Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive272

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

Noticeboard archives


Possible sock of banned user Libsmasher[edit]

On May 11, 2007, JzG indefinitely blocked User:Libsmasher. [1] On May 16, Coelacan blocked User:, apparently as a Libsmasher sockpuppet. [2] Both blocked accounts displayed a great deal of interest in Mike Farrell, especially in posting a biased account of his role in helping an injured prisoner in El Salavador. [3], [4]

Now a new anon, User:, has surfaced and is making very similar edits. [5] Back in May, the banned user posted to a right-wing website about his/her banning and said, "I'll be back." [6] I suspect that this promise is being kept and the new anon is a sock of the banned user.

I've rewritten the Mike Farrell entry for NPOV and RS, but I don't have time to check all the new anon's edits. JamesMLane t c 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... Libsmasher and his IP sock were focused on adding that same LA Times citation, which the new IP has also added. However, the tone of the new IP is a little different, and the new IP maps to Canberra, Australia, for what it's worth (the old IP was a military IP in Virginia). I'm a little hesitant to declare it a sock right off the bat, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Other thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not me, sorry. I have no interest in the Mike Farrell entry. 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Panoramic tripod head - User repeatedly adding copyvio spam[edit]

User:John Spikowski (aka User: keeps adding a large amount (roughly 4k) of copyrighted text to Panoramic tripod head (see [7] for most recent diff). The material in the table is diectly copied off the manufactuerers' websites, complete with warranty terms and the like. Even ignoring it being a copyvio, it is COI-spam, and the list of companies whose websites he steals the content from happens to be identical to the list of sponsors on his own website. I have tried to explain this to the user (see Talk:Panoramic tripod head, as have other users, however he has once again reverted the content back into the article. His most recent revert removed edits to the other parts of the article as well. Since it's both copyvio and spam, I'll be re-deleting it, but I expect it'll be back in short order. Since I've tried explaining this to him the best I can (and citing the 27 or so relevant policies), I think it's time for an admin to have a talk with him... Thanks, Bushytails 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree that this is unsuitable material, but is it actually a copyright violation? Simply including information from manufacturers' websites is not necessarily violation - did he lift exact wording? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, every word of it is directly lifted from the manufacturers' pages, copy and paste. Bushytails 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted it myself and left a comment on the article talk page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Googling any random set of words indicates a copyvio.-Wafulz 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He tried replacing the page with a redirect to his web site, I reverted it again... Bushytails 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he seems to be vandalising it [8]... Bushytails 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Fun. He's headed for a block if he keeps this up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Just for information: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (using a different IP) added a general discussion thread on Talk:Doctor Who tie-in websites. I removed it as per WP:TALK, and he then added in again (now using the IP listed, which he used from this point on). I deleted it again. He reverted me for the second time, and I warned him on his talkpage as I reverted. I'm now stuck at WP:3RR. The editor then left a rather unpleasant note on my talkpage, which I replied to. However, his threat to simply change IP shows bad faith; Eagle-101 on IRC advised me to report this here.--Rambutan (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP's talk page. If the IP continues inserting commentary not directed at improving the article, you may go past 3RR.-Wafulz 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Be very carefull sanctioning Rambutan's actions. WP:TALK (which is a guideline, not a policy) does in fact not condone in any way the removal of other people's comments. The removed comment was indeed discussing a tie-in website. Rambutan also has a habit of twisting the rules to his advantage, often regressing into a wikilawyering contest and a WP:POINT spree. Just take a look at Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)‎ to see what I'm talking about. --Edokter (Talk) 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that thread lends itself to improving the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:TALK does condone removal of comments, where it says "...are subject to removal". And, Edokter, I'm not twisting any rules, it's not directed at the article. Everyone else: thanks for your support/help.--Rambutan (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


he appears to be vandalising or bullying on the wordsley school wikipeida page about pupils can someyone please block the user of stop the page being edited thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, please report vandalism at WP:AIV. I will check this one out. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Multiple IP's all adding the same comment over a period of several days. I semiprotected the article for two weeks until the end off school term to give the chance to tire if the 'fun'. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Good call, I was debating that myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Boham[edit]


Posting IP user has been blocked Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

there is someone with the user name Justiceleague1 that keeps posting slander in the dissusion section about me. I will not tolerate it, Period.

What is on Boham's page is true!

I would be more then happy to fax you a retainer agreement signed by myself and Mr. Boham, just let me know.

I'm going to see if there is any way I can get an IT person to find out who this person is!

Sincerely, <personal information removed for privacy reasons> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

This IP and its sockpuppet users have been blocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeals process for banned editor with protected talk page[edit]

Some time ago, I (among a number of other admins) dealt with an editor who was banned for ongoing personal attacks directed at, and abuse of, another editor. His talk page was also permanently protected at the time of his final indefinite block, as he had been using it for soapboxing and further abuse.

The banned editor emailed me recently demanding that I unprotect his talk page so that he could file an apppeal on the basis that his block was 'absurd'. (It later came to my attention that this editor had made the same request of another admin, who also denied his request.)

He insists that Wikipedia:Appealing a block compels me to unprotect his talk page so that he may use the {{unblock}} template to explain why he should be unblocked. I feel that I am under no such obligation. I have advised him that blocks can be appealed through the unblock-en-l mailing list or by emailing a member of ArbCom. Have I missed anything? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, no... it doesn't compel you to unprotect his page if he has bee using it for disruption. He can email unblock-en-l or a member of arbcom. Of course if he is continuing to be disruptive and harassing via email he can always be reblocked with email functionality turned off...--Isotope23 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Although you are under no obligation to do so, I think the user should be given a second chance with his user talk page. If he then uses it to appeal the block, that can be dealt with under the normal rules of Wikipedia. Make it clear, though, that if he abuses it once more, it will be protected and never unpretected again. Od Mishehu 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I should have mentioned that this editor had had his talk page protected on a previous occasion for making personal attacks while blocked. The page spent some time unprotected following a commitment to avoid further attacks. The present indefinite protection resulted from an insistence on pursuing further harassment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, they've shown just about what they're probably going to do, if you unprotect it this time. Unless it's been a good long time, since the last incident, I don't see much reason to entertain this. As you mentioned, they can contact unblock-en-l or ArbCom for appeal. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Relatively new user Socialdemocrats seems to have gotten a very raw deal. He has repeatedly been warned for vandalism and was actually blocked for 24 hrs two weeks ago. The problem is I've gone through his contributions and I cannot find a single diff of vandalism. Apparently another user accused him of vandalism (months ago) over a content dispute, Socialdemocrats removed the warning from his talkpage, and other users have reverted him since them, accusing him of "vandalism" every time he reverts. While he has not been civil (telling other users to "fuckoff") no one ever bothered to tell him civility is policy. I suggest someone unprotect his talkpage, archive it for him, and coach him. Perspicacite 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading his list of contribs and wars, I don't see any reason to unblock. SirFozzie 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If Perspicacite's assessment is true, it is highly inappropriate to block someone, or leave them blocked, on the basis of being the victim of a campaign of harassment. --Random832 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sources, and controversial edits[edit]

One of the articles started and written almost entirely by me, Stefan Báthory, which has the status of GA-article, has entered a dispute. An editor, User:Str1977, came out of nowhere and started to change the name of Vlad III Dracula to Vlad Tepes. After a great effort invested by me, where I used sources to help my argument, Str stopped changing the name. After a while, however, he changed the name of the article without attempting to discuss the matter, even saying that "I do not need to discuss everything on the talk page prior to making edits. I followed the advice of "being bold"." The two discussions can be found here and here. I have been civil throughout the discussion and decided not to react to rude comments such as "educate yourself." The move of Stefan Báthory to Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed is, in my opinion, a wrong decission to make, because in English, he is known as either Stephen Báthory or Stefan Báthory--with the latter being the more popular version of the two. Addentum: I forgot to say that Str had also removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact. Please see here. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, I agree that it's not appropriate to move Stefan Báthory to Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed. Only nationalism may be behind this proposal. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nationalism? I am not Hungarian. And I have asked Anittas to tell me whether I should move the articles to Stephen. I am more than ready to do this but I have got no reply but a note that I was reported (for what I wonder)?
I don't know what his intentions are, altough he claimed to have made the move in order to distinguish him from the other Bathorys. I only know that it is wrong. On top of that, it is quite a coincidence that a while after we had our first dispute, he went on to add a controversial edit to Candide, knowing well that I argued against its existence. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We have the naming conventions to go along with. "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (WP:NC). "Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed" is not acceptable, because it is not used in the English-language academia. Please compare this and this. If you need a third opinion, just let me know. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Anittas jumped much to quickly as many things he complains about, only a few are true.
I am quite disappointed as after our rocky start (regarding the Dracula issue, which I still think justified) he seemed to be a bit more cooperative.
(PS. He violated 3RR yesterday and I did not report him. And now he reports me though I have done nothing. (So much for turn-around is fair play.) This a content dispute. Str1977 (smile back) 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You had an equal guilt in that edit warring, as I did. Changing a title and removing sourced material, as I have shown above, is not what I would call "nothing." --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Str1977 is an experienced and careful editor; I would be very surprised if he were motivated by anything but a desire for accuracy. Maybe a third opinion would be useful, to the extent that Ghirlandajo has not already given one. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
After edit conflict: It may well not be an appropriate move, but Str has expressed an interest in discussion on the article talk page, and no one has responded. Please Get Thee Hence to discuss - amicably and civilly is always best - as this is a content dispute (in other words, This is not the page you're looking for.) As a further suggestion, "FYI: Your recent actions are being discussed on AN/I" is more polite than "I have reported you" (what is he, a miscreant child you're telling tales on?) and "Str1977 put a paragraph break in" is more accurate than "removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact" - please re-examine the dif. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you talk first and then act; not act and then talk about what you've done. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(Double edit conflict) From reading the talk page, it sounds as though discussion is ongoing and that Str1977 is asking "what are your specific objections?" I think this simply needs a WP:RM and consensus about the content. Possibly a WP:RFC to get more opinions about the title of the article as well as content. I'm not convinced admin attention is needed - at least not yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Then it is recommended to archive this thread. This page is not the place to ask for third opinions. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, please archive it. I am astounded at the vitriol directed at me. Though I have asked Anittas to clearly state his objections and to reply specifically on the Istva issue, he has not done so. Nevertheless, I have now moved the Istvans to Stephens, as I had already considered that alternative too.
Thanks KC and Tom for your postigns. Thanks Ghirlandajo for your reasonable attitude (no hard feeling about the first reaction). Str1977 (smile back) 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should be moved to the name that has been presumably stable for the past months, and a WP:RM started. No consensus - article stays at the old name. Simple.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

At wits end[edit]

For the past year, there have been abusive edits at Haim Saban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Shuki Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Saban Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the like from an individual who (as of half an hour ago) is on (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and because of the repeated abuse from this single individual, the range is currently softblocked for three months. I have semi-protected the original articles that this individual has been vandalizing, but since then he has been going to any article (and today a project space page) that discusses "Power Rangers" in detail and vandalizing it, either replacing it with some rant about the individuals, the rant about what he feels about the series, or just removing any mention of it (as he did to the project page this evening). I can't seem to go anywhere with blocks on IPs, and rangeblocks get me flack for the amount of autoblocks that come up. I need help, and I don't know what else to do now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:[edit] (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed warnings from his talk page, and engaged in edit wars on his talk page over removing said warnings. When I edited his talk page, he told me to "back off my page", and another user to "Quit editing my page". Excluding myself and him, four other editors have become involved. His behavior is quite disruptive, and a block may be warranted. --Exarion 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar incident recently. According to WP:HA, we're discouraged from forcing people to display all of the warnings. They're not supposed to be a "wall of shame". Why not try leaving him/her alone and see what happens? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've blanked and protected. Let's consider the IP "final warning"ed and report to WP:AIV if any mainspace vandalism occurs from that address. Move along folks, there's encyclopedia writing to be done... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo's talk page archiving[edit]

Would someone please tell User:Wikidemo that he is not in a position to archive discussions and make consensus declarations for discussions that are only weeks old, and were only open for a few days. For one, we don't normally just archive chunks of text like this. See here. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Related to this, Wikidemo is also making several changes to WP:NFCC which confuse and significantly change the policy. Please, someone tell him to stop. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocking of user User:KillerPlasmodium[edit]

I believe that the user has been blocked for personal reasons by a band of extreme leftists who find his political beliefs to be intolerable despite his having references. He is an example of a common American with beliefs engendered by the majority of Americans, and thus he will bring a semblance of neutrality to many of the most biased liberalist articles. Gold Nitrate 03:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I say on my own talk page, he was being a complete and utter dick, and I used my discretion to block him for being a complete and utter dick.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussionRyūlóng (竜龍) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
good on Ryulong. ALthough the guy may have had some valid concerns buried in his talk page edits, and certainly did have some good edits on the criminal behaviors in the articel referenced in the archived section above. ThuranX 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


The anonymous user (talk · contribs) just left a svedophonic message on my talk page, threatening of violence: (the Finnish part reads: "you don't have the rights to remove the Finnish sourced names when you yourself adds your Swedish occupation names into the true-Finnish articles, f**k!". As the users main concern seems to be the article Korsnäs, one way of getting the user out of hiding would be to semi-block that page for anonymous users. --MoRsE 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a high amount of IP address activity overall on that page, including edit warring. However, protection policy specifically prohibits the semi-protection of pages for the sole purpose of locking out IP users in a content dispute, which is what this seems to be. --Hemlock Martinis 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about user Petri Krohn[edit]


A whole long tirade of accusing Estonians of being Nazis based on rumors and without any sources, with in my mind is just an attempt to wage emotional warfare against anybody identifying themselves as Estonian. The final statement however(I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet.) is the worst and that in my mind falls under category 'gross incivility'. I Hope something is done to stop these attempts to drive certain editors away sole based on their nationality.--Alexia Death 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we somehow ban Korps! Estonia accounts from this noticeboard? It is annoying to spend the better part of a day watching their endless and meaningless diatribes on high-traffic noticeboards. The purpose of this page is not to entertain them on a daily basis. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Troll ignored.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I read this case with skepticism because Alexia Death, in my opinion, does a lot of tendentious editing. However, in this case, Alexia Death's claims appear valid. The AfD comment by User:Petri Krohn is off-topic, inflammatory, incivil, and violates WP:BLP if the person he names is still alive (unclear). Rather than bring this case here, Alexia, did you try asking nicely for Petri to strike his inappropriate comment? That's the normal first step. Jehochman Talk 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at his talk. Theres a discussion about this. He shows no remorse. As to striking, this AfD was archived soon after his comment, so that cant be done.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the edit is particularly problematic, as Korps! Estonia was indeed exceedingly reluctant to admit the fact of the Holocaust in Estonia and the participation of the Estonians in the extermination of Jews in the country. I will remove Petri's comment to prevent misunderstandings. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And I have undone that removal. It is an archived page.--Alexia Death 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that your goal is to escalate the problem rather than defuse it. Sigh... --Ghirla-трёп- 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As to my WP:TE violations, i take it quite kindly when proven wrong nicely. So far all I've gotten is flaming. By nature my goal is neutrality. Next time, if I seem to be doing that, I ask that somebody let me know, preferably with sources/reasons and without accusations?--Alexia Death 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthering my message to User:Digwuren acouple of days ago, i must say that your content and personal disputes must have an end. Answering Petri's message at Ghirla's talk page earlier today, i'd say that there are many admins who had balls out there. It just would take time for a single admin to block around 12 editors from both parties. Blocks can vary from 24h to indef according to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL for starters. As you'd note from Ghirla's talk page, no admin has agreed w/ their actions (i.e. sorting by nationality) as it is the case w/ the opponent side actions as well, and the majority of 1700 admins won't agree as well. I am afraid admins would start to block all the involved accounts once similar and related issues are brought again to the ANI. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So your view is that there are problems, but lets not deal with them?--Alexia Death 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been ill advised to bring every petty dispute to this page hoping that your opponent will be blocked. The view that block shopping is efficient has some currency in the project (see Piotr's message above), but I assure you that no amount of ANI bickering will resolve your dispute with history and fellow wikipedians. You are mistaken in believing that regular abuse of this page (look how the heading is phrased) will result in character assassination of your opponents. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Im rather getting the feeling that character assassination is being attempted on me... As to abuse or advice, I'm a thinking person, and I believe that seeing wrongdoing and doing nothing is like letting cancer grow, you are spared of radiation therapy, but you will die. Ultimately I believe what I am doing now is to the good of the project.--Alexia Death 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You'd have been blocked by now as per my message above. You and others (from both camps) are lucky to be still responding here. As i explained, it is a bit tiring for a single admin to block all the accounts involved in this mess. But, we'll wait for other admins view if they are willing to help in that matter or not. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Id like to see policies i've violated(with diffs) to deserve a block in your mind. Ive always tried to be civil, to keep my cool and ignore provocations... I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion without accusations. I'm at a loss for words at this point...--Alexia Death 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you really. Here's a nasty personal attack on Ghirlandajo, in this very thread where you assert your civility and cool and bemoan the "accusations" and "character assassination" you're victim of. Do you have any idea of of the amount of valuable work Ghirla has done for the encyclopedia? It's shameful, no matter what your present disagreement, to call him a "troll". I've never seen even any of his professed and long-standing opponents/enemies say such a thing. (Piotrus? Am I right?) And it's pretty oblivious to paint yourself as the put-upon innocent in the very same thread. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
I admit, Tad uncivil, but block material? I will refine from reacting in the future. If I will be blocked for this I expect that Ghrila is blocked in proportion to his incivility and hostility compared to mine.--Alexia Death 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's important to remember the distinction between being "civil" by using the prettiest words you can find and actually being civil by working to get along with people and minimize drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the second part is much harder to achieve than the first when one party as openly declared that the other should somehow be stopped from even being in the discussion(or getting them to leave WP would be dong the project a favor)....--Alexia Death 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support handing out blocks in all directions. This has got to stop, WP admins don't have time to prance around with every incidence of provincial hatemongering breaking out on Afd. Hand out blocks with circumspection (a few hours at first to show we mean it, and after that escalate block lengths until the situation improves). Anyone "pouring some more gasoline on this flamefest" (P. Krohn) should be smacked with a block. Anyone wikilawyering or forum-shopping for blocks, or reverting attempts to defuse the situation [9] (A. Death) should be blocked. I will back any admin taking this approach, even if they err somewhat on the draconic side (but do keep blocks short at first), or if they don't catch every offender at first go. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit, that I undid the diffusion attempt without reading the advertisement on this page and under impression that editing an archived page was the right of ether the author or and admin. If this was wrong, I apologize and wont do it again. --Alexia Death 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Another note, As long as blocks are given fairly and on BOTH sides by a neutral admin, I support it. The situation is out of hand, and if the solution is my time out then so be it. As long as this hostility stops.--Alexia Death 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
One more note, I will not own up to wiki-lawering and forum-shopping as I do not see myself having done either. I did not report this to get Petri blocked, i reported this so it would be publicly condemned and he warned from not doing it again.--Alexia Death 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs for which each editor is blocked should be presented here, and blocks will be issued if needed. Certainly both sides are to blame, but block duration may vary depending on level of aggreviation and past behaviour.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I here by call ANYONE to post any and all diffs offenses I should be blocked for. How can I learn if if no-one points at my faults objectively. Blanket accusations without diffs are not welcome. If no diffs appear, I shall assume that acusations were made with intent to scare me away.--Alexia Death 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I left you a reply at your talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting the admin tools ready[edit]

Here we are. I've just issued a block of 48h to User:RJ CG for tedious tendentious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also User:Petri Krohn was blocked for 72h for provocative comments and random accusations at AfD. Shall we stop here or wait for another offender? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to block people for "tedious editing," we are going to be very busy indeed. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking inveterate edit warriors (of all sides on all issues) for persistent WP:OR violation (read: trolling!) is in general a very good idea. I think you should pay attention to nationalist namecalling and civility issues as well. Without a tough line against dominant “trolls and their enablers”(Larry Sanger) Wikipedia-like projects will never win reliabilty. I'd suggest that high edit count will not be regarded as giving a sort of immunity. If one has much to contribute he should do it, taking into account that this is not his ego-project, but a collective one. New users should be encouraged to join in by a tolerant and warm atmosphere, which is non-existent as of now.
After all I can only concur with Piotrus's complaint that “it is a sad occurrence... [that] epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished”. I've hear such unfounded accusations - initially by petri Krohn, then by Ghirlandajo - for months now, and there's been no sign of this ever stopping. E.J. 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before and I say it again. I support tough line as long as its dealt fairly by an unbiased admin(s), because its the only way to have order, even if it means that when I am out of line, I get put into a time out.--Alexia Death 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To NYB. Have you checked his contribs in question? Restoring non-stop his OR? This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately and as everybody knows about both camps' extreme POV pushing and incivility. Is there any other solution? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the substance of the block, just on your apparent slip of typing "tedious" for what I assume was meant to be "tendentious." Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh thanks and sorry for the inconvenience NYB. I've corrected it. By the way, it is tedious indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a period of a week for their tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. (i.e. tags and redirects). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn blocked for 72 hours[edit]

FayssalF, thank you for demonstrating that block shopping on WP:ANI is so efficient these days. "This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately" - and, given your prompt "reaction", you will see tons of forum shopping on this page from the same accounts. "Tedious editing" - this is a nice justification to block a person who never revert-wars and who alone has the stamina to oppose a dozen one-purpose Tartu accounts in their attempts to white-wash Estonian authorities of charges of Nazi collaboration. I point out that no disruptive Korps! Estonia account has been blocked to maintain some semblance of objectivity. User:Digwuren is happily "at work" on his "new" masterpieces: Anti-Estonian sentiment and Estophilia. Instead, a productive non-Estonian, non-Russian contributor was chosen as a victim. In short, words fail me. This is beyond ridiculous. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LIFO. As i said many times, if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked. So i decided to start from today's violations. If there's any other admin willing to go ahead than i'd be helping but i can't waste 48h of my time doing that alone. So, i've decided to block on the spot. Of course, it is ridiculous for you because you are directly involved as well. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked" is a bad rationale. This is not the approach I expect from experienced administrators. This is both a token of the admins' ineptitude to handle a rather complex editing dispute and a potent signal to the trolls what they are expected to do in order to have their opponent blocked from Wikipedia for a considerable period of time. It was not Petri who started flamefests on this page. He is a contributor with a long history of valid contributions, something which can't be sad about any of this detractors. They stirred up trouble in order to have him blocked, and there you have it. It so happens that I learned about the incident while discussing the ArbCom's latest ruling that "In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions".[10] Could you refer me to such a discussion in the present case? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the rationale Ghirla. If someone accuses others of hiding Nazi agendas than they shoudl be blocked. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that his comment was deplorable, it should be viewed within the context of the wider debacle which saw trolling accusations flying in all directions. Furthermore, I believe that 72 hours is way too harsh, given that: 1) he had no prior blocks for incivility; 2) did not abuse AN or ANI for forum shopping; 3) maintains the policy of one revert per day; 4) has a long history of valid contributions which have nothing to do with Estonia. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
FayssalF is doing the right thing. I fully support his approach and the blocks. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Now it's too late to support. There should have been some sort of prior discussion. This is no "emergency situation". --Ghirla-трёп- 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Late? Do you still think that my actions were half legit? Prior discussion? There have been many and we won't waste our time again and again. These blocks are meant to to stop the bleeding in times of "emergency situations". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to read Ghirlandajo's pontification on the rights and wrongs on this case, but we should not forget his own disruptive and unfortunate actions in this whole sorry debacle. I am referring to his attempted classification of editors by nationality in the course of AfD discussion. If blocks are being handed out liberally, this outrageous action by Ghirlandajo seems qualify him for one as well, if we are to be fair here. Balcer 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Block shopping again, Balcer? I recall that the relevant discussion was archived. If you need to reopen the can of worms, please go to WP:AN. I see nothing criminal in calling you Polish. People voted along the ethnic lines, there's no denying that. The entire vote spotlighted the power of ethnic cliques in Wikipedia, it is hard to deny that too. When I attempted to put the sad truth to words, three ethnic cliques created an outcry. In other words, we are expected to put up with the ethnic cliques and keep silence, or to be subjected to outrageous accusations of racism. I'm not going to oblige them. Ethnic cliques are a problem that undermines the foundations of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously not true as I voted for deleting the article, definitely not along the ethnic line existing in your imagination. Balcer 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop using the noticeboard to snipe at each other. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Copied from Petri Krohn's talk page

I offer my sincere apologies to Estonian editors who may have been offended by my uncivil comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. If this was the comment that forced the early closure of the AfD against my vote, I accept the result and take full responsibility.

I ask that whoever sees this will do two things.

  1. Pass my apologies to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about user Petri Krohn.
  2. Remove the last sentence, starting with "I would not be surprised if some of the editors..." from the archived version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, by either removing the text completely or replacing it with (uncivil comment removed).

As to the rest of my comment: I will come back to the issues, with sources and references, but now is not the time for that.

My only other edits for the last 22 hours are saying WikiThanks for boldness to four editors who voted or decided against me in the AfD. Today, I have nothing else to say. -- Petri Krohn 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't blocking meant to stop editors writing anywhere else than their talk page? I think correct procedure for this would be unblock request? Although apology is a step in the right direction. Suva 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking aims to make wikipedia a better place. They aren't punitive but restrictive. So if a blocked user apologizes i'd see that as a step forward to make wikipedia a better place. I would not care where his message would be posted. Indeed, he is not asking to be unblocked. He's apologizing to the community. That's COMMON SENSE. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move[edit]

[11] [12] [13] Heimm Old 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem?--Atlan (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The clue is in the title. It's not a cut and paste move, though, Heimm Old; it's a merge. The article List of banks in mainland China has been merged into List of banks in the People's Republic of China. This is fine. Neil  15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a merge, but a cut and paste move. Everything in the first list is moved to the latter one. The latter got nothing (except disambig links) before the cut and paste. Heimm Old 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And the requester is a sockpuppet of a banned user attempting to get other people to flame up his old wars. SchmuckyTheCat
Looking at this short contribution history, its a fair bit of involvement in a queer selection of issues for a relative newbie of three months: definitions of the term China, spelling of Macau, and of course the age old issue of Mainland China. How many will have their virgin edits as sophisticated as this? Not many. I suggest a sockpuppet check soonest possible.--Huaiwei 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jem Godfrey/Frost*[edit]

The articles for Jem Godfrey and Frost (UK band) are being repeatedly vandalised, in part by Godfrey himself judging by his blog.[14] I've reverted them both to archived pages from some time ago, probably losing some useful edits along the way, but I couldn't see any other way of removing the erroneous content. Would a block on editing be in order? Bondegezou 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

... and see Andy Edwards also, and I suspect further related pages. Bondegezou 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've permablocked Gullpepper (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for vandalizing the Andy Edwards article among others. Which others do you suggest? From a quick scan, other accounts have enough good-faith-looking edits that I didn't want to block without further details. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not certain. All three articles had become riddled with (good-natured) silliness, some of which was almost plausible. I tried to see where those edits had come from; some were anonymous. Recent dodgy edits were made by Showtimesynergy and Bamber42. Bondegezou 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment/Invasion of Privacy[edit]

Since 26 April, User:Sethie (see also Special:Contributions/Sethie) has been demanding I confirm his speculations about my personal identity, has publically stated who he thinks I am based on those speculations, and threatened that upon my refusal to confirm or deny his speculations about who I am, he will remove a link that I had added, which he has now done, see [15] and the dialogue here User_talk:Dseer. There is no policy requiring disclosure of personal identities based on such threats or speculation, no policy requiring removal of a link based on such threats or speculation until I confirm or deny his assertions about my identity, and the point is irrelevant since other editors have supported keeping the link. Furthermore, if all links could be challenged and removed on such a flimsy basis, there would be utter chaos. Such threats to reveal someone's alleged identity and remove material if not done, and then actual removal of material as threatened in retaliation for failure to induldge such extreme behavior, should not be tolerated. I've warned Sethie about his actions to no avail, now I expect strong action taken against Sethie to have the harassment, invasion of privacy, and general intimidation stopped. --Dseer 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning message left on User talk:Sethie. if you want more than a warning, please provide diffs of behavior justifying such action. DES (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurocopter_tigre is modifying my talk page comments[edit]

All began when i added an OR tag to a map in the article Chernivtsi Oblast, that claimed to be based on the Ukrainian 2002 census, but actually conflated two ethnic self identification (Romanians and Moldovans) in just one: Romanians. User:Eurocopter_tigre quickly deleted my tag, including a personal attack in his edit summary:[16] Since I did not want to participate in an edit war (another supporter of the Romanian POV began reverting me in the mean time) i decided to discuss the matter on the talk page. However User:Eurocopter_tigre deleted part of my message, changing its meaning: diff. Assuming good faith, i decided to warn him that this behaviour is unacceptable on wiki (using a standard template, as the policy recommends): diff. However, he deleted this warning claiming it's a "false warning", and when i tried to restore my original message, he modified it again, this time using personal attacks in his edit summary: diff. This happened again when i tried a second time to undo his modification, personal attacks in edit summary included: diff. Note that i have nothing against user deleting comments from their own userspace, but this time i considered necessary to note the deletion of the warning by User:Eurocopter_tigre to show admins that the warning was refused and had no effect (on the contrary, after the warning, he began to attack me).Anonimu 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, User:Anonimu it's well known as an disruptive editor, who is always in conflicts with other normal editors, which are really trying to improve that kind of articles disrupted by Anonimu. The warnings which he did put on my talk page, were a result of an edit conflict, so were removed immediatly (however, I preserve my right to administrate my talk page exactly how I want). Also, I didn't personal attacked Anonimu, he must misunderstood me. When I said the word "communist", I was reffering to his edits (my personal opinion is that his edits are communist - that's definitely not a personal attack), not directly to him. Content added/removed by Anonimu is usually removed/included back by many other effective users. --Eurocopter tigre 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note the continuos slander by User:Eurocopter tigre.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The rv of Anonimu (See Romanian Communist Party) come with "per consensus on the talk page", while the consensus there is actually the opposite of what Anonimu does. :Dc76 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
While this has nothing to do with the above, i must assume good faith and ask you to check again the talk page of the article you refer.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please stop bickering here. This page is not part of our dispute resolution procedure. Don't forget what the ArbCom ruled on the issue: "Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts". Do you really want reprisals? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What i really want is the community to see my comments the way i intended them to be seen (i.e. the way i wrote them).Anonimu 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Anonimu? Just a bit of advice: Don't report other people for conduct that's no worse than your own in the same dispute.
A term like, "communist vandalism" is inappropriate. However, so was, "nationalist vandalism", which was your term, which the "communist vandalism" comment was directly in response to. Don't bait people and then complain when they take the bait.

How should i call the disrespect for the self identification of 70,000 people and the imposition of the term those people did not use? (Note that my edit was nothing more than an OR tag)

Also, you should know that any and all users are allowed (not encouraged, but still allowed) to remove warnings from their talk pages. It is considered acknowledgement that they've read it. Putting it back after they've removed it is not acceptable. So, don't complain about them removing something that you had absolutely no right to put there in the first place, okay?

where did i put back messages deleted by users from their userspace? This was about another user tendentiously modifying my comment on a talk page of a mainspace article. (of course, if you consider the talk page of Chernivtsi oblast User:Eurocopter tigre's own talk page, that's another matter)Anonimu

Seriously, I'd take Ghirlandajo (did I spell that right?)'s advice and stop bickering. And, especially, stop behaving just as bad as (or worse than) the people you report, expecting people to take your side. Bladestorm 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i hope this was only a misunderstanding due to you not checking the diffs with enough care. otherwise, i expect some excuses for your accusations.Anonimu 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll reply all in one block. (You should really try to avoid breaking up other people's comments like that unless it's entirely necessary. It makes it hard to tell who said what, especially considering my name is only appended to one third of my comments now.)
I suppose I may have been slightly glib with my take on your adding warnings to his talk page. Twice, within the same conflict, you added warnings to his page, where neither was terribly appropriate. (here and here) I suppose you're right, they weren't the same tag... just two different warnings, related to the same dispute, on the same person's talk page. Wow. Big diff. But, you're right. Still technically different.
As for the more personal stuff, like, for example, how you should take the disrespect etc etc etc... I'll just say this: When you characterize someone's edit as "nationalist vandalism", their response of "communist vandalism" is, in no way any worse than your own. And, though his edit summary wasn't appropriate or to be condoned, it still remains true that it was in direct response to your edit summary, which made your action just a little bit worst. (That is, if I ever say to someone, "you, sir, are a moron!", and he replies with, "No! It is YOU who are an idiot!", then you better believe I won't complain to people about having been called an idiot.)
Also, just a note: You should avoid claiming that people edited your comments. The diff you provided (here) shows him changing the subject heading. That's substantially different. You believe it was nationalist, that's your opinion. However, there's no need to poison the well right in the heading. It's far more appropriate to simply choose a neutral heading, and then address your concerns. Is changing the header necessary? Nah. But it is not the same as changing your comments. Huuuge difference. If he'd changed your comments, then it'd be treated far more seriously. Bladestorm 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The first warning was about his blind reverts (based only on "x-user reverted it, then i should do it too", as the lack of any discussion indicate) while the second was about him tendentiously editing my comments. The fact that the first warning was partly related to the article on the talk page of which he edited my comments it's just a coincidence.
What's communist in adding an OR tag on a map that doesn't respect the results of a census? Nothing. What's nationalist in deleting a tag, hiding the possible unreliability of a map, i a way that favours you ethnic group? Everything. So, while my edit summary was factual, his was just a personal attack.
The heading was integral part of my comment, and not something else, as you imply. What do you think would happen if i would go around and and delete important words from talk page headings? if that heading happened to be the one put by an admin, i would be banned on sight. And of course that's my opinion. If opinions would be banned from talk pages, we would have less than 10 talk pages that wouldn't be empty. And i still wait for apologies (see the appropiate heading on my talk page)Anonimu 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think your tag is communist, b/c it is exactly the communist POV on the issue. I think that erasing the tag is not nationalist, but anti-communist, since putting the tag was communist. Absolutely, you can contest the original map and say it was nationalist. I say no - it is based on census results. The place for that is discussion in talk page. I have nothing to say about whether Eurocopter is modifying or not modifying your comments on his talk page. But neither do you: you address a content dispute, which in the talk pages of the two articles has resulted in consensus against your POV. I perfectly understand your frustration, and I am sincerely sorry, but it is no more than a content dispute, imho.:Dc76\talk 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing problems with User:Cjmarsicano and WP:NFCC[edit]

See previous report further up the page, and this latest attack on Quadell's talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears he has left the project due to his disagreements with the non-free content policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, I left because of ongoing problems Wikipedia has with itself. Might as well get one last piece of truth out on this godforsaken website. --CJ Marsicano 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's obvious you left because you can't deal with the fact that the non-free content policies prevent you from using non-free photographs of living peoples. There are also questions concerning the actualy copyrights of photographs you claim are free to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I left because WP:NFCC has no basis in reality. If there were questions about the actual copyrights of those photographs, that should have been addressed to me, but instead you simply joined in on the witchhunt. Not cool. --CJ Marsicano 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFCC is based on fair use law, which is built upon at WP:NFC#Law.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do I have trouble believing that the current policy is really based on fair use law? Every image WP:H!P uploaded met with all criteria mentioned yet was still deleted. I don't think any of the witchunters who were attacking those images even knew what the real deal was with them or just didn't give a shit because they secretly liked the power that the new policy of sanctioned vandalism gave them. --CJ Marsicano 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Because, fair use law formed the policy before it was caled "non-free content." However, the criteria concerning living individuals was always there. It is just now being checked on. Free images of individuals solely to depict them such as Ai Kago are possible, and as such, the promotional photograph that is currently on the Ai Kago article should not be used, and that is why it is to be deleted, because a free image that performs the exact same purpose could be made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Enough of the talk (and the doubletalk). If those so-called "free" images are there, then YOU are more than welcome to try and find them or take them. You'll find out how impossible it is firsthand, just like myself and the rest of WP:H!P have found. Go right ahead and try. You know who WP:H!P was covering. Do some Googling and try and find those images! When you find out the hard way that I was right all along, you know exactly how I can be contacted. -- CJ Marsicano, 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Although not necessarily in the specific instances you address, our fair use policies are on the whole more restrictive than they need be under United States law and, some of us believe, than they need be from a practical perspective (I, for one, have argued that there exist some broad classifications of media our blatant, untoward infringement of copyright relative to which is likely to pass without action, such that the benefit the project might derive should be greater than all of the prospective harms that might entail), but they are consistent, one supposes, with the principles of the licensing policy of the Foundation, as most prominently expressed in this March resolution, a generally accurate restatement/expansion of which is that free is more important than good, such that an image may be considered replaceable even where it is not readily or foreseeably actually replaceable. You may think this to be an eminently bad idea (I do), but it is one consistent with which one must edit (or, as you apparently [unfortunately] have elected, not edit) until the Board is convinced to reverse course or to permit individual projects more latitude to determine how they might prioritize "free" and "good". Joe 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope I misunderstand you Joe, because it makes me sad to see you say that you would wish the Wikimedia Board to abandon its entire mission. .. and thats really what it seems like you're saying. The mission of the Foundation, and indeed Wikipedia itself, has always been firmly grounded in free content. While I would agree with the notion that within this mission of free content there is room for diverse behavior, what I wouldn't agree with is the notion that there is room to say that it is okay to compromise the freely licensed status of our works simply for the purpose of a nominal increase in quality. If I am misunderstanding your position, then perhaps you are misunderstanding the Foundation position, since the Foundation's only real hard position in this subject area appears that free content needs to be our priority. If the foundation were the sort of narrow viewed folks you seem to be suggesting they might have just prohibited non-free materials entirely (just as the French, Spanish, Portuguese, and German Wikipedia communities have chosen to do on their own).--Gmaxwell 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the template at the bottom of his page {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} a real an authorized template? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The talk page of that template has further information about it. --Hemlock Martinis 06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot reversed real change. Bot info page linked to here[edit]


I am user: I edited SmartMove (see the log) and a bot reversed my changes saying it was auto-fixing things it thought were Spam. Not being Spam, my comments want to get back in the article. 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jat78- Misusing Wikieditor Powers[edit]

Please investigate this fellow. He is pushing a POV on many Jat related articles. He is pushing a POV and threatening people with bans and calling them idiots when challenged. This is not the impression one wants to give to the outside world the wikipedians are pushing POV and abusing those that are giving a valid contribution to wiki articles.--Sikh-history 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs...? ViridaeTalk 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhaval akbari persistently spamming on Laser[edit]

Warn appropriately (WP:UTM), report to AIV if necessary. Next. ViridaeTalk 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the {{uw-spam}} series are appropriate for this matter. SalaSkan 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked STEALTH RANGER[edit]

STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week for incivility, harassment, and being a pest. He's been warned numerous times. He's also threatening to write a bad newspaper article, or something like that. Here is a previous ANI thread.-Wafulz 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He blanked the contents of the talk page, so I've restored them temporarily so someone else can review them. He claims journalists are monitoring his talk page, so I've also posted contact information.[17] This is ridiculous.-Wafulz 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



This legitimate user seems destined to be caught in a series of autoblocks, but I'm uncertain how to help him without softblocking what seems to be a really problematic IP. See User talk: I recently blocked User:Thy true power, a clear sock of someone who was taunting users to block him. A hard block seemed appropriate. It seems that I can't just unblock User:Astrale01 and I think softblocking the IP will just lead to more trouble. Is there a solution here that I am missing? Cheers Dina 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After a discussion wiht User:Luna Santin who blocked the problem IP several times, I decided to lift the autoblock. Cheers. Dina 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Action to Protect Coelacan[edit]

Unfortunately admin Coelacan is the target of an Internet smear campaign by an anon user. [18]. Needless to say, all of the accusations of this anon are false. He was implored repeatedly by Coelacan and others to discuss and not edit war.[19]. However, he kept on moving to other articles which were then rightly protected to prevent his edit warring. In addition, this user may be a previously banned user seeking to harass editors on this project. Perhaps permanent bans and other action is appropriate. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan is an admin. He can protect his userpage if he wants to. There haven't been any edits there since 2 July; conversely, there's no need for anons to be able to edit it. Shalom Hello 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not about Coelacan's web page. But rather the continued destructive behavior of this anon. He is going to other Internet sites spreading lies, and may be involving law enforcement in this campaign. Is there nothing that can be done to stop this. I have a strong feeling this is just the beginning. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are kooks out there. This one seems contained to a single website. I don't think it's worth bothering. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected User:Coelacan's user page. As is stated above, he is an admin, and can if he wishes unprotect when he returns. I have left his talk page open at present.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Coelacan consult with the Office to determine if they have any comments or suggestions on this situation. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a conspiracy theory site anyway. Not speaking for the office, but I doubt that there's much to do but ignore it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Swat... I've had only brief interaction with Coelacan in the past, but that "quote" is absolutely laughable from the interaction I've had with him. I strongly suspect that any law enforcement agency that gets the report from that individual, sans any evidence, is going to simply think that someone forgot to take their medicine today...--Isotope23 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparantly there are other sites with this bit of libel on it as well. Let's hope that this does in fact get dismissed as the lying ravings of a kook, and that Coelacan does not suffer any long term harm. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Full protection pending release of Harry Potter?[edit]

Copied from WP:RFPP for a fuller hearing.

Full Protection - It's been IP-protected for a while, but recently a lot of registered users have been making bad edits to the article. Also, a partial copy of the book has been released in the past 24 hours, and if people read the first half of the book, they should not be able to edit in the plot to the article before the book comes out (they obtained the info for the article illegally, after all). I know this happened at least once yesterday, and no matter if the info was true or not (no way to tell, since the book is unreleased). The article should be locked until Saturday the 21st, when the book is released worldwide, and the plot can be edited in then. Miles Blues 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the book has been fully released, although there is no way of reconciling this with V. east.718 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If people can't get away with semi-protection on Doctor Who episode articles, full-protection isn't happening for a popular book. The point of editing is that people can clean up the crap some IPs add, assuming it has merit. The point is for Wikipedia to be updated. That becomes impossible with full-protection. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Plot information from a leaked copy is probably not verifiable. Revert, warn and block aggressively, but full protection doesn't look like the right thing to do for such a hot topic. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection isnt pre-emptive, besides it a dispute thats resolvable with the need for sourcing from WP:RS so watch revert warn Gnangarra 07:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Wasn't the sixth season of 24 lcoked down fully after a leaked episode came out? hbdragon88 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My limited experience with this situation was with the leak of The Wire, and nothing happened there. east.718 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think semiprotection should be sufficient. Just make sure lots of people are watching, and if anyone adds plot info before July 21, revert it. It's not verifiable. --Masamage 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with full protection (and almost requested it a few days ago). Just to put this into perspective: GameFAQs got DMCA notices about the leak. And yes, hbdragon, the sixth season page for 24 was full-protected due to the leak. Will (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with protecting it until the book release. In the event that this won't happen, can editors who aren't interested in the Harry Potter stuff add it to their watch list for a couple of days? Many of the people who are normally interested (if they're anything like me that is) are no longer looking at it until the book comes out. I would do it, but not at the risk of spoiling the book for myself. R. Baley 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support full protection on two counts: increased vandalism eager for false spoilers, and unverifiability of leaked info pre-release. Both give incentives to make others miserable by 'ruining it'. Also support Full Protection on the pages of the Characters Harry Potter, Snape, and Voldemort, as they will all be getting smakced with the same sets of vandals, I suspect. We've seen a vandal hit all pages related to a topic before, there's no reason to expect different, and some common sense to expect higher than average incidences. ThuranX 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
+ me. On the run-up to the book's release, it is undoubtly going to attract a very high ammount of vandalism. Nip the problem in the bud. Great # 8 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support per ThuranX - full protection. The leaks, the hype, and the vandals are going to make babysitting this article a real pain. Rklawton 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the full protection of the Deathly Hallows page. In addition, I'd recommend a set of protections for main or prominent character pages like Harry Potter, Severus Snape, Lord Voldemort and so on. Then again, if it were up to me I'd full-protect the important ones then semi-protect every single Harry Potter article we've got until Monday. I can guarantee the vandal-fighters will be working hard all weekend across the encyclopedia, and I'll try to finish the book as fast as possible so I can assist. --Hemlock Martinis 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Full protection sounds good to me too. We're not in such a rush to scoop anyone- a few days of not much editing won't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We can revert things easily enough. We don't do preemptive protection (much) and we don't want to make it a habit. So I don't see protection as justified yet, since it seems to be an entirely hypothetical problem right now. I added this to my watchlist, though, to help watch for vandalism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No no no. High profile articles will attract vandals, yes. But they will attract many many many more curious readers. Semi protecting them is bad enough; for many it will be their first look at Wikipedia articles. They may get interested and want to contribute. They will not be able to if the first article they are interested in is protected with a big "keep the fuck away" banner. Semiprotection will stop the drive-by vandals. Any sleeper vandal accounts can soon be blocked (this is a good way to flush them out), I'm sure there'll be plenty of vandal-fighters and admins watching the article, especially at the weekend. Me, I'll be reading the book, but whatever. And I hope you won't consider people wanting to post the plot vandals if they do so properly. Wikipedia is not censored, and does contain spoilers. It's an encyclopedia, not TV Quick. Neil  21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
An uneditable page is a minor annoyance at best- what's the rush? Unwelcome spoilers are potentially quite irritating. Unless you're suggesting that anyone reading the article before the book gets what they deserve.. which is probably true. Friday (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
They do get what they deserve, but that's not my point. Every month or so we go through the same debate on our highest-profile article of that day (the featured article), and we never fully protect (unless it goes batshit mental, and even then only for 15 minutes). We don't fully protect George W. Bush - even at the time of the last election - and that article gets more attention than the Deathly Hallows article ever will. The main thrust of this drive to full-protect the DH article seems to be to avoid spoilers, not because of vandalism. If that's the concern, don't read the bloody article 'til you've read the book. Neil  22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I expect that within minutes of the book release a plot summary will appear. As long as it's in a section labeled "plot" I think most people will skip it if they (1) don't want to be spoiled and (2) nevertheless want to read the article. — Carl <;;small>(CBM · talk) 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. You could even hide it in a hidey box for a week or so. Neil  22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I would oppose a hidden box - we don't promote the book, we describe it like an encylcopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma that information from an as yet unpublished book is not verifiable, and therefore should not be included. But is it relevant how the editors acquired that information? Does it matter for WP:V and WP:CITE that editors may have "obtained the info for the article illegally", as Miles Blues (talk · contribs) says? AecisBrievenbus 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it does. But unverifiable info does have to go, and before the book is officially released the plot is unverifiable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Neil, that (spoiler reduction) may be true for saturday morning, but we're talking about friday morning, BEFORE the release. Once it's 12:01 Sat AM Hawaiian ST, I'm fine with cracking the Full to Semi, which ensures that experienced editors can give a good plot, and only Manchurian Accounts will rise up to vandalize. Those are easiest to find and block once they activate. Full Protection till say, 6 AM saturday, ensuring that from Maine to Hawaii, it's not vandalized before release time, and then Semi for the weekend? New users can use the talk page to ask about inclusions. Neil is right that this will be an opportinity to show off Wikipedia. Let's show them that we can manage a major page traffic event in a way that keeps kids from seeing 'Harry Potter did hermoine in the butt' spammed up 1000x, while leaving the plot sumamries available. (And yes, I know Wikipedia's not censored, but neither is it a wall for graffiti, which is what 'Harry Potter and the Brown-Eyed Starfish' would be. NOT censored applies only to valid inclusions.) I think that having a clean, well monitored HP page would be a great way to show that parental concerns brought on by the media have been heard by the community, and our approaches are changing till we find what really works best. I hope that this expresses my opinion without seeming to denigrate any other views. ThuranX 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to please the media we are here to write an encyclopedia. Aditionaly the release time would appear to be 11.01 on the 20th UTC. No sure where the 6am number comes from.Geni 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he is talking 6:01 AM EDT. Smartyshoe 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What do Hawaii, Maine, and Manchuria have to do with the release of a British novel? --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no need for full protection. The article is already headed by a "future book" tag and it's been semi-protected for weeks now. On historical precedent, I'd say that our Harry Potter-related problems are most likely to be "Snape-kills-Dumbledore"-style spam turning up all over the encyclopedia for a few days, and possibly attempts to use Wikipedia as a repository for pirated copies of the entire source. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No need for protection; I agree. On the other hand, accounts like this one can be blocked on the spot--obvious bad faith, no need for the usual warnings game. Chick Bowen 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - as has been clear from today's edits, there are still potentially worthy topics regarding the book which may yet come to light before the release other than the book's contents. The nature of this being a book release and not a film or tv show thus precludes any attempt to reconcile the leak's actual content with the plot thru WP:V - as of yet. The possibility also still exists that this leak may be verified by a reliable source. While I doubt that and would guess that the PR machine will deny it to the last, this in no way diminishes the fact that other sections besides the plot may very well warrant editing. Girolamo Savonarola 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think full protection is justified. Granted, spoilers are going to be appearing on the article, so if you want to find out how the series ends by actually reading the book, don't go near that article and let other admins who don't care about Harry Potter handle the cleanup. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All I will say is this. We follow the spirit of the Wikipedia policies, not the letter. The reason the protection policy says "don't protect from anticipated vandalism" is so that overeager admins don't go around protecting articles they think might possibly be vandalized some time in the future, maybe. It's a sensible policy. However, we can say with 100% certainty that many vandals will be attacking Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and similar articles in the next 5 days, if not more (they've already attacked it several times while the page was semi-protected). Why should we sit on our hands and say "well, policy says we can't protect this page" when common sense says we would be doing many people a service by protecting the page? Now, I personally don't care about the spoilers (in fact I've already seen what I know to be the legitimate spoilers) but millions of people around the world do. Okay, not all of them read Wikipedia and even fewer of them will read this article before the book comes out, but to me it seems arrogant to say "well, this is an encyclopedia - why should we care about such things as spoilers?" Well, more than an encyclopedia, it's (supposed to be) a service to the world, and to me the benefits of protecting the page outweigh the negatives. But you know, I've said a lot of stupid idiotic things in the past so maybe it will turn out that not protecting the page was the correct option. At least I hope so... ugen64 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But Ugen, what's to prevent us protecting the page after the vandalism starts? We're not sitting on our hands--we have our hands at the ready. Chick Bowen 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see 8 obvious instances of vandalism in the past 24 hours (only counting the ones where the vandal blanked the page and replaced it with stuff, which are easy to see - didn't look through every single revision). This is after semi-protection. Obviously that kind of vandalism is easy to handle (it only requires 1 user to be active at #vandalism-en-wp, since this site is on the watchlist), but there's still 3 days to go until release and news about the spoilers just broke on the major news outlets (which means even more people will read the spoilers, and of course some of those people will decide to post them on Wikipedia...). ugen64 05:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are still substantive edits going on, even today. Apparently, despite the protection request being declined on RFPP, someone decided to pull the trigger on this one. I don't think it's warranted - the number of vandals is outweighed by the incumbent semi-protection and large number of eyes watching and watchlisting the article. Myself among them. Girolamo Savonarola 06:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection seems like a bad idea to me. If people are so keen to vandalise Wikipedia with plot info from the book, they're going to do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be the focus and people who don't want to be spoiled will be avoiding that article like the plague. If we fully protect it that vandalism will spread to other articles - which will make it far harder to keep people "un-spoiled". It seems to me better to keep that article open to editing so that vandalism is contained as much as possible to a highly watchlisted page (which people can avoid if they want to make sure they don't find out what happens before they read the book). WjBscribe 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The book is completely available online, and people will edit the article to include such details, and given that the book is, in fact, available to a number of people to read, it will have been read and processed. This seems to me like people who don't want the book spoiled, yet they seem to really WANT it spoiled given that they're reading the article, which will invariably contain Snape kills Dumbledore style stuff, in addition to the actual plot summary. The plot summary should be marked as a spoiler, but that's it. Wikipedia is not censored and doesn't care if it spoils stuff for you; don't read pages on Harry Potter if you don't want it spoiled until you've read the book. Titanium Dragon 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations[edit]

At least six editors including myself have complained here [[20]] about the user smatprt and his mission to mention the Earl of Oxford in all the Shakespeare articles. When his edits are deleted he restores them ad infinitum. Unless he is banned he will ruin the Shakespeare project. (Felsommerfeld 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

  • Not being a Shakespeare buff can I ask - are these edits vandalism or some other blocking offence such as three revert? If so a report to WP:AIV may be more worthwhile? If not then I suggest your put a citation request template next to those additions where he mentions the Earl of Oxford and if it is not verified shortly it can be removed (probably with a talk page comment to keep us all in the loop) at any time by any editor.--VS talk 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Try clicking on the link to WP:AN, VS. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC).
      • Yes I did click on the link Bishonen - the detail does not come up as conclusive. I also noted no recent warnings in relation to this issue on the editors page and no recent dif's provided above since the AN discussion to assist us in coming to a quick conclusion.--VS talk 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)PS And I note that no apparently no other admin has acted on this request to ban the editor?--VS talk 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedian protester.png[edit]

I have slapped a CSD13 tag on this image, as I'm pretty sure the uploader is not the creator of the cartoon. He does however state that, since it is licenced under CC Non-commercial, it cannot be used on any article, but it can be used on his own user page. That strikes me as odd, as non-free images can never be used in user space. --Edokter (Talk) 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Original source is here [21]. Licnese appears to be correct.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per WP:CSD#I3. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that is absolutely hilarious? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Fva, and it's fairly true too. On a related note, this spawned a lot of vandalism on Hand.-Wafulz 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The creator of the webcomic occasionally edits here as User:Xkcd. -- Merope 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I had an email from the cartoonist on Saturday saying that he has relicensed the cartoon to CC 2.5 - if anybody is interested I can forward the emails to them. it is as funny as hell! Mike33 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentors wanted[edit]

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is involved in a content dispute on American Family Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and has for several days now engaged in a pattern of disruption, primarily consisting of his insisting that those who do not share his opinion are vandals. He has been informed repeatedly that this is not the case and that he is violating NPA by his rampant accusations and vitriol, and encouraged to discuss the article content, not accuse fellow contributors, yet he has continued. I attempted to discuss this with him (examples here and here). He continued his characterizations of other editors as vandals[22], which again resulted in more talk page space taken up by others attempting to clarify to him that content disputes are not vandalism[23][24]. I warned him clearly to cease disrupting the talk page with such accusations[25] after he made a post in which he used the word "vandal" or "vandalistic" no less than 35 times.[26] He responded by making a post in which he used "vandal" or "vandalistic" a further 17 times[27]. I blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. His campaign of making tediously long posts which are almost entirely insisting that people with whom he disagrees is "ongoing vandalism that has to be brought under wiki control", has derailed the talk page almost completely. Several editors are valiantly working to improve the article and resolve content disputes, but every section sooner or later becomes filled with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's incredibly long and redundant polemics against his fellow editors. He seems to have decided that I have blocked him at another admin's behest[28] ignoring his own divisive and hostile behavior on the article talk page. Please note that although I have offered difs and examples from the talk page only, there has been edit warring with hostile edit summaries as well. The block is for 24 hours. Could someone, anyone, please try to explain to LAEC what is wrong with his position and actions? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Comments? Anything? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, just an uninvolved user, but I looked over the links you provided and quite a few of the comments on his talk page and diffs. In many instances I see him 'arguing' instead of 'discussing'. Diatribes don't add to a productive discussion and his polemics either against individual users or addressing them as a group disrupt collaboration. I know AGF means 'assume good faith' but there should also be an 'act in good faith' guideline. Statisticalregression 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much for the feedback! There is AAGF as well as AGF and so on, but all of those presume actually applying the principles. If you have any suggestions for making any headway with this editor, please feel free to attempt them or post them here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering extended block[edit]

I blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just now for making hoax edits. I see that the same IP was making the same kinds of edits in May, and targetting related articles (Jaleel White/Family Matters (TV series). Perhaps an extended block would be in order? Note that some of the edits are of a particularly vicious, BLP-violating sort. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IP appears to be a dorm room, incidentally, not, I don't think, a Fordham public computer. Chick Bowen 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that? I got it was Fordham, but how do know it's not a public computer. Because it doesn't have a reverse dns listed? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know it--I was guessing based on the editing pattern. I could be wrong; if the DNS is correct it resolves to Dealy Hall, which is not a dorm. So beats me. Chick Bowen 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Might be worth dropping a note to Fordham's IT department. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Chick Bowen 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fordham replies: "We are trying to locate the perpetrator to put a stop to it, however the implied IP is on a DHCP net and we were wondering if you had a MAC address on record with that IP"--does anyone know? I presume the answer is no, without developer intervention--is that right? Chick Bowen 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this constitute canvassing?[edit]

I noticed user Sumnjim on an AfD I was viewing, and looking through his contribs I saw some questionable activity in terms of soliciting input on AfDs (incidents include [29] [30][31][32][33] and at least three others for that AfD); I thought that this violated the spirit of WP:CANVASS, which the user flatly rejected. Thoughts? David Fuchs (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends in large measure on the reason he selected those particular users to request input from. If it is because they are wiki-friends of his and he expects them to support whatever he writes, that would be undesirable canvassing. If they are acknowleged subject-matter experts in the topics of the articles, or long-time contributors in the relevant field, I might feel very differently. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
re Newyorkbrad: Ostensibly, the user picked them at random, however at least one of the users he has ahad a contining relation with. David Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on an AfD once by Sumnjim, though for none of the reasons stated above, I don't believe, maybe just because I'm a familiar face there.--Ispy1981 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be why he canvassed me as well. I haven't had any contact with him outside of AfD and was a bit surprised to be canvassed. --Charlene 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems to depend on the kind of Canvassing - looking at the posts they are very neutral, indeed why he selected those users should be looked into (i.e- if they are friends or if they share the same point of view). If those users have asked to be alerted to issues on the article or not should also be taken into consideration. Statisticalregression 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Though the tactics of the AfD nominator, User:Sumnjim, may be questioned on policy grounds, the end result of the AfD was 'Keep' due to his withdrawal of the nomination, and the results for the article are a night-and-day improvement. EdJohnston 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the AfD, although some of the user's actions on AfDs appear to violate WP:AGF; I'm more interested in the mass sending of identical forms trying to drive people to the AfD. It seems at least like advertising your own nomination, if not looking for identical opinions. David Fuchs (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
A fair attempt to get a reasonable number of people to pay attention to an afd should be encouraged. This was an interesting question that does not frequently come up at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible User:Komodo lover IPs[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) reverted some edits. The first diff was made by the first IP I mentioned. The edit the IP reverted involved reverting an edit that a Komodo lover sock made. The second one reverted my edit on Animal Face-Off, which involved reverting User:'s edit (that IP was blocked for being Komodo lover). Pants(T) 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these IPs mentioned above belong to Maxis Communications and can be traced back to Malaysia. Pants(T) 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Both IP's blocked for 31 hours, though they appear dynamic and it may not slow him down too much. I also semi-protected Animal Face-Off as a common Komodo lover target. Anyone interested in looking through the IP contribs and undoing the damage? MastCell Talk 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and general incivility[edit]

Resolved: blocked for 31 hrs for disruption and personal attacks

Alterego269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor has done the following:

  • made personal attacks.[34][35]
  • has made generally uncivil edit notes, including typing in caps (i.e yelling). [36][37][38][39][[40][ [41]
  • has made a strange comment on my talk page, including a false accusation of vandalism.[42]
  • has left comments on another editor’s user page instead of talk page. [43][44]
  • has deleted every single comment and warning on his or her talk page (including a block message from an administrator.[45]

See the editor's full edit history for more details.Spylab 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to another choice comment that he wrote on his talk page (before blanking the whole page once again)[46]
It is very clear that this individual is not interested in being a cooperative and civil member of the Wikipedia community. Spylab 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a final message on his talk page. Beyond that, I think he's deserving of a block. David Fuchs (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear God. How has the user not been blocked already? Some good edits, sure; it's probably only because he's blanked every talk page message he's gotten. Wikipedia will do just fine without someone who vandalizes it every third edit (and, on the other two, is presumptive, rude, and WP:OWNy). The Evil Spartan 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For review: User:[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been grossly abusive on a number of article and article talk pages. Earlier today, he got himself indef'ed by admin User:BrendelSignature, which is unusual for an IP but not unprecedented. Brendel had also semi-protected the talk page. I unprotected it on general principles, but they went on another abusive rant on the talk page after I did that. They also sent an abusive email to unblock-en-l.

At this point, I have re-protected the talk page. The IP appears to be static, and extremely abusive, along with (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) where they appear to be also operating. The IPs are Comcast in Connecticut. I am posting to ANI for uninvolved review, given the unusual indef of two IPs and unusual talk page protection of an IP editor. I think these actions were reasonable, but review is good. Georgewilliamherbert 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it. Being blocked multiple times, along with the fact that it appears to be a static ip seems more than justified. (Just wait 'till we deal with IPv6 vandals) David Fuchs (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
IPv6 lets us block on MAC address, fortunately... well, theoretically. We'll need to extend the block syntax. Georgewilliamherbert 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear goodness, they're going to come around with a protocol that lets us block MAC addresses. This will be heaven... The Evil Spartan 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I might block for 6 months, which is a long time in Internetland. People do change ISP's etc. As far as protecting the talk page, I think that's an excellent idea. MastCell Talk 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree, however, I'm personally now getting the nasty emails on this which started on unblock-en-l, so I am not personally inclined to change the duration. I would agree that another admin setting it to six months would meet policy. I'm inclined to deep-fry them personally, so I'll just sit on my hands for the moment. Georgewilliamherbert 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
User has now threatened to attack me several ways in email, as well as continue attacking Wikipedia. Look out for other nearby IP addresses, etc. Fun fun. Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism-only account[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may be a vandalism-only account. In light of this editor's contributions (moving Chichen Itza to Chicken Pizza [47], repeatedly creating the Marespitt article on Asian/Hispanic terrorism, repeatedly adding the Hollywood sign to the New Seven Wonders article [48], changing POOP into an operating system article [49], adding Fair User images to templates despite instructions not to [50], etc., etc. ad nauseum), I can hardly fathom that this editor is anything but a vandalism-only account. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for independent Admin oversight[edit]

Recently User:SlimVirgin has become involved in Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). While I appreciate the assistance of an admin in trying to sort the issue out, I feel that because I already been in conflict with SV on a discussion of Richard Gere/Cindy Crawford BLP, I feel he is not impartial enough to deal with my edits. Notably, he has removed well-sourced criticisms I made of the Baker case (that appear in three independently verifiable newspapers) and has made a long diatribe about my COI even though I have not edited the article directly in some time. He has even asked me not to discuss my proposed edits on the article talk page. He has now threatened to block me, and I feel I am being bullied by an Admin.

I would like to refocuss the discussion on the text to be reincluded, which has strong support from other editors. the discussion is here: [51]

I would like to request that SV recuse himself from the article and that some other independent admins look at the issue with respect to gaining consensus on the disputed text. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a she. Have you tried to discuss this with her on her talk page before bringing it here? ViridaeTalk 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We have been discussing on the article talk page. I ask that SV refocuss her efforts on building consensus, and not on trying to stifle my ability to comment on the text by saying I cannot discuss the proposed edits on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, all BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as articles. Crum375 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
My criticisms of Baker's case were picked up by three independent sources in the UK. They come well withing BLP guidelines. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The point is that BLP concerns are allowed to 'stifle' anyone's ability to discuss things on the article's talk page. Crum375 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Sparkzilla's side in the content dispute, but don't agree with him that SV has been acting in bad faith. She unprotected the page and the only reason me or someone else hasn't readded the deleted material is that we're still working through the issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I won't go into detail here because of BLP. In brief, Sparkzilla has been engaged in a real-life campaign against two individuals for the last couple of years. He has brought this campaign onto Wikipedia, and has repeatedly added details of his allegations against them to a BLP about one of them. The allegations involve legal and financial fraud. Several editors and admins have asked him to stop, to no avail. Therefore, I asked him today, per WP:BLP, WP:COI, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to stop commenting on those individuals, whether in articles or on talk pages (he has been posting links to the offending material on several talk pages in an apparent attempt to spread the allegations). Our discussion is here.
As for his claim that I've been in a previous conflict with him, this is simply an attempt to play the "she's involved" game. My only involvement with Sparkzilla is when he arrived at BLP in May and started posting endlessly to the talk page about a dispute he was having at Richard Gere, which I was not involved in. He then tried to change the policy to suit his position. His changes were reverted by myself and others, and he was asked by several of us to take his dispute about Gere to that talk page. That's my only involvement with him, and I didn't even recognize his name when I started dealing with the current BLP issue. I do, however, recognize the same intensity of approach that caused him a problem on the BLP page. I'll be issuing a block if he continues to allude to the disputed allegations, because the situation has gone on long enough, and previous requests from other editors and admins seem to have made no difference. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Sparkzilla's involvement in the talk page discussion of the Nick Baker article, because his relationship to the subject is stated and the journal that he runs is, in my opinion, a credible English source of investigative journalism here in Japan. SV's opinion in the dispute is also appreciated and, like I said, we're working through the issues involved. Cla68 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Sparkzilla runs a free city guide with a limited circulation for English speakers in Japan. It's not a strong-enough source for allegations of fraud. The only newspapers that have picked up on the story are three local advertising sheets (which may also be freesheets) in the UK, and even they didn't repeat the substance of his claims. Contentious BLP claims need strong sources, and in this case that would mean the mainstream press.
Also, as the city guide appears to be self-published (by Sparkzilla and his wife), V also kicks in, which says that third-party self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because Metropolis is free doesn't mean that it isn't a credible news source. It does contain a city guide, but every edition usually contains an article or articles on issues going-on in Japan, usually issues that non-Japanese living in Japan might have interest in. The article's author's names are on the articles (as opposed to most mainstream Japanese press stories, which don't state the author's names, but are still considered to be credible) and the article's sources of information are stated. Those local newspapers in the UK also appear to be credible, even though they're not mass-market publications. I believe the sources pass the credibility test. But, why are we discussing this here instead of the article's talk page? Cla68 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if the fact that a trusted administrator has enforced a particular policy in the past were to mean that she could not enforce it in the future, who would be left to do so? All administrators are expected to enforce BLP. If you find yourself repeatedly in conflict with SlimVirgin over BLP, it is probably a sign that your edits fall too often on the wrong side of that policy.