Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227

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

Noticeboard archives


Personal attacks by[edit]

by (talk · contribs) on Talk:Nadine Gordimer (diff). user has been warned and blocked a couple of times before for incivility and personal attacks. Doldrums 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After a new series of diatribes ([1][2], etc., I blocked this account for 1 month. This is the 4th block of the account for personal attacks or incivility. -Will Beback · · 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Administrative review

Yakuman has questioned my one-month block of (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have offered to immediately remove the block if the user communicates his intent to avoid stop making uncivil remarks and personal attacks. I invite review of this block. -Will Beback · · 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: WP:COIN:, a recent, extended discussion of this user. -Will Beback · · 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The block appears reasonable. Guettarda 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of a long content dispute between both editors, stretching over several months. They frequent racially controversial articles; IP claims there's an ideological dispute, which boiled over into a number of policy violations by a group of people, including the admin. IP specifically alleges WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and especially WP:STALK against Will Beback, whom he says is looking for a chance to implement a permanent ban. (For specifics, ask him; I've only been following this a few weeks.)
Will Beback claims that "the block needs to be long enough to change the behavior." To IP, this is another attempt at intimidation, to which he answers per WP:IAR. Ergo the so-called diatribe must be read in context. In my view: I don't think the punishment fits the crime -- and a month-long ban is overkill. Will Beback was not the admin to handle this, as he inserted himself into a content dispute. Also, I suggested he cut it back and he refused. IMHO, this is a case of WP:BITE that got way, way out of hand. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yakuman, I've never been in any content dispute with this editor. My only dispute with him was over his insertion of dozens of link to his blogs and other self-promotion. -Will Beback · · 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We discussed this before. You were tagging on-topic print magazine article cites as "blogs" until I showed up. (That's what made me interested in this mess.) When 70 spoke up, you apparently blew him off. Meanwhile, there remains some IP wikistalker (not you), who follows him around, reverting every edit. He showed up today and attacked him. Again, I don't see you doing anything, even though 70 has mentioned it several times. No wonder he's mad. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Those were not content disputes. Whether blogs or print articles all the items I removed were links to online articles written by the editor. It was a simple case of WP:COI which was discussed at length on that noticeboard. Editors there agreed that the more immediate problem was's incivility and personal attacks. It would have probably ended there but made this fresh set of extremely uncivil postings across a number of pages. The more correct length of a block should be "long enough to change the behavior or prevent further disruption'". I've offered to shorten the block if the user will commit to abiding by Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback · · 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While hashing this out goes beyond the scope here, I'll just point out one thing: Look through his posts and look past the rhetorical hyperbole. He mentions some specific disputed items and sources that are not COI, even by your standard. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Though all of the edits I dealt with were self-promotional I'll grant you that he also made some that didn't include links to his own material. However what brought him here today were his personal attacks. User:Durova did nothing to deserve the despicable description posted by this editor. These attacks are inappropirate for Wikipedia. The user has been warned about incivility by many editors and has been blocked by four different admins, including myself. The community is losing patience with this user who doesn't seem to show any intention of changing his behavior. -Will Beback · · 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that diff and laughed out loud. I suppose it was intended as an insult but it hits the spot as absurdist humor. Thank you for the defense, Will. DurovaCharge! 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That was a serious grievance, humourously stated. Also, I can't believe that the community consists of several people, plus sockpuppets, who follow this guy from page to page. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A footnote on the debate at WP:COIN: If 70.23 would calm down a little so we could actually talk to him, the editors at the COI noticeboard would have wanted to discuss his repeated addition of links to his own web-published articles. Will Beback supplied 39 examples. Often this editor would reinsert these links after they had been legitimately removed by other editors, sometimes with a scornful edit summary, announcing that he was repairing vandalism! He considers the removal of these links and the ensuing blocks to be part of a conspiracy against him, perhaps triggered off by an editing dispute at the Nadine Gordimer article. He seems unaware that those following up on this are trying to enforce policy and may not even have read the disputed article. EdJohnston 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I decided to enter this debate when on-topic print magazine articles were deleted as "blogs." Many of his edits were perfectly good cites and I vouched for then. Even when 70 posted other cites unrelated to Nicholas Stix, who is not verified as this IP, the same group was reverting them. That's not just enforcing policy.
As far as calming down and such, that's probably covered under NPA, I guess. You shouldn't be blocked for it, but neither should 70. He sees himself backed into a corner, with some justification. Let's lift that block. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've read through 70.23.*'s comments on his own talk page and the Nadine Gordimer talk page, extensively, and in general I have not seen other people (including myself) engaging in personal attacks or uncivil behavior. I'm sure there are occasional comments that someone could point to from other folks that could be construed as uncivil, but as generously as possible, at least 90% of the personal attacks and uncivil behavior in any engagement that I've seen 70.23.* involved in have come from 70.23.*. Moreover, 70.23.* claims he is being wikistalked, but from my read, the only thing that comes close is the ongoing edit war between 130.* and 70.23.*, which is mutual on both sides and spans multiple pages. I haven't seen "some justification" or any justification for 70.23.*'s behavior, and it makes the editing experience extremely unpleasant for people that 70.23.* disagrees with. People can assess for themselves: I've been assembling relevant links at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history preparatory for future engagements with 70.23.* and mediation on the NG page.--lquilter 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this since it was posted on the COI noticeboard in mid-March. The richly deserved one month block (after previous and equally deserved 31 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour blocks) is not an indefinite block. — Athænara 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? - AFD disruption[edit]

I'm not sure how exactly to categorise this, but it seems to be a disruptive edit pattern that amounts to vandalism. Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is voting "Strong Keep" to every single article in WP:AFD - see history - for silly reasons such as "because I would like to learn more about this", "because I recall seeing Cracked frequently in stores growing up", "because cool idea for an article", "to keep things interesting!", "because Robot Chicken is an active show and always ends with that Stupid Monkey thing!" etc. Tearlach 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I would call this disruptive. It appears the editor is opining in good faith. Granted, if I were closing these I don't see most of his arguments having much merit to support the opinions he's rendering, but I also don't see evidence he's doing anything other than puting his two cents in. I'll hit his talkpage and suggest he review some policies, etc and try and frame his reasonings along those lines.--Isotope23 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As you say, there are limits on what goes into Wikipedia (e.g. WP:ISNOT, failure to provide WP:RS) and also ones on what constitutes acceptable evidence for inclusion (such as WP:NOR). If this user's edits are not based within the framework of such policies and guidelines, it's disruptive to the purpose of creating Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to believe in the good faith of the more facetious reasons. Tearlach 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • He's trying to illustrate a point that he thinks "hard work shouldn't be deleted." He's made about 45 "Strong Keep" !votes in about an hour; there's no way to read an article and all of the arguments for or against it at that rate. I do think it's disruptive. Leebo T/C 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; realistically no closer is going to be swayed to keep based on the reasoning there. Another admin may see it differently though.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that there are much more heinous examples than this of "disruptive editing" that we should be focusing our attention on. People are allowed to make meritless arguments. - Crockspot 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've marked all of the AFD discussion contributions by that editor. Several of them were clearly made just for the sake of saying "strong keep" rather than out of any regard for writing an encyclopaedia, such as opining to keep clear hoaxes or unsourced rumours, and some other edits such as this indicate that disruption is the intent here. But this is something that we've dealt with at AFD before. The usual approach is to simply note the editor's actions so that the closing administrator can give xyr rationales an appropriate weight. Closing administrators are not vote-counting robots, and can be relied upon to treat such discussion contributions appropriately, once the pattern is pointed out. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hello! I thought my reasons were good, but I guess we all have different opinions, and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia and how it's users think every day. Anyway, I just wanted to help out others who spend time making articles that might be able to be improved rather than having their work wasted. Have an excellent evening! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds like disruption to me...and anyway, his username is an obvious violation of WP:U. --KZTalkContribs 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • How? —bbatsell ¿? 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I believe he's referring to the fact that it's generally discouraged to use "Wikipedia" in one's username. However, I do see some sort of disruption here. I will leave W,H,F? a message on his talk page summarizing these concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see a problem with his username. After extensive discussion, WP:U no longer says not to use "Wikipedia" as a part of your username. The initial concern was that names that used Wikimedia-related terms violated the Foundation's copyright. In any sense, I doubt the rule was intended to ban names that refer to one's participation in/feelings about Wikipedia. If you feel his username is inappropriate, feel free to list him at WP:RFC/NAME. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Having been thoughtfully invited here from the Stoopid Monkey AfD by Uncle G, allow me to comment: I believe this user is acting in good faith in order to keep articles that he feels are valuable. A single instance of 45 similar edits in an hour is hardly indicitative of disruption unless it were clear vandalism; stating an opinion, even what might be a misguided one, in a discussion page doesn't even approach vandalism. And I'm sure if I looked in the AfD archives I could find plenty of examples of editors who have gone around to at least as many AfD pages, in at least as short an amount of time, inserting opinions of "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, fancruft", and they are not similarly chastised. If the arguments are meritless, the closing admin will see that and take it into consideration. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that following a user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions in an attempt to discount them based on the user's edit history (rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof of the individual arguments) is disruptive, being possibly an example of both stalking and biting a newbie, and perhaps even a personal attack. DHowell 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not the speed alone, nor is it the opinion. It's the speed combined with the facts that the opinion is the same everywhere, even in the cases of clear hoaxes, and the several edits that pretty much state outright that disruption is the intent. This is nothing new at AFD. It's not as if this is the first person ever to have gone on such a spree. The way that we deal with it, and have dealt with it for several years, now, as described in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, is to simply place a note against the discussion contributions for the benefit of the closing administrators. The only assumption of bad faith here is yours, in assuming that noting the pattern is a personal attack (which it of course isn't) and assuming that tracking a pattern of disruption is stalking (which that isn't, either, per the very page that you linked to above). Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While I wish this user would spend more time analyzing these articles and providing clearer rationales for retention, I see nothing disruptive in his actions. The rationales provided are far more informative than many of the usual "Delete - nn" variety, often rattled off at rates far, far higher than the 45 per hour evidenced by the accused. If lack of rationale and time between votes are going to be treated seriously as an issue, and appropriate standards are established to eliminate the problem, there will be far many more delete voters eliminated than speedy keepers. Alansohn 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't the issue, and you should not be turning this into a proxy for a debate about inclusionism and deletionism, which it actually has nothing at all to do with. See the diffs hyperlinked to above and the contributions history, for what the issue actually is. (That you haven't got the opinion given in this case correct strongly indicates that you haven't reviewed the diffs provided or the contributions history. Please look at the actual edits in this case.) Moreover: Discussion contributions such as "NN, D" are also things that should be noted, with editors politely encouraged to provide good rationales in their stead, as a matter of fact; and there was once a case of an editor going on a similar spree to this one with that very rationale. Please read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD and Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what this individual's motivations are. What I do see in having reviewed every single diff before weighing in with my opinion, is that the overwhelming majority of this individual's votes clearly address the articles in question and give specific reasons for retention, even if they do not use thw Wikibuzzwords and cryptic references to policy we'd all prefer to see. While I would also appreciate greater insight into Wikipedia policy, I see that this person is doing a far better job of justifying his votes than the overwhelming majority of AfD participants, pro or con. You have simply not established that this editor is being disruptive. Alansohn 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically, he can go do that all he likes, and if he's not making a clear, policy- and source-based argument, whoever closes the AfD can and should ignore it. If he really wants the articles kept, he would certainly do himself a service to make such arguments, but if he wants to spam WP:ILIKEIT across every AfD we got it won't make a bit of difference anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I smell a sock. Will follow up with details soon. DurovaCharge! 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is one of the site's long term vandals (and an excellent example of why it was a baaad idea to deactivate WP:RFI). The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? account is a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles whom I blocked for six weeks on November 8, 2006 for attempted vote fixing at WP:AFD and gross violations of WP:POINT.[3] And of course, the new account started its life while that lengthy block was in place.[4] This editor knew he couldn't get away with massive AFD disruption on the old account anymore (I had warned him he was close to an indef) so he returned with his usual florid courtesy on that account and kept the other one to play around as the new persona who supported absolutely every wretched article regardless of site policies. The prose style is inimitable and piqued my curiosity immediately. Two representative examples:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations (6 November 2006): Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,[5]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimelo! Records (10 April 2007): *Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers.[6]
I soon confirmed that, among other things, both accounts have edited Parma, Ohio and [7] and List of light gun games.[8] Slightly more complicated is obvious unregistered editing at, which resolves to Ohio State University.[9][10] I've indef blocked both registered accounts and put a 12 hour block on the IP - it's kind of hard to do longer if it could have a general effect on one of the largest universities in existence - but this person seems to know that unregistered users seldom carry weight at AFD.
Now for the rant: tracking this type of abuse is exactly the sort of thing that RFI excelled at when it had enough mops to operate. No other board has the focus and followup to replace its function and these problems do not go away; they go underground. These days my own user talk page gets about 60 new threads a week, a substantial percentage of which are personal appeals for assistance from people who know I do investigations, and I also get requests via e-mail. When the community deactivated WP:RFI it was shooting itself in the foot. WP:AN and WP:ANI do not and cannot replace it because they see too much other traffic. The ill effects of neglect in this area just aren't as obvious as an overstuffed WP:CSD backlog, but the consequences are more pernicious. DurovaCharge! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, now I agree. I knew I'd seen that before (I was involved in the discussion with Le Grand Roi and basically going through CAT:PROD and removing everything), and it would have been useful to have something like that. I've gotten some similar requests too, and it would be nice to have a central place to track them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice work there Durova!--Isotope23 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with this, even if there is sockpuppetry involved. I don't think that any of this user's actions, either now, or then, amounted to "disruption" (which is an element of the "bad hand" sockpuppetry accusation). The November 2006 actions looked like a new user stating a similar opinion (probably misguided, maybe even totally wrong) on several AfD pages, several users biting him (but some giving him constructive criticism), and then he was temporarily blocked for "vote fixing" (I thought AfD wasn't a vote!) because apparently an IP address that was possibly his participated in an AfD that he was in. I also see a number of positive and constructive edits by this user. He is obviously an extreme inclusionist, and I can understand his frustration with the deletion process on Wikipedia, which in some cases does indeed go overboard on the side of deleting articles (it definitely goes overboard on the side of deleting images, but that's whole other discussion). Nevertheless this user was always extremely WP:CIVIL in his comments, and seemed willing to learn the process, though apparently it was taking longer than some people's patience would allow.
That being said, if this user wants to return he can appeal his block. He probably won't, however, and I believe that is Wikipedia's loss. DHowell 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The summary at this thread by no means covers all of the deception and inappropriate behavior on the part of this editor, such as his extensive sockpuppet attempts to thwart last fall's investigation or the disruption he's caused to articles that weren't up for AFD. This is a vandal, pure and simple, and one who's been clever enough to dodge scrutiny for several months. If there's a serious movement to unblock him I can post a more comprehensive report. Complex investigations are my specialty. DurovaCharge! 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my first comment, I was more than ready to extend WP:AGF, but I trust Durova's judgement here. There are socks and disruptive editors that I could spot a mile away if they showed up again, just because I've dealt with them extensively in the past and I'm sure Durova can too.--Isotope23 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durova's judgement here, but I have to mention that Wikipedian's edits on Parma, Ohio have been constructive, and I've been working with him/her on the article. SWATJester On Belay! 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's tough when an editor who's been helpful in one area turns out to have been up to unacceptable behavior elsewhere. That happens sometimes and this individual had carried on this way for months. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange links from Dime[edit]

Several of the links in Dime go to some random website. Like Fasces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:53, 10 April 2007

Unrelated....hagermanbot not working? SWATJester On Belay! 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the FA article? Which links? - Denny (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Dime (United States coin) isn't "unrelated" to Fasces. On the dimes issued from 1916 to 1945, with Liberty's head on the obverse (the "heads" side), look at the reverse ("the "tails" side) and you will see the symbolic fasces. -- BenTALK/HIST 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hotshots2006, probable image copyvios[edit]

I just blocked User:Hotshots2006 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a vandalism spree (blanking user pages, name calling, etc.) He's uploaded a bunch of images ([11]) and tagged them all as "public domain"; I strongly suspect they're copyvios. What does anyone think? Blowtorch them all right away? They're currently listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10 thanks to the diligence of a couple other editors. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hotshots2006 hardly sounds like a scrupulous editor; I'd delete the whole lot. -- Hoary 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just returned as Lucycl0ver (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), which I just blocked (without checkuser, I'm going on the usually reliable duck test for this one). Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Aw, and here I thought I could get in on the ground floor of this exciting opportunity...--Isotope23 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone delete these images as db-vandalism? I'm fairly sure it applies; there's no need to allow our servers to get clogged up with almost certainly non-free pornographic images uploaded by a troll in order to disrupt. WP:SNOW, guys. 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got rid of them. I left some images he uploaded last year of places in Goa; those photos didn't look particularly suspicious. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's very own nigerian scam.[edit]


I'm about 99% sure this is just a joke, but for completeness, and because it's funny, I figured I'd add it here. This quote below came to us on the Unblock-en mailing list.

Dear sirs, I am a deposed prince from the West African nation of Niger. I use my wikipedia account to help me find foreigners who may help me get my numerous and millions of funds out of country before the government controlled mob in my country can get me. My wikipedia account was unblocked as spamful. If any of you may unblock and help me, I will transfer 200 thousand of american dollars to your bank account, after the completion of a small, 200 dollar account transfer from you to me to prove the account exists. I thank you rapidly for your attention in this manner, Mr. Wikipedia. -Mgumbe

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it here in case it pops up somewhere on site. SWATJester On Belay! 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I put it on BJAODN; I know that that page is pretty bad, but this is one of those times where a significant amount of people will probably actually find it funny. Veinor (talk to me) 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Geez, that BJAODN is really getting a lot of crap piled on it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Shame that good stuff like this gets lost in the shuffle too. SWATJester On Belay! 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Forward the email to the government-controlled mob. Or should it be the mob-controlled goverment? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Mr. Wikipedia the winner of a male beauty contest? x42bn6 Talk 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the creator of the message emailed me privately, and told me it was a test to see if there are spam filters on Unblock-en-l, and that there is no on-wiki scam. It's a good joke though. SWATJester On Belay! 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know a guy from FreeRepublic who would be happy to reply to this deposed prince, and lead him on the wild goose chase of his life. - Crockspot 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't happen to be down with the 419eater crew would he?--Isotope23 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick! Make me an admin! I need the money. --Otheus 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is spamming user talk pages to get input on a deletion discussion. --NE2 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Iamunknown, for reverting. --NE2 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No problemo. I added an addendum to your note that RfD is consensual, so asking for opinions from editors of a known background is discouraged. (Well, I kinda said it like that.) --Iamunknown 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of what forms of canvassing are acceptable, see also [[12]] which was a newsletter created and sent out on March 10, 2007 to a long list of about 190 editors including NE2 just as soon as two such articles were put up for deletion, including the dire warning:

Notability of state highways is challenged

By Rschen7754 & Vishwin60 Three AFD nominations this week have become crucial towards the welfare of the over 5400+ U.S. road articles. With the accidental destruction of a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents regarding the notability of state highways, some have decided to challenge the existence of the 5400+ U.S. road articles.

The debates began when County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Minnesota State Highway 127 were nominated for deletion. The precedent of the notability of highway articles was mentioned, but some refused it, challenging the justice of this precedent. Furthermore, some questioned the legitimacy of having all of the state highway articles on Wikipedia.

After Pennsylvania Route 999 was mentioned in a debate, a user nominated it for deletion, possibly to serve as a WP:POINT. At this stage, the same user stated an intention to delete all 5400+ road articles. When California State Route 37 was mentioned, it was nominated for deletion by this same user, ignoring the fact that the article is a good article. This last nomination was quickly closed as a speedy keep.

Currently, the AFDs are showing a consensus to keep. However, dangerous precedents could be set here that could result in drastic catastrophe for the U.S. Roads articles. Your voice is needed to ensure that our highway articles are not deleted and can be maintained for the benefit of all.

Sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)

NE2 is a member of the USRD project and received said newsletter on March 10, 2007, without objecting to the vote canvassing. If people can canvass 190 editors to keep 2 articles they like, then how is it permissible to go to 12 editors talk pages and delete similar vote canvassing or "friendly notice" to those editors known to have an interest in a given type of AFD by someone else with a different view? Edison 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel to revert blatant canvassing on sight whenever you like. --Iamunknown 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Does that include, in your estimation, a newsletter sent to a couple of hundred members of a project urging them to go to an AFD and KEEP a favored article? Seems extreme to delete the content of other people's talk pages as you did to mine and 11 others. Wouldn't it be better to simply avoid such canvassing? Edison 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Felt a need to remove this (my) comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[13]. On my talkpage she posted:

"WP:BLP: This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[14]

Not sure why she feels I am not allowed to insult historical figures. KazakhPol 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You were out of order because you violated NPOV and created defamation to an article. Note that Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal views of a specific person. --KZTalkContribs 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I violated NPOV on the talkpage? I created "defamation"? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's prohibition on making legal threats? Can someone else comment here? KazakhPol 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any legal threat. --Ezeu 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where, exactly, has anyone made a legal threat? No one has said anyone's going to sue anyone. – Chacor 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any legal threat either. --Aminz 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I see this is pointless. The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment. KazakhPol 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to make a legal threat based upon my comment? When I said defamation, it was based upon the basic term not about suing you for anything, in case I misunderstood you. --KZTalkContribs 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block KazakhPol for disruption. When an admin tells you not to violate BLP, just don't do it. El_C 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Without going into merits of this case, I'd just like to point at "when an admin tells you" and laugh loudly. Admins are not police, and trying to give the impression that we are just makes us look ridiculous. Zocky | picture popups 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was interesting. El_C 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, KazakhPol and SV have a kind of history here. Although, it is quite apparent that SV did the right thing by removing the defamatory statement as it might have been taken as inflammatory by other users. Technically, a deceased person cannot be defamed by the means of libel or slander. There is no basis for an immediate block here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nick, the libel is not against the boy, but against his mother, who is alive and is named in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
When an admin removes your edit, telling you you violated BLP, it's best not to restore that edit. Don't you think, Zocky? Or are you suddenly at a loss for words? El_C 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, it doesn't matter if the user who tells you not to violate BLP is an admin or not. Users are expected to follow policy, not to obey admins. Zocky | picture popups 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
An admin is sanctioned to enforce policy, what are you talking about? Obviously. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey you guys. Don't want this discussion to be too heated... That comment was asking for trouble EL_C... --KZTalkContribs 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What comment would that be? That I am inclined to block for disruption? Because I am. El_C 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The "loss for words" part you said to Zocky. If you didn't mean it, disregard it. --KZTalkContribs 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Seemed to have been the lolz case. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops... (Another reason why I will never be a lawyer)... The legal threat is what worries me... --KZTalkContribs 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The only potential BLP issue I see here in the boy's mother, is she still alive? The question of whether or not Al-Durrah himself is alive is very seriously covered in this article. (Netscott) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the person did say that "The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment." which either means that she's going to sue me or the other way around... Seeing my idiocy of the law, its very doubtful i'm going to sue... --KZTalkContribs 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldn't she be alive. It makes sense that she is. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with Zocky on the 'point and laugh' response to the 'admins are always right' theory being advanced... and making a "BLP violation" out of a comment on the talk page of a presumably dead person takes a bit of a stretch... it would require we assume the kid isn't dead... in which case the comment about his death being faked would paradoxically be accurate. That said... there are other terms which could be used to describe mocking the mother of a slain child (switching back to the assumption he is dead), but I'm afraid all of them violate our civility policy.
Kzrulzuall, let me put it this way. You are deliberately inflaming an emotional and divisive issue. This is extremely disruptive and I would advise you to stop. Add relevant sources to the article. Discuss the merits of various wordings. Do not go about provocatively stating your opinion as fact - it invites argument from those who disagree and can only serve to disrupt and damage our efforts here. BLP violation? Maybe not. Blockable chicanery? You betcha. --CBD 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No one said admins are always right, but that it's best to be catious, and also theoretically noninfalamtory and unassumtpive, CBD. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I realised I've been acting childlishly. I'll refrain from adding those comments. --KZTalkContribs 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone who is up in arms at the notion of "obeying an admin" looked at the comment that was removed? Good grief ... it obviously needed to be removed whether the people involved are alive, dead, or cryogenically frozen. --BigDT 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they probably needed to be removed. No, the reason wasn't that an admin said so. Everytime we use that as an argument, we fail to make the real argument that needs to be made. Zocky | picture popups 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It was restored, is the point. Sysops actually have the ability to censur users over blp violations and this even supercedes editorial involvement), that is what was meant. Not everything is a wiki-cabal-etc. political proclamation. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, main, talk, even here, does it not? - Denny (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. (from WP:BLP intro)
So of course the notion that it should be removed because an admin said so is patently absurd. It should be removed because it violates policy. IvoShandor 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And that is why I removed it. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I know. I wasn't meaning to direct anything at you, just saying that in general. IvoShandor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor ignores consensus arrived at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Québécois[edit]

User:Mathieugp redirected Québécois to Quebec and blanked the referenced material in the article despite the fact that the dispute to delete the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois) has been settled. In response to the '"keep"' decision, and despite invitations from myself and others to contribute positively to the article, User:Mathieugp and User:Laval blanked several referenced items in the article, have indulged in increasingly personal comments on the talk pages(Talk:Québécois#Soul_scanner_wasting_peoples_time), started another "discussion" on redirecting the article, (Talk:Québécois#Vote_on_a_redirect) and redirected it before anyone could express an opinion(see "History"). I have restored the article to its consensus form, but I don't think it will last long. I don't have time for edit wars. I'm requesting that the page be protected from moves and redirects, and that User:Mathieugp and User:Laval be reminded of Wiki protocols regarding Vandalism(Blanking) and ignoring consensus. --Soulscanner 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the events and actions. First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.
A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.
Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. This appears to be an editorial dispute and attempts at negotiation have thus far failed. Have editors involved in the article requested third opinions at Wikipedia:Request for comments (RfC) or Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O)? --Iamunknown 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I should add that I think that either RfC or 3O would be an appropriate step. The Arbitration Committee would almost certainly reject a case if other steps of dispute resolution had not been tried first. --Iamunknown 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I Need help with a vandal[edit]

Could someone be able to please help me, I have been authorized to place the following notice on behalf of Ecopave Australia(TM) to the following Wikipedia articles but someone is deleting the notice.

NOTICE - Ecopave AustraliaTM hereby kindly requests that any Wikipedia Administrator or User who has any knowledge or information about this rogue (Malicious) group of people (Spammers) who are posting entries in Wikipedia and on the internet masquerading as Ecopave AustraliaTM employees, to contact us immediately by emailing or please make attention to Admin. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Ecopave AustraliaTM strongly rejects the above assertions and takes them to be a slur on its reputation and its intellectual property, the comments and opinions expressed on this website do not in any way represent or reflect those of Ecopave AustraliaTM.

I Added the above NOTICE to these Wikipedia article pages on the 4-4-07 but they have been altered or removed by someone since. Can someone please stop these spammer vandals from deleting the TM symbol and replacing it with the R symbol, Asstmgr











Is there a any way to have this above notice stay in these above articles so that it cant be altered, deleted or vandalised or alternatively have these articles deleted all together? I would greatly appreciate your help Asstmgr 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are not owned by Ecopave Australia, and should not have notices implying that they are. Articles are open to being edited, or even nominated for deletion, by any well meaning user. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason a lot of these were deleted is because you were adding them to archives, which are supposed to be archives, not active discussions. Don't spam people either, they are allowed to make comments about your company or the notability of an article about the company. Natalie 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kids, please direct your accusations elsewhere, I or Ecopave have nothing to do with these spam articles which were put into Wikipedia by this rogue group of spammers. I am keen to hear from a Wikipedia Admin please Asstmgr 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You just heard from two admins, kid. Natalie 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, I was just going to say that both of the replies you got were from admins. Essentially, there is no way to keep that text on those pages unedited. Probably the best course of action for you if you have concerns about the effect these statements may have upon your company is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns directly. Contact info is [here.--Isotope23 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant a proper admin :) Asstmgr 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks kindly Isotope23, thats more or less what I was looking for I guess were done here :). Asstmgr 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is a proper admin? Natalie 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We have two types of admin here: normal ones and rouge admins. Sometimes either type goes commando. Please specify whether you would prefer a normal admin, a rouge admin, a commando admin or a rouge commando admin to assist you.-gadfium 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh just one more thing Isotope23, does that mean that I can keep putting the notice back on the articles every time it gets deleted? Asstmgr 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that. No. It would violate WP:3RR, more than likely, and I am neither a proper or improper admin. IvoShandor 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What IvoShandor said is correct.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So if thats true then why are these vandals (allowed) to delete this notice? in the first plase? this is clearly a contradiction in terms, right? Asstmgr 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The people deleting the notice aren't vandals. The notice doesn't belong, so anyone can and should delete it. Natalie 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You are adding additional text to an archive. Once these pages have been archived, they don't get edited, so your edits are being reverse by other editors. This doesn't constitute vandalism. If you are concerned about some text in these archives, your best course of action is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns. Someone from the foundation can review this and take the appropriate action here.--Isotope23 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be its because they are admins vandalising? Asstmgr 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, so if thats also true Isotope23, then why is there an option to "edit" on these archived articles? and yes we have sent the removal request to the Wikimedia foundation by email on several occations without any effect.Asstmgr 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because those archives are pages just like any other page. Just because the Edit link is there doesn't mean you should. EVula // talk // // 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict... I was just typing exactly what EVula said... scary.--Isotope23 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys I think Im a bit more clearer about the matter now :) Asstmgr 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh yes, it was all a malicious joe job which purely by coincidence promoted the interests of the firm right up to the moment it was all deleted and we started getting bogus legal threats asking us to take the debates down - "how dare you call us spammers when all we were doing was using your non-profit volunteer-run project to promote our interests". We cleaned up once, the spammer came back more than once with sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. My reserves of goodwill were drained dry long before we chased the last incarnation away. I'd say more but I've already used up my invective quota for this week. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We have an invective quota? Oops. Natalie 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet[edit]

This bird looks like a duck mallard, quacks like a duck mallard and swims like a duck mallard. There is probably no need to add {{citation needed}} when describing it as a duck. mallard.

I've noticed that Kevin Green342243 (talk · contribs · count) is making a lot of citation-related blankings on wrestling articles, using WP:A to justify himself. The chances of a user account less than a day old making these sort of claims right out of the gate seems unlikely, so I think that the account could be a sock of Jonathan Barber. I'd appreciate getting a second opinion, as I don't want to make a Checkuser request based on sketchy evidence. Shadow1 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with Jonathan Barber (talk · contribs), but looking at Kevin Green342243's edits, it doesn't appear to be the same MO outlined at the JB summary (other than the one speedy nomination I saw). I will say a new editor correctly citing WP:ATT would lead me to suspect this isn't a new editor at all. Most of what he's deleting falls under WP:BLP though.--Isotope23 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking it was Barber, but based on his use of open proxies a checkuser won't prove much. Best think to do is get a checkuser to confirm if the IP is an open proxy or not, and block if it is naturally. One Night In Hackney303 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to CheckUser. Barber has stated through one of his numerous sockpuppets on my talk page that he would continue to do this kind of thing [15], so this fits in perfectly. (BTW, I know with the recent controversies and everything, we've lost one of our most tireless CheckUsers, but what's with the slow down on that page? things are starting to back up, the latest JB196 set has been up for 72 hours without review...) SirFozzie 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What did your last slave die of? I'll make a post on WP:PW, and let them handle the reverts. One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My last slave knew a lot more about wrestling than I do - and so do you. I, on the other hand, am WP:ROUGE enough to assume the worst when a brand new user comes along using all the right Wikimarkup and Wikishortcuts right after Barber got booted from Meta after his attempted joe job failed. Of course, I could be horribly, horribly wrong. Hopefully the quality assessment of the edits will shed light on this. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit Conflict x4) I can just see Guy as the Wikipedia Admin Boot Camp Drill Sergeant, "Alright, editors! Drop and give me 25 Reverts!" Thanks Guy. SirFozzie 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Guy, good work, it is likely barber. For what it is worth, here is the checkuser page. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I wonder who twice suggested blocking that IP 4 days ago? One Night In Hackney303 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FozzyEnemy (talk · contribs) name matches previous sock accounts used to harrass SirFozzie (talk · contribs) and has also was created and immediately went at a wrestling article. We possibly have a sock farm that needs blocking. –– Lid(Talk) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a farm over at CheckUser already.. just need a CheckUser and an admin to A) Pull the JBWeeds out and B)Apply some herbicide to the ground to keep him from using the likely open proxies underneath to keep him from coming back. SirFozzie 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm in a rush and on a computer that I can't log in on so could someone look over User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User Kirbytime requesting Child Pornography pictures again. It was brought up here under "User:Matt57 and WP:STALK". Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather. 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Editor was warned about this.--Isotope23 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very new user voting on multiple RfAs[edit]

I don't know what to make of this. The account Rackabello (talk contribs) has been created on April 7, and has since voted in multiple AfDs, as well as in some RfAs, and also posted an RfA reform proposal. With the very recent RfA sockpuppeteering business in mind, I decided to bring this to admin attention (better safe than sorry). —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted a notice here over 34 hours ago (which has just slipped into the archive, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive226#User:Rackabello: Sockpuppet?). As far as I can tell, no action has been taken on this matter. I'll post it to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard to see if they'll take some action and investigate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Josef Vašíček[edit]

I have 2 users with apparent histories warring over an article I watch. One is an admin (Husond) that in my opinion is not acting very admin-like (brandishing admin powers, leaving uncivil edit comments, edit warring). The other user (Gene Nygaard) isn't acting as a model wikipedian either. ccwaters 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest that I'm not acting very "admin-like". Yes, I was edit warring with Gene Nygaard, happens frequently. But please provide diffs that I'm leaving uncivil edit comments and brandishing admin "powers" (as you insist in calling them). I strongly stand against uncivility and admin abuse, and I find these claims not only unfounded as also deeply unfair.--Húsönd 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I already provided Diffs at Talk:Josef Vašíček. ccwaters 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please also see this. I'd appreciate a second opinion from an uninvolved admin here - Alison 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks from a User talk page[edit]

Can I have some help removing personal attacks and personal information from the User talk:Reddi page please? User:Reddi insists on including this in contravention of my requests for him to remove it. Thanks, ScienceApologist 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. It is a personal commentary of my experiences and my views.

I have already discussed, and altered it (from the discussions), at WP:CN#Community_ban_or_lengthy_block_of_Reddi

J. D. Redding

Reddi, that list is uncivil and patently unhelpful to the project. Please remove it. Heimstern Läufer 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Reddi refuses to remove it. You will need to act. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I see Heimstern has removed it. I personally think it's okay for Reddi to describe his difficult interactions with people in his own view, but that list crossed the line into personal attacks. If Reddi adds it back without changing the attack language, I will apply a block. Mangojuicetalk 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

MathsIsFun (talk · contribs)[edit]

Some concern has been raised about this user apparently promoting a website also called mathisfun (see User:MathsIsFun). I'm not sure what kind of action may be necessary: would deletion of the user page be the right answer? Is the user spamming? Or has it become a username issue that needs an indefinite block? The user has been around since 2005 and has lots of productive contributions. There was an RFCN debate which I closed in order to move the debate here -- as a block of an established user, I think this needs to be discussed in a more visible place. The debate is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/MathsIsFun. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Related reports at WP:COIN and WT:WPSPAM. RJASE1 Talk 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The user is a productive contributor and the website is non-commercial and shares our goal of making knowledge available to everyone. We may or may not need to do something, but certainly we must not read such people the riot act. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does WP:COI apply if a user's site isn't selling something? (Netscott) 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's still promotional for the users site, we shouldn't linch mob him, but we should suggest a name change and a change of editing habbits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a conflict of interest if you are promoting something that you love, even if you don't make a profit from it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? I have a love of science and my edits on scientific topics reflect this... I have a conflict of interest there? I'm not sure how applicable WP:COI is if a user is adding a link to a site that corresponds to the article about the subject related to the user's web page. I suppose I should peruse COI a bit more and familiarize myself with where the policy on this stands... (Netscott) 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But you haven't created an organisational website on it which your now linkspamming wikipedia with Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've properly reviewed WP:COI and I understand now. Yes obviously this editor's self-promotional behavior should be curtailed. (Netscott) 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra's COIBot has been uncovering numerous editors who have been editing with a conflict of interest, some of them for years. I've been posting the most egregious cases at WP:COIN. But I think, we as a community, are going to have to figure out how to deal with this. RJASE1 Talk 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Right now I think all we can do is make sure that we undo what damage there is and try to tell them about WP:COI ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked in depth yet, but this looks much more benign than the other cases your bot has found. Consider the nature of the website in question. If this is what we call an egregious conflict of interest, then maybe something's wrong with the policy, and it's worth taking this up at WT:COI. In the meantime, imagine a world in which everyone can share freely in the sum of human knowledge. Be nice. Ignore a rule or three. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have been unfairly targeted. I have been a passionate contributer and supporter of Wikipedia for years. I have been open and honest about myself, and because of that I am being told I am wrong? And the "Math Is Fun" article does not deserve the "COI" tag, as the original article was extensively discussed when it was created. I have not "damaged" Wikipedia, but enhanced it. What are you doing to Wikipedia? It is not like it was. MathsIsFun 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, you do have a conflict of interest by adding links to your site that don't meet WP:EL guidlines. You do great work on Maths articles, but you need to stop linking to your site. Your username is a problem at present because of your site and your linking to it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a religion, and I have several websites, these things don't make me money. I would love to promote these things though. Why have I not told you of these things before? Simple, Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. That being said, I don't think the user page is any sort of problem. And while the username is the same as the website, it is also an expression of interest. I don't think this user has acted in a promotional manner, either with his/her name or userpage. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Polish speakers here?[edit]

I just had a (fairly civilised) encounter with a Polish editor and I had to use a machine translation to understand and reply. If anyone wants to read it and comment, it's at User_talk: --Guinnog 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have translated both his messages, please see on his talk page.Vlad fedorov 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation by User:Grimerking[edit]

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a SPA, and there may be some NPA violations, but I'd say he's right on with questioning the editor who seemingly is calling anyone who disagrees with his POV a "nutter". --Onorem 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since no editor did, you might reconsider your position. --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Apart from the nutters, it seems that most people accept that the *science* here is essentially correct" - No editor did? --Onorem 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
...which has the important "most" qualifier. Since the group of "nutters" is well-defined and very small, that leaves plenty of room for disagreement. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse my mistake. I guess it's only a personal attack on most of the people who disagree with his POV. It was a completely unnecessary comment which could easily be considered offensive by someone who was not one of the "nutters" but did disagree with him. I'm done now since this is not the reason you brought this topic to the board. --Onorem 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Questioning another editor, whether admin or not, is fine. What I object to is calling him an "arse". --Stephan Schulz 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More COI spamming[edit]

In the same vein as MathsIsFun (talk · contribs), which remains unresolved above, we continue to run across long-established editors who have been linking their own websites, in some cases for years. Please see Dking (talk · contribs) and Gsociology (talk · contribs) (reported at WT:WPSPAM) - also guilty. I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg - COIBot is discovering dozens of blatant COI editors every day. What are we, as a community, going to do about this? RJASE1 Talk 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub the articles down. CSD-A7 or G11 them. If they assert notability and/or aren't blatent advertising, tag them with {{advert}} and prod them at the same time. AfD the rest and try to convince the people there that WP:COI is a good enough reason to delete. Lobby for WP:CSD to add CSD-A9: blatant conflicts of interest. Lobby the Foundation to have article creation allowed only after a waiting period of circa 5 days. In that order. Well, that's my plan :o)   REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Spam articles are easy to deal with. This is more subtle - people linking their own websites (and in most cases nobody would blink an eye if someone besides the website owner had linked them). RJASE1 Talk 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is from Gene Shackman, gsociology. I have a couple of comments, since I have been labeled as 'spam'. First, I find it somewhat disconcerting to have my contributions labeled as "spam". If you visit my website, you will find that mine is a serious academic research project, I am not selling anything, I don't send thousands of uninvited emails, I don't in fact, make any money from my project. My work does not fit any of the common definitions of spam. Could some other label be used? Second, I contributed to the social change page years ago, before there were COI rules, or at least before they were made much of. My contributions were attempts to present serious discussion of social change, and in fact my contribution is still on the social change page. However, since my contribution was pretty much a summary of my reports, I cited my reports as a source. This was years ago, again, before wiki did much editing about COI. Other editors removed the citation to my reports, without putting any other citation. So apparently the other editors thought my contributions were worthwhile (but did not think it useful to link to my reports, where my contributions came from). Finally, linking to my own site may, I suppose, be COI according to wiki rules. But as commented above "in most cases nobody would blink an eye if someone besides the website owner had linked them". Okay, so if the editors of the page consider my contributions to be worthwhile, how do I ask that someone else consider adding a link to my site? I did in fact ask someone else to add a link to my site, but the editors of this page removed it anyway. I hope in the future you may reconsider use of the term "spam" and where it applies. Thanks. gsociology 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


As I previously posted above under the section "SlimVirgin", SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and now El C are trying to use WP:BLP to harass other users on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah.

  • Yesterday SlimVirgin removed my comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[17] on the pretext that it somehow violated WP:BLP.[18]
  • I requested clarification from SlimVirgin[19] and received none.
  • I asked for comments on this page[20] but received none because administrators got off on a tangent, arguing with each other over... nothing.
  • I restore my comment and El C, previously not a party to the incident, decides to remove my comment again[21] under the pretext that I am "not entitled to do so."
  • I make it clear that it is my opinion Al-Durrah is alive[22]
  • El C reverts[23], I revert, he reverts again[24].
  • He threatens to block me[25], deciding not say why or cite a policy.
  • I ask him what policy he is citing[26]. He cites WP:NOT#SOAP. Hilarious given SlimVirgin's repeated posts complaining about how we have to show respect for Al-Durrah.[27][28]
  • I rephrase my comment[29].

Now Jayjg is threatening to block Liftarn on "BLP" grounds[30] for expressing his opinion on Talk:Muhammad al Durrah. I disagree with Liftarn's opinion but he is in no way violating BLP. KazakhPol 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol has been a menace at Muhammad al-Durrah for months. The article is about a Palestinian child who was reportedly shot and killed during a gun battle between the IDF and Palestinian gunmen. There is a tiny minority theory that the incident was staged, an example of Pallywood, and that the child isn't dead at all. The majority view is that it happened more or less as reported, though no one knows who fired the fatal shots.
KazakhPol believes the incident was staged, and keeps posting to that effect on the talk page, and making edits to the article that over-emphasize the minority view. The post that I removed for being a BLP violation called the boy and his mother "fakes." [31] The mother is still alive, and is named in the article. To post this about her is extremely disrespectful, and is arguably libellous. I removed it and told KP that if he restored it, I would request admin action against him. [32] My thanks to El C for following up on that.
KP's post comes against a backdrop of being abusive toward any editor he disagrees with, routinely calling other editors vandals, constantly reverting, introducing poor writing then calling it "tidying," inserting the word "terrorist" into articles about Islamic groups, and adding the NPOV tag when he doesn't get his own way. He has been blocked seven times since December for edit warring/3RR. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to block User:Liftarn for WP:BLP if he makes one more Talk: page comment equating respected university professors with convicted Holocaust deniers. He's done it three times so far, even making light of it, and he's been fairly warned. Regarding your own edits, aside from their many obvious deficiencies, you've used complex reverts to violate WP:3RR. I'd report you for it if I had the energy; I still might do so. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a probation or ban from the article? - Denny (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, KazakhPol, Wikipedia isn't the place to put your personal views of things. They are disruptive and hurtful, should someone related to that person see it. Wikipedia isn't a blog so if you have no worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, apart from making theories and stating your views of things, you will be blocked. Consider this your last warning. --KZTalkContribs 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPol has just accusing me of "lying" on the talk page. [33] Admin action would be very much appreciated, as this pattern of personal attacks against many editors has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of abating. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Feel free to disregard these comments, as I just became familiar with this situation here on this AN/I thread, but WP:BLP is an extremely important policy to adhere to, and personally attacking users for implementing this policy is exceptionally bad form. As such, I would support most any (within reason) administrator action made to protect users making good-faith attempts to adhere to BLP gaillimhConas tá tú? 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I blocked KazakhPol for 24 hours for the "lying" comment. I had given him ample warnings. El_C 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for review: User:Bombshell[edit]

The other day I blocked a couple of sockpuppets of Bombshell (talk · contribs), namely Scavenger (talk · contribs) and Govert Miereveld (talk · contribs), in what I felt was a perfect Duck test case (exact same POV editing profile, same behaviour, very striking matching pattern of editing times, see User talk:Scavenger#Blocked for evidence.) I left the oldest account, Bombshell, unblocked. As this user is stubbornly refusing to admit the sockpuppetry, has resumed the same edit wars he used his sockpuppets on ([34]), and actually created yet another sock today (IamScavenger (talk · contribs)), I've now blocked the main account for a week. Open for review, since I might be seen as involved in a dispute (having taken part in a discussion with Bombshell at Archaic Dutch declension). Fut.Perf. 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with sockpupettry[edit]

An Administrator (REDVERS), left the message below on my Talk page 2 days ago:

Hi Mario, on the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.  REDVERS 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

After that, I wrote to REDVERS twice asking for a clarification but he didn't respond to me. Can somebody help me understand who is the sockpupeteer at the Fellowship of Friends Talk page using the diffs that REDVERS lists above? This user is creating a lot of disruption. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand? Are you saying that REDVERS is causing lots of trouble? --KZTalkContribs 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
After a closer look, Im pretty sure that User:Esoteric Sheik of Inner Confusion and User:Babycondor are both sockpuppets of other people, or possibly one person, due to their lack of contributions other than on the talk page. I am also pretty suspicious of User:Veronicapoe and User:Wine-in-ark because their account seem to be made on the same day as some of the other users in the argument. So far all the accounts in the discussion, with a exception of Redvers, have been made in the same 7 day period, which although not incriminating evidence, is very strange. --KZTalkContribs 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Which was my point exactly and why (in the full quote User:Mario Fantoni has chosen not to copy across) I said I was unable to help out any more on policing the edit war they're all having - both side are obviously using socks and my interest wained rapidly.
As an aside, the above messages are worded very badly and leave a suggestion that I have been involved in sockpuppeting and edit warring. I haven't. I'm just the admin who protected the wrong version and tried to bang heads on the talk page. People are welcome to look for contributions I have made to the article (none).   REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it came out that way, but I didn't mean that you were a sockpuppeteer. I was saying that they were socks of other people and that you were the only guy in the discussion who I am not suspicious of. Again, sorry if it came across differently... --KZTalkContribs 11:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear the original AN/I question was calling Redvers a disruptive user. He's calling the sockpuppeteer disruptive, and he's asking what Redvers meant. SWATJester On Belay! 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist lagging again[edit]

I've noticed that my watchlist is sporadically lagging by several minutes. This was also discussed recently at ANI [35]. Contribs seem ok.It's only for some pages, e.g. my Watchlist (and the page history) for RFCN currently shows the last edit at 20:13. Anyone else notice this? Flyguy649talkcontribs 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with my one this time ... --KZTalkContribs 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice that sometimes when I revert or add something, it doesn't actually show up on the edit history for a couple of minutes. I just put it down to lag, myself. HalfShadow 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I use FireFox, but when I try to use IE it shows my watchlist from January. Beat that :) My watchlist is OK, but my contribs are lagging, and page histories too. Not an ANI problem, though :) – Riana 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to say; shouldn't this have gone on Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) instead? Acalamari 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the current job queue like, anyhow? – Chacor 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok today. I user FireFox as well. I posted here because of the similar posting I referenced above. But I will post and such probs in the future at Village Pump (technical). Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rory Cellan-Jones[edit]

For anyone who didn't already hear about it, a BBC reporter vandalized his own article as part of a news story today. RJASE1 Talk 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking on multiple Talk Pages (including warning blanking) by Anon User:[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for a week, seeing as it appears to be a static/semi-static address. You can report to WP:AIV next time. – Riana 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has blanked comments on several article and Talk pages [36], [37] [38] for which he has been repeatedly warned [39][40] [41].

This user has also removed warnings from his Talk page several times. [42] [43] [44][45].

User has been warned several times.

-- Eleemosynary 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy violations at Nadine Gordimer[edit]

Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). I have also posted this message at the BLP noticeboard. I am asking that an administrator intervene, given the repeated insertion of this material by a disgruntled editor. FNMF 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.
  • The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nobel writer Nadine Gordimer, 82, attacked and robbed". The Sunday Times (London). October 29, 2006.

"Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. I've full protected the page. DurovaCharge! 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


<sigh> Yet another editor harassing/behaving uncivilly toward one of my Wikifriends (an editor in very good standing. Ms. "Tunn" has left a few snarky messages on User: Dev920's talk page now, for which I have unofficially warned her. It might mean more coming from an admin. I note she has done this to Dev many times before, both under this name, and her old one, User:TerriNunn( now deleted), for which she has been blocked. I don't like to see people I care about being hassled for no reason, and ask that somebody put a stop to this. Thanks. Jeffpw 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you could supply evidence of this past harassment. I also note that Dev920's response was not exactly a shining example of civility. --ElKevbo 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How on earth can I supply evidence of past harassment when the user name was deleted??????? I'm not a lion; don't make me jump through hoops of fire. As for Dev's response, you might be a bit crabby had you been continually provoked by the same user in the past. I did my bit, admin can take it from here. Jeffpw 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Users are never deleted; the redlink only means that the user page is deleted. TerriNunn's contributions are still fully available. — Lomn 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
While my reply was not perfectly polite, I fail to see how that excuses NerriTunn's accusations of me being stalinist, stupid, immature and irrational. NerriTunn has squatted on Talk:List of bisexual people for months, trying to insert people who are not bisexual and trying to persuade people to throw out all normal definitions of bisexuality and "stop putting people into narrow categories". Her last post, in which she wrote "many, perhaps most, people will become bisexual in the right circumstances." sums up pretty much her attitude to who should be on the list, and I wonder why exactly she works on this list at all when she really wants List of people. She has often argues for blatently BLP entries to be included (such as the entire "disputed section") on the basis that it is interesting, and scoffs and mocks at editors who tell her we are writing an encyclopedia. I have told her repeatedly that this simply isn't accurate or according to policy or in fact, normal standards, but she just ignores me and blathers on about being "open to experiences" and "leaving it up to the reader to decide". This isn't just me - everyone who has posted to the talkpage has rejected NerriTunn's view of who should be included. So with this background, forgive me if I was not amused when she wrote "Just try and be rational and sensible and human and you will improve with practice. We are very patient." on my talkpage, when she has had (probably, see my AN/I report on it) to resort to sockpuppeting to forcibly insert her views. I am getting very fed up with people harrassing me on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing that always grates me is editors, like this, who persistently create a hostile atmosphere for others. However, NerriTunn seems to have annouced her departure - see her talk - is that the end of that? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not the end, apparently. She is now harassing me on my talk page. Make her stop, please. Jeffpw 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And has just accused me of being a man pretending to be female. Even though I have a link on my userpage to an interview with the Times in which my gender is somewhat prominent. Seriously, this person is being really incivil now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to link to that. Editor needs a sitout I think. --Fredrick day 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this editor has continued this behavior after "abandoning the account", I've issued a 24 hour timeout.--Isotope23 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dhwani1989 & Images[edit]

User has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted images with fraudulent/misrepresented/dubious boilerplate tags and source information. Images lately have been screen captures of political TV programs (Meet the Press, etc.) which are being tagged as work-product of the Senate, and he's listing the source for each image as she official website of the subject, although no one seems to be able to locate any of these images on the site listed. After running behind this guy for weeks (maybe months) I'm asking an admin to step in and help me out. Thanks! /Blaxthos 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AlexWilkes (talk contribs)[edit]

Could I get some opinions on this user? He seems to be creating a lot of articles - two of which I've flagged for speedy-deletion and he seems to have an aversion to replying to anything on his talk page (although he is aware of the page and possibly the notices). It was suggested he could be part of the clueless newbies in previous incidents (he has 3 of them in the archives). x42bn6 Talk 12:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needs attention[edit]

Anyone have contact with a checkuser willing to work this monstrosity? RJASE1 Talk 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Brew182db user talk vandalism[edit]

Brew182db left a profanity-laden tirade, including everyone's favorites ur butthole is the size of the mooon, You must suffer from Cranial Rectal Syndrome, and the ever-popular ur momma such a fat whore that wen she prostitutes she gets paid in cheeseburgers on my talk page a few minutes ago. Since I'm involved, I can't block him, though a message on his talk page makes it look like he's been vandalizing since August 2006. Can someone take a look at it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He got a "final warning" for what he did on your userpage. He only has 1 edit logged, presumably because everything else he's done here are nonsense article creation. I'm going to watchlist him and if I see anymore vandalism I'll block as a vandal only account.--Isotope23 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin[edit]

In the commemoration of the death anniversary of the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin - Google Inc has put up a special logo on it's search engine page which links to a search, which - quite obviously - gives Wikipedia a top slot - [46]. The article was vandalised regularly and was therefore semi-protected by an administrator. The discussion is underway here - [47] - on the admin noticeboard. Comments are invited. --Zamkudi 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:JB196Socks need blocking[edit]

I thought about titling this "JB196: An Army Of One (and about onehundred fifty sockpuppets)". JB continues to cut a wide swath through WP, vandalizing articles, blanking them, and then getting them deleted, and bragging about the articles he had deleted(he's hit my user page a couple of times times [48], [49], and bragging about his vandalization off-Wikipedia [50]. He also was responsible for a joe job spree across several different WP in an attempt to land sites on a SPAM blacklist (see meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#cross wiki spam). We have compiled all the JBSocks we can find, but we need them blocked and a CheckUser run to eliminate the open proxies underneath Here. Thanks. SirFozzie 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You can help by placing {{sockblock|JB196}} on the user pages of the blocked ones, there is no link from the block log to the "block this user" feature. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I edited a dead link in the original post to have it point to the archive. Jesse Viviano 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over a protected page[edit]

There appears to be an edit war between two admins on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, despite the fact that the page is protected. >Radiant< 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that was 2 days ago? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That was 3 days ago, though that is a really bad thing for admins to do. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been deliberately ignoring the {{editprotected}} tag for this reason. But it was clear early on that there was not consensus in favor of the "wrong section" wording. CMummert · talk 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Block requested for Arthur Ellis sock[edit]


I was thinking of requesting a checkuser on Buttonsforeyes (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), but I think this is an obvious, disruptive sock so we can spare the checkusers some effort. His contributions consist of trying to nominate Arthur Ellis for adminship, and vandalising Rachel Marsden. Arthur Ellis is community-banned; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis for history. Could someone indef block Buttons please? Kla'quot 05:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and RfA deleted.--Isotope23 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD canvassing by Mister Jinxy[edit]

This was brought to attention by another user on the AFD for Frank Jasper. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Jasper. I am reporting it here as a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. The messages are obviously partisan toward Keep and targeted toward fans. See the diffs provided at the AFD: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he continue after you warned him? Is he still doing it? John Reaves (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The user was given a {{uw-canvass}} warning at 12:05 April 12, and has not sent any more messages since. 8 messages were sent in a 4 minute window on April 10 with 4 more sent in another 4 minute window on April 11. Since then the user has not canvassed further, but removed the warning on their talk page [63], leaving behind a quite uncivil response. But no, the user has made no contibs outside of their talk page since the warning was issued. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Then what's the issue here? John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in retrospect I should have checked that first. Well, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Issues[edit]

Ok, on my talk page, I've been having some problems with trolls from another site that I am affiliated with spamming it with rude comments and warnings for things I did not do. Since the Wiki guidelines state it is NOT prohibited to delete content on your own talk page, I did so, only to have people to keep reversing my deletions. Finally, I got fed up and put a message asking people to stop doing that. This seemed to work up until recently. An admin by the name of Hu12 kept reversing my deletions, giving me warnings about deleting talk page comments and warnings. I informed him about the fake warnings and also provided him with the quote from the guidelines that says my actions are allowed. Another individual also backed me up on this. He left another warning, not even responding to this message. I repeated it, and again he warned me. I asked him to stop, because it was becoming harassment, and he blocked me. I appealed the block, stating that I had done nothing that was against the guidelines. This block was turned down by an admin named auburnpilot, because of all the warnings I had got and because I had been blocked before. Not only is this unfair, since these things had nothing to do with my blockage, but she was also wrong. According to her, I was blocked three times, while, in reality, I was only blocked two. The first time was actually by her, and she did not even bother to post the three warnings until either after or at the same time she blocked me. The second time was after a mistaken warning that was revoked by the person who issued it BEFORE the block and the block was later removed. And most of the warnings were either the fake ones from the trolls or the equally-uncalled for ones from Hu12. Now, to top it off, my page has been locked from editing. I have been treated extremely unfairly by these two admins. The guidelines state specifically that a user can delete their own talk pages. I would like my talk page to be unlocked and for these two admins to be at least talked to for their rude treatment of me. 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected your talk page since you are unblocked. I don't really understand why the users were so intent on reverting your talk page, there isn't any policy that forbids it. I also don't see why you were so uncivil and persisted on reverting. Seems like it would have been easier to just let it die down and deal with it later. John Reaves (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, my only reasoning was not your previous warnings but your continued behavior. I've blocked this user previously and the same behavior from previous blocks is ongoing. As I said in the decline message, I would have made the block for a longer duration. Oh, and I'm male. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of this individual has been disruptive and ongoing. Today after block expired, has recieved yet another warning [64] for vandalism. Deletion of of good-faith warnings on his talk page to hide the continued abuse seems to be the reason for the deletions. This user also has a history of Modifying other users' comments ([65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]