Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive226

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal attacks at WT:SPAM[edit]

Georgekenney (talk · contribs) is upset with deletion of external links to a podcast that he produces, which he added while editing as an IP, and is complaining here. I should probably not respond further to him, as anything I say seems to antagonize him. I also invite review of my deletion of the links, which I did under WP:COI concerns. RJASE1 Talk 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your actions 100%; this guy really needs to calm down. Veinor (talk to me) 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The personal attacks are continuing, I think he's just trolling at this point. RJASE1 Talk 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling range (83.24.0.0/13)[edit]

See the history of Talk:Poznań -- it seems a troll from pl-wikipedia has made his way here. I'm reluctant to range-block without knowing all of the details here (I don't speak Polish). I was contacted in #wikipedia-en by pl:User:Radomil, an admin of pl-wikipedia. Anyone care to investigate this further? --Chris (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an enormous range. It spans multiple netblocks which are claimed by the provider to be assigned to specific cities. --Gmaxwell 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Some edits have come from 83.16.0.0/13 too. It could be a commuter who has access from two different cities (83.23.0.0/16 and 83.27.0.0/16), so those could always be range blocked. --Chris (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki won't let you block /13 anyway, so you would have to block the cities. Even so, you're blocking upwards of 64,000 addresses, which equals loads of collateral damage (especially if the range is dynamic, which it probably is). // PTO 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A /13 is made up of 8 /16s -- a bit much to block under most any circumstances. Might be better off protecting the relevant pages, no? Neither solution is perfect, but if it's not a very active page, semi might involved a bit less collateral damage. Just a thought. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad again[edit]

Can anyone please check the recent edits of Artaxiad (talk · contribs)? In my opinion his edits to other people’s user pages are nothing but vandalism. [1] Grandmaster 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He was warned, and he stopped. No action is necessary. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Grandmaster 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting to note here that User:AdilBaguirov, facing ban, is being blocked for a week(!) upon a simple revert violation, while User:Artaxiad, facing a ban, and proven with harassment and now outright vandalism on my page [2], [3] is either being blocked for 24 hours or friendly warned. Don't you think this is only encouraging the behavior alike that of User:Artaxiad? Atabek 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The content on your page is not appropriate so therefore I removed it. Artaxiad 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You added <!-- Hi my name is Atabek, I am a asshole, I love guys. I also deny a genocide I'm a heartless guy. --> to User:Atabek here. I don't think we can really assume good faith after that. Veinor (talk to me) 16:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is no way to assume good faith if we consider Artaxiad's edits generally.He/She wastes the community's valuable time.Must.T C 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Artaxiad blocked 48 hours for user page vandalism [4] [5]. Under the circumstances, I consider 48 hours to be generous. This was deliberate provocation in the face of an ongoing arbitration proceeding. Thatcher131 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And anyway, it's clear he'll be banned for a year very soon, and this is precisely why. It's like he figures he's going away, he might as well go in a blaze of stupid glory. --Golbez 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ongoing harrasment[edit]

An editor continues to make disruptive comments.

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. Further, the edit summary does not explain any reason for the removal of text or references. Moreover, the editor is unwilling to engage in a discussion in a normal manner.
  5. Here is the latested comment of harrassment and intimidation to try to stop me from commenting on the talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Didn't those first three already get covered here on WP:ANI?--Isotope23 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind I found it.--Isotope23 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Quack, I've specifically pointed out to you before that the Wikipedia community redirect and comment were completely unrelated to you. The second diff was an issue already dealt with (I lost my cool, my bad, it happens, we laughed, we cried, we moved on). The rest is of your little evidence is me telling you to stop being disruptive (with very clear discussions on the relevant talk pages that show multiple editors agreeing that you are being disruptive). I guess you forgot to mention other people asking you to stop. Not sure how asking someone to stop being disruptive counts as harassment..
Talk:Essjay controversy, Talk:Wikipedia community, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizendium versus Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru, and.. well, heck, picking links at random from his contribs will give people a good idea of what I mean. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you just forgive and forget, Quack? Ned Scott really did already publicly apologise... --Iamunknown 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle[edit]

The discussion on the The Great Global Warming Swindle talk page is notable for extensive attacks on individual editors. I've removed a few of the worst ones from recent comments, but I wonder if a couple of administrators would be kind enough to take a look. Please see Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#POV_section_break_4. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And one of these persons has been abusing tags yesterday and today. --Skyemoor 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha being disrupted by sockpuppet of banned user[edit]

Resolved

Hi, I am wondering whether or not to file a check user request on User:Osiris06 being a sock of User:Mykungfu. MKFU's main target is this article as well as NPHC related articles. I have been reverting his edits on the page, but I am unsure if this breaches WP:3RR so far. Real96 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Osirus blocked for repeated legal threats. You did not violate 3RR. SWATJester On Belay! 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NerriTunn (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm fairly certain NerriTunn (talk · contribs) is behind the sudden explosion of users who are reverting all the regular editors on List of bisexual people. They all act like her, they all revert the exact same things, use snarky edit summaries that mock the summaries of those they are reverting, accuse me of being authoritarian on the talkpage for demanding we follow policy, and plead that we should use "common sense" - which mean we should list every single person who has had sex with both genders ever. She meanwhile, has conveniently vanished from the article history.

A lot of these accounts are SPAs. However, Nerri has apparently been trying to build up some of her accounts on different areas of the wiki - at least two users have edited exactly the same material, and one is adding vivien leigh to every list of ethnic people it can. But their contribs are all characterised by an obsession with old time Hollywood films and people who were believed to be bisexual of that period. I would appreciate if an admin could look into this because they keep reverting material which has been removed for the sake of BLP, RS and dammit, we shouldn't be listing so many people who were accused of being bisexual by this one person that one time. Here's a list of suspected sockpuppets:


And I think the similarities of names and addresses speak for themselves... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, and I got the wrong noticeboard as well. Can I leave it here? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the list. Haven't looked into the sockpuppetry part. DurovaCharge! 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

63.224.144.226[edit]

Resolved: IP already blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism of page cnc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KJS77 (talkcontribs).

You always get faster responses at WP:AIV, where I have reported the user to for you. x42bn6 Talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block review[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ThepeoplefromNS (talk · contribs) began a campaign moving many (50+) articles from Article name to Article name is dead. I initially blocked for one week. The user contested the block and then "approved" the request. The editor requesting the block asked that I extend the block indefinitely in light of the user's statement. I agreed that giving the user's statement, this user shows no signs of ever being a good contributor to the project and will probably only continue his malicious behavior following the block, and so I extended the block indefinitely. I was wanting to get some other opinions on this block to see if this was the correct action (as I am also a brand new admin). Thanks in advance.↔NMajdantalk 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Vandalism-only account = indef block. No problems at all with your actions (except to say that I would have skipped the 1 week block and gone straight to indef, but certainly can't fault you for that). —bbatsell ¿? 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indef block is appropriate. DurovaCharge! 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, total nutjob. Endorse block and well done on both doing it and asking for confirmation. We're a benevolent cabal.   REDVERSSЯEVDEЯ  21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse block. Nothing more to see here. WP:RBI is your friend. Naconkantari 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur with all above and endorse indefinite block. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise-- Nick t 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, kind of reminds me of willy on wheels. You know, pagemove vandal, moved article name to "article name...". Coincidence? Are there many users like this? Should they all be indef blocked? Is there policy against pagemove vandals? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems covered by WP:VAND, WP:BLOCK, and general common sense. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctor11[edit]

Is User:Doctor11 a violation of WP:USER? Not a dog 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How would you think it would be in violation? Naconkantari 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be stating its existence is only to express a political opinion, rather than "facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". But perhaps I'm misunderstanding its intent. Not a dog 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume he means that the statement on the page saying I don't want to write pages and pages here so I will use this page solely to express my sympathy for the people of Iraq. is a violation of WP:USER, specifically the no polemical statements part. IrishGuy talk 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for misunderstanding. I though that you meant the username. The user page is not appropriate and should be send to WP:MFD. Naconkantari 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No need, I just removed the polemical statements and asked him nicely not to readd it. — Moe 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just wasn't sure if we could edit their page like that or not. thanks for taking care of it. Not a dog 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous UNT vandals on euphonium page again[edit]

IP addresses from range 129.120.xx.xx (University of North Texas system computers) are vandalizing the euphonium page again (changing every instance of the word "euphonium" to baritone, just a day after a full protection was lifted. Last week, a single IP address that had done most of the vandalism (129.120.244.17) was blocked for 24 hrs, after which vandalism resumed immediately, and when the same vandalism started to crop up from other UNT addresses a system-wide block was put in effect, ostensibly for a week, but it's been less than a week and the vandals are back, so I guess somehow they got the block lifted.

I should also note that whoever is doing this has continuously posed as me (Robert McDaniel), even going so far as to post my cell phone number on the Talk:Euphonium page and then vandalizing my user page. I have absolutely no doubt that the vandalism will continue unabated until decisive action is taken. PLEASE institute a medium-term system-wide block of 129.120 IP addresses.

--NetherlandishYankee 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think we're going to block an entire college campus which has, besides the euphoniumisms and some other vandalism, dozens if not hundreds of legitimate edits from editors some of whom have contributions dating back to 2004. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This also came up on WP:RFP and I declined the request - Alison 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I guess that was a bit extreme. I just REALLY want to avoid the situation that developed last week happening again. I'll keep you posted if anything else happens.

--NetherlandishYankee 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal strikes again, warn them and then report them if they persist. If it gets really bad, we can review the semi-protect request. However, if they're posting personal info - report them immediately to WP:AIV and they will be blocked pretty sharpish. That kind of behaviour is harrassment - Alison 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burk Hale[edit]

Burk Hale (talk · contribs) needs a block. He persists in posting material in which copyright is claimed at the website that hosts the text at 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Burk Hale is also pushing extreme POV at the same article and others (arguing that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was never adopted; continuously referring to the US federal government as "subversive"). The blocking administrator might want to consider the POV pushing when blocking for the copyvio. I am not blocking because I have been involved in the dispute with Burk Hale at the Georgia Memorial article. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The text is an engrossed state law, isn't it? I'm like 99% sure that's unequivocally in the public domain. It shouldn't be in the article (wikisource is probably the better location), but I don't think it's a copyvio. A quick glance leaves me with no doubt that he is a POV warrior, but I don't have enough time at the moment to read everything fully enough to block. —bbatsell ¿? 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a state resolution. I have no idea whether Georgia claims copyright in its state resolutions or not; I suspect that this might be one of the few things that fall outside the purview of US federal copyright law, but I don't know for certain either way. However, the website that hosts the text in question does claim copyright in the text (I have no opinion on whether the claim is legitimate). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Err on the side of caution and keep it out for the time being. Besides, the article isn't the place to text dump that law even if it is PD. That is what we have wikisource for.--Isotope23 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV helperbot problem (possibly)[edit]

The WP:AIV helperbots removed Deathtowiki, Deathtowiki1, and Deathtowiki2 as blocked by MichaelBillington. The problem is...I'm not seeing this in the block log. Is the log backed up or did something get hosed with the bots? IrishGuy talk 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing them in the block logs right now, but then again it looks like the recent changes history is getting backed up again. Note that Deathtowiki 3-7 also exist and are on AIV right now - Alison 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just tried to block one of them, and couldn't, so the block log hasn't updated, which happens occasionally. The database was just locked, so it seems it was just a temporary slowdown. (I always thought they should come up with a better analogy than "slaves" catching up to their "master".) Grandmasterka 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am simply concerned that if the problem is with the bots, then users are being removed that aren't blocked. The MichaelBillington's log shows that he blocked Deathtowiki3, 4, 6, and 7 but there is no mention of the other three which theoretically should have been blocked previously. IrishGuy talk 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Obviously the bots are getting feeds more up-to-date than the block log. Deathtowiki1,2,3, are blocked. Actually, it's come up about 3 times in the past month or so where someone blocked and it didn't show up at ALL in the block log, but the block was still there. It's either a bug or a database glitch where it lost some of the data. I don't think MediaWiki's queries are ACID-compliant, so it's possible that the user be blocked but an entry in the log be lost. —bbatsell ¿? 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • OK. I had no idea this had been a problem in the past. Phantom blocks, eh? Strange... IrishGuy talk 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Seems to happen a lot lately... First the contributions was slow by 4 hrs, now its the blocklog. --KZTalkContribs 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I've seen that happen, too, and I was really confused the first time, too -- unblocking and reblocking tends to fix the visible problem (just trying to re-block tends to turn up the "already blocked" error, so I guess the master DB, at least, seems to be aware of the block). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, I didn't know this had happened to anyone else. A few weeks ago I blocked someone but it didn't show up in the log, and when I tried again it said they had already been blocked. Unblocking and reblocking fixed it, but now the log has an unblock first, which is weird. Natalie 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Big company spamming[edit]

Copied from WP:AIV: (Perhaps HP and team are not aware of the negative publicity associated with other big companies writing/influencing articles on their company/products.) How should this be handled? — ERcheck (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: An indefinite block was imposed. However, my question still stands. Is there a particular process for this/form letter to send to companies like HP? — ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it's necessary, notify the Foundation. They probably should handle anything like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the only page that wasn't speedied. DurovaCharge! 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Systematic attack on Al Gore[edit]

Within the last 3 days, Al Gore has been vandalized by a bizzarre 5-edit method, Redirected to by the Sandbox, and redirected to from Stupidest person alive via Kensai Nakano. Related or not? G.O. 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I... I'm sorry, I have no clue what you're trying to say here. --Golbez 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just garden variety vandalism. The vandal's been blocked. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overarchiver[edit]

A strange user. His first edit was to archive Patricknoddy's talk page. Next he created a userpage which was taken from Patricknoddy's userpage and appears to be mocking Patricknoddy. Other than a comment on Patricknoddy's talk page today, he has no other edits. This appears to be a sock harassing Patricknoddy. IrishGuy talk 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a harassment-only account, based on the comment on User talk:Patricknoddy. See User talk:Overarchiver for further comments. Newyorkbrad 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Assumming he has another account, he can be autoblocked Brad, but with anon. only on. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Autoblocks always risk some collateral damage. Since I decided to let him continue editing under another account, there was no reason to risk any. If there is further harassment from another account the next block would be more sweeping, but he says he's stopped. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the userpage be deleted or blanked? It is definitely harassment... --KZTalkContribs 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BassxForte, Uncivility, 3RR[edit]

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has been very uncivil in almost all encounters in talk pages. Completely unwilling to accept consensus, even though it's currently 7 vs 1 on Talk:Organization XIII. Has edit-warred multiple times, especially on this article, over the past month. If you want diffs, try the page history and his contributions page.

I have been extremely tolerant on this user in this duration, as his user page states that he is a reformed vandal. A recent edit[9] on his talk page has changed the following text:

"I am very stubborn, both in real life and all other situations, if you get into a argument with me in a talk page, you can be assured the conversation won't end until you give up or an admin decides the discussion closed, heh. Arguing with me is a lost cause, almost everyone I know in real life knows this, *evil laugh*."

Administrator input is definitely required. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that, after giving Organization XIII a once-over, that almost the entire article is original research and does not have one single reference to a reliable source (because all of its references are to the subject of the article itself, not a published secondary source). The best thing to do is cut the article down to a stub and moot the argument with BassxForte. A Traintalk 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried mooting the argument a number of times already. He simply does not agree with us. Also, the concern I'm bringing up is not the article, but rather BassxForte's conduct. Despite multiple people directing him to pages with common policy(WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, especially WP:3RR, etc), he continues to ignore it. He also makes many comments which I consider to be personal attacks. Also: discussion, another discussion, [10].
Diffs: [11], [12], [13] [14] - Zero1328 Talk? 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Go to Zero (Mega Man) and many other talk pages i've put my points in, you will see that not only am I ready to admit flaws in my argument, I have an honest desire to improve wikipedia. BassxForte 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And the quote which you claim came form my page was never on my page to my knowledge. BassxForte 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing text out does not change the fact that you added it, and that it was on your userpage for a month (Note the dates), along with other inflammatory remarks that are still there, including "Although I try my best to be civil with other users, I admit that almost all of them are a bit... off." (Diff here.) Nique talk 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This remark is very worrisome. "Motto Never Give Up. (This motto has... regretabbly gotten me into some edit wars since I refuse to have parts of articles I like taken out, although in all said wars the other person was just being unreasonable.)" He put that in in January. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time they are acting unreasonable, the only time I have ever gotten angry about the way another user was treating the page was on the talk page for Metal Sonic. BassxForte 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And by "off" I meant that most are kinda weird by my standards. (and keep in mind my standards are very eccentric) BassxForte 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you've been aware of your habit of getting into edit wars for at least 4 months, and to appear to have not changed in any way since then. Calling people you've been in edit wars with "unreasonable" does not appear to be very polite, or have any assumption of good faith at all. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and he's also threatened to continue an edit war previously (I see that as a threat of vandalism). [15] Recently, in direct response to this ANI posting, he has stated that he will respond in a way that "won't be pretty" if an admin intervenes. [16] - Zero1328 Talk? 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Block upon warring, then block longer, then block yet again. He's welcome to disagree until he turns blue as long as he doesn't get into a war over an article's actual contents... at which, we WP:BLOCK. --Auto(talk / contribs) 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your taking this way to far, the notion that I have done something extreme, that I have acted harshly/rudly/incivily seem to be all incorrect notions, might I suggest looking at the good stuff i've done, rather then just the bad? Considering that they outnumber the bad things i've done by a 10 to 1 margin. BassxForte 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying that I'm taking this too far, show something that counters my claims. Provide diffs. - Zero1328 Talk? 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that that doesn't change the the fact that you have been doing some negative things as well, as recent as just yesterday, and you have shown to be aware of these negative actions for at least four months. - Zero1328 Talk? 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that on Talk:Metal Sonic I admit the flaws in my argument, and let the guy I was arguing with take the win, also, check out the talk page for Onaga and Brotherhood of Shadow. BassxForte 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you do good, too, doesn't change the fact that you have been doing, and have been aware of doing, and have been continuing to do bad as well for quite some time. Nique talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

However the good far outnumber the bad, you gotta think positive, especially since all those "bad" things are done with the intent of improving wikipedia. BassxForte 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Letting someone "take the win" is not how we do things here. This is not a competition on whether you win an argument or not. Doing positive things is not an excuse to contribute negative things to the project, to "balance it out," especially if you are contributing negatively right now. Even if you want us to ignore it, it doen't change the fact you're doing it. - Zero1328 Talk? 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of all that, as for "take the win", thats just the way I phrased it, the main thing i've been arguing here is that you act like i've not done a single good thing for wikipedia, and went as far as to claim I acted uncivil in all talk pages I have been on. BassxForte 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble at all about what good things you're doing, which is why I haven't mentioned it. I am concerned about what bad things you are doing. I suppose I should bring up the fact that you appear to be trying to use your good edits as a way to dodge this subject. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm also bothered by this fact - you have expressed awareness of your bad contributions for a fairly long time, (and if you haven't, we have mentioned it to you multiple times, even just here.) and you have never explained why you haven't changed your editing habits. Please clearly explain why you have not made an attempt. If you had tried and failed, why have you decided to continue contributing this way? - Zero1328 Talk? 10:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few examples of "bad" edits I have made, and we'll go from there, furthermore these "bad" edits you speak of seem isolated entirely toward the Org XIII page. BassxForte 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you're doing it, it's what you're doing in the first place. And you haven't answered my question. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't tally scores with the good things you do and the bad things you do, as far as I can tell. Making 100 good edits does not give you the right to vandalize 1 page, and trying to take advantage of the fact that you have made good edits in the past shows that you refuse to take resposibility for the edit war on the Org XIII page. Your comments on the talk page of the Org XIII article also show me (and I'm sure others) that you will not accept your own mistake, no matter how many times and to what degree your mistake is invalidated. Which is why I don't get the feeling that you will stop doing things like this. You can't always be right on Wikipedia. I haven't been here very long, but I do know that. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what i'm saying, im saying that you can't call me a bad user over just a few isolated incidents and some edits that may or may have not been in violation of one of wikipedia's rules. BassxForte 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I understand that you haven't gone into every single article like a hellbird and totally demolished it. I understand that you have tried to be civil in most situations, accept some degree of criticism and fallacy, and help the project in a respectable way. But it seems that this is a specific issue about specific violations, and no amount of good Samaritanism could possibly undo a breaking of the rules. Think of it the way you would at school: If you have a perfect attendance throughout your entire school career, and then you decide to skip an entire week of school, unexcused, should the school waiver all of their truancy punishments because you had a perfect attendance before you started skipping school? I'm not sure what exactly the administrators want you to say, but I'm more curious about why you believe that your logic defeated the logic of seven other people, and you felt your conclusions had more weight than theirs. I understand that the majority is not always correct (I'm an atheist, so I happen to have a thing for prefering logical evaluation over what the general population believes), but in something that is so black and white as what goes into an article, I would think that it would be easy to see where seven logical, thinking people would have more weight of word than one logical, thinking person. However, because that is not really the point of this thread, I suppose I will try to leave the rest of the discussion up to the moderators and hope that my arguement has somehow clarified what the moderators have been trying to explain to you. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do firmly believe that I am right involving the thing about Roxas, although I feel i'm acting too similar to ogre. BassxForte 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it's not necessarily the actual topic (which was really rather menial and neither helped nor detracted from the article itself), but simply the fact that you 3RR'd the page several times and used what some people considered to be personal attacks in your arguments. Poster by: GDR of the Moon 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I once had on my talk page the fact that argueing with me is futile due to my persistence and stubborness, that was a referance to how I act in real life, not how I act on wikipedia, as for the mentin of other people I get into edit wars with being unreasonable, thats a referance to before I became a user, and was just an aynonomus IP address, incidentially, where did I say I was aware that what I was doing was a "bad" action? If you're wondering what I meant by ogre, i'm refering to a user on WoWwiki named angry ogre. BassxForte 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dobbie[edit]

Peter dobbie (talk · contribs) was determined to be the real Peter Dobbie, a BBC news anchor. Unfortunately, after being informed that it was inappropriate for him to edit and add content to the page about him here on the Wikipedia, he continued to use his account solely for this purpose. I have blocked him for continued violations of WP:COI. I will also let the foundation know about my actions due to this user's status in the media world. --Yamla 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell ComCom, too. //PTO 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I just fired off a message to them. In fact, rather than the foundation. If you believe I should still inform the foundation as a whole, let me know. I think the communications committee (and this noticeboard) is probably sufficient. --Yamla 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

COI situations are best avoided, but there is no outright prohibition of an article subject's adding accurate, notable biographical information about himself or herself. Was there any particular problem with the editing beyond the identity of the editor? Newyorkbrad 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem if he's adding unpublished information where before all the information was at least available from the BBC website. There is a problem when he's adding an enthusiastic narrative that reads like it was written by himself or the BBC. —Centrxtalk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked and I'm going to follow up with User:Peter dobbie by email. I've read the correspondence that he has already received and will make sure he understands our policies related to content. Patient editors are invited to help me edit the article and discuss problems with content on the talk page. :-) FloNight 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the prior text added by an anon 21 January 2006 is copied directly from the BBC website, so the whole page is a copyvio back to that date. —Centrxtalk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly wish you luck. The last thing I want to do is to tick off a BBC news anchor, but Mr. Dobbie has seemed unwilling to listen to my and other people's efforts to inform him about Wikipedia policies. The best solution obviously would be to have him unblocked and abiding by our policies but I completely failed in these attempts. Note that I attempted to point out our policies on image copyright and fair use, our policies on conflict-of-interest and verification, and our policies on article ownership. I provided both a link to the policies and a hand-written brief interpretation of these policies. The only response was that there was no problem and I should make sure nobody else changes the text of the article once Mr. Dobbie had incorporated what he wanted. --Yamla 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has now issued a legal threat via email, in response to my message about his violation of WP:COI:

OK then what say I take Wikipedia to court for publishing information

about me to which you have no right, copyright or access. It seems to me that you are totally missing the point which is (1) the article is about me (2) if it's inaccurate you're now saying that I don't have the right to change it because (3) you decide and (4) who the hell are you to take

that decision anyway.

Mr. Dobbie appears absolutely unwilling to abide by WP:COI and there are substantial problems with the images he has been uploading. I would like someone else to review this and consider blocking him indefinitely under WP:NLT. --Yamla 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT says it's a straight reason for indef block, and I don't see him turning around any time soon. Indef blocked for legal threat. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably useless at this point, but I don't see any real problem with the edits he was trying to make this month. He provided several photographs when we didn't have any (asserting a plausible copyright claim in light of his identity), made a few minor changes to the article format, and edited his job title. All of those are permissible under WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you, no? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the photographs he uploaded was a screen capture from BBC World News. The copyright for that would be owned by the BBC, not by him. Additionally, his edits were greater than a few minor changes, see [17]. Now, this could be debateably permitted under WP:AUTO, though not Mr. Dobbie's refusal to let anyone else edit the article once he's got it how he wants it. Anyway, his threat to sue has lead to a block. --Yamla 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it certainly looks like a screen capture, but given his level of access to the set, couldn't it also plausibly be a picture taken by a friend/colleague for his own use? As for the edit you highlighted, I agree that the addition of info about the other show (and the link) are not minor changes, but if you re-check my statement you'll note that I said "this month", while the edit you highlighted was in March. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That diff also looks a lot more extensive than it really is, due to longstanding bugs in the diff tool. --Random832 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban evasion[edit]

Banned User:Hahahihihoho is evading (again) his block. He edits as User:Alkalada. For one of his many sock-puppets, refer to User:Thunderman. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We need more admins... we need more admins desperately... --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason nobody has responded is likely because you haven't told us anything (other than "user x is a sockpuppet") or given us anything to go on. Can you provide evidence (contrib patterns, checkuser, etc) that links the two accounts? – Steel 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ehm, because that is globally-known (at leas to the administrators who have been tracking him, i.e. User:Duja, User:Fred Bauer and User:Bishonen). If you have any doubts that's him, just ask him, he won't deny it. :)))
He was banned for being a sock-puppet, but he appealed to the ArbCom and Fred, and they all (Fred, Bishonen and Duja) agreed to give him a second chance, but strictly on parole. Alkalada (i.e. Hahahihihoho) has made severe violations and disruption (including continuous strictly banned acts, like reported here by User:Edin Sijercic) and has oh-so-much used his shot out. --PaxEquilibrium 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletions[edit]

Before commenting, please read the brief explanations of the process below.

However well intentioned, it seems Naconkantari is going on a bit of a rampage at Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Naconkantari has deleted thousands of pages in just a few hours time, including pages that were inactive for less than a week, and in one case, less than 9 hours. The has also included alphachimp's monobook.js and User talk:Dakilang Isagani which shouldn't have been in the category. I pointed this out to Nackokantari and the only response I got was that there is no way to check each page. Clearly, Naconkantari isn't checking any pages and is frequently deleting at a rate of 45 pages per minute. As the deletions have continued, I'm bringing this here for review. - AuburnPilot 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A few on the list are not suppose to be deleted, however well intentional it is. Deletion of a monobook.js? Can you tell him to stop, wait for us to check the list then delete? --Kzrulzuall 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the problem with User talk:Dakilang Isagani was that he was blocked because of a previous bad username, and the Username Blocked template put the page in the category, and then when the user account was moved, so it was fine and no longer blocked. Pages like that need to be removed from the category. I don't understand how User:Alphachimp/monobook.js was and still is in the category. Anyway, most of the usernames are blatantly deletable, just have to be more careful. —Centrxtalk • 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The pages simply should not be mass deleted. There are pages in there that are sockpuppet pages and need to be retagged, there are pages that are 9 hours old and should be in there for at least, I would think, a week, etc. I appreciate all the work Naconkantari did, but I feel most of it should be reversed. --Iamunknown 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to remove all the socks from the category, although most of the users were indef blocked. --Kzrulzuall 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The sockpuppet issue is what originally pulled me into this problem. The talk page for User:Benjiwolf (a disruptive puppeteer) was deleted, leaving a red-link on pages I've been watching. I restored the page, pointed it out to Naconkantari, and yet s/he has deleted it again. - AuburnPilot 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
For old accounts, what does it matter if the page is still tagged? Most of them aren't tagged in the first place. —Centrxtalk • 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't care if it's tagged, but the talk page of a a current/active puppeteer should not be deleted. - AuburnPilot 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What's it matter? The block log should contain any pertinent information (see WP:DENY). John Reaves (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment, If you want to go through and review them, that's fine with me. I'm not going to do so as the pages are supposed to be temporary. There's just no feasible way to check every single page in that category, on Naconkantari's talk page is a bit perturbing. Since when do administrators run through backlogs blindly? --Iamunknown 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

When the backlogs have months of crap in them and haven't been cleaned since the category was started. There is no reason to keep 99% of the pages in this category. The other 1% of pages should not be in the category if they are in any way important. The editors have been indefblocked and their pages should be removed. If there is an issue with a sockpuppeter, then don't place the page in the temporary category. Use a different template or something. This huge mass of pages does not need to be kept and should be cleaned out as soon as possible. Naconkantari 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take note of the notice at the top of the category: "Please do not delete pages tagged as sockpuppets. They should not be in this category in the first place (...) but if they are, please leave them (....) a number of administrators expressed their concern that many were being removed, making things difficult for them, and have requested that this not happen in future." The notice freely admits that these pages are miscategorized, asks that they not be deleted, gives a reason why, and yet you continue to delete them? --Iamunknown 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do the sockpuppet pages need to be kept? —Centrxtalk • 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidence. In case they create a new sock. --Kzrulzuall 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Not everyone is an admin, and some of the most helpful users at WP:SSP are not, or were not until recently, able to view deleted pages. Deleting these pages leaves a mass of red links all over the place, leaving non-admins incapable of helping. - AuburnPilot 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What information does the userpage provide that the blocklog or a subpage on SSP could not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naconkantari (talkcontribs) 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A link within Special:Whatlinkshere to whatever page the sock is found. What makes you think users are going to bother adding pages to a subpage? Block logs aren't searchable, either. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You can use Special:Whatlinkshere on a deleted page, search sockpuppet names, or see a list of sockpuppets by puppeteer. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:44:17, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you understood something different to what I meant. How are those categories going to be populated, if the pages including sockpuppet tags are deleted? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The pages including sockpuppet tags are not deleted. The sockpuppet deletions in this discussion are caused by a script problem, not common practice. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:44:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, another example of an admin unilaterally using a bot or bot-like functionality to address backlogs with little regard for whether things get done correctly. If we had a reasonable adminbot approval process, maybe someone could write a proper deletion bot that would only clear out pages that are from accounts that are over a month old and not marked as sockpuppets (or whatever other criteria the community feels is important). I don't condone what Naconkantari has been doing, but I think the recurrences of issues like this is symptomatic of a larger problem. Dragons flight 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The only "reasonable adminbot approval process" is a stamp with the word "NO" on it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If keeping sockpuppet pages around is so important, then why does the template automatically categorize to temporary pages? John Reaves (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The sock temps. don't categorize to temporary pages. It's the indef. block ones that do. --Kzrulzuall 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't. Many editors will add a {{indefblockeduser}} because the {{sockpuppet}} does not mention an indefinite block in the same way that {{SockpuppetProven}} does. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I think we need to make a new block temp. saying that their indef. blocked but are socks... --Kzrulzuall 00:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I forgot about that temp.... --Kzrulzuall 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, {{sockblock}} for the puppets. - AuburnPilot 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree the user pages need to be reviewed? Or will it take DRV to get over the inertia? Can we suspend all deletions from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages until we fix the sockpuppet issue? --Iamunknown 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that, although it will take a huge amount of time, given the 8000 or so users listed. I've only reviewed around 200...--Kzrulzuall 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no reason for them to exist. John Reaves (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think an analysis could easily be done by a bot. —Bbatsell 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A bot could just check for sock tags, however admin bots aren't allowed. I suppose it could just make a big list, that admins could click through. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And the date they were added to the category (via whatever template). Yeah, I meant just prepare a report, not to actually do the deletions. —Bbatsell 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a very minor thing and I'm surprised it was brought to this page where it has really produced nothing but drama. If some pages were wrongly deleted, they can be undeleted at the press of a button. If this is because they're being wrongly placed in the category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (which it shouldn't anyone to discover, is solely for pages that do not need to be retained), they should no longer be placed in the category. --Tony Sidaway 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree that it has produced nothing but drama. If a new process including a bot that can actually analyze these pages and make the deletions easier has come out of it, then it was very much worth while. We've also discovered what is causing the problem: people tagging the user as indef in addition to the sock tags. AuburnPilot 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, let's not forget about geniuses like me tagging their monobooks as indefinitely blocked users :) alphachimp 07:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That too. Although if you figure that one out, let me know. I tried to test a few tools from your monobook a week or so ago and it kept telling me I'd been {{schoolblock}}ed. Confused the hell out of me. AuburnPilot 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of old user pages has been discussed repeatedly, with the previous discussion at "User pages deleted by User:Pathoschild" on deletion review. The practice is well-established, with the reasoning laid out by Wikipedia:Deny recognition (which just explains the reasoning, and has no other meaning or enforceability). User pages belonging to sockpuppets, banned users, users blocked following arbitration cases, and sockpuppeteers should not be deleted, as these arguably serve a useful purpose; Pathosbot occasionally corrects the templates on those pages.

For all users tagging sockpuppets, you can help keep them out of the category by using the sockpuppet block templates. In particular:

The problem here is not the practice itself, which is well-established, but Naconkantari's deletion tool. We appreciate the help, but some basic safeguards (such as not deleting anything in a sockpuppet or banned-user category) are needed. Ideally, this can be integrated into his tool and everyone will live happily ever after.

...except the vandals, of course. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:12:19, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I just deleted a chunk of userpages older than 15 days or so which were purely the indef block template. There were a couple that needed fixing, though: [18] [19] [20] This seems to be the source of the issue; all it takes is a little bit of care to check if there's two tags, not one, on the userpage. You could even write a script which discriminates between this, and it'd solve the problem of "bad" deletions. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess all I can say to you admins is, "Hop to it!" I'd help out if I could, but I can't. :-( --Iamunknown 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is ongoing, he needs to be blocked for using a malfunctioning automated tool. However, this backlog certainly does need to be looked at. Maybe if we had more admins... --Random832 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The tool is not malfunctioning. It is working exactly as it is intended. The editors that place the incorrect tags are the ones that should be at fault. If editors can not place the correct tags on a supposedly important page, they should leave the tagging to someone who can properly tag pages. Naconkantari 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A tool that gives ordinary users the ability to have anyone's page deleted by putting a category on it is broken by design. It's the same reason we don't have cascading semi-protection. This is why you need to _check_ pages before deleting them. Even if it weren't broken, it's a violation WP:BOT, and while the community turns a blind eye to that when everything's working properly, consensus is that this is not proper behavior. --Random832 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:EuropeanLynx[edit]

I blocked this user for a week for edit warring on Nazi skinhead and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice after using an IP. Is this someone we've blocked before? He seems to know what he's doing. Grandmasterka 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the same editor that was username blocked as User:ProudAryan, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know. One Night In Hackney303 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Time for a community ban? Ben Aveling 07:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Bit early for that, although I can see that being a likely end result. One Night In Hackney303 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as too early, if the user is truly this disruptive. Take it to WP:CSN? ~Crazytales 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on this edit from his latest sockpuppet with an edit summary of "Rendered the first paragraph of history more accurate with referenced material. Internet reference takes precedent over a book reference. Erasing it would be pure vandalism", you may well be right. One Night In Hackney303 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL[edit]

I originally provided the references/see also section of a contentious AfD-deleted-on-DRV article to userspace at User:Fowler&fowler/HP References, per a request on my talk page. However, since then, another administrator (Dbachmann (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)) has copy-pasted the whole article's text into that page. Can an uninvolved administrator (ie. not me [who deleted the article], and not Dbachmann [who is extremely involved and has even threatened to go to RfAr over the close]) please review whether this copy-paste move is GFDL-compliant, and whether it should be deleted; I'm suspecting it isn't (and as such, the latter revision should be deleted), but I think I'm "involved". Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that Dbachmann's comments on your talk page weren't particularly civil or assuming good faith. As for the licensing, you'll need someone more experienced in the area. --KZTalkContribs 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ask him to move ArbCom if he presses. There have been gross civility problems with him in the past, where he resorted to racist comments. Nothing a good long block wouldn't solve. Good day. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Daniel.Bryant closed a 16 keep to 14 delete AfD as "delete". Is it surprising that I object? Daniel's concern whether my c&p was "GFDL-compliant" betrays a similarly poor awareness of GFDL as of his grasp of AfD procedure. As for my complaing to Daniel, seeing it contains "I know you acted in good faith", I find it difficult to follow Kzrulzuall's judgement that I somehow wasn't "particularly assuming good faith". If I read Sir Nicholas' comment correctly, he seems to be advocating giving be a "good long block" over my objecting to an AfD closure as if I was some troll account that arrived on Wikipedia last week. That's plain bullying, and I begin to get the impression I am being set up as the next Giano: Giano was mobbed out of Wikipedia because he dared objecting to an RFA promotion in spite of no arguable consensus. I am protesting a deletion in the face of no arguable consensus. Whatever happened to following the rules? I am aware of WP:IAR, but you cannot ignore the rules, and then clamp down on your critics based on technicalities, sorry. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
People admitted that they made a mistake with Giano, and he is currently editing, even though he most certainly did not get in trouble just because he disagreed with a promotion. You can't invoke a supposed martyr who isn't even gone to defend your actions. Also, saying "I know you acted in good faith" does not mean you truly believe that, and you had just finished complaining that he's stupid and deleted it because of religious crusades. -Amarkov moo! 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note one edit account visiting the pages of some involved parties [21]. --Bhadani (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) For GFDL compliance, if that was the only issue, it might be sufficient to put a link on the talk page to the page from which content was copied, with a note that the page history there provides the authorship info on a particular section. This is routinely done in merges, and is generally noncontroversial. However, there is obviously more going on here than a simple question of how to comply with the GFDL. After all, any text posted to wikipedia is normally under the GFDL, and therefore available to be sued elsewhere, including elsewhere on wikipedia, with proper attribution etc. DES (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL was never the issue, and it is best known to Sir Nicholas himnself why he would choose to invoke "GFDL" as a reason for using his delete-button against my copy of the material under discussion in user-space. I ask people to look at the deleted material and judge for themselves if there can be any debate about its encyclopedicity (as opposed to its being precisely balanced, which would be a matter of debate, not AfD). AfD is not the place to complain about articles that are allegedly biased or that allegedly contain OR. This deletion is completely out of process and is a sign of the "trolls taking over": A bunch of single-topic accounts co-ordinated by a yahoo mailing list successfully getting material deleted from Wikipedia simply because it runs counter to their ideology. This is serious, people, and I would like to get a sober review of all this. I hope we can sort this out without going the painful route of RfC/RfAr: this is what we have AN/I for. I have spent three years on Wikipedia, people, and I can tell the difference between just not getting my way, and a flawed admin action, and I would not make a fuss here if I did not think the latter applies here. The only arguable outcomes Daniel could have chosen from under the circumstances were either merge/rename/redirect (taking a plunge), or no consensus (being non-committal). dab (𒁳) 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The deletion review is here and I would suggest that a consensus appears to be forming. Addhoc 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And now I'm getting a lesson in AfD closing, as well as being told like a schoolchild what I can and cannot do with my talk page. I am unfamiliar with Dbachmann's history, but if it's anything like what Nick hints at, then I can see why Dbachmann doesn't want to send it to RfAr...he just has to look at the Billy Ego-Sandstein case for a replica. Daniel Bryant 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, he doesn't demonstrate civility with his edits. Dbachman, I find it hard to believe that you consider giving people "lessons" about this. It implies a huge amount of disdain on your part. --KZTalkContribs 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a quick look (being impartial) and I know Dbachmann has suffered some trolling on ANI by a single purpose account [22], but I'm at a loss as to how the content that was undeleted and pasted into userspace can possibly be considered GFDL compliant - was it left there through finding the information that one particular user added into the article or just by copying and pasting the desired contents ? I'm also gravely concerned by the lack of civility and collegialism shown here by dab, calling other admins trolls really is not helpful and conducive to a friendly and harmonious editing environment. -- Nick t 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we "Assume Good Faith" with an editor apparently pursuing a vendetta?[edit]

(Moved from WP:CN Navou banter 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Preamble note: This post relates to an article which had an edit war 2 weeks ago - that had consequences discussed on this page. An administrator imposed an (apparently indefinite) soft ban on myself and two other editors. The majority of opinion on this page expressed the view that the soft ban was imposed far too prematurely - without exploration of conflict resolution. Even though I think the soft ban was a mistake - and should be lifted - that is NOT the reason for this post. I mention this merely in full disclosure. The editor I am asking for advice about today was NOT one of those banned.)

A new Wikipedia account started appearing on Wikipedia on December 30, 2006. After a few minor edits on other articles - the editor settled as a single-issue editor on the Pete Townshend article.

The editor gave him/her-self the name Wiki-is-truth.

The calm that had prevailed for 12 months on the article was over. An edit war erupted. Eventually it was resolved with a compromise and a straw poll set up by an administrator. The editor Wiki-is-truth signed off on the compromise:

Support the version above Wiki-is-truth 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

After that - the editor disappeared and did not make a single appearance on Wikipedia till today (April 9, 2007). And then just to involve him/her-self in the same Pete Townshend matter. So far - just on the Talk Page.

On the surface there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that. If a person chooses to be a single-issue editor - contributing to only one article or Talk Page - that is totally ok. If a person wishes to take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks - that is totally ok.

The issue is this. Several editors believe (and have stated on the Pete Townshend Talk Page) that this person is present on Wikipedia for one primary purpose. To pursue a vendetta against Pete Townshend.

The evidence for this is in the multiple posts by the person on the Talk Page for the article on Pete Townshend. And in the history of his/her edits on the article.

Here is just the latest example fron the Talk Page - posted today:

"as a quick aside, I would rather call Townshend a promoter of child porn than a "blaggard" - Wiki-is-truth 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As editors - we are supposed to "Assume Good Faith".

How are we supposed to do so in the face of someone who asserts that Pete Townshend (who the UK police thoroughly investigated for four months and then decided NOT to charge with any criminal offense) is "a promoter of child porn"? Davidpatrick 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is assuming an editor means well until there is clear evidence to the contrary - which has been reached and passed in this case. There is no need to walk in on someone stabbing a dying body and screaming "die! die!" and try to assume they are innocent. There is no reason to assume good faith when inaccurate, harmful content is added to an article repeatedly after explaining BIO, and V or ATT. So the answer is, dont AGF in this case, it is counter to any comensense approach and would require you freeze the logic centers of your brain solid, which I do not recommend. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding, if the editor has not yet edited the article and is not arguing for including unsourced defamitory content on the talk page, why worry? Upon more careful examination of the situation, I'm completely unclear on why you're here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
His user page, by the way, is an essay on why Wikipedia is evil since we don't say Townsend's a pedo. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When is it appropriate for someone to edit an article they nominated for deletion, if the {{afd}} is still underway?[edit]

User:PelleSmith instantiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism.

While they said, in their nomination, that they would like to be proved wrong, in fact they are currently making extensive edits to the article which give the unfortunate appearance of trying to undermine attempts to improve it, so it will survive {{afd}}.

Among the reasons they originally nominated it were that it was poorly referenced. So, I wonder, is it really appropriate for them to be removing references-, while the {{afd}} is underway? [23] [24]

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but articles can be edited while an AfD is underway, as long as the Afd tga is not removed. Tellyaddict 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Removing legit references in general is bad. Removing un-legit references, refactoring the text, and in general improving articles is good. Removing references during an AfD is not necessarily bad or good but certainly can, whether true or not, give the impression that the nom is trying to influence the votes. Anyone can edit an article at afd, even if they are the nom. Any rules against that would simply be instruction creep. So, are the references legit or not? Is the nom just massacring the text or is he or she appropriately refactoring it? --Iamunknown 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the nominators edits, both ante-{{afd}} and intra-{{afd}} give the unfortunate appearance of damaging the article so that their afd will succeed, rather than sincere attempts to improve the article.
We are all supposed to assume good faith. Is it possible that the nominator might think their edits actually improved the article? Well, they are already on record stating that the entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they could think they could improve an irredeemably flawed article. -- Geo Swan 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct regarding how I view the very idea of the entry. However, that does not in any way mean that I'm going to sit by while bad references are added to it like cheap makeup. Also see below. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I don't start an AfD with the "entire idea of the article [as] irredeemably flawed". I start by assuming that (1) the article is not within the scope of an encyclcopedia or (2) the article is on a non-notable subject. If I impatient, started an AfD, and then later find additional information, I will most certainly add it. If anyone assumes anything other than good faith, then it is inappropriate on their part. --Iamunknown 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please review the debate in question first. If you look at the AfD you will understand why the "entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed", because the entry name itself is WP:OR. There is no way to save it under its current name. I have for the last month suggested moving it or merging it with another entry so as not to create the illusion that "religious conversion" factors into terrorism. If you looked at the AfD you would understand. There is overwhelming support for delete based upon this exact reason so please don't jump to those kinds of conclusions.PelleSmith 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted, articles may be edited during an AfD. Any edit that weakens any article is inappropriate (absent cause such as a BLP issue) whether or not there is an AfD pending. If there is concern that misguided editing might sway an AfD decision, a user participating in the AfD may wish to link to his or her preferred version of the article, to suggest that the version a prospective AfD !voter might encounter right at the moment is not the optimal or ultimate version. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "edits" that are under dispute are the removal of bad references. Many of the bad references were removed prior to the AfD, and have been removed once again during the AfD. Each time I have provided detailed edit summaries as to why these references are misleading, irrelevant or simply unreliable sources. I stand by each and every one of these edits, since keeping bad references in an article lacking good ones is the worst possible solution since it simply masks one of the problems. It should be noted that the overarching issue with the entry is WP:OR which the very name of the entry elicits.PelleSmith 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think NYBrad's solution is the correct one. If you're concerned sabotage might occur, just provide a link in the discussion to an oldid of the "best version." Articles nominated for AfD don't necessarily get deleted, and obviously anyone nominating for AfD has serious concerns about the article, so it's certainly conceivable they might try to fix it in the meantime. (Obviously, if someone's being deliberately disruptive or vandalizing that's not acceptable, but if, for example, an article is nominated for deletion as a POV fork, and the nominator cleans up the POV as best (s)he can in the meantime, nothing wrong with that.) Seraphimblade 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If the article content is blatantly inappropriate, then just because the AfD is continuing, it doesn't imply the article should be frozen. Addhoc 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing legit references is not good under any circumstances. The fact that it's up for AfD doesn't change what is or isn't acceptable. It's simply a little more unacceptable if an editor is trying to undermine the AfD. Grandmasterka 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to edit an article you nominated for deletion. You're allowed to change your mind. Assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block for DavidYork71[edit]

I've just blocked DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) indefinitly after a long debate (see his his talk page for more details). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add this diff [25] from my talk page and this section [26] from User:Sarah's talk page. --Aminz 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this indefinite block. Per Sarah, DavidYork71 acts as if the community doesn't exist and has no right to demand any modifications to his behavior, where very substantial modifications are sorely needed.Proabivouac 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This editor has demonstrated time and time again that he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Given his heavy and chronically repetitive anti-Islam POV pushing and editing that corresponds to that and his other disruptive editing (ie: creating an article called "autosodomy" and insisting that it was a "yogic art" and linking that to numerous yoga articles) and now his sockpuppetry, the project is much better off without this editor. (Netscott) 08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The latest sock of David: User:Anal Servitude; needs to be blocked. --Aminz 08:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear that this is DavidYork71 - username trolls have appeared on my user talk lately, such as User:Breien Pfeffers - but a username block is certainly in order. Given the avowed interests of DY71 it is at least conceivable; you might add it to the outstanding checkuser request [[27]]. At least I would ask that users with disreputable usernames such as these not be allowed to post on my user talk, so request semiprotection.Proabivouac 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
David was interested in Anal sex and homosexuality articles. I'll add it to the list. Thanks anyways. --Aminz 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked for username violation. IrishGuy talk 09:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta[edit]

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is again engaged in revert-warring. I don't care enough about this particular article to continue this revert-war, but I strongly suggest close scrutiny of his overall pattern of reverting to his preferred version while pretending to be interested in discussion. --Ideogram 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Daniel Bryant 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM: A thin line between legitimate calling for attention and blatant canvassing[edit]

A similar case has been recently discussed at this board: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#AfD: is canvassing allowed?. This time I would like someone impartial to take a look at the developments of the WP:RM proposal, see Talk:Fântâna Albă incident#Canvassing_warning.

The poll was strongly affected by a hectic campaign of canvassing by one side. Here are some entries:

And, I especially liked this one:

Additionally, as per this an unknown number of user were "mobilized" by email.

Several users unfolded a rage of incivilities at the talk page against the opposition to the move and were warned by an admin to stop.

I request an impartial look at the matter, the analysis of some user's behavior at the talk page and the conclusion of the poll to be made based on each side's arguments as the raw numbers here are certainly meaningless. --Irpen 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks by Frelke[edit]

Repeated reverts to include personal attack [28], [29]; also in edit summary at [30] and refusal to comply with polite request to desist [31], including further PA in edit summary. Follows on from my earlier reversal of that user's attempt to remove my comment from the flow of a conversation [32]. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Islamic Hell of Imam Khamenei[edit]

Can someone please block this user because of its offensive username. This user is probably a sock of a banned user. This is suggested by his contributions (I guess it is User:DavidYork71. --Aminz 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recommend indef username block.Proabivouac 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
done. Fut.Perf. 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a User:Patchouli sockpuppet, not an Davidyork one, as stated in an above discussion regarding User:Imam Khamenei=Islam --KZTalkContribs 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see. --Aminz 10:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peterhowitt (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user, who registered yesterday, is claiming to be actor/director Peter Howitt. While there may be obvious WP:COI issues (I did alter a welcome message to also suggest he take a few minutes to read WP:COI), I see nothing wrong with any of his edits so far. If I remember correctly though, his identity will have to be verified by someone up the wiki food chain, so I thought I'd bring it up here. --Onorem 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If he's claiming to be someone famous, I've seen from somewhere that you are suppose to block the account until identification is confirmed to avoid impersonation? Of course, that is more than likely to be wrong, and doesn't seem to be reinforced in any policy... --KZTalkContribs 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, after close inspection of his edits, I don't see much wrong... Maybe a few notability issues but apart from that, he seems to be a genuine good-faith editor. He doesn't seem to be in danger of violating anything with an exception of WP:COI, so if an identification procedure is needed, I wouldn't advise a block until it is over. --KZTalkContribs 11:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message suggesting Howitt to e-mail Wikipedia proof of his identity under this account and warning him of a possible block due to concerns of impersonation. Not sure about the necessity for a block, but there is probably some sort of precedent that dictates whether it's applicable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is convention to block until the identity is confirmed. See the incident at User talk:George Carlin. Also, the article he created was a blatant ripoff of [33] so I deleted it. He is editing his own article, but he seems to be pretty neutral about it. John Reaves (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The irony here is that this might be a rare instance where the copyright holder uploaded the text determined to be copyvio. I've undeleted the article sans the promotional blurb snatched from the website. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it still needs to be GFDL. Simply uploading it wouldn't irrevocably release it would it? John Reaves (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
All text contributions are automatically licensed under the GFDL unless they contain copyrighted text. If Howitt was aware of this, he could have chosen to release this content under the GFDL via contribution. Of course you can't bank on that stipulation, so it would help if the copyright owner would actually make a note of releasing content under a particular free license. Deleting at least the copyrighted portion was obviously the right thing to do, in any case. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png[edit]

i'm personally feeling that User:Timeshifter is being seriously disrutive to "the discussion" via these: (1st), (2nd), -my resolve attempt-, (3rd)+"You are approaching a 3RR violation" threat - scroll down to see it - please have someone review the history of the talk page and give an opinion. Jaakobou 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing big chunks of talk? Archive it instead, leaving a note about what was archived and why, and a link. Ask someone if you don't know how to make an archive sub-page. Then maybe the two of you will be able to stop deleting each others' talk. Dicklyon 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Dicklyon, obvisoult you did not take a good look at the issue. the talk allready exists on an older image before it was exchanged for the current one - i raised suggestions about the new one and User:Timeshifter copy pasted the info from the older image which is seriously redundant and only disruptive for anyone to contribute to the new discussion. i've tried placeing a link to it but User:Timeshifter insisted that "admins" (who?) wanted the information there. Jaakobou 06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
to make it more clear, i link to where the material was originally copied from - i.e. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png . Jaakobou 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

for a short while this seemed to get better (after an uncomfortable restructuring i've made[34] - scroll down to see editing ) but issue seems to be repeating itself.global locater mess, and 800px wide image -- Jaakobou 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Chidis (talk · contribs)[edit]

The above Sri Lanka specific user seems to be using Wikipedia as battleground and expound anti-minority views that too without WP:RS citations and is adding information in WP:Vand format. For example in the article Islam in Sri Lanka (see here) he/she wrote without any attribution However the Muslim community in Sri Lanka has been severly criticized by the other communities for not practising Family planning; which is an argument used by local communal leaders to suggest that Muslims intend to become the majority in Sri Lanka by the next century. Then on another Sri Lankn minority related article (see diff here) He/she wrote many derogatory terms such as lower caste without attributions. Further on a minority related political party (See diff here) he/she wrote that the party stands for super status for the Tamil minority. Other questionable edits bordering on vandalism are (see diff here),(see diff here), (See diff here) Please look into this to bring some sanity to the situation before all out edit wars begins RaveenS 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Patrollers needed for Scottish political articles[edit]

Just a note - I just spoke to a journalist about thhe upcoming Scottish elections (May) and vandalism to Scottish political articles on en:wp. He was wondering if it was at the sort of level we'd expect, particularly on Scottish National Party. That article has only suffered minor ravages; the situation probably isn't dire right now - but if people could watchlist Scottish political party, politician, etc. articles and get very WP:BLP on the arses of anything added to said articles, that may be a good idea - David Gerard 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto the Welsh, given that the National Assembly for Wales is also having a general election. I don't know why he would think the SNP would get the worst of it though. Sam Blacketer 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:JFBurton[edit]

Normally, I have a pretty thick skin. But User:JFBurton has already been blocked several times for incivility towards me, personal attacks against me, vandalism of my userpage, and (and this was my last straw) telling me that my much-loved grandfather's death was a good thing if it got me off of Wikipedia for a few days. So I hope you'll pardon me for coming to AN/I today, when he has warned a user who hadn't actually done anything wrong, but who I'd had a recent conversation with on my talk page, and then made another personal attack on my talk page. I think those here who know me know that I usually am very good at ignoring personal attacks, but this user has been making them at regular intervals since November 2006, and I am well and truly sick of him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My word, some of those diffs are nasty, particularly the last one, and most of them are just plain trolling. Interesting to note that JFBurton is coming off a month-long block for disruptive sockpuppetry: see his block log. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Seem to also have a general civility issue, this comment today about this edit. --Fredrick day 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion User:JFBurton is nothing more than a vandal. User:!notrub! claimed the name of Village People singer Jeff Olson was actually Tim Burton and changed his country of birth and residence here. User:JFBurton then moved the article to Tim Burton, and also claims the singer is his father here.
User:!notrub! is actually User:JFBurton, as User:!notrub! created the Kelleshulme here, which User:JFBurton claims to have created on his user page. He even confirms the other account belongs to him here. One Night In Hackney303 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I already warned him for posting trash on FisherQueen's talk page, but then I noticed he was under a threat of a indefinite block if he disrupted again. Any takers? (this post should not be interpreted as this editor actually giving a shit again, but rather just one editor sticking up for another who has been kind to him on multiple occasions) Jeffpw 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
already beening discussed above - but good catch anyway! --Fredrick day 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate threads merged. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
JFBurton's latest is an egregious taunting of another editor. I think he is purely here to cause trouble. Sam Blacketer 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We really can't have this sort of behaviour. Indef, anyone? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've indef blocked for the time being. At the time of his earler 1 month block, Jayjg (talk · contribs) clearly warned him that further disruption would lead to an indef block. Given his contributions at User talk:Grandmasterka, User talk:Bravedave (which I can't figure out... the editor made 1 recent edit and that was a talkpage comment to FisherQueen), and User talk:FisherQueen, I think it is safe to say JFBurton is continuing to disrupt here. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss the block duration.--Isotope23 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. This user's overall pattern of conduct and contributions was unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if the user starts sockpuppeting to evade this block and continues to disrupt, you could try for a community ban at WP:CN. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL issues[edit]

moved from WT:INB

I received an interesting SMS from Hutch yesterday. The message read "Wikepedia Search now on your mobile!Find information on anything under the sun by using his free encyclopedia!Log on to Planet Hutch> Info Services >Wikepedia". Looks like great promotion for wikipedia (though they got their spelling wrong). But I am concerned that they may not be totally complying with terms of GFDL. I am also not sure whether they can use "wikipedia" is such promotional messages. Any suggestions on what should be done? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

sock-puppet to block[edit]

Check-user confirms that Telephon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a sock-puppet of banned user Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Can someone block? Bucketsofg 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we have a link to the checkuser case? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis. I blocked Telephon (talk · contribs) and requested clarification on TropicNord (talk · contribs). In the future, a link to the request for checkuser would be helpful so we don't have to go fishing thorough WP:RFCU or edit histories to confirm the results...--Isotope23 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbasswilson[edit]

A quick review of this user's talk page reveals that he is a problem user. He has left abusive and threatening messages on my talk page, as well as adding bad faith CSD to articles after a page he repeatedly created about a band (presumably his own, based on the username) was speedily deleted. --Darksun 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking into this and Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) already blocked the editor... which I support by the way. Lots of disruption and silly personal attacks.--Isotope23 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Snickers83 and possible copyright violations[edit]

I want to report this guy because after I've warned him on what he posts on these articles (Asian Treasures, Super Twins and