Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Mikerussell and interactions with other users including User:Lar[edit]

User:Lar and I agree that there should be an entry on this incident on this Admin Incident board. I will keep it short. I post now, before the article AfD ends so it doesn't seem I am a poor loser. User:Lar wrote on my user page a comment in regards to my manner of approaching the Afd for the above article on Monday [1]. I responded politely, but honestly on his Talk page. I have never had any contact with him before this comment. I responded and explained why I removed the comment from my Talk page here- [2]. Immediatly upon reading my response he threatens with blocking or other type of punitive action here -[3]. I then responded finally here [[4]]. This admin now has additional material on his Talk page that may provide info but I have no idea why he includes sinebot reverts when I date and sign all my posts anyway, and that day my Sign button was sticking for some reason, so reverting these things have nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, he seems to be saying my actions led to User:Loodog quitting wikipedia which is just factually wrong, since he had his User page unchanged prior to the issue. Obviously when a heated AfD is started and the nominator User:Will Beback states in his first paragraph that the contributor and not the content is the reason the article should be deleted, and I am the editor he refers to, heated personalizing of issues is likely to result. But I really find the above named admin is flaming the fires, choosing sides, if you will, taking personal shots by "not naming names" on the AfD itself and in general trying to label me as a problem contributor based solely on this one issue/debate. Personally adminship to me means you are not allowed to use the position to inforce personal policing. --Mikerussell 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Mikerussell (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ... It is my considered view that the behaviour of Mikerussell in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit was disruptive, and continued to be disruptive even after being counseled about it. (I can provide diffs if necessary, but I recommend just reading the AfD, just about every post he made has at least one issue with it) Note that as of yet, Mikerussell has not actually been blocked. Rather, he has been counseled by several users that his approach in this deletion discussion is at best, not effective. The series of diffs on my user talk page demonstrate that he has repeatedly removed that counsel in a dismissive way (characterising a neutral notice of an AfD as "unpleasant" is not collegial in my view). Users are always welcome to do just that, to remove things from their own talk pages, but after some number of warnings that do not result in a change in disruptive behaviour, further action may be justified. Pointing that out, which is what I did, is not a threat. I never threaten, and I don't think my pointing things out is in any way shape or form out of line. I think there are a lot of mischaracterisations by Mikerussell in the above about the sequence of events, about whether his responses are polite, about who did what in this AfD, etc, and in particular about why the AfD is heated... the heat there is coming entirely, or almost entirely, from Mikerussell and Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who seem to be exhibiting some WP:OWN at best. Note that I have changed the title of this section as I think the focus ought to be on Mikerussell's interaction pattern (he introduced nothing about my interaction with any other users) in this matter. I don't necessarily see him as a problem contributor, overall, (although his contribution history suggests past minor dustups), just that he may have lost perspective about this particular thing, and would benefit from some outside voices commenting about it. This is not a major deal, and I don't think any blocks are warranted at this point if Mikerussell gets the point that his approach needs changing and the disruption needs to stop. As always I encourage and welcome review of my actions, which is why I encouraged Mike to bring this here. Sorry for the longwindedness :) ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(after ec)I'm not sure I understand fully what is going on but from the diffs I looked at, Lar seemed to be trying to give you some reasonable advice and warnings and you were being repeatedly snarky. In my personal experience, Lar is not a person known for "flaming the fires" or "choosing sides", so perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting those allegations. Sarah 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds to me as if Mike got a bit carried away with advocacy for a pet article. He's been around for over two years, I'm surprised he fell into this trap. Maybe he doesn't go near the cesspit of AfD often, I don't know. Anyway, if Mike is content to live and learn (especially about canvassing) and he and Lar can shake hands and agree to differ I don't see why this would be a lasting problem. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time now to go into details, but I believe the canvassing in this matter was done by another editor, user:Thomas Paine1776. What I got from Mikerussell were wild accusatians and negative personal remarks (the worst of which he had the good sense to go back and refactor). To the extent that AfD is a cesspit, it is due to reactions like his. In any case, the editor has made valuable contributions and this does seem out of character, so if there's no future repetition then we needn't worry about it further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree the canvassing was done by Thomas. There may have been some suggesting and encouragement going back and forth, hard to say. I actually knew it at the time of my initial message, and I may not have been clear about that. But the wild accusations being flung in the AfD well predated any canvassing. I agree with Will, that if a word to the wise is sufficient, that will be that. I certainly bear no animus, and am willing to gloss over the misstatements. I merely want Mike not to disrupt things, and my read of everyone else's comments is that we all want the same thing in that. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the communications, it seems to me that Mikerussell may be suffering from a malaise that strikes all editors here sometimes. I see absolutely nothing wrong in Lar's actions. --John 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's opinions and feedback; its been an interesting exercise.--Mikerussell 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to add anything further; however, this morning as I casually re-read this section, it did occur to me for "the archives" of this debate, it should be mentioned for the record the AfD in question was too Keep; and the closing admin gave an interesting reason. Thank you to everyone, and I have no reason to hold any lasting animosity to any of the above editors.--Mikerussell 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's an interesting outcome (and in fact I've asked the closing admin editor about it... not favouring a DRV though), but it may not have much bearing on the issues raised here. As long as you recognise (to yourself, I'm not looking for any public acknowledgement, those are often counterproductive) that consensus seems to be that your actions in this matter were not uniformly helpful and endeavour to do better in future I think all will be well. In fact, I hope the opportunity arises for us to work together in future on other Michigan related projects. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the AfD says it all in my opinion. I cannot waste any more time and energy squabbling so I think we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that for my part. --Mikerussell 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mikerussell, there are several things that need correcting in that response. First, the ends do not justify the means. That the AfD came out a keep (which is a good thing, recall that my final comment was not in favour of deletion) does not in any way justify your behaviour during the course of it, or your behaviour when that was pointed out to you. Second, you need to internalise that others feel that you acted unacceptably, and that others feel that being counseled about it was not a bad thing. Everyone else in this thread is telling you that, yet you still seem to be dismissing it. I agree you should not "waste any more time and energy" but it's not squabbling that you were engaged in, (which has two sides) it's mild disruption (which has just the one side), and the time and energy wasted is that of the other folks that have to deal with it, not your own, which is why it's disruptive and why it's discouraged... I'm fine with dropping it, since my actions and those of the others that counseled you have been endorsed, but you need to stop being snarky is what it comes down to. Don't be surprised if your activities now get a bit more scrutiny than before, though, and I'd highly recommend that if you choose to participate in AfDs going forward that you moderate your tone significantly. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Geez, guy, give it a rest already. Your nervous chatter is pathetic. I don't take your opinion seriously, never have in the three days I've known of you, and you take your own opinion waaaay too seriously. (This will launch another essay I guess. Tisk, tisk on me.)--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone in this thread told you you were out of line. Everyone. Focus on that instead of trying to shoot the messengers, eh? ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't think that John254 is an admin. Sarah 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded that remark, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record too. This is the real lesson about this whole ugly affair- it is the commonsense of the silent majority of level headed contributors that make wikipedia worthy of any credibility it has in the swollen sea of Internet information sources. Block all the admins on 'pedia and no harm would come. Take away a few handfuls of the small contributors, non-admins by choice, with their own modest sense of importance, place and perspective and this website would be just Google spam. Thanks to the non-admins wherever you are!--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism[edit]

I've run across something that is a bit unusual and I'm not sure how to handle it. At Communication it appears that a teacher is trying to teach students that not all sources are reliable, that they should verify all information. A useful lesson but the way s/he is teaching it is by temporarily adding false information to the Communication article's References. It's a harmless addition and the edit summary marks it as temporary so I assume that the teacher would remove it - but other editors have caught it first and have removed it.

This "vandalism" does no long-term harm and maybe does some long-term good by teaching students a useful lesson. I take the candid edit summary to indicate that the teacher intends no harm and would remove the info before long. Of course, the bad information hasn't stayed there long enough to find out if the teacher would have removed it and might not have been there long enough to teach students a lesson.

What's the best way to handle this? Is there a better place the teacher could use? Sbowers3 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say treat it as vandalism regardless of the intention; who's to say who else has read the article in the meantime and read the false information, especially on a high-traffic article like this? Wikipedia is a valuable teaching tool, but it's not this teacher's personal tool. Just my opinion.iridescent (talk to me!) 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-serious suggestion: Pick any random article about an "up an coming band" and have them look at the sources. Also point them to WP:RS as a good suggestion on what to consider reliable and such. See if any of the "up and coming band" souces meet those critera. Sorry, been on new page patrol where every future Metallica and Microsoft seems to want an article and whines when CSD get put on it. Spryde 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO: It's clear vandalism, but possibly a helpful comment could be added on the user's talk page to indicate that changes could be made in a sandbox, or for some made up entity, that will not affect others' use of the resource. The same person wouldn't tear pages out of a library encyclopaedia to make some equally valid teaching point.
It is likely this a shared IP and wouldn't be subject to a block - but would certainly waste a lot of people's time fixing it. Kbthompson 13:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't we have some sort of essay/suggestion page about using Wikipedia in the classroom? Maybe this teacher could be directed to that essay, which might have some better ideas. Natalie 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with KBthompson's opinion and suggestion. Talk to the user, hopefully that'll be the end of it. -Agyle 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[This] may or may not be spam and/or vandalism, but it sure as heck doesn't look like the character! --Qit el-Remel 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Natalie's idea. A set of wikipedia resources for the classroom. If there isn't one, it should be developed. It seems to me that many classes are currently using wiki as a 'this is your assignment', 'now look it up in wikipedia', then the kids trot off and spend the rest of the lesson vandalising the page (see below). Ideally, you would set up a page and the educators would add experience, tasks and material appropriate for their age range. There are WikiProjects for things like software development (which I now can't find), which use this as a collaborative environment for teaching. Kbthompson 09:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:School and university projects? x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ixlikextoxdansex (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: user blocked for 3(+)RR

User is repeatedly and willfully ignoring WP:ALBUM#Leak and engaging in a revert war with other users at Alive 2007. Just64helpin 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:ALBUM is a WikiProject, not a policy page. That is essentially a style guide. Natalie 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Now the user has violated 3RR. Help? Just64helpin 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

wtf? Ixlikextoxdansex was blocked, but Just64helpin and Douglasr007 were not? This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and thus NO ONE's actions were exempt from 3RR. Instead of, oh, leaving a completely impersonal and irrelevant templated message, twice, someone could have, oh, I don't know, engaged Ixlikextoxdansex in discussion? This is retarded. --Iamunknown 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Ixlikextoxdansex wasn't doing anything wrong... HalfShadow 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More info. This is ridiculous. The editor in question, a newbie who just started editing seven days ago, was blocked for inserting:

As of September 2007, the album has already been leaked to torrent sites.

I am quite astonished. I did not realise that 3RR blocks were handed out to one editor in an edit war over content, but not to others; that newbies were treated like horse shit; and that editors warred over such trivial nonsense. I would really like to see this editor unblocked, and counselled and engaged in discussion. Please? This is not how we should be treating newbies. Ya know, WP:BITE, and all that. --Iamunknown 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
He has posted an unblock request, but not formatted it quite right, so it may not have been seen. DuncanHill 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my formatting suggestion didn't help much. :-\ Well, I guess we will see what happens. --Iamunknown 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't surprise me at all to see newbies being bitten :( DuncanHill 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I unblocked; I'll warn Ixwhatever on their talk, as well as Just64helpin and Douglasr007. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crazytales. I saw your note on his talk page about civility ... I agree. Hopefully things will improve. :-) --Iamunknown 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I don't like bitey behaviours, but it's important to familiarise the newbies with WIkipedia's policies. I personally was never bitten as a newbie, so I don't want anyone else to be. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, looking at it again I agree with the unblock; I hold my hands up and say that I didn't get that right. Even us "retarded" admins make mistakes occasionally. ELIMINATORJR 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My liberal (and, in retrospect, unfortunate) use of the word "retarded" was not directed at you. I don't understand how the sentence ("This is retarded.") could be parsed to read like that. --Iamunknown 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it, I wasn't being completely serious. ELIMINATORJR 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on World War II[edit]

Heads up... I just full protected World War II for 24 hours due to multiparty edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. The irony... HalfShadow 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's all a fight over whose images and how many to use, mostly, though there's an interesting talk pages flamefest between the various "Allies" over whose contributions were more important during the war itself and why. ICANHASCHEEZWARRIOR Georgewilliamherbert 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the war room! --ElKevbo 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ElinorD: Abuse of Administrator Privileges[edit]

Resolved: Admin doing their job in line with usual practice. And the pay sucks, too. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this administrator's edit history, she is apparently performing mass speedy deletes of images, citing issues with copyright tagging, and not first following instructions and notifying users, or the talk page of articles, of the image deletions prior to her actions. Most of these image copyright problems are actually minor, and are far more appropriately dealt with by notifying users to tag articles properly, rather than mass deleting. In my opinion, this administrator could be seriously losing the trust of the wikipedia community by these actions, and I think we have grounds for desysopping. Dr. Cash 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask her for the reasons of these deletions? Seems that these images were tagged for months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - deletions are logged here. I'm having a look; will refrain from commenting for now since I don't really understand what's happening. — xDanielx T/C 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I checked a few of these and all are candidate for speedy WP:CSD#i4 as these have been tagged as lacking source/licensing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems that ElinorD has just been "sweeping the categories" without inspecting the images. Something like 1,200 images deleted in the past 10 days. I don't think this is an unheard-of practice, but it does seem to go against the policy described here and here, which say that images tagged for 7+ days should be tagged for speedy deletion (and hopefully reviewed by an administrator, instead of being blindly deleted, though understandably that doesn't always happen). — xDanielx T/C 05:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, how do you know she isn't looking at them? One to four a minute is not a lot in tabbed browsing and is plenty of time to look at the image. Sarah 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I noticed a 17-in-a-minute (1-per-3.5 seconds) at a first glance. Not sure if that's the exception or the norm. Apologies if I was too presumptive, though I can't help being skeptical still. — xDanielx T/C 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, seventeen is a lot but that was unusual; most seem to be around four a minute. But it is possible if you've got a fast connection and open all the images in tabbed browsing and then just go bang, bang, bang; it still gives you a few seconds to look at each one. I think Elinor is just trying to help clear out the CSD cats and people should be grateful instead of trying to whip up a frenzy calling for her to be desysopped. No need to apologise for your comment, I'm sure Elinor will explain what she's doing when she gets back online. Sarah 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
(after ec) Please explain where the abuse is. It looks to me like she is deleting images which have been tagged as unlicensed for more than seven days as per WP:CSD#i4. It would be nice if you asked her about it before coming here to dramatically accuse her of "Abuse of Administrator Privileges", or if you at least told her about this conversation. I'm sure she would have explained what she was doing if you'd bothered to ask her...she's not scary or anything. Heh, grounds for desysopping, hey? So if we work too hard at cleaning out the CSD cats, we ought to be desysopped on the spot? Sarah 05:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes! No! — xDanielx T/C 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleting images without a license is a uncontroversial job; just need to take one look to see whether the image has a tag or not. Although other admins may be a little cautious (check history for vandalism etc.), it's not unusual to see someone deleting at that speed, and it isn't an abuse of administrative tools. --DarkFalls talk 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The images weren't deleted for lacking licenses, though. They were deleted because the attribution did not conform to the (somewhat arbitrary) criteria of OsamaKBOT, which was blocked for exceeding its approved trial edits roughly 100-fold. Actually I can't see most of the deleted images' history without sysop tools so this is speculation, but from what I can see it looks like that's gist of what's going on. Please do correct me if I've got it wrong. — xDanielx T/C 06:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at quite a few and some were tagged by BetacommandBot as "Orphaned Non-Free image", some by Orphanbot as "Image has no source information", some by Genisock2 and yeah, some were tagged by OsamaKBOT as "image missing source information," and there were also some that were tagged by editors. Sarah 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
All the ones I looked at were deleted correctly. Fut.Perf. 06:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm... it sounds like ElinorD was probably going through Category:Orphaned fairuse images as well as Category:Images with unknown source, and perhaps others. I wouldn't really object to blind or almost-blind deletion of expired Category:Orphaned fairuse images images (has there been a proposal to have a bot delete them?), but I feel differently about Category:Images with unknown source since many of the source tags are questionable, if not outright mistaken (e.g., source information outside a fair use template not being recognized by a bot). I don't know how User:OrphanBot checks for source information, but OsamaKBOT's unapproved filter was not well-received, to say the least. I think human-tagged images lacking source info should be reviewed as well, since some are controversial (e.g., cases where the copyright holder is named but not the specific publication). I'm still slightly fuzzy on how ElinorD doing things; hopefully she can explain. — xDanielx T/C 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure they should be reviewed. But is there any indication she didn't do that? It doesn't take that long to do, you know. Normally it takes not more than a brief look at the page. Fut.Perf. 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked a half dozen, and all of them appeared correct. Matters like this should be raised with the editor first to clear up issues before raising them here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Just checked a random few, from various times & they all seem fine to me. CSD is such a dirty job at the best of times. Credit to her for getting in and doing it - Alison 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ariolasoft.jpg was deleted as well. I have uploaded it again, it's a corporate logo with the same (C) info as many other computer game logos. Perhaps a mention on the talk page would have been appropriate rather than a non-peer reviewed speedy delete. MrMarmite 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps we should demand that all administrators bring a shrubbery before deleting an image which does not comply with our licensing policies. And then we can holler "Abusive admin! Desysop! Burn the witch!" whenever the appropriate shrubbery is not provided. On the other hand, we could recognise that the fundamental fault is usually with those users who, either through ignorance or in some cases due to active contempt for policy, fail to correctly attribute and qualify images. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Having checked the history of Ariolasoft.jpg, this was a perfect "speedy" delete some 14 days after the uploader was warned of the problems, and the image was tagged as well (so I fail to see how a mention on the talk page would have helped: if you have the talk page on your watchlist, you have the image on your watchlist as well, and vice versa). It was uploaded as public domain (which is obviously incorrect), and without a source. I don't see the problem with this deletion, and since different other admins have checked other deletions, and all had the same conclusion, I don't see what the problem is. I applaud your uploading of images, but that doesn't mean that the deletion of them earlier was not done correctly.Fram 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll add a few myself. I help out regularly with speedy deletion of images that are not properly sourced, that have an invalid FU rationale, that lack proper copyright notices, etc. When someone tags an image with {{nsd}}, it places a notice on the image page, stating that the iamge may be deleted on a certain date (eight days after the date of tagging), and it automatically puts that image into a category of images with unknown source on that date. There can be hundreds of images, perhaps as many as 600, in that category, and that's not to mention the categories with no fair use rationale on a certain date, or no copyright on a certain date, or fair use disputed on a certain date. After seven days have passed, if the uploader (or another interested party) has not fixed the problem, the images in that category become eligible for speedy deletion. The person or bot who tags the image as missing some essential information is supposed to notify the uploader. As far as I know, the admin who deletes the image is not obliged to check that the uploader was notified. Should the community, at some stage, decide to impose such an obligation on the deleting admin, I shall happily comply, though I must point out that the already enormous backlog is likely to become even greater.

There has been a big backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion recently. The category of images with unknown source had a backlog of six days. The image that led to the calls for my desysopping was Image:Apo-crest.jpg. It was in Category:Images with unknown source as of 7 September 2007, so it had had the full seven days, plus several extra days because the backlog was so huge that admins simply hadn't got round to it earlier. Although non-admins who can't see the history of the deleted image and don't know who the original uploader was are confidently stating (on my talk page) that the uploader was not notified, and the seven days notice was not given, I can state that the image was tagged by OsamaKBOT at 19:51 on 7 September, and the uploader was notified the same minute.[5]

This particular uploader has not edited since 2005, so it is not surprising that nobody was aware of the problem. As far as I know, there is no obligation to leave messages on the talk pages of articles in which the image appears, and while there is the possibility of adding a template to the caption of the image in articles, it's not obligatory either. Though I'm not very technically minded, I'm sure that if the community decided to bring in such an obligation, the bots and Howcheng's tool could cope with that.

I normally open three to six images in separate windows, examine them for a moment, and then delete the three to six in fairly rapid succession with WP:TWINKLE, which automatically removes them from pages where they appear. I am quite sure that I have never deleted seventeen images in one minute. However, if an image that I have deleted with TWINKLE appears on seventeen pages, it is quite possible that there could be seventeen removals from pages in one minute. That would show in my contributions, not in my logs.

Only last night, minutes after I had deleted Image:Aoclogo.gif, the uploader contacted me courteously to say that he had not been notified and to request undeletion. I cheerfully undeleted, changed the date of the no source tag to give him more time to fix the problem, and to prevent some other admin from deleting it without realising that the matter was being taken care of. See the history and logs of that image. It didn't quite end in wikihugs all round, but everything was very pleasant, and there were no calls for my desysopping. I can and do make mistakes in deletion work, and am always happy to undelete anything on request when it's pointed out convincingly that I was in error, or when there seems a good chance that the problem which originally warranted deletion of the image can be fixed. ElinorD (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


This anon University of Venda IP is undoing large amounts of info in various Venda related articles and replacing it with his own unreferenced info. They have been left both a message and a warning on their talk page but have not responded and continue to make similar edits. They are editing much too fast for me to follow up and examine and/or revert. Could someone please either temporary block or semi-protect the affected articles and check out this user's edits? Like I said, it is going on too fast to analyse all his changes and revert before he's moved on to more articles. Thanks. Zunaid©® 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've reverted all his edits up to right now. Please continue to monitor and take any further action if deemed necessary. Can someone please also check the IP range contributions (is there an easy way to do this?) just in case they switch to a different computer. Zunaid©® 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Material added was copyright violations including on their talk page. Warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
and now blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. User seems to have registered an account User:Mcdonald mdhluli and continues to make similar edits on the articles in question. Please review, thanks. Zunaid©® 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That may not be the only account, look at this created on 21 September and then edited by User:Rudani in only his second edit. Then there's The diverse culture of Venda from User:RAPHALU MP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses requesting my password[edit]

I reported an IP address at WP:AIV for requesting my password, however, I was told to come here, so I have done. I've had an email from this IP trying to get my password:

and another IP address:

I've ignored their password requests... should we block these IPs (probably anon-only, account creation blocked) for a week or so to stop them abusing the "e-mail new password" facility?? --Solumeiras talk 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, IPs that are blocked can still request password changes so blocking them would have no effect. Metros 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a bugzilla request solved this problem. Can anyone remember the ID of the Bugzilla request?? --Solumeiras talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • is another IP address which has requested an undesired password change for an admin (me). Is there any recourse other than asking them not to do it, such as blocking edits from the offending IP? Perhaps the block would interfere in some small way with their activities. The only way the IP user could gain anything from the request would be if he could access the email of the victim. If the email password is as strong as the Wikipedia password, they really accomplish nothing other than creating a garbage email message stating that a new password has been created, said message being grist for the delete button in the email system. Edison 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignore it, it will go away. This happens fairly regularly to some of us. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: deleted, salted

Despite constant, repeated deletes under WP-SPAM/WP-Repost this keeps coming back. Unfortunately no-one has protected it against recreation yet. Could someone do so? (if this isn't the right place to ask, please point me where I should go) --Blowdart 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block again?[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked

This IP address is still vandalizing. sohmc 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to any admins. I have taken the opportunity to post this request at WP:AIV so you can put a resolved box here if you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And the IP has been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Natalie 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody Using My Username[edit]


User:Yayo Dealer has been signing comments with my username. See here. The user whos page he signed on was kind enough to let me know. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on any topic that discusses Michael Jackson.[edit]

Hi this user keeps deleting sourced material on any article that discusses Michael Jackson. Check out his contributions on the following articles, Michael Jackson , World Music Awards and Grammys [[6]]. I suggest he needs a warning. Realist2 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

continued concerns[edit]

Hi I reported Alanjohns a few days ago for saying he was an admin when he wasn`t and for vandalism. He was banned for 24 hours. Looking at his talk page he has recieved more complaints. there are 2 other troubling issues.
A) I think he is deleting warnings off his user page .
B) He seems to have made a confession on his talk page that he has another acount. Under the blocked section of his page he says something along the lines of Whooooohooooooooo I`l just use my other one then! [[7]]Realist2 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with extending it to an indefinite block, but let's see what happens once the block wears off. Removing warnings and leaving frivolous comments on his own talk page aren't quite reasons to extend the block. Maybe a CU to investigate his claim of using an alternate account. EVula // talk // // 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be editing not logged in as well, to usual suspect articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

His ban should be extended by 24 hours for removing warnings. Realist2 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with removing warnings. --OnoremDil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on a seperate note would some1 ensure that my other complaint about the Michael Jackson vandal a few topics above is resolved. Realist2 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like regular old vandalism. You warned him, and he's stopped for now. It doesn't look like anything that needs special admin intervention to me. --OnoremDil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok never the less he has admited to having another account, this needs investigating. Realist2 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

ILike2BAnonymous called me Idiotic here, I request that an admin give this user an appropriate blocking for violating WP:NPA.CholgatalK! 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a "that?" It seems that he was referring to your comment, and while I'd suggest that he be a tad more civil about it from now on, a block is not needed here. The Behnam 03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am indeed a that, this user cleverly objectifies me and others to avoid directly refering to individuals as idiots amoung other perjorative terms.CholgatalK! 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He called me ignorant too, and said i was obsessed with feces, and he also called me idiotic on another page, how about that?CholgatalK! 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

N.B.: It should be obvious here that I was pointing out her obsession with the use of the word "feces", not the thing itself (refer to article edit history for that story if interested). +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am feeling rather harrassed by ILike2BeAnonymous at this point, this is ongoingly very rude and crassCholgatalK! 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm no admin but you'll probably need to post diffs for those last couple of claims there too.
Equazcionargue/contribs05:14, 09/19/2007
Yes... diffs please. Don't expect other people to go fishing for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So are those enough diffs? Because I can dig up even more where he refers to me as idiotic or an idiot. Is it okay for this user to claim I "shit all over him" and that I am obsessed with "'Feces'" even if he claims in his or her defence that s/he was only claiming that I was obsessed with the word "feces" which I highly doubt. Is it okay for this user to continually debase my attempts to discuss, to harrass and attack me? Please have a word with this user and block him/her for a while.CholgatalK! 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, 1 is pretty innocent and is a remark about the word which is used little outside the medical community, 2 is a statement about the idea you put forward (Ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing). 3 and 4 is tied to 1 and may be part of the lamest edit war I have seen yet "feces versus waste" (For the record, I like his wording a bit better. Less graphical description, commons terms are used, and the message is still conveyed). 5 is attacking the idea, not the person. Why is #6 is even here? 7 is a response to your question. I can see why he would respond that way. And finally #8 is a response to your tendency to be very pedantic about the wording of certain things. To be honest, while you claim to be a native speaker of english, the way you word things does not appear to be the most common way. This is the first time I have seen the term "dog feces" instead of "dog waste" at any dog park/facility. In addition, provides conveys that group A makes available item B for group C to use. Allocates can be construed differently. Employs implies the park itself uses the bags instead of the public. Finally, I have studied geology and in particular, earthquake zones and tectonics. In the locale you are talking about, Fault would be the appropriate term. A fault is a rift but in layman speak, the fault caused the rift valley. The rift is the whole zone we are talking about. Spryde 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's innocent to tell someone they have an obsession with feces when they disagree with you!? I find it hard to believe this users intentions were to use the word ignorance to mean "misinformed" or "unknowing" Thanks for your input but this is not about any disagreements it's about this user's abusive language. The point is, is that this user is personally attacking me repeatedly.#8 is not a response to me being "pedantic" I was trying to avoid an edit war so I tried to discuss the matter and he called my discussing a "mini shit storm" and 7 may be an answer to my question which this user used to accuse me of "shitting all over them" that is just beyond uncivil, instead of even (uncivilly) rudely replying he takes the opportunity to ridicule me by accusing me of "Unaturalness" "Feces Obsession" calls me "idiotic" and says i repeatedly show my "Ignorance" and says i cause "Shit Storms" and that i am "shitting all over him"CholgatalK! 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There are content disputes right under the surface of your complaint and the fact that you more or less failed to mention them means that you are drawing undue attention to the issues of rudeness. There is no doubt that you and ILike2BeAnonymous are antagonizing each other but I don't think a block is in order. If you want to pursue the matter, I suggest opening a request for comment to determine if other members in the community have a problem with the user's behavior. --Spike Wilbury talk 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

whats the content disputes matter, what do you care, the personal attack is the point even if we were not arguing.CholgatalK! 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Press up[edit]

This article has had a history of page moves from the original editor's British English name of Press up to the American English form of Push up. A survey about a requested move recently resulted in no consensus for a page move from Press up to Push up (issue was closed on 13 September 2007.) Since then, there has been a sub-3RR edit war involving the proposer of the page move (User:Tyguy92 and mainly User:Matt Crypto, but in the last instance, myself) in which the opening lead sentence is changed to give the American English version priority over the British English term, and, thereafter, every incidence of "press up" being changed to "push up". This gives the impression that the article name is incorrect. A redirect to this page exists which is Push up. As stated, I reverted the last incident which changed "press up" to "push up", as described above, and summarized the reversion as correcting a disruptive edit, which I consider it was. Since the survey was closed with no consensus, User:Tyguy92 has made these changes three times. Can I ask what advice should be done to stop this sub-3rr edit war that is happening after the survey went against what User:Tyguy92 wanted?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There will never be consensus on something like this. Since the article remains at press up that term should be used throughout the article and changing it is inappropriate. Tyguy92 should be warned of this and reminded that he is violating the 3RR in spirit and could still be blocked for disruption, but hopefully it won't come to that. violet/riga (t) 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice. I see that I missed some cases of "push up", so the term was not used throughout the article. Another user has now kiindly corrected those. I will give User:Tyguy92 the advised warning.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this be added to WP:LAME? This sounds as bad as the Orange (colour) debate. hbdragon88 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we have to stick with the term or spelling first used in an article implies ownership of the article, like a gold prospector staking a claim or an explorer being the first to land on an island, which is in conflict with the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The rule that the first editor to touch the topic selects for all time the regional variant is from the Manual of Style, which is itself much debated and which is a guideline, not a policy. If discussion on the talk page of an article, after the issue is well publicized at the Village Pump and other relevant sites, shows that there are good reasons for changing from the original usage to a different one, that should be permissible. Such reasons might include the greater frequency of usage worldwide or the historical origin of the term. Edison 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There was discussion about a proposed name change, when a proposal to change the name was made. The consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change. No issue of ownership need arise by means of this process. The problem was that a very vocal editor in favour of the name change, subsequent to the discussion being formally closed, took it upon himself to start to change the names used throughout the article, as described above. It is that problem, described above as "violating the 3RR in spirit" which prompted this message here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a spelling or grammar matter, which WP:ENGVAR addresses, like consistently using "centre" rather than "center" in a given article. Take a look at the article Elevator, where the British term "lift" is frequently used to describe the devices in the UK, including in a photo caption, despite the fact that the initial article in 2002 used "Elevator." Rather than a "winner take all," "I win, you lose" approach, in which every instance of "push up" is replaced with "press up," the illustration of a US Marine recruit doing the exercise should use the U.S. term. No confusion would result, and readers not from the U.S. would not make the mistake of thinking that when they visit the U.S. they should use the other regional term. They would get blank stares or laughter. Similar issues arise if the U.S. term for something is exclusively used in discussing its use in the U.K. The statement that "the consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change" is a bit misleading, since a number of editors in fact called for a change.Edison 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Would the phrase "no consensus emerged in favour of a name change" be better, then? If so, please interpret my comments above, where appropriate, with this wording. The other points you raise perhaps should be discussed on the talk page, since they are not part of the original problem which prompted my posting here (undiscussed low-level edit warring).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with placing a warning on his page [8] that he could be blocked if he uses "push up" anywhere in the article. It would be highly appropriate to use it when referring to the exercise in countries where that is the term for it, and where the other term is practically unknown. I address here the mistaken (in my view) belief that the absence of a clear consensus to change from one regional term to another (those commenting were about equally divided, and the discussion was not well publicized) makes it a blockable offense to dare to use the other term at all in the article, and that it is then required to remove all the alternate usages. It is not spelling, and it is not grammar. That is inconsistent with other articles about things called different terms in the various linguistic branches of English usage. Edison 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually place a warning: Instead I advised him about the opinion had been given up to that point in this discussion. If the view is that what I posted was a warning, then I apologize and would withdraw it (though it has already been removed) as it was not intended to be one. You do have a point about the need to be flexible in what term to use when describing the exercise in countries where the term for it is not the same as that used in the article name. But this should have been discussed on the page after the first reversion occurred, and not re-edited and then re-reverted (and so on) in a low-level edit war, which was, as I state again, the reason why I initiated this message on WP:AN/I, asking for advice.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about where in the article the term "push-up" might be used continues on the talk page of the article. I note the precedent that in the Elevator article the other term "lift" is used to describe the devices in Britain, so theere is clearly no precedent for restricting articles to one term or the other especially when it seems quaint, like describing a U.S. Marine doing "press ups." U.K. readers would likely feel culturaly disenfranchised if the elevator article had a caption describing "elevators in a British subway station." Using the term appropriate to a country is not jarring like having the spelling jump back and forth would be in a "color-colour" "check-cheque" variation within an article. Edison 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Veiled threat & Incivility by User:Wjbean on WQA[edit]

Hi. I was answering the proverbial phone banks over at WQA, when this post appeared (diff). It seemed polite, but led to the user construing the posting as an attack (diff), leading to more back and forth arguments (in which it seemed the editor misunderstood the point of WQA (diff). Then this lead to Wjbean making a veiled threat, and suggesting that insults are ok as long as they work (diff). Given the irony of all this happening on a Wikiquette forum (and my doubts that it can be resolved there), I'm forwarding it here where it can hopefully reach some resolution. --Bfigura (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Bean strikes me as very incivil on the WQA thread. Saying that "X comes across as a troll" is not a personal attack (because X wasn't actually called a troll) is dodgy at best, and wikilawyering at worst. I dropped a note on his talk. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged. Hopefully that will do it. --Bfigura (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that my "incivility" started when I was accused of having an alternate motive for disputing a tag. I have voiced no such motive. I also disagree with placing this entry here in less than a twenty four hour period. My concerns have never been properly addressed. Instead I have been accused of having other motives for disputing the tags. Again, I have never expressed any other reason for disputing that tags except that they were thrown improperly. I have suggested that both a POV tag without a stated reason and a nomination for deletion without that nomination appearing on the proper dated page smack of vandalism. Both of these actions do whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Finally, I feel this is turning into a kangeroo court without my issues being address; at all. William (Bill) Bean 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, I have no position on any content editing taking place, just on the civility issues. I placed this issue here after you were repeatedly uncivil (despite receiving admonishments from several editors), and after you made veiled threats on WP:WQA. I believe my actions were relatively justified (veterans of AN/I, please correct me if I'm wrong). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is now resolved, Bean seems to have realized the source of the issues over on WQA. (Basically a mistaken assumption). --Bfigura (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I waiting to hear an administrator chime in; that's all. By the way I have screen shots entry (and the date) the AFD was posted. The shot clearly shows September 18th. I just don't know where to post it. William (Bill) Bean 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It was the 18th where you live, in the United States. However, English Wikipedia is worldwide and the logs are based on Greenwich Mean Time. By the time, the nomination was posted, it was the 19th in London. The tag was placed on the article, the nomination was made, and the nomination was added to the logs, all at 4:06 19 September 2007, GMT. I've explained this to you several times before. In any event, it was one of the most widely commented AfDs in recent memory. I don't understand where you get the idea it was hidden from the community. These baseless accusations about not following procedure are getting tiresome. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia was started by an American (Jimbo Wales) in America. That said I consider the English language version of Wikipedia to be American. Your stating that my attitude is "tiresome" is insulting. I'm not here for your pleasure. I'm here to help edit pages, supply references, resolve disputes, and insure that wikipedians follow established guidelines and policies because those guidelines and policies are established to insure neutrality, accuracy, and the free flow of information. Three attributes that apparently take a backseat to civility by certain apparently over-zealous members of this little community. My position is that the three attributes stated above trump all others. Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. It also got everyone's attention. Akin to shouting into a megaphone in a crowded room where everyone is talking at, but not to, each other. I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin, take the criticism as just that, and stop the amazingly insulting tactic you employ whereby you try to assign an attitude to me that I do not, in fact, possess. Once again (for the ninth or tenth time), my only concerns are that proper procedures be followed when applying tags (something, that in my humble opinion, should not happen for three to five days with a new article) so that other wikipedians are granted the right, not opportunity, to respond to those tags appropriately. If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. However, the guidelines and policies here are more important that I am, more important that my ability to post here, and more important that my continuing to be allowed to be here. In short I will risk banishment, if that's what it takes, to ensure that wikipedia remains accurate, neutral, and open for the dissemination of information. Finally, the nomination for deletion struck me as an attempt at censorship. I have never, nor will I ever, nominate any article for deletion. I find the concept repugnant. Thank you. William (Bill) Bean 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be useful for you to review the five pillars of Wikipedia and associated pages. You will find policies that strictly forbid personal attacks. You will find a policy that mandates assuming good faith on the part of other editors. You will NOT find a policy that mandates the rigid following of 'proper' procedures. But you will find a policy that mandates exactly the opposite.
I would also like to point out - again - that, just like your accusation that the AfD was placed improperly, your accusation that it was I who first placed the POV - was absolutely wrong. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007.
Finally, I'd just like to note that although you find the idea of deletion of any article 'repugnant', another of Wikipedia's core policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - therefore articles must sometimes deleted. Dlabtot 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is the one you are referring to. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus; avoid edit wars; follow the three-revert rule; and remember that there are 2,018,108 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
Note the first sentence. Where have I been treated with respect? Civility is subjective. There are personal attacks and there are comments based on observations. I have stated that there is an obvious pattern of behavior that is easy to see. It's hard to find consensus when not even the slightest bit of acknowledgment is offered. I have not engaged in an edit war. I removed pov tags once and not touched the article since. I am trying to act in good faith; I cannot say the same for the rest of you. I'm not trying to disrupt wikipedia, but I do have a point to prove. The point is that if you hold my head to the floor with your boot I will fight you indefinitely. Finally, you could acknowledge that you attempted to put words in my mouth that I never voiced and admit that wasn't a very civil thing to do. William (Bill) Bean 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Finally, you could acknowledge that you attempted to put words in my mouth that I never voiced" -- you've made this accusation repeatedly. Could you please supply the diff of this alleged incident? If it happened, it was wrong, and I would readily acknowledge my error and apologize - that is, if it actually happened. Dlabtot 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
By way of clarification, the most common way you've characterized this accusation is that I've ascribed motives to you. For example: "Please note that my "incivility" started when I was accused of having an alternate motive for disputing a tag". I don't remember ascribing motives to you. But I do sometimes err, and, I even sometimes get upset and in the heat of my emotions, say things that I should not have said. I also suffer from a common human failing in that I tend to remember things in a way that paint myself in a favorable light, while giving short shrift to my flaws. However, I believe that one can try to learn from errors. Towards that end, a diff of the alleged incident would be helpful. tia Dlabtot 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm getting paranoid about my ability to lucidly ask questions, but I wanted to make sure that you understand that a very important part of the question I am asking, as well as the diff, is: What is the "alternative motive" that you believe I have ascribed to you? Again, I thank you in advance for your respectful reply. Dlabtot 05:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. You can stop pursuing the matter. Please do so. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I had previously marked this as closed, but clearly I was being optimistic. Will someone please explain to William (Bill) Bean that everyone is expected to follow WP:CIVIL? This is beginning to get a bit disruptive. Thanks. --Bfigura (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems like a good candidate for the adopt-a-user program. Clearly going on as presently isn't an option. At present he seems unable to apply to himself standards he demands from others. After talking about how I somehow insulted him, he claims Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. ... I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin ... Incredible. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That might work, but it would require William (Bill) Bean's willing participation. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Not because it would interfere with the cabal, but because its disruptive. --Bfigura (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Dlabtot: Attributing a motive to me that I have never expressed is also a personal attack. Think about it.
ObiterDicta: You could acknowledge that my concerns have validity rather than dismissing them out of hand. You could also stop pursuing the matter yourself. Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue.
--Bfigura: The disruption continues because I've been called on the carpet for YOUR standard of civility. As I've already stated I'm an American. Apparently some, if not all, of you are British. I do not live by British standards.
Finally you are all editors as I am. None of you are administrators. By what right does that give any of you any power to dictate my behavior or admonish me? I reject your any implication that you have authority over me. Indeed the only difference between yourselves and I is your specific choice of words. Beyond that you are just as "uncivil" as you claim that I am. e.g. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Who are you to determine what constitutes civility? And I was, and will continue to be, a productive editor long after you've grown bored with the place and left. William (Bill) Bean 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue. No, it's you not understanding how the logs work and falsely accusing me of failing to list a nomination for deletion so as to hide it from the community. Anyway, I'm done with this. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully I don't need to be an administrator to assert that you can't make personal attacks on Wikipedia. Feel free to read WP:NPA. And out of pure random curiosity, why do you feel that people here are british? (Not that I would see how that possible has any bearing, given that it's wikipedia's standard of civility that's being applied here). --Bfigura (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Site plagiarising Criticism of Family Guy[edit]

This Geocities page is using Wikipedia content to generate ad revenue, and displays none of the GFDL stuff.

Is this worth reporting, and if so where? Name given, but no contact info or linkage. All text below the image is copied from Criticism of Family Guy. Image is leeched from

Geocities copyvio contact: / edg 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved already? I don't see any Wikipedia content on the page -- must have been removed? — xDanielx T/C 07:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The three short paragraphs are from Wikipedia, and the image is being leeched from Wikipedia's servers. I realise this isn't the crime of the century. Do we care at all? / edg 07:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the text is taken from Family_Guy#Criticism, verbatim. / edg 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Realistically, I think the page passes fairly cleanly as fair use -- it is (sort of) being used for informational purposes, the use of the material is uncompetitive with Wikipedia's use of the same material, neither use involved any profit for the author (the ads were from Geocities), and the material copied is not very substantial. It would probably fail Wikipedia's fair use standards miserably, particularly the image, but other sites are bound by much looser, arguably more real-world standards. If you really want it removed though, Geocities might be willing to go ahead and nuke it anyway, as they're probably covered by a termination clause of some sort. — xDanielx T/C 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I was thinking it might be fair use, but didn't know. Thanks much. / edg 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me why we need a separate article, unless it's to contain criticism too however minor and insignificant for the main article. In which case, of course... Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am responsible for the website, I have read your complaints, and removed the wikipedia article. Although I read and I assumed that anybody can copy a wikipedia article without copyright infringment. Also I make no money from the site, the ads in the left corner of the page is geocities and not mine. I have taken the wikipedia article off but i do wish to put it on again but I dont want to cause trouble. 04:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You can copy it--just make sure to both give attribution (link back to the original article) and link to the text of the license. —Dark•Shikari[T] 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Halloween jack and User:Crescentia have made repeated personal attacks on me[edit]

Resolved: Involved users have been warned to be more civil, and to avoid one another. --Haemo 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This started when Jack called me "just another example of the hopelessly Aspergersfied dark side of Wikipedia", because he felt I was adding too many [citation needed] tags.[9] I left him a message on his talk page telling him I found this out of line, and asked him to stop it, but he just added [citation needed] tags to the message I left, as a way to mock me.[10]

Meanwhile Crescentia took my request to not be personally attacked as a joke saying "Dear god. Sensitive much?"[11], and later said about me "It's really sad when you think about it. I wish I had that much time to waste".[12] This is getting to the point where I do not look forward to coming on to wikipedia because these two will keep saying vicious things about me. Hoponpop69 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are looking at other peoples' talk pages looking for info about yourself. Nothing was said on YOUR talk page, or directly to you. My 'sensitive much' comment was made by me because I was amazed that somebody would take the effort to go looking for information about themselves and then threaten a person with admin penalties. What we say on our talk pages is pretty much our business and not yours. You are just looking to get people in trouble at this point. If ANYBODY goes around the internet looking for things said about themselves they would probably find something negative. I bet that I could find something negative about me online right now if I spent the time looking for such information. I don't though, because I woulf find that to be a waste of time.It does take a lot of time and effort to go around looking for negative things, and that is what I meant by that second statement. You are probably angry because people called you out on your over eager citation history. You should just let things go at this point. Crescentia 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hoponpop69 had been having an active discussion with you on your talk page. How hard do you think he had to look to see the section below it? In any case, there is no reason why civil wouldn't apply on your talk page, even if you didn't plan on the person you are talking about seeing it. --OnoremDil 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
He kept adding info on my page about a person he helped get banned who happened to help me out earlier. It was like he was tattling on the person to me. How was that an active conversation? He's looking to get people in trouble. Why can't I say what I want to say on MY talk page? I wasn't talking to him, I was talking to somebody else. Why should he be allowed to report a converstaion that didn't even involve him?Crescentia 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a productive conversation, but he had been leaving messages for you, and you had been responding to him. That sounds like an active conversation to me. The talkpage has your name on it. That doesn't make it yours. Please see WP:USER for more. --OnoremDil 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight, I am not allowed to say whatever I wish on MY talk page because somebody who has a vandetta against me MIGHT look at it and get offended? That is simply ridculous. It is obvious, at least to me, that he is just looking to get me in trouble. He said in an earlier dispute that he was angry that I didn't QUOTE ' least get a slap on the wrist'. Am I going to have to look over my shoulder every time that I write something on Wiki?Crescentia 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, at this point I am very willing to totally ignore him if he promises to do the same. That means not following me all over Wiki to see what I have posted.Crescentia 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression people pointed you to the template citation request so you would no longer be adding numerous individual citation tags?--SevenOfDiamonds 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just informed Halloween Jack of this thread so they can respond (I'd inform Crescentia too, but that's clearly unnecessary). EVula // talk // // 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
IMO he's just pissed off because we called him out on making source requests to an excessive degree that amounts to trolling. I never insulted him directly and haven't even posted anything on his talk page, but he's happy to scan others' userpages to make sure no one's saying anything that he can claim is offending or attacking him, in order to use it as leverage in a war over how many words in every sentence of every article need to be followed by a citation.
You'll notice that I answered many of his tags with legit citations. I never reverted the page in question (deathrock), and I only removed his tags when he put them in places that linked to other articles with their own citations, or added a tag to a reiteration of a sourced statement earlier in the article. (For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations.) I expressed my frustration over this pedantry to Crescentia, but Hoponpop is the one who's making it personal now that he's been called out on his asinine editing behavior. --Halloween jack 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations."

I'm pretty sure the fact that that info is cited on a seperate page is not an excuse not to provide a source. Maybe we can get an admin's word on this.

Regardless this issue isn't about me adding citations tags, it's about you personally attacking me. The fact that you're doing it behind my back, not on my talkpage, still does not justify your actions. Hoponpop69 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Your blatant trolling, refusal to discuss edits, skirting the edges of revert violations, and "nyah nyah, look what I did to your buddy" comments on Crescentia's page are completely irrelevant, of course. And now, of course, you're saying that a comment about your ridiculous edits on another user's page is "attacking you behind your back." I can't way to see how you'll twist this comment around to claim that you were seriously hurt. --Halloween jack 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, this is about you not being able to let things go. I can't believe that you are STILL arguing about the content on the Deathrock page.Crescentia 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll say this once more since you can't seem to accept it, this is about you two attacking me. It has nothing to do with the deathrock page, or anything else.

And as far as me "doing something" to User: Daddy Kindsoul, he "did it to himself" by getting blocked over 25 times and then violating his parole. Hoponpop69 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it has everything to do with it, and your trollish editing behavior. You added an excessive number of tags, and added tags where they're totally unneeded. You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words. Oh, and you didn't bother to make any mention on the talk page before adding all these tags, and refused to discuss your decision to do so until other users got after you about it repeatedly. You've done everything possible to bait other users, and now you're crying foul. It's an extremely transparent tactic and I doubt you're fooling anyone; certainly not myself. Quit the shrill whinging about a comment about your editing behavior that was posted on another user's page and wasn't even directed to you as if it were a physical assault or a death threat or something equally serious and dramatic. I spent a few words mocking you for your foolishness and the rest of the time improving the article; you, meanwhile, would rather just drop tags all over the place and then whine about users who get fed up with your combative behavior as they try to improve articles to your satisfaction. If you really care about adding "much needed" content to Wikipedia, then discuss and justify your edits on the article's talk page.--Halloween jack 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better myself.Crescentia 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you didn't post about User: Daddy Kindsoul being banned on my talk page to goad me? In fact you actually tried to start an argument about it. Here is the proof. The heading that he created in MY talk page about this is Just To Let You Know:
The Daddy is currently on arbitration for consistently abusing reverts.[2] Between his current and older username, he has been blocked 26 times.[3][4] Hoponpop69 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Mostly because he has been reverting edits that don't make sense.Crescentia 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? How about giving me some examples then of him getting banned for reverting things that don't make sense? Hoponpop69 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this is my talk page I don't have to bow down to you. It's obvious that you don't like the guy, so why should I play up to you about him.Crescentia 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As the title of this subsection says, I was just letting you know. Hoponpop69 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI it's now 27, he's just been blocked for a year. Hoponpop69 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're reminding me of a ten year old who tells on people and then brags about it.Crescentia 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Crescentia 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Um when did I ever deny posting about him?

Hoponpop69 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you admit to trying to bait me into an argument? Nice.Crescentia 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No I admit to trying to inform you that you may not want to trust someone who's been banned close to 30 times.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that, because a simple look on your talk page reveals that the two of you had many squabbles in the past.Crescentia 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly, he was wiki-stalking me which is what let him to your talk page.

Hoponpop69 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • While your ongoing squabble is all very interesting, what exactly do you want admins to do here? I'm pretty sure all parties are well-aware that saying mean things about other people is not very nice and they should stop. Beyond that, I don't really see what you want here. --Haemo 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a 24 hour ban for incivility.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words."

So all of a sudden when an article has a source per every 50 words, any unsourced content on it can fly by? Furthermore I have never put a sourced tag on something that I felt was unnecessary. Hoponpop69 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your feelings about whether or not the tags were necessary is none of my concern. My comments as regards my removal of some of your tags are on the talk page; you can discuss and debate them there. --Halloween jack 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's quite enough of this. If you would be so kind, summarize what you want the admins to do about this. I think everyone is well aware that saying mean things is not nice, so don't do it. What else? --Haemo
  • As I said earlier, I feel a 24 hour ban for incivility (after being given a warning) on Halloween jack's part would be justified.Hoponpop69 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A warning from whom? You? --Halloween jack 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any warning, except for the complaint you made just before posting this thread. So, Halloween jack, here's your warning — be nicer to other users even when you think they aren't listening. I'd also suggest you avoid Hoponpop69, and vice-versa. Anyways, I'm not blocking anyone here because blocks are not punitive and I'm sure everyone will watch what they say from now on, right? --Haemo 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Crescentia 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not an administrator so you have no authority to ban anybody.Crescentia 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a weird case ...[edit]

Resolved: Now let's all go out for cake... --ElKevbo 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonny Cache (talk · contribs) has a sockpuppet warning on his User page[14] which, until today, identified him as an indefinitely blocked puppet of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). The logs of the User: page show the account being created on 25 August 2006, and Jonny being blocked on 2 September 2006 - indefinitely. However, looking at Jonny's user logs shows only the account creation today, and his contributions are pure vandalism (either that or admitting that he's a sockpuppet of a user whose account was created in June and has no visible contributions). Can someone please explain to me and/or block the user properly? Cheers, Confusing Manifestation 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That would explain it. And would also explain why I kept wanting to type "Cake" instead of "Cache" ... I thought I was just getting hungry. Confusing Manifestation 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL Oh dear, that's funny! :-D Thanks for the laugh, CM. Now, go and have a nice piece of cake :) Sarah 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Miyokan in persistent edit warring[edit]

I have already reported this user multiple times, and he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring. Nearly every time I check this user's contributions, he has been reverting other users. Once again, he has managed to barely thread the letter of the law on World War II, doing 4 reverts within 24 hours and 30 minutes. Could someone please hand out an extended block on this user? Please note that his former username is User:Ilya1166, which he abandoned probably in order to get rid of the block log [15]. The Evil Spartan 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly have considered doing so; given the block log on his prior account he's clearly well aware of 3RR and gaming it. However, another admin already protected the page, so a block at this point would be punitive rather than preventive. I'm going to defer blocking him. If it becomes a problem again, you can report him to WP:AN3 with a link to his prior block log; most admins will take into account if a user appears to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 24.001 hours. MastCell Talk 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In full disclosure, I saw that prior to my full-protecting for a day. I took a long look at him, and all the other editors, and decided that it would be hard to block him without doing so to several others who were just a little less close to 24 hrs but nearly as active, and that if I had to block 4-6 accounts over something maybe just protecting the article for a bit was more likely to actually cool down the argument. Georgewilliamherbert 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection review on Talk:Mousepad[edit]

Looking for review of my actions by an uninvolved admin(s). The article Mousepad has been under attack for a time by an IP hopping anon that wants to add unverifiable claims of the origin/invention of the product to the page. After the article was long-term semi-protected a while back, he took his crusade to the article's talk page, and has been wildly violating NPA and BLP there since. The NPA comes from calling other editors liars and "Plageism pushers" in talk and edit comments. BLP violations come from his unverified accusations of plagerism against others who may (or may not) have invented the product separately.

Blocking this person over the violations has not proved effective, because he shifts IPs wildly, and not within a small range either. It is also suspected that the anon is either Mr. Fernandez himself, one of the claiments to having invented the product, or someone close to him. Apparently this is not a short-term crusade, and has been waged across the net for a year or more, with WP being only the latest flash-point. So I suspect that the person behind the IP is not going to go away any time soon.

This morning I took the step of semi-protecting the talk page itself, because of the constant NPA and BLP violations. It is this action that I specifically place up for review, as I know protecting of talk pages is not generally done. But at this point I'm at a loss for any other way to deal with this editor, given his IP hopping makes blocking ineffective. I've set the semi-protection for only 2 weeks, but if he's as persistant as I suspect, I beleive this will just flare up once again after that time. But I'm hesitant to protect talk pages for longer than that. But it may be necessary. But.... <sigh> - TexasAndroid 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall this matter being bought up previously. Since it appears that this is a sustained campaign the sprotecting the article appears to be a judicious decision. If you are up to the task, I think short bursts of semi protects when necessary may deter this individual. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I have seen, this is the best solution. The guy just keeps on nagging and repeating the same thing over and over again, and isn't even happy that the article contains a fairly large mention of his claim in the history section already, even though it is doubtful (or at least not verifiable by secondary sources) that there is anything to his claim, while there is a lot of evidence for the other (older) claims. If there is any undue weight in the article, it is in favor of his point of vierw, not against it, and it is very clear that his opinion is not supported by any consensus and that he has exhausted the patience of the people on that talkpage. Semi-protect away, it is hoepfully the best solution. Fram —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
An ongoing campaign over who should get credit for inventing ... the mousepad??? Do I see another example of WP:LAME? TexasAndroid, IMHO you made the least disruptive reponse possible; if another anon needs to make good-faith comments, we'll re-evaluate this then. Let's hope this person takes this crusade elsewhere. -- llywrch 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't qualify - a single person that tries pushing his own view, accuses others of being POV-pushers and/or censors, and posts obviously unsubstantiated claims is no different than any other troll. In particular, only the regular users were willing to accept change and escalated the issue when it was going out of hand (to have the page protected, etc.) The anonymous vandal, as you can tell from his posts, made no such attempt at escalation. BTW, the same anon made changes to other wikipedia articles claiming invention as well, including the french version (which I removed by redirecting the article.) You can see which versions are affected through a simple Google search. --Sigma 7 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


There have been a couple of reports at WP:AIV that have been there for over an hour while other newer reports have been removed. Can someone please take care of these reports? Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're the same ones, but there were a couple of reports lingering where the editor had not yet received a final warning, or had been inactive since given the final warning. Anyway, list is clear for the moment. -- Satori Son 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reports that hang around AIV usually have issues that the responding admin is trying to resolve. Dean Wormer 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy?[edit]

Resolved: There is no cabal --Haemo 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Admins! I’m sorry I complain about a lot of things. But this time is different. Shot info, a user. I sent him a message and he does not respond instead he deleted it. He is been a member of a group. A conspiracy or cabal has formed. You could see the membership being on his user page. He rudely told me once –“ever heard of sarchasm??” and just becaused I asked what the conspiracy all about once he said “editors who write poorly ask these questions”. Who was he to talk about my editing. I am tired of this. Please! Block him for a month!--19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • While the user in question doesn't exactly seem over-endowed with AGF, I don't see anything here that requires admin action. ELIMINATORJR 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    There is no cabal. 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case, there does seem to be a cabal, but it only contains one member. Dean Wormer 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Would that make it a unicabal, a monocabal or simply an autocabal? Edison 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
An autocabal is when you block yourself. (Yes, I have done that.) Raymond Arritt 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am 3RR'ing or reverting per consensus[edit]

I have no "dog in this fight" so I figure I would ask before I go any further. On Fred Thompson (The guy running for the US president), a weak consensus was developed on the talk page regarding his name. A comment was made in the article page to see the talk page for the name. Today quite a few Anons have been changing it to the non-consensus version and I have been reverting them. Right now, I have 4 reverts on that page and would like to get a little admin insight before I find myself too far on the wrong end of the 3RR rule. Thanks Spryde 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically spirit vs. letter. I would personally not block you (were I an admin) due to a consensus already been reached on the talk - I acutally think in some cases such as these that "enforcing consensus (policy)" should be an exception. Will (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's against consensus, it's considered something close to vandalism, right? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not the 3RR-exception "simple/obvious vandalism" Will (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly.. working against consensus, but it's not simple/obvious vandalism, since Consensus Can Change. The only exception to the 3RR is if you're removing clear vandalism or a BLP Violation. (Ie, someone page blanking or replacing an article with "X is a Poopy Head") SirFozzie 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Can someone point out where consensus was made? It looks like it's still being discussed if you ask me. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears so. Like I said, I have no vested interest (or care for that matter. I just want to make sure what we have is "right" and matched what WP:BLP says about names. Spryde 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
More in the other section, but the IPs are more than welcome to start discussion again, as noted. --Ali'i 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that that is the same person editing with different IPs, not several different IP users. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Two additional points: 1) The named editors on the non-consensus side have NOT been changing the name. It is anonymous editors who did not participate in the discussion who are changing the names. 2) There is a hidden comment right next to the name. It tells editors that there was a consensus, that they should discuss the issue on the talk page before changing the name. The editors are violating good faith by: a) not going to talk and trying to develop a new consensus, and b) deleting the hidden comment. (Disclosure: I had a slight preference for the consensus but would have accepted the alternative outcome. I would enforce the consensus either way.) Sbowers3 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page was fully protected for a week. I guess there will be no edit warring for a while. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • At least the last half dozen IP's involved in editing the article are Tor proxies, probably the same editor. I'm reporting them all to AIV. - Crockspot 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • All blocked for a few days each. The protection can probably be rolled back to semi. - Crockspot 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and done. Doesn't look like the IPs had any real interest in discussing this issue. Looks like this is resolved for now.--Kubigula (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitch?[edit]

There seems to be some oddness, for lack of a better description with this RFA:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Victoria_uni. I'm getting a second one at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/victoria_uni and both show dates as being created in August. Purely a technical question. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage titles can start with lowercase. Both should probably be deleted though (neither was listed it seems) Mr.Z-man 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
(My oops :O)) When I was looking at the history, I missed the diff where one was added as a procedural action and the other wasn't added to WP:RFA at the time. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd - User:MutterErde[edit]

The above user MutterErde (talk · contribs) shows as being indefinitely banned and blocked by Jimbo since September 2005. However, the user's contribs show edits being made in July/August 2007. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All to his own talk page, which any blocked user is still allowed to edit (as long as it isn't protected). —bbatsell ¿? 04:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. My brain took a vacation. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised(?) AfD[edit]

Not sure if this is really the right place - apologies if it isn't - but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Martin has been overrun by hundreds (not quite literally, but nearing it...) of keep votes from SPA's/potential sock puppets. The original reason for deletion has been removed, too. Not sure what the best course of action is, really... Perhaps closing the current one, creating a new one and then semi-protecting the new debate (preventing any new accounts/IPs from doing this)? Thanks. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I tried to go through this and find a good edit. I can find the last one where the format is bad, but I didn't want to revert any genuine votes. One wonders if, given that the subject is a radio personality, perhaps there was some sort of broadcast to listeners. Into The Fray T/C 04:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the last revision before it was meatpuppeted — didn't spot a single non-SPA edit after that. I'm not sure what standard procedure is, though... —bbatsell ¿? 04:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to this version: And semiprotected. If there was anything good in there, feel free to re-add it, but I couldnt see it. ViridaeTalk 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken harrrassment, vandalism--2nd complaint[edit]

I previously made made a report on this user's stalking. etc. here: [16] (This is the incomplete discussion...I can't figure out how to use the archives here.)

At the time, the advice was: 1) just ignore that kind of behavior, and 2) if you really believe he's a sockpupper, file a checkuser. I tried both.

He's lately gone beserk in his stalking and harrassment. He suggested atUser talk:Eusebeus that they "get an admin to look at this user's behavior, hopefully as a prelude to getting rid of him" [17] (I made a WP:WQA about Eusebeus, thus Allgoodnames' hope for a sympathetic audience).

He reverted my edit to an article and summarized my edit as vandalism. [18] My edit had removed some material added by Gtadoc (whom I have accused of being a sockpuppet of Allgoodnames).

He vandalised my Talk page, again making a false accuation of vandalism: [19] (Oddly, nothing in the section he finds objectionable was written by me; it was put there either by Allgoodnames himself, or another user; I saved in case I needed documentation of certain behaviors).

He reverted my edit in a WP:BRD process with another editor, which was being discussed in Talk; a conversation in which he has not participated. [20]

Here is the checkuser case (still opn, for now). Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Allgoodnamesalreadytaken It should probably be closed because the Gtadoc account hasn't been used for a month.

All of these harrassing edits have occurred in the last 24 hours, although there has been continual junk like this in the last few weeks, including what I documented in my previous notice here. He's obviously making it a point to check my User Contributions, and look for any dispute I might be having, and jump into it. Get him off my back. Bsharvy 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Bsharvy's complaint is largely merit and the good faith follow-up on his charges of WP:SOCK have all indicated that no policies have been violated and no foundation exists for action. OTOH, his behaviour - edit-warring, wikilawyering, and forum-shopping for his supposed grievances - needs sore redress. An admin should step in here and issue a warning of a block if this behaviour continues. Eusebeus 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, if an admin does read this, Bsharvy is desperately in need of a warning or block. Not only does he go around creating complaints all over the place about anyone who disagrees with him (I think he's up to 6 editers now he's tried to complain about somewhere with his profuse wikilawyering). Its past the point of being ridiculous. A quick scan of his edit history [21] shows that he is exceptionally disruptive on the page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has recently begun erasing/trying to start edit wars on the related Hiroshima page. If anyone comments on his behavior its to him "harrrassment" (sic), even after he's been warned by admins in the past he's refused to let things drop or to alter his behavior...what will it take???? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
He changed a heading name on my Talk page again, again titling the section a "record of my vandalism" (it contains 3 contributions from him, one comment from a neutral editor, and none from me).[22] His comment above is fairly typical: no diffs, no attempt to actually back up what he says, but a whole lot of character maligning. He seems to have Bookmarked my User Contributions, and follows me around writing stuff like this. The more disruptive part is the constant reverts.Bsharvy 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the comments were untitled warnings about his vandalism pattern, mine he left, those of an admin he deleted long ago; he recently decided to censor them and reword my comments by putting his own titles to them, which would be the same as me editing someone else's comments anywhere else. As its his userpage he's welcome per policy to delete anything there he likes (he seems very good at deleting other's edits, even while trying to hide it, which I've labeled as vandalism and reverted when noticed) but he isn't free to edit others' past comments to make them say what he wants. As far as looking at his user contributions, since his only significant contribution has been to disrupt the page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to file complaints all over WP about editers he disagrees with there it seems the problem is more with him not wanting to own up for his past and current foul deeds. Every complaint he's left to date (which as Eusebeuscorrectly points out are meritless) on all the various notice boards have either been ignored, or when people take time to point out to him his inproper behavior he simply starts more arguments.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He has now vandalized my Talk page 3 times, and twice (by revert) in the last 24 hours.[23], [24], [25].

  • Allgoodnames, I an happy to propose a compromise. If you don't want the record of your "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page, you are welcome to remove them. You put the warnings there, you take them away. I won't complain. Edit: The other part would that you stop reverting without discussion here: [26], [27]. Bsharvy 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to leave it in the origonal, or to remove it, its your talk page; however, editing others' comments to suit your likes is not acceptable, as you've already been told. For the Hiroshima page...well, isn't it enough that you've gotten one page locked over your edit warring? As it is I'll make sure it says what the sources say, and don't count as a source...not that this is really relevent to this page/topic... Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So much for compromise. I do wonder how we are supposed to know when admins care and when they don't, since they don't seem to care about the vandalism and harrassment here. Or do I misunderstand the policies... Bsharvy 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Or do I misunderstand the policies an eminent wikilawyer like you? Surely not! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden, yet again[edit]

ZOMG, what a WP:LAME. Few days ago I innocently closed Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move quoting WP:PRECISION as "no move", and redirected iron maiden to the band. Then the roof fell in, and the iron maiden had some 15 reverts since. Reginmund (talk · contribs), who seems to be the most vocal supporter of redirect to the torture device, broke WP:3RR in the process (not reported, apparently).
Since I'm now semi-involved in the matter (dragged in, actually), I'm reluctant to apply protection, hand out some blocks, and so on; I'm not even positive that my interpretation of policy is correct (or is it subject to multiple interpretations) (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)). Can someone lean a helping hand in settling the matter down? Duja 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I suggest the appropriate punishment for the revert-warriors should be done in some other suitable form. Either referent of "Iron maiden" (application of the device, or forced listening to the band for 24 hours) springs to mind. Fut.Perf. 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Iron maiden was pointed to the apparatus before this RM and I already had a long discussion with a fan of the band whom apparently took offence to me pointing it to its original usage. At least the redirect gives a more specific meaning but we have these grammatical and spelling factors everywhere. Do we really need to disambiguate Apollo Theatre and Apollo Theatre because we're to lazy to spell or in this case, capitalise depending on our destination? Maybe when writing in a message board, not an encyclopaedia. Reginmund 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Iron maiden only redirected to the apparatus because that's where you redirected it. Your initial edit to the redirect sparked the first edit war; for the six months prior to that it only ever redirected to the band or the dab page. PC78 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I had already discussed earlier with another Wikipedian as to why the redirect should point to the apparatus and not the band. Now what happpened? The move request had nothing to do with the redirect but replacing it. Reginmund 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't continue the content dispute here. Let's keep the debate in whichever forum it was, okay? Fut.Perf. 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Inasmuch as the band was named for the torture device, it would seem that the latter has greater precedence. (Or should "Zeppelin" lead to the band rather than the airship?) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Vandal on Evolution[edit]

Accounts include, but are probably not limited to: Loom yellow (talk · contribs) Payp two (talk · contribs) Ray vivid (talk · contribs) Raz grime (talk · contribs) Scen heal (talk · contribs) Furry great (talk · contribs) Tlame (talk · contribs) Staam (talk · contribs) Grooy (talk · contribs) Eve oft (talk · contribs)

All follow the exact same modus operandi - they replace the Evolution article (and the user pages/talk pages of contributors to it) with the first two chapters of Genesis, switching accounts as they get blocked. Evolution is semi-protected, so this is clearly a premeditated attack, since accounts must age long enough to bypass the semi-protection.

Anything we can do? Adam Cuerden talk 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try checkuser yet? Try full-protecting again for 6 hours; it's only for a few hours, and probably wouldn't constitute wheel warring (I would do it for you, but I don't have a bit next to my username). The Evil Spartan 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in an WP:RFPP request; I can file a CU request if you want me to. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm already on it. Raul654 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be a reincarnation of this guy Raul654 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article's been locked down for six hours; that should be enough time to block any offenders (if they are Witt socks). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't do a checkuser because the relationship was so obvious and I didn't know it could be used for further protection =) Adam Cuerden talk 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser may (as in this case) find other sleepers or an underlying IP that can be blocked, so it may be useful to contact a checkuser even though it is obvious sockpuppetry. (Raul has got this one taken care of for now.) Thatcher131 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. I shall remember that in future. Adam Cuerden talk 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That reminds me, Raul... Any sleepers? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I found several and terminated them. Raul654 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with an editor changing or deleting another editor's talk page comments[edit]

Over at Talk:Star Wars kid there's been a bit of a debate raging over the inclusion (or lack thereof) of the kid's name. As part of that discussion BlueLotas (talk) made a comment comparing the lack of name coverage to hypothetically censoring any mention of controversial evnts from articles on Hitler, the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Richard Nixon. I should point out that all of the events mentioned in said comment are already included in Wikipedia, which is why I couldn't understand when FCYTravis (talk) removed his comments, later justified the removal by saying it was "libelous", and in a subsequent edit said that WP:BLP gave him the right to do so. Frankly, that's crap, but it's become evident that FCYTravis is not going to listen to me, and that administrator intervention is the only way to get this sorted out. And that's why I'm posting here. The end. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Already being discussed at WP:BLPN. Not sure how this requires an administrator. —bbatsell ¿? 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I was not aware of the discussion. This looks promising. As for why I felt admin intervention was needed... well, it's hard for us normal users to call an admin on things like this without worrying that, if we are too persistent, we'll wind up getting banned by said admin. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that civil discourse would never lead to any sort of blocking (and if it did, there would be numerous avenues for recourse, as that would very much be against Wikipedia's policies). —bbatsell ¿? 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree, but I've gotten the strong and distinct impression that whenever WP:BLP is involved rational discourse ceases to work. It seems to be increasingly used as a trump card to all other policy, guidelines and ettiquette(sp?), at least in recent months. While I have little doubt that were I banned in a hypothetical situation like that it'd get sorted out, I also have little doubt that it would take a long period of time to do so because if for nothing else there would be endless quibbling over whether or not WP:BLP allowed for the ban, if it should, blah blah blah. In the meantime I'm screwed. I'd rather not go through that situation all the same. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I originally posted this on AIV, but I think it actually should go here. If I'm wrong, please feel to correct me. I think an indef block of this user name is in order. But, you know, if I'm wrong. . . .correct me. :)

Comment Just to add my very small $.02: While I realize that it is impossible to truly verify usernames when they claim to be a specific person, strangely (as I rarely watch Oprah), I actually saw the Oprah show that this woman was on (the dog is so cute!) and I went to the person's blog, [34] and from that entry, it really does not remotely "sound" like the person using that username here on Wikipedia is Jude Stringfellow. The blog is without question, written by the author of the book, and she does not use all caps, or type in the same manner as this username has done. Nor does she really have any problem with the deletion of this article, as stated on that blog: "We have enjoyed her stay on Wikipedia, but to be honest it doesn't make or break her abilities to be presented in public, or to be beneficial to anyone." Further, she flat out states that this username is