovaCharge 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What's so prolific about his edit history? He hasn't done anything useful since he joined Wikipedia. In fact all he does now is wasting the time of several users and admins (just ask User:Dbachmann or User:Thanatosimii). 90% of all his contributions have been reverted. He has been here several months, tons of users and several admins have tried to make him read the rules, particularly the five pillars and he still doesn't get it. I think the block is well justified and should have been done sooner.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tariq has retracted his statement, as Ararat has used two more IP addresses to edit under. I don't see any potential deal making any progress here. He was blocked for 3RR violations just four days ago, and yet he continued to violate even though he was well aware he would be blocked. Nishkid64 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
All right then, no call for leniency. When this happens I caution the editor that longer blocks will be forthcoming from further evasion, then increase systematically and as soon as possible after each new infraction. They usually stop when they realize it's no game. DurovaCharge 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Guth[edit]

Could an admin help me with this one. This article was written by Eugene Guth's son, User:Mikeguth. The article was based on Eugene Guth's home page. A copyvio notice was added. The editor removed it. I have been trying to help him. I put back the copyvio notice and after a lot of discussion, I wrote a brief stub which I put in Talk:Eugene Guth/Temp. Could one of you please remove the copyvio notice and install this stub? Mike Guth appears to be the copyright owner of Eugene Guth's home page and is prepared to put it under the GNU license. Eugene Guth died in 1990. Mike is a newbie and has got quite angry, but I think he has calmed down and will now work constructively. A delay in getting the article stub up however is not helping him, so I am asking help here. I will keep an eye on him and the article. I have of course told him about WP:COI. --Bduke 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Racist vandalism[edit]

Vandals have inserted racial slurs into African American72.166.146.186 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I only see a couple minor copyedits today. Fan-1967 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Someone named "skull" (but with a userid of Rpsuguar ) has posted a pretty nasty attack on my personal talk page complete with racist language like "Jewish Khazar scum". He says he's sent the same screed to "another forum" asking his friends to edit the article he's mad about and also giving them the address for my user page. Can something be done about this? General Idea 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

here is what skull/Rpsugar posted on my talk page:


So "General", you choose to muckrake without discussion, because you are a kindred ideologue of Lethbridge's and apparently the "B'nai B'rith", not an encyclopaedist or NOT someone with no other agenda but truth and fairness. In otherwords... just a pure muckraking vandal...ala..David Lethbridge the lying Libeler (see the talk page if you know how to use it). I have posted this at another forum, because it is clear to me who you and Dimitroff are:

>>> How do you all feel about Communists and Socialists (same thing--just different tact: ultimate goal is the same--TOTAL GOVERNMENT)? I have a gaggle of them at Wikipedia attacking a page set up by who knows who on Ron Gostick. I checked out both the editors (since it hadn't been touched in a long time, until I brought it up in this room. I suspect who the culprit is that made the first edit to remove the "zio-comm" agitator David Lethbridge's Communism and his proven unabashed LYING in a court case against him for Libel. He was quoted as an "authority" from the Bethune Institute (which, if anyone knows anything about Bethune...he was a "Marxist"). Under the guise of fighting "Fascism and Racism (sic)", these "Jewish Khazar" scum in tandem with their brethren in the world of higher politics and money agitate and exploit all political and dishonest means to suppress Freedom of Speech and ultimately other freedoms. I allowed the Lethbridge statement stand only on the proviso that it be shown what his prejudice is...thus I created a link to a geocity site on the Libel case he unequivocally lost, the fact he ran as a Communist Party candidate with a statement to the effect he dissembled against others on Free Speech issues (this was throughout the Zundel-Keegstra and other heinous assaults on squelching speech that was not to "their' liking!).

If anyone is interested go to the page on Ron Gostick (someone is adding a lot of other names to Wikipedia to slander and muckrake!) These are two names that have edited just fairly recently....General Idea..his wikipage: and Dimitroff..his wikipage: In fact General Idea is there just as I write this to undo my edits. These people if you will look at their page are "Marxists". I have on my own page under rpsugar....the second to last edit of mine and on the Ron Gostick discussion page, I left the reference and link to David Lethbridge. If you want to help, and know how to use wiki.....go there and help subdue these packs of wolves. they Lie and connive like the devil (to use a term I dislike). Check it out! Thanks!--Skull 04:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Idea (talkcontribs)

I've issued a one week block. The user seems to have a history of personal attacks. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close a Move Request[edit]

Hi. I've been working on the backlog at WP:RM, and the move request at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#...Requested move needs to be closed, but I don't want to do it, because I've taken part in the discussion, and it's a controversial one. I'd appreciate somebody uninvolved making the call. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the poll. Patstuarttalk|edits 05:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A little help please[edit]

A little help is needed with bloody IPs who continue to defend a vandal's addition of unencyclopedic nonsense to Lil Chris. The nonsense in question (properly sourced, weirdly enough) is about the past vandalism to said article. Possibly WP:BLP could come into play if the additions of past vandalism added vandalism that violates BLP. See Talk:Lil Chris and WP:VPP#Vandalism for more. Cheers. – Chacor 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was {{sprotected}} by an administrator on 11th January 2007. This is not a place to discuss content. Take it to WP:BLP if applicable. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Not as much a content issue as the behaviour of random new IPs popping up defending the user's actions. – Chacor 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam Wereb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) has been following me around wikipedia editing anything I have written and undermining all my edits, he has become a serial pest. He has made bold personal attacks in the past followed up recently by snide comments in an attempt to provoke some outburst that will never come. Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) is frequently sarcastic about other editor's good faith editing; for example, referring to "Mikey's little article" when I put a well-referenced article (Ernest Emerson) up for Good Article review [35], prior to this he unsuccessfully tried to delete a large well referenced portion calling it "spam,spammity spam" because it contained a single link to the subject's website and his belief that mere mention of any company is advertising, even when the article is about the company in question[36]. When JzG (talk · contribs), [37]SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) [38] and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) [39] pointed out to him that my edits to Ernest Emerson were not spam and were very well-referenced, he condescendingly replied with, " All very cozy -- and irrelevant". [40] He has been warned in the past by Durova (talk · contribs) (his libelous accusations against me are archived on the WP:PAIN )around 11/18/2006-11/20/2006, %28aeropagitica%29 (talk · contribs) [41], and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) [42], and myself[43] yet he simply blanks his talk page, removing indications of past behavior without archiving. [44] [45] I've offered links to wiki: civil, and have tried working with this caustic individual to no avail. One of his latest tactics is to call wikilinks to other wikipedia articles I have worked on as spam and advertising. He has personally posted objections to the length of the Knife entry, yet the only change he has made was to lead people away from an article I have written that is wikilinked from there Walker linerlock. Now he calls me a shill[46] and is trying to provoke edit wars. Libels a bunch of celebs on a bio page:[47] Continues with verbal harrassment: [48]

Calls me a girlscout here because he wants to provoke me:[49] [50]

Please investigate this stalker-like behavior. I just want it to stop so I can continue to be a positive contributor and not have to check on every last article I've written or contributed to just because of Wereb's histrionic outbursts and blatant vandalism.

A simple comparison of his history against mine will confirm this.

Thank you. --Mike Searson 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go so far as to say Sam is Wikistalking, his contribution history does closely match that of Mike Searson. More troubling to me is his violation of civility in both his posts to talk pages and his edit summaries. While he has made some valid points in his criticism of the Ernest Emerson article, he runs the risk of his message not being heard due to the sarcastic, taunting way he delivers it. Additionally, I issued a vandal warning to him after he continually removed large areas of text to the Emerson article while Mike had it under GA review. Jeffpw 11:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified reverts and edit warring[edit]

Please note the following edits by Yakudza and Bryndza

  • Yakudza Reverts edits without any comments on talk page of article: [51]
  • and: [52]
  • Bryndza reverts in same manner and makes personal attack saying I incite hatred across wikipedia [53]
  • Bryndza reverts again says I am 'POV' pushing even though most of my additions to the article have inline citations and references [54]

I think this is bad behavior since neither user is making any meaningful contributions to the article which was only a stub section before I made additions --Yarillastremenog 03:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that a) you haven't made any edits to the talk page either. b) the editors put their reasoning in the edit summary, and c) in fact, it was not a stub at all. I would suggest taking matters to the talk page before edit warring and bringing to the noticeboard. -Patstuarttalk|edits 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's true that I did not make any comments on the talk page yet, but that is only because they did not offer any dispute of my edits other thant the single comment 'POV' and a personal attack, and the section on the Ukraine in that article was certainly a stub since it's only a few sentences long --Yarillastremenog 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, after reading into the dispute: I must use a contrite expression: Mediation is thataway. Your edits were POV, but both sides could stand to use the talk page. Patstuarttalk|edits 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Yarillastremenog is a well-known sockpuppet that we are struggling to eradicate for a long time. He just reverted his user page. Please note that his is trying to hide his edits by marking all of them as m (minor). He had 7 sockpuppets at the last incident. It was stated at his page that he is undefinitely banned. I do not understand why the block does not work. As for his anti-Ukrainian contribituion you can see yourself - this is just one topic which is targeted. All NPOV. He does not provide references when requested having only one dubious yellow press article in his arsenal. As for absense of our discussion with him - this is not true. All is here: Talk:Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. And my most recent reply on his NPOV pushing which explains my reverts (do I need to?) is here [55]. Plus my reverts are not just vandalism as presented by Yarillastremenog as I explained him here [56]. Same with reverts of Yakudza. All explained and warned: [57], [58]. Also warned and discussed with others: [59], [60]. I suggest finally to stop the individual from editing at Wikipedia as there are plenty of reasons for it. It is a waste of time to look after his sockpuppets and revert his POVs. Thank you for your consideration.--Bryndza 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all since you are mentioning past blocks, let's mention Yakudzas past ban , he has already been banned recently for revert waring, but I'm not using that against him, unlike you when you insert a deprecated block tag on my userpage, BTW even if I used multiple accounts and agreed to stop this, you have made checkuser requests which accused me of being a wikipedia admin and other unrelated users, which shows your sockpuppet claims are frivilous

and you are posting links to the talk page of a different (and locked) article, but you only discuss one part of my addition, without in any way refuting its validity, and you deleted much more information from the article in question than just that part, this can only be considered vandalism --Yarillastremenog 09:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point me out where I accused you of being an admin? Yakudza was banned by unjustified desision of admin and you are one of the people who caused this. I'm posting links to Talk:Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II since talk was and is going on there. You just pasted all info from that article to Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II in order to spread it on WP and have not discussed anything there.--Bryndza 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request protection for Arudou Debito[edit]

On January 15th, users from various image boards (the "chans" of 4chan, 7chan, and others) started attacking Arudou Debito's mainsite. In addition to this, they have been vandalizing his wiki page too. Because of this, I am request a protect on the page, and a reversion to it's pre-January 15th state. I don't want to revert it myself because that would delete the evidence of vandalism. --Watchreader 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu remarks[edit]

I would like to know if such comments in user pages are acceptable [61] particularly the claim that calling somebody a Hindu is an accusation (a view commonly held by Islamic Fundamentalists in South Asia). Had he said "I am offended if somebody calls me a Hindu" that would be different, but the term "accuse" is inherently offensive to Hindus.I'm sure that if similar statements were made against any other religion then the user would be immediately censured.

As background, User:Szhaider was blocked for a week for being tendentious, disruptive in India-Pakistan articles, making personal attacks and ethnic slurs against User:Rama's Arrow[62] for which he got his talk page protected (see previous diff) and is involved in a dispute concerning meatpuppetry with a group of users who stand accused of tag-team edit-warring with Pakistani nationalist/Islamic Fundamentalist biases[63]Rumpelstiltskin223 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't look at all acceptable to me. The "Countries that I consider threats to World Peace and Humanity" probably isn't great either, but it isn't nearly as offensive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just as troubling as that his first edits after a week-long block for incivility and edit warring are incivility, is the fact that many of his other edits are