Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335

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

Noticeboard archives


Help on reporting to Checkuser[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked by vandalizing Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and several articles about characters from Digimon. East718 (talk · contribs) suggested a checkuser for him because it seems to be a rangehopper, because I've also noticed similar vandal edits on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch and other articles from the following: (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Template:Uipser, (talk · contribs · WHOIS). How can I properly report to checkuser in this case because from I have gathered, one false move and I may be blocked (I said "may be" because I am not sure). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary. They're all dynamic IP addresses from the same range; it's pretty clearly the same person making the edits from the behavior pattern you've explained. Checkuser compares the IP addresses of users in order to establish if they are the same person — this is already obvious, from the situtation here, and a checkuser would not help you. However, I would point out that blocking won't help much in this situation because of the dynamic IP problem. --Haemo 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The affected article has been protected. When an article is "under assault" from a hoard of different IPs, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Someguy1221 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IP POV-pushing[edit]

Can another admin deal with this guy [1], I've reverted twice and refuse to edit war with him. POV pushing on related articles as well, ignored my talk page warnings. ~Eliz81(C) 09:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, blocked 24hrs for 3RR by User:Stormie (thanks!!) ~Eliz81(C) 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, his belligerent attitude and five reverts across two articles made it pretty clear that he needed a cooling-off period. The content he was removing was well sourced, the only POV complaint you could even attempt to raise would be on the grounds of Undue weight, which I would trivially reject on the basis that Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) dedicates far more space to praise for the soldiers commemorated there than to the resentment of those of the wartime generation. --Stormie 09:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The BetacommandBot Crisis.....turned up something interesting...[edit]

I've noticed that alot of the people crying to User talk:Betacommand have problems with their images that many don't see right away. Many have no rationale tags (Image:Shaw Communications logo.png, Image:Yoshi2-title.png, Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg, etc.) And thats the first several images I checked when I started from recent-back. How would it be best to alert these folks about this mistake in a proper way (and not cause Betacommand anymore grief)? 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint about some of these images. Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg appears to be properly tagged and the user appeared to be warned about it. What's the problem? — Save_Us_229 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought Betacommandbot was designed specifically to do what you're asking about using community-designed template warnings. Seems the people (okay, person) noting their concerns on Betacommand's talk page are simply upset at him about the fact that his bot did exactly what it's supposed to do. Not sure it's something I would term a "crisis" :) --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well you'd be right about Image:CatsRugbyClubLogo.png, an image I uploaded long long ago that BetaCommandBot mistakenly took as orphaned fair use. It wasn't orphaned, but it was missing a proper Fair Use rationale (since such things weren't really thought of three and a half years ago when I uploaded it). I have added one now. --Stormie 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it because it was incorrectly tagging used images as orphans. I have no objections to the bot adding the FUR needed tag on the next sweep. Will (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Afletch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

  • Resolved: Vandal indef-blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has posted a threat to kill two people on his userpage, see diff: [2], removed today by another editor. There are no constructive contributions from this account. Used today to create an attack page. Accurizer 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This looks like a little ring of vandals who make little or no contribution to the encyclopedia. The threat is conditional and probably not meant to be taken seriously, but still unacceptable. Block the lot of them. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia talk pages to prove a point.[edit]

The following user, Angelriver is using the following wikipedia talk pages to prove a point Talk:Kim Bauer, Talk:Kate Warner, Talk:Michelle Dessler, Talk:Sherry Palmer, Talk:Audrey Raines, Talk:Tony Almeida and Talk:Curtis Manning. This is by posting identical information on each page which is not suited for an article talk page and should either be not posted at all, whith the sentiment posted on the correct user talk page or posted on just the user talk page.--Lucy-marie 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments from all the talk pages and also removed the merger tags which appear to have no community support. That way everyone is happy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

John Dandola[edit]

Biographical article blanked by JohnDandola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary "Removed by subject due to vandalism & harassment. Do not repost without written permission verified thru subject's web site. Wikipedia notified." See diff: [3] Accurizer 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User blanking talk page content.[edit]

Resolved: 48 hour block

User:Ankithreya is blankingtalk page sections. despite two warnigns, with instructions about how to create new sections, [4] and [5], the editor continues to blank talk pages sections, as seen here, and here. the user has been made aware of what they are doing, but continue to do wrong. I suggest a short block to prevent further page disruptions. I will revert out the b lanking done in the last two examples. ThuranX 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block. Clearly warned and continued blankings. RlevseTalk 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia issues on South Park articles[edit]

Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III are getting out of hand. Each episode features many references to characters, so massive lists are on the articles. Anytime they get removed, they are re-added for no good reason. A poll is on the talk page: which is a joke, and basically full of editors that don't know policies on trivia and cluttered lists. Can anyone help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections on "allusions" are valid, even if the content will need to be trimmed. The charcters lists should not be included and I have removed them. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to blank the "allusions" sections and leave an HTML comment about sourcing, though I expect to be reverted by cruft-pushin fanatics... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The sections on allusions aren't valid. What sources are they citing? Someone sitting down, watching the episode and drawing his or her own logical conclusions is original research. Articles need to site secondary sources. A Traintalk 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As predicted: they were re-added back. However, it was only on Imaginationland so far. What else can we do about this? I requested page protection the other day, but it was declined. These fanatics simply wont stop, unlesss something harsh is done in my view. RobJ1981 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the proactive step of removing the allusions section to the article Discussion page, with a caveat that once reliably and notably sourced, they can be re-added. Anyone can revert additions of uncited allusions and refer the contributor to the discussion page, where such debate really belongs. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As an update: the page is protected now. Hopefully this can be resolved. But I can imagine people will use the same old "the talk page consensus" as an excuse for listing all that cluttered fancruft trivia. RobJ1981 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Roadcrusher Socks[edit]

Resolved: Socks and puppetmaster indefinitely blocked (see CheckUser request). Kelvinc 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms two new socks of Roadcrusher, who often uploads copyvios. Since Roadcrusher had previously been blocked for socks, I advise blocking socks User talk:Bothtones7 and User talk:Soondesk6 and requesting that Roadcrusher go back to using his original account.

Because there was a notable break in time between the last block of a suspected Roadcrusher sock and the addition of these socks (which can be considered a time out, I suppose), and that Soondesk6 has shown to be less rampant with the copyvios than previous socks, I am not opposed to lighter measures than blanket blocking, but I leave final decision to admins' discretion. Kelvinc 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Every edit I make User:Seicer has to change it. He constantly keeps bothering and intimidating me. He acts like he is god. Seicer has constantly been in numerous disputes with other users. It must stop --Jdlddw 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears this dispute is over this I presume. I reviewed the contents of your talk page (which you happened to remove) and it appears he was not intimidating, bothering, or trying to act like a God as you claim. I would suggest talking to the editor in a civil manner about what his concerns are on the article and why he continues to make changes, and if you two aren't able to settle it then, then please come back here with diffs after making an attempt at trying to figure what the problem is and minus the uncivil and near personal attacks attitude of yours. — Save_Us_229 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is a the proper avenue for conflicts such as this. This noticeboard is not as well suited for mediation. — Satori Son 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Jdlddw's last edit to South Charleston, West Virginia, and he had changed "Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority" to Transit authority. Since the KRT website says Transportation I am drawn to wonder how accurate the rest of the edits were. A quick look at [6] suggests that personal opinion salted with links of non-obvious merit may well be the problem here. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Jdlddw, you should leave a notice on my talk page if you open up an ANI case about me. I only found out because I keep this page watched. I don't revert all of your edits, only edits that are factually incorrect or where inappropriate page moves. And please don't delete other user's comments on people's talk pages. Regarding edits of yours that I _did_ revert, which were statistically few to the amount of edits you _do_ have,
* [7] Sorry, your page moves at Yeager Airport and Tri-State Airport were made without consensus were reverted because they are factually incorrect. You cited no source for your change and all the sources that are currently provided state otherwise.
* [8] This edit on South Charleston, West Virginia is more appropriate per WP:MOS, removes dead/duplicate links, removes personal opinion and original research and is structured correctly per WP:USCITY.
A warning is not intimidation, and you should use that as a method to edit correctly on Wikipedia. Gain consensus on controversial edits or page moves and be bold in editing but ensure that it is well within appropriate boundaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also filed at ANB. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Unsourced Original Research to Jim Kelly article[edit]

T-rex is currently reverting any attempts to removed the unsourced statement "Kelly is considered one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL." He has reverted it 3 times [9][10][11] after it was removed on the basis that it violates WP:BLP, and refuses to add citations when requested by another editor on his talk page. He instead defends his actions by accusing the other editor of "having a problem with Kelly" [12]. I've not gotten involved in this debate yet as it is beginning to border on incivility, however I'm disturbed at T-rex's loose interpretations of Wikpedia's Biographies of living persons policy, and the fact that he is resorting to edit warring to include this material without attempting to reach a consensus. I believe that administrator involvement might be necessary.--Quartet 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call it a BLP violation, unless its untruth would make it derrogatory towards Jim Kelly. In any event, a subjective superlative claim is inherently POV and requires a source. Someguy1221 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think fans of Steve Young would disagree with that assertion. :) Corvus cornixtalk 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. As per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". How T-rex can think that adding this info without a source is fine, when other well-refenced articles like the article for Joe Montana exist is beyond me. The Montana article is how it should be done - the Jim Kelly article with T-rex's edit is how it shouldn't be done. --Quartet 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious edits by User:Maneisis[edit]

I've just finished cleaning up dozens of links that User:Maneisis has added to his freewebs website TMM (Music & Movies) (also CSD A7 deleted) and started digging a bit deeper into his other edits. And I'm suspicious that there is some dubious spamming going on here regarding Martin Hernandez. Now, Hernandez is a Mexican actor who appeared in The Devil's Backbone and a couple of short flicks according to IMDb ([13]). I can't find any reliable reference anywhere on the net as to him having a musical career, but see Martin Hernandez (with it's MySpace link to a totally different Martin), Martin (album), Faithful (Martin Hernandez Song) (with it's apparently completely fictional claims of top 10 charting in Mexico and New Zealand), crudely photoshopped album covers Image:Martin album Cover.PNG, Image:U.K single Faithful.GIF..

Looking over User talk:Maneisis reveals a long history of other articles being deleted as hoaxes, as well as many non-free image deletions. Frankly, I'm inclined to just undo every edit he's ever made, but thought I should run this by WP:AN first. --Stormie 07:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another: see deleted history of Image:Hola Magazine.PNG for another poorly photoshopped fake image that was placed on the article on ¡Hola! magazine. --Stormie 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, see edits from, appears to be the same editor logged out. Also adding very suspicious claims on Martin Hernandez related topics: [14] - claims an award nomination at the 2007 ALMA Awards, no mention whatsoever on that organization's nominees list ([15]); claims a Best Supporting Actor award at the Ariel Award in 2005, not true according to that organization's winners list ([16], Spanish, can translate via Google). --Stormie 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Still more: Everytime (film) - Martin Hernandez's directing debut, "will be released in 2008". "Official site" is a blank page at Poster Image:Everytime Poster.JPG is another terrible photoshopping with the same font as the other fakes. Claims to be copyright Fox Atomic, of course their site makes no mention of any such film. --Stormie 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
one of his first edits, to One True Thing, claims Ebert gave the film 4 stars and called it "a movie of intense fascination", searching finds that he gave it three stars and said no such thing [17]. --Stormie 08:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Violanchelo appears to be a real film, but not starring Martin Hernandez. Image:Violanchelo scene.JPG another terrible fake. The claimed source [18] is an article about the production of Violanchelo but no mention of Hernandez and no sign of the "poster". --Stormie 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • reading between the lines it looks like IMDb may also have been subject to the same hoaxes. As it happens the majority of the Martin Hernandez article seems to be a copyvio from his, apparently only, fan. I've tagged it for a speedy. Putting WP:AGF to one side temporarily this appears to be the product of a young Walter Mitty using WP, IMDb and YouTube to promulgate a hoax. --WebHamster 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did wonder that. I'm not really familiar with how the IMDb handles contributions but I don't believe they'd be too rigorous about fact-checking someone's "helpful" addition of information. --Stormie 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I deleted Martin Hernandez (CSD G12/A7/G4) What to do with the rest? EdokterTalk 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to leave them overnight and then go on a massive cleanup in the morning. ;-) --Stormie 13:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've put the album, single and film up for AfD. I've removed the mentions of Hernandez from the various articles mentioned above. --WebHamster 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the album and the song as violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have deleted them as patent nonsense. Anyway, I deleted the supposed album covers. EdokterTalk 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK further deletions from me:

Some of these may be real (e.g. I think Stages: Three Days in Mexico was a real documentary), but everything in them was unsourced content added by User:Maneisis, so frankly, I think it's best if they're deleted, someone can recreate them with proper sources.

By the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hernandez (second nomination), these hoaxes may go back even further than I thought. Currently investigating the contributions of User:Written92, who appears to be the same person, hoax edits going waaay back on the same obsessions: e.g. [19], created previous version of Martin Hernandez.

Also User:Director and writter, User:Homie 01, User:Oops05, User:Actor34.. --Stormie 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Freyabigg is making legal threats on Naruto kages[edit]


Freyabigg created the Naruto kages article. This article has been tagged for speedy deletion by Whitstable. After the tagging, Freyabigg added a line at the bottom of the article. It reads: Quote:

If you want to delete it then it's your loss and I WILL sue. :P:@

The user then went ahead and deleted the SD tag.

User Doe ☻T ☼C 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They have also added on the talkpage (with a {{hangon}} already in place for those who are CSD-tagging)


Please block post-haste THEN delete the article; there's no place for this nonsense in Wikipedia. NF24(radio me!) 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. I'll leave handing the pages in question to another admin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait, if he does take back the legal threat, then he gets unblocked, right? Just wondering. -Goodshoped 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what WP:LEGAL (stupidly, in my opinion) says. Clearly we care much more for mollycoddling vandals and aggressive bullies than we do for protecting ordinary Wikipedians going about their normal cleanup duties. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Making legal threats and vandalism are two different things, though. Any user who makes any legal threat on the website, no matter how solid their contributions are, is blocked until they withdraw the threat. The whole purpose of forbidding legal threats is to prevent the chilling effect they can cause, which is theoretically accomplished by the user rescinding their threat. Someone who is blocked for vandalism who has also made a legal threat doesn't have to be unblocked if they withdraw the threat. They were blocked for vandalism, so the block for vandalism can stay. Natalie 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Resolved; user blocked by Finlay McWalter; I have deleted the page and its talk page. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)



The MiszaBot at used to work but now it does not. Looking for solutions. Thanks.Leranedo 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting our time? There is no reference to MiszaBot on your talk page that I can see. Hu 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu, check the edit pane, there is a template there. Thanks, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo means that the archiving function on his talk page by MiszaBot has stopped. Spebi 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Leranedo, I did not see anything wrong with the template. Ask User talk:Misza13 for help, that is the bot operator. Misza has always been helpful to me in the past. Regards, Nathan 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Following a checkuser request that turned out positive at we now know that User:Firstwind is the recepient of 15 warnings, the last one on Nov 23rd either for vandlism or spamming. Would an admin review the whole case and see if a temp block or a ban is warranted? On a side note, the vandal keeps a "RC Patrol" userbox on his page but has never done any RC patrolling, I doubt that anything is possible to prevent this, however if you know a way... Thanks. Mthibault 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of User Boxes on my page for things I don't currently have time to do. Perhaps a request that if he doesn't intend to do it, the box should go until he does? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is really secondary. The main issues are the checkuser and the warnings. This RC patrol thing is just one of his/her provocations because he/she bullied several people User:Ground_Zero, User:Schcambo and myself by putting fake vandalism warnings on their talk page after receiving one. But this is really not an important issue. Would an admin please review the case and make a decision? Thanks. Mthibault 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:T-rex at Jim Kelly[edit]

There is an above thread on this, but I wanted to bring more attention to the matter. T-rex (talk · contribs) apparently beleives that calling Jim Kelly "one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL and possibly the best quarterback to line up under center in the short history of the USFL" [20] doesn't require any citation. The reason I'm coming here and not dispute resolution is that I consider this a trivial addition of unsourced personal opinion, which if T-rex weren't a longstanding contributor, I'd mass revert and report to AIV. I was hoping if maybe more people tried to get it through him that opinionated claims such as these always require a citation, we could avoid an unecessary revert-war. I tried myself, but upon seeing his response, I'm not sure I can try again and maintain my sanity. Someguy1221 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of assuming good faith, first? Maxim(talk) 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. I'm not sure what I said that might indicate otherwise. Assuming he's acting in good faith and assuming he's acting in accordance with policy are utterly different matters. Someguy1221 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
T-rex (talk · contribs) is not assuming good faith in this issue - jumping all over Yankees76 after Yankees76 politely used a 1st level template warning about adding unsourced information to the article.[21] [22]
Edits like this are the types of edits from cocky long-term users that deter newer editors from constructively contributing to this project. Long time editor or not, Wikipedia policies are not open to different interpretations by how long you've been editing the project. Adding unsourced original research to biographies of living persons is not conistant with Wikipedia policies regardless of how long you've been a registered user. --Quartet 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and The Elite Hills[edit]

Resolved: Articles and images deleted. Sockpuppet blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 is a rather prolific sockpuppeteer with a fanatical devotion to Anaheim Hills. After being banned by the ArbCom, he continued to return every few weeks to insert his original research. Back in July, he created an article called The Elite Hills full of the same original research that has been deleted twice, if I'm not mistaken. Well he's back with another new sock Edward1212 who he seems to be using in conjunction with an IP address of I've tagged his article of The Elite Hills (Orange County) as a speedy candidate (as well as some images he uploaded), and another editor has reverted most of his additions to cities in the OC. Could someone block the latest sock and delete the articles? AniMate 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Also now added to WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. AniMate 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange vandalism[edit]

Take a look at this. Not sure what he is up to, but if you go to the Image:Penisfrenulum.jpg page you will see that there are many pages linking to it that are not appropriate. The trouble is, since you can't actually see the image, and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box I'm not sure about how to find it. Can anyone help? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the list of articles a common denominator is they all appear to have the same template on them. I'm going to add it here as a test.

Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...and firefox will no longer allow me to search within the edit box"? Why not? Mine does, and it's (I hope) latest release. on windowsXP. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Pretty sure it used to, then it stopped. I'm assuming it was when I upgraded.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK so I add it here, but this page doesn't get added to the list of pages linking to the penis pic, so i remove the {{recentism}} tag from one of the articles and it dissapears from the list. Plus I can't find any reference to the penis photo on the template page itself. What's going on? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image links need to be purged. I can't seem to be able to do it though. Woodym555 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what we need to do. The image was added to the template but has since been removed. We need to make a small noN edit to each of the articles that still link to it because of the recentism template. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
All done! I've seen this vandal before so please keep an eye out for this type of vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to indefinitely semi-protect these templates? I can't imagine they need to be edited all that often, and since they're widely used it seems like the risk of vandalism outweighs whatever edits really need to be made. Natalie 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's probably a sensible idea. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The image in question has been added to the "bad list" (appears now only on 2 pages). Recentism template has been semi-protected. Not enough history to warrant more at this time. SkierRMH (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The image has now been added to MediaWiki:Bad image list as well, I got edit conflicted adding it to it!! Woodym555 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that list is there always seems to be plenty of images on commons that a potential vandal could use. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It also doesn't prevent the interesting vandalism I saw on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, which redirected that page to a picture of a penis. Preventing vandalism on Wikipedia seems akin to attempting to prevent shoplifting from a retail store - the only reasonable expectation is to reduce the level, rather than prevent entirely. Natalie 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We can't prevent it. But we can revert it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
True, something about putting finger in hole in dam. ;) I also agree that we can't cover all images on the list. Incidentally, would a vandal be able to add a redirect to an image on the bad list, and would the software allow it? Woodym555 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the software does allow it. The particular image that the page redirected to was already on the bad image list, as far as I can tell, which maybe why they chose redirection instead of just replacing the article with the image. It was quite clever, I must say. Natalie 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have posted here earlier, but the phone rang... After I saw the post here about the vandalism, but before the suggestion was made about semi-protecting the templates involved ({{recentism}} and {{recent death}}) I had fully protected both for a week - just in case the vandal had created some other sleeper accounts today, as I saw Theresa Knott had blocked the user involved saying "returning sock". Quite where one draws the line about indef-semi-protecting such templates, I don't know: neither are currently used on more than 50 pages, which isn't many compared to other permanently protected templates. Having said that, any other admin is entirely welcome to rejig the protection levels/periods on these templates without further reference to me, using the not unreasonable assumption that other admins are much more likely to have a better idea of the nuances of protection policy than me! BencherliteTalk 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD close needs some cleaning up[edit]

Resolved: AfD closed

Would an administrator please swing over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-bashing and give it a proper close. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD reopened for the time being. —Kurykh 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked it over and closed it again, ironically with a similar outcome to that performed by the non-admin (who really shouldn't have closed it per WP:AFD). Of course, DRV is always available for anyone sufficiently unimpressed by the outcome. BLACKKITE 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, I closed the AfD. It met its time requirement and the issues raised about the article were proven as invalid. My close was as Keep And Cleanup per Wikipedia:Deletion process which states, "The template {{cleanup-afd}} is available for discussions that close as KEEP AND CLEANUP. To use, simply add the template (without subst:) to the kept article.", which I did. My original close rationale is at this edit. So what did I do wrong? Just curious for future improvement of my own editing on WP. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A good rule to follow: unless the consensus on an AFD is blindingly obvious and unchallenged, let an admin take the heat for making "the wrong decision." ;-) Someguy1221 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) When you closed the debate, you ended up injecting your opinion into the debate. Your closure did not analyze the debate, but rather was replaced with your opinion, contrary to what AfD is about. The same section you linked says "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." Closing against consensus or any controversial/ambiguous debate takes a detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and is considered poor form and "out-of-process" for a non-admin who does close it under these circumstances. In practice, non-admin closures are only accepted if the consensus is unambiguous keep. —Kurykh 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd hardly say I injected my own opinion. I addressed the concerns of the AfD nominator and made sure to point out in my close rationale how they were either addressed or disspelled which therefore made the redirect/merge "votes" (even though it's not a vote) without merit as they didn't apply to policy and that simply deleting an article because it needs clean-up is a no-no according to our very own AfD policies. I guess I'm just not seeing how I missed or did anything wrong as I was meticulous in following non-admin AfD close procedures and went to much greater details of my reasoning than most admins do. I do thank you for offering feedback. I'm sure it will come into play in my future editing. -- ALLSTARecho 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem: you're not supposed to address concerns to the nominator if you're going to close the discussion. If you're going to do that, add your opinion in the debate. The closing admin (sometimes non-admin) is supposed to act as an impartial [apathetic] moderator of the discussion. But I had to say that you are remain composed about it (these situations tend to inflame into revert wars) and we thank you for your grace and tact. —Kurykh 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, WP:AFD says "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator"; this one was ambiguous, because the result did not reflect the actual balance of opinion on the AfD, even though that opinion was given on a previous version of the article. As above, though, thanks for asking for clarification in a civil manner. BLACKKITE 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP on contraceptive pill article[edit]


The IP was blocked for 24 hours starting 06:31, 1 December 2007 for a 3RR violation on the article combined oral contraceptive pill. The same content is now being added to the article by (diff from 22:34, 1 December 2007). The type of additions made by these IPs, persistence of the addition, and refusal to engage on the talk page are very similar to a previous content dispute in that article: Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill/Archive 1#Percy Julian.

Is there any way to restrict this person from editing? LyrlTalk C 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is now sprotected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Bot has seems to be spamming the example.jpg on tons of user talk and article pages. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is replacing fair use images with the free image Image:Example.jpg, yes. This is fine. Though some of the removals were questionable, I believe ST47 is sorting this out as we speak. --Deskana (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify the bot doesn't seem to be adding example.jpg to any articles, which would be cause for concern. --W.marsh 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Dereks1x sock[edit]


- blocked by Picaroon Miranda 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Heidianddick <--- Quack, Quack, Quack... Miranda 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dick by name....?" --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, it's late here and I haven't the time to look at this, but this guy has been on a spree of adding {{verylong}} tags to multiple articles, regardless of their actual content. This has been questioned on his talk page but he just blanks it & carries on. Not much of a disruption but he doesn't seem to be doing anything else. Some articles (eg Diana, Princess of Wales) are just long anyway and should not be tagged haphazardly. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that his mass tagging has been reverted...although he still hasn't responded to any comments on his talk page about these actions. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice from an Admin[edit]

I am not sure if this is a newbie just making good faith edits or someone who is going a little "tag" crazy, but Mustufailed has tagged almost every radio station in Pennsylvania with a "Expand" or "Citation" tag. The user has claimed that he is trying to reach his goal "of 1000 edit counts by monday". Not sure what to do here. Thanks....NeutralHomer T:C 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Unconstructive suggestions[edit]

I'm aware that flaming, vituperation, and WP:POINT are the order of the day after the Durova mess. But it's hard to see how the next to last paragraph of this[23] is helpful to anyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, that is largely a copy of a post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Everyone else, that was somewhat endorsed by at least one Arbitrator (same page, prior section). I recommend a higher thought/keystroke ratio. GRBerry 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
So, we're now endorsing the public re-posting of private Wikipedia related correspondence? Just trying to get this straight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
RA, I think posting to a blog site, so it can be "legally" quoted here is clearly against the spirit of the policy. However, perhaps, rather than condemning the page (or Giano's methods) the committee members should consider the motivation driving that page (and Giano's actions).
What hole in the dam are people trying to plug? To me, it appears to be a sincere effort (however misguided the current wording) to fix something that is at least perceived as being broken.
Some people have claimed that Durova would have gone to arbitration regardless of Giano... yet others firmly believe that DurovaGate would have been swept away and hushed.
Regardless of which would have happened (since we'll never know), perception is reality. Confidence in the system has been shattered, or at least soundly shaken. Whether or not Durova had permission to communicate to the committee, she claims that (at least some) members received her email. A good start toward repairing that faith would be for those members to come forward and said "oops". This would be some small step in the right direction to restore confidence in the leadership that is supposed to be overseeing the sailing of this ship.
There may not be a cabal, but as long as the perception exists so does the cabal. Lsi john (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But only so long as it isn't done on Wikipedia, because somehow it is better to do it elsewhere than on Wikipedia. I believe in transparency, but I can't see why it is better to air our dirty laundry on the neighbor's lawn than our own. It is being gradually edited out. More thought, fewer keystrokes, especially in dramastorms. GRBerry 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Silly stuff. Are we endorsing it? Well, if we're locked into silly false dichotomies, sure. If we're not locked into binaries, then we're endorsing whistle blowing and the demystification of an attempted block without transparency, and we encourage people to keep e-mail private, while recognizing that retreating to e-mail is no way to conduct Wikipedia business without responsibility. How's that? Geogre (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Incomprehensible, I'd say. How do we "encourage people to keep e-mail private" by saying it's OK to post private correspondence on your own web page, or to splatter it across public forums? There's got to be a sensible middle ground between keeping everything top-secret and saying anything goes (except, ironically, posting Wikipedia-related email on Wikipedia itself). I note that the proposed guideline is in a state of flux and may yet come to a sensible conclusion. All concerned should keep in mind the principle that hard cases make bad law. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And horror vacui. (see above, arbcom has unfinished business). Lsi john (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we say, "Keep e-mail private. Keep identities secret." However, we also acknowledge that e-mail is no justification for any action on Wikipedia unless that e-mail is part of Wikipedia record. There: I never wanted to try to specify anything, but that would do. You want to e-mail me to tell me I'm a dork? Ok. You want to e-mail me to tell me you're going to block me? Well, then that, if you haven't rationalized it on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia, and you should expect me to make it public in the absence of your having done so. If you block me and say, "per my secret e-mail to super respected people and Jimbo," then you'd best expect someone to post it, if you don't provide an accurate and complete summary. Don't use e-mail to justify on-wiki actions, and then no one should reveal any of your e-mail. Don't use irc to justify or perform Wikipedia actions, and no one will post a log. Try to rationalize, motivate, or hide Wikipedia actions in these ways, and you abrogate the expectation of privacy. Geogre (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting concept indeed. "If the author mentions the e-mail in any way which is used to justify an on-wiki action, it will be construed to be waiving any right of privacy to said email (or IRC log) and as such anyone may post it in full. Lsi john (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd endorse this specific simplification of the issue, but I agree that as a general principle it should not be permissible to say both 1) "you may not question my evidence" and 2) "you may not see my evidence". So far as policy goes, it ought to reflect that saying 1 forecloses your right to insist on 2, even (perhaps, especially) if you come up with an interpretation of policy that says this is not so. Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's one of the silliest ideas I've seen in a long time. Not only is it an open invitaiton to gaming, you could drive a coach and horses through it. Even if we applied a need-to-know basis, Giano's edit fail, because the arbitrators already had the email. This guideline was written to enable people to satisfy prurient interests, not to protect the project. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, a free speech zone. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. A balance needs to be struck that all can agree on. Carcharoth 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. And the balance here is that you can mail it to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There really ought to be some guidelines somewhere for non-insiders on how to appropriately make use of information from private correspondence. Saying here, "just email it to Arbcom" doesn't solve the problem. Also, the actual text of a message may not be its primary import. If, for example, someone writes you to say that they are not the same person as someone making a particular IP edit and the long headers or other software for tracking IP addresses used in email correspondence shows that your correspondent is using that very IP, the long headers or other ancillary IP indicators are the substanive part of the communication. --Pleasantville 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    My gut feeling on that situation would be "email it to any checkuser" - they're the ones in the position to decide whether it is appropriate to publicly reveal the connection between an IP address and a username.—Random832 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    But again, easily available guidelines are called for. --Pleasantville 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (Also, I don't think your check-user analysis is correct, as even IP editors can tag an IP as a suspected sock puppet.) --Pleasantville 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

← To be clear here, I was referring to this version. As written now it is a statement of existing policy as underscored by ArbCom rulings, so I have no problem with it. Encouraging people to publish private data anywhere is an extraordinarily bad idea for which we have no obvious need - there is no evidence that ArbCom has failed to act on credible evidence supplied by email, and inviting people to publish widely if a claim is dismissed as baseless is not really a very good idea. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "...there is no evidence that ArbCom has failed to act on credible evidence supplied by email..." There is no way to qualify an absence, but the examples of outrage from correspondents to ArbCom complaining that their concerns had not been met appear only to be voiced off-Wiki - where the qualification of "credible" is also debatable - so I suppose it is a legitimate conclusion. LessHeard vanU 11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia licensing changing?[edit]

What does this mean for my contributions? Lawrence CohenI support Giano. 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL includes a section which states that any version of the GFDL can be used if no version is specified. Basically, the WMF wants the FSF (who created the GFDL) to publish a new version of the GFDL that would be compatible with one of the Creative Commons licenses. --- RockMFR 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also [24]. Hut 8.5 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed locking talk page for User:Meleniumshane90[edit]

This user has unrepentantly been spamming Celebration, Florida‎, has engaged in personal attacks and accused other users of doing exactly what he was doing, made unfounded threats on several occasions [25], has sockpuppeteered in order to fake an account unblock, has edit warred about being able to remove declined unblock messages from his talk page (he may not) [26] [27], and has refused to abide by any consensus given by administrators to him through excessive wikilawyering: [28]. I propose this user's talk page be locked up, at least for a few days, if he reverts again (he will did [29]), and he doesn't stand a snowballs's chance of being unblocked. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And now we have block evasion: User: Someone please handle this request. The Evil Spartan 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
IP blocked for 24 hours. IrishGuy talk 04:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If socking continues I suggest sprotecting the article for a few days only - there does seem to be other casual ip activity. LessHeard vanU 12:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trailers aren't shown in theatres, they're shown in movie theaters[edit]

Resolved: , for now. Tijuana Brass 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict brewing here. I would be interested if some impartial admin(s) could resolve it. I am not interested in a revert battle, especially when the obvious correct solution is so obvious. --Vividraise 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any more refs? You know you can have them mediate or have them blocked until it resolves. -Goodshoped 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits made for the past 3 days, so it may have cooled off. If the edit wars start up again, please let us know. In the meantime, you may find Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) helpful; specifically: "theatre – theater: Many uses of either spelling can be found in American English. Both theater and theatre are commonly used among theatre professionals. The spelling theatre can be seen in names like Kodak Theatre and AMC Theatres. However, theater is used by America's national theater and all major newspapers such as the New York Times (theater section) to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to buildings where performances take place."

In any case, it's not worth edit warring over, trust me. Both spellings are acceptable. Tijuana Brass 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Vividraise took it to administration rather than one of the normal discussion options. My response to the current compromise, "cinemas," is on the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance talk page. I think it's a reasonable compromise, in light of Mr. Vividraise's warmer than necessary reaction to something on which reasonable people can disagree. I'm happy to see that the admins here recognize the acceptability of the word as originally spelled in the article, but I also agree it's not worth a war. Monkeyzpop 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
And I am perplexed to see that you inferred from the clumsy linkage to cinema (itself a disambig page which still leaves the user wondering where to go next) is somehow a "recognition of the acceptability" of the word "theatre" as the structure where movie trailers are shown. As for the "warmth" of my reaction, maybe it's the pantaloons that you have determined that I am wearing. -- Vividraise 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If I responded in kind, even a little bit, to your original snideness, I apologize. And here I leave it, as it is clear that despite the compromise, some prefer arguing to discussion. Monkeyzpop 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an American made movie, thus, the American spelling "theater" is what should be used here. Why is this so hard to understand? -- Elaich talk 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, by any reasonable source, including Wikipedia, it ISN'T the "American" spelling. It's as acceptable to spell it either way on either side of the Atlantic, and etymology suggests that "theater" is actually the British version, since the Brits took it more from the Germanic spelling than the French-Latin-Greek roots which are more common sources in American English use of the term. It's a matter of preference, not correctness. But it's also a trivial thing to be going on about. Monkeyzpop 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most parts except the language evolution bit. Much of modern French influences entered British English via the refugees from the French revolution and the following francophile Victorian area, at a time American English had already broken away. Theater, center, caliber are all AmE. Of course, AmE has likewise evolved from the common root, but not in this aspect. --Stephan Schulz 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Howyoudo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

As I'm the one that's deleted all of the images uploaded by Howyoudo (talk · contribs) - and reverted the majority of the copyright violations, I'd like an independent look & possible block for continued (c) violations, even after warnings. Articles in question are Hakuna Matata (song), We are One, ; images are NonFreeImageRemoved.svg File:Hakuna.jpg Image:Weareone.jpg Image:Weareone.jpg (3x) File:Hakuna.jpg File:Weareone1.jpg File:HakunaM.jpg. SkierRMH (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this editor surely can't know much about Disney as the summary for Image:Hakuna38.jpg reads "I got special permission from the copyright holder to use online." Heheheh. --WebHamster 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin's eyes on paraphilia articles?[edit]

Just caught this on #cvn-wp-en: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - has been blocked before for similar, IIRC. Will (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig[edit]


To avoid an edit war, would someone settle this matter between myself and Anastrophe? It's obvious the 2 are distinct but a 3rd party review is called for. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Meleniumshane90 asking for unblock[edit]

I wasn't going to post this here, but this user has severely irked me. He has resorted to legal threats on several occasions (including, "if you change the format of this page, your account will be restricted"). I tried to post a note on his page, but he characteristically just removed it. I ask someone to please handle this unblock (you may wish to see my previous comment: [30] as well). The Evil Spartan 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock. It was posted without a reasoning anyway. I don't see "your account will be restricted" as a legal threat, though. - Philippe | Talk 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Further modifications to the format of this page will result in an immediate contact with Wikipedia officials. This is the final warning, harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I have already requested for assistance from the service department. Seems pretty clear cut to me. The Evil Spartan 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds more like "I'm going to tell on you!" than a legal threat to me. — Coren (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I read it too. Kind of "third-grade" fingerpointing. Now, had it said "modify this and I sue you!" then I'd think differently. - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not a legal threat. Such would assume an attempt to coerce action through a government judicial system. But the block log says he was trying to harass other users so the block was based on that not a legal threat. I would assume there's more to it that the one statement quoted above, right? - JodyB talk 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
After delving a little deeper into this user's contributions, it seems the core problem is an understanding of the WP:EL policy. He's not a brand new user but he has been around enough to know better. Another issue is that some are reverting his talk page where he has removed previous comments and warnings. Such removal of warnings is specifically within guidelines. I'm wondering if there would be an objection to some additional interaction with this user with a view toward lifting the indef block? I will post at the blocking admins page. - JodyB talk 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm the other user who has been the ire of Meleniumshane90's anger of late. I was not aware that one could remove warnings from their own user page unless either they were archived, or they were vandalism themselves. For that, I apologize. As for the "edit warring" regarding the external links, I tried to talk to him. He insisted I was "spamming" and restored the links. I am certain he does not have an understanding of the guidelines regarding external links. I feel he may be willing to listen to reason. I have indicated that I am more than willing to converse with him in that regard. I realize I'm heavy-handed. I am endeavoring to be more understanding. --Mhking 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up: I have spoken to the blocking admin and we agree that he can be unblocked if he agrees to certain rules which I have outlined at his talk page. I am waiting for his reply. - JodyB talk 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see my thread further on down. He's currently block evading, still edit warring to remove unblock-declined requests, resorting (albeit false) threats, and on top, he has refused to abide by those conditions. I suggest you actually lock up his talk page, as he's refused to let the unblock-declined requests stand. The Evil Spartan 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: His actions continue on his talk page; he has yet again removed the decline notice from his talk page. I have not contacted him, nor done anything toward him since JodyB's notice earlier today. I do not intend to do so until and unless he contacts me overtly. However, if the links on Celebration, Florida are replaced, I'll remove them per WP:EL. And on another note of his, I have to take great umbrage at his characterization of me as someone who does "not like church-community relations." Nothing I've said has indicated such, and furthermore, he has NOT contacted me to negotiate this amenably; he has only made accusations and threats in my direction. (time to get off my soapbox; my apologies for rambling and ranting, but he really irks me!) --Mhking 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both The Evil Spartan and Mhking for your comments above. I have attempted to assist this user and have been been rebuffed. I am therefore washing my hands of him and leaving him blocked indef. - JodyB talk 11:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Mhking, I'm a regular church-goer, and at that to an evangelical church. So it's not you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No missing white females[edit]

Will someone please delete this useless and utterly ridiculous redirect and warn Guroadrunner (talk · contribs) about his behavior creating these kinds of redirects? Thank you. — Save_Us_229 10:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Active cultures redirecting to the article Yoghurt is also another inappropriate redirect created by this user. — Save_Us_229 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that that one is so inappropriate. Google reveals a very large number of references to yoghurt cultures as "active cultures". --Stormie 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide claim - Cause for concern?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The authorities have been called. Everything that could be done was. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Resolved: Hosiery back in drawer.

Are this User's edits (including such nice comments as this and this) appropriate? Corvus cornixtalk 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, they don't seem too problematic. They are not being pointy at all. We cannot silence criticism although we can ask him to edit elsewhere. Woodym555 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't the second edit be considered a personal attack? Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not really. Shell babelfish 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that the second comments could be considered libelous up to a point, but it looks like it is carefully worded. This was brought up on a policy page, where it should have been to be honest. Woodym555 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, your starter for ten and no conferring: which banned user has sent complaints to the IRS trying to get the Foundation taken down due to this purported conflict of interest? Focus on the terms conflict of interest for your first clue. Here, socky, socky,socky! Guy (Help!) 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry Guy, I am not privy to emails sent to the IRS. I apologise for that. For whatever else you are trying to say, could you actually say it? Woodym555 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Check the block log for Vividraise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)



Togokill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FYI - See user page (first edit). Claims to be the indef blocked User:Layla27. Rjd0060 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. User wasted no time to vandalize and get blocked. - Rjd0060 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gdvorsky seems to be coining phrases for the sole purpose of writing Wikipedia articles[edit]

This user claims to be George Dvorsky, and has an edit history with a fair bit of WP:COI editing and had a userpage containing a lot of WP:ADVERT. I've warned him about the conflict-of-interest and removed the offending content on his userpage. I also note that User:Gdvorsky was the first non-anon account to edit to George Dvorsky article - which needs some serious cleanup. Dvorsky claims to be in the habit of coining neologisms and then writing Wikipedia articles about them - even when they are never used (as in the case of Astrosociobiology). I'm not quite sure what we have here - Dvorsky may be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but this account's edits seem like low-level self-promotion. Could someone please check this out and pass judgement on the account's behavior? Michaelbusch 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack[edit]

I am extremely annoyed to find that the User:CommonsDelinker has been used to change an image I placed on my personal user page IE:- Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster_banner.svg and draw me into an apparent edit war that is spilling over from the English Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons.

The image name change has been done, via Wikimedia Commons, under the claim that the 1st image is an exact duplicate of the 2nd image. This is incorrect as the 1st image has been uploaded since 28 November 2005, by User:Dbenbenn who is a Wiki Commons Bureaucrat, whilst the second has been created by a new user:- User:FalseXflag downloading the first image and re-uploading it, with a different name, two days ago on 28 November 2007, which technically makes the 2nd image the duplicated copy. It appears that the uploader is involved in an edit war over the name/purpose of the image for his own personal POV reasons on the English wikipedia.

To use User:CommonsDelinker to then change multiple user pages is a form of vandalism, as now many users with different political points of view around the world have been summarily forced to have this change of name forced on them.

To also claim that the delete tag should be removed from Image:Ulster_banner.svg on the grounds that the image was linked to hundreds of articles and templates, is also offensive, had the delinker not been used then the image would not exist on those articles/templates as claimed, having only existed under that name two days ago. It should also be noted that many articles/templates have not been able to be changed, as the 1st image is used in many other countries version of Wikipedia. They were listed on the 1st image page, though an edit by User:Siebrand removed the list from view, though it still visible in the edit history here:- Edit history Image:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.svg. An attempt has been made to take a back door approach to having the image name changed, when it was opposed by other editors on the English Wikipedia; See:- Talk Page - Flag of Northern Ireland and Image Talk page - Ulster banner.

As a Yorkshireman I consider myself to be neutral over the name or correct affiliation of the image, however I am aware that whilst living in Northern Ireland in the early 60s, and then working in the ambulance service there in the early 70s, the flag was flown on NI Government buildings. My usage of this particular image is to show the Flag that was in use at the time I worked there, I do not wish it to be seen as a link or an affiliation with any particular political party or group, of which I have none!

I am also concerned over the timing of the sudden appearance of the 'New User' User:FalseXflag, who re-uploaded the original image with the new name having only done 3 edit contributions then disappearing to be followed up by other anon editors; See:- Revision history of "Image:Ulster banner.svg" which brings to mind sock-puppet editing!

I have also noted that User:Fennessy has now edited my user page to undo my revert of the User:CommonsDelinker's change of image, in addition to changing many other articles and user pages, despite the fact no consensus to do so has been agreed. This again I consider to be vandalism of my user page, as may the other editors whose pages he has edited. Some may consider it to be a form of bullying to have another editors POV forced on them!

I placed a request on User:Fennessy's Talk page not to edit my user page and advised him I consider it to be vandalism to which I have received this offensive and uncalled for remark, that I consider to be in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :-

Well you can "consider" it vandalism all you want, but it wasn't. I was doing you a favor by putting in the new location of an image thats about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Fennessy 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that the image is to be deleted is false information, no consensus has been made on Wikimedia Commons that such an action is to take place at this time. User:Padraig has used the system to have his second upload of the original image semi protected, whilst they go about deleting all links to the first. However they will probably find it impossible to delete the foreign language Wikipedia links. which will in all probability require the image to be retained.

I get the impression that User:Fennessy and User:padraig are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and request that their actions in this situation be looked at a little closer.

There is no actual need to rename the image. Over time flags and Icons come and go are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then wikipedia would grind to a halt. The actions of these two users is irrational and disrupting editors from getting on with good editing of this website, and falls within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Richard Harvey 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take this to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles Will (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Will! However this was placed here at the suggestion of Admin Andrwsc see:- [31] To be honest I don't want to be dragged into an edit war by Trolls, so I think I will leave it up to those with more experience to deal with the editor(s) concerned. I just want to be left alone to get on with proper editing. Richard Harvey 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Who are you accusing of being trolls, please remember WP:NPA, as for the Ulster banner, I am sure you did see this flag being flown from Government buildings during the sixties, so did I as I was born in Northern Ireland, that was because between 1953-72 it was the Governmental banner of Northern Ireland used to represent the government, but it wasn't a national flag during that period and had no civic status, throughout that period the Union Flag remained the National flag of northern Ireland. This banner along with the government it represented ceased to existed with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As for the need to rename the flag, the flag was incorrectly titled as it give the impression that it was the Flag of northern Ireland today which it is not and never was, wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should present facts.--Padraig 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into yet another battleground for that flag, shall we? I think the salient issues of this incident are that:
  1. No discussion was made on commons about the image rename, as I suggested here. Clearly, this image is high-use, and contentious, so such a discussion was most certainly the right thing to do. This is not a simple housekeeping matter.
  2. The emergence of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag) with respect to Ulster Banner edits triggers some alarm bells.
  3. The involvement of Meta:User:CommonsDelinker and Commons:User:Siebrand to quickly "bull" this change through the system before any discussion. Siebrand's talk page already has some complaints from other wikis arising from the ramifications of the change. Perhaps User:Richard Harvey's suggestion to use a name like Image:Flag of Northern Ireland (1953-1972).svg would have alleviated those problems, but since widespread edits were made without discussion, we won't know.
Now, given that much of this incident took place off, I'm not sure what the correct response for administrators should be, but I still assert that a discussion on Commons:Image talk:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is the best course of action. Andrwsc 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar username[edit]

Resolved: Indef-blocked sockpuppet vandal -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A user created the username Jmlk007 a few minutes ago. This username is very similar to Jmlk17, an established editor and admin. I'm going to assume good faith that Jmlk007 didn't have intent to mimic Jmlk17, but I wanted a second opinion as to whether it be suggested that he change his username. Useight 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let it be IMO. I don't think it's that close. --Haemo 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's easy to see the difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. RlevseTalk 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The "00" in lieu of the "1" doesn't make it different enough in my eyes to call him not a Jmlk imp. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His image uploads (if he is male) are a bit more worrying than his name. GracenotesT § 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I listed the uploads as possibly unfree images. Usernames like JimboSmith are acceptable because Jimbo is common enough. Jmlk is unique enough that I think that this username is too similar. WODUP 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I must admit I've never seen another "Jmlk" anywhere, but I suppose there is a first time for everything! :) Jmlk17 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Jmlk007 is a sockpuppet of a vandal who has been vandalising HINDRAF-related articles with tor proxies for several days (see histories). Another sockpuppet was Keling Paria (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


User:, an admitted IP of User:Jinxmchue was blocked by User:Adam Cuerden at 20:17, 30 November 2007 for 31 hours for edit warring (and a 3RR violation). McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours, and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter. Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing. When he was warned by admin FeloniousMonk that he was evading his block, McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not. I have re-blocked him for block evasion, reinstating the original 31-hour block. I am posting this for revue; if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit. Guettarda 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to Wikipedia, aside from cleaning up my user space. I believe that Jinx truly believed that his block had expired. His dynamic address probably changed on him, so when he logged out to see if he was still blocked, it appeared that he wasn't. If WP:AGF means anything at all, his block should be adjusted to expire at the original time. But I don't have any good faith left for WP:AGF after the lack of it shown to me by a good number of established editors this evening. If anyone is looking for me, you can find me at Wikinfo, where I will be adapting Wikipedia articles to expand and improve that encyclopedia, without all of the bullshit politics, personal attacks, and faux NPOV. It was fun while it lasted, but time to move on. - Crockspot 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid argument about resetting the block timer. I agree that it shouldn't have been done.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You make a really bad argument about resetting the block timer, CS. Why give benefit of a doubt to a user that has clearly expressed 0 interest in AGF or working towards a consensus. This is textbook block evading and he should be treated like every other user who evades a block. Have fun at Wikinfo, where all the other lost souls who can't work towards consensus edit to push the POV they try so hard to interject here. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
lol! "Consensus" meaning I have to submit to your POV warriors agenda even when it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. If I don't, you gang up on me to undermine the 3-revert rule, falsely accuse me of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and Wikilawyering, block me and only me for allegedly edit-warring (even though others are just as guilty of it), and have two admins who are intimately involved in the conflict (gosh, no conflict of interest there, guys), share the same POV, and are probably friends to tag-team me to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed. I gotta tell you, Monk's rejection of my unblock request for Guettarda's block was really beyond the pale. A neutral admin should've been the one reviewing the block. Monk simply saw my name attached to the request and mindlessly rejected it because of his obvious bias against me. So much for neutrality and fairness being required for admins. 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the block. Jinxmchue should have AGF'd FeloniousMonks comment and discussed at his talkpage, not deleted the warning and continued editing. Also, the ip commented on their talkpage subsequent to the block/notice and would therefore be aware of the tariff - 31 hours is a day plus 7 hours. It appears that violation of the block was intended. LessHeard vanU 12:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "oops I lost track of time" defense, AKA the "DNS/DHCP warped time" defense is absurd. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't lose track of time. I never made any such assertion and I would thank you not to pretend as if I did. 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no binding policy against simply deleting material from one's talk page and no binding policy that says admins warnings must be retained. I read the warning, took note of it and deleted it - all well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor. Is archiving preferred? Yes. Was my deleting uncivil? Maybe, but if it was, it was far less uncivil than FeloniousMonk's behavior towards me. As far as my alleged violation of the block, here's what I sent to Guettarda (which he promptly ignored):
14:17, November 30, 2007 Adam Cuerden (Talk | contribs) blocked " (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours‎ (Edit warring)
14:17 plus 31 hours = 21:17 on December 1
Other than responding to serious, baseless accusations by Monk, my first non-user talk edit was this:
22:24, December 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:D. James Kennedy‎ (→Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29 - new section)
I don't know if they're counting the user talk page edits I made to respond to FM's baseless accusations (which he refuses to back up). The block was never explained and I had thought that if you are blocked, you could still edit other people's discussion pages. If I am wrong, then I apologize, however I will not apologize for confronting MF's serious charges instead of letting him make them while I could not respond to them. If I'm not wrong, then I am owed an apology for a wrongful block. 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The block is over, so this is mostly academic, but Guettarda's given reasons do not justify the re-block. To wit:
  • "McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours" - Yes, I did - editing MY USER PAGES (e.g. reverting vandalism), the editing of which is NOT prohibited when blocked. I also responded to serious accusations made against me by your buddy FeloniousMonk on someone else's talk page. As explained above, I didn't think posting on other people's user pages was prohibited and I offered an apology if I was wrong. However, what I was responding to was extremely serious. You'll excuse me if I don't sit around doing nothing while people smear me by resorting to personal attacks and baseless accusations.
  • "and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter" - So. Fricking. What. There is no prohibition of returning to certain articles after a block, and I returned to said articles well after the original block had passed (see above and the second email I sent you, though you probably deleted that without reading it).
  • "Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing." - As I have explained in both points above, I edited user pages only and my first non-user page edit (to Talk:D_James_Kennedy) was made AFTER the original block had passed.
  • "McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not" - I was not and I had read the warning. Deleting it, while not "preferred," was still within the rights afforded to me on Wikipedia.
  • "if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit." - Yeah, fat chance of that when your buddy FM responds to unblock requests regarding blocks you made. 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question of Editing[edit]

I have a problem at the Applied kinesiology article. A user is repeatedly violating WP:CCC. He is editing consensus, and when I revert, instead of bringing it to the talk page, as per WP:CCC (chart) he just unreverts my revert. I have cautioned him several times on the Applied kinesiology page and the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page. His edits are on the same topic. On the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page he complied. On the Applied kinesiology page he continues to revert without bring it to the talk page and achieving consensus or agreement (as per WP:CCC chart.) --Anthon01 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a new user I have been giving Anthon01 quite a bit of slack, but his deletions of extremely well-sourced material, even his deletions of a whole paragraph, is now bordering on vandalism. He seems to think that if he doesn't like new or existing content, he has a right to revert. I think he needs to provide some justification on the talk page first. We need to discuss it. I am trying to get him to use the talk page for discussing his concerns, but instead he edit wars and uses edit summaries. The talk page is where collaboration occurs, not in edit summaries. He seems to think that the CCC chart is the absolute and only method for dispute resolution here, but it isn't. It cannot replace discussion on talk pages. I need more than complaints. I need specific objections to precise wording and why he deletes absolutely impeccable references. Deleting references is quite destructive, especially in this case. -- Fyslee / talk 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus can change" doesn't mean "I disagree with the previus consensus and therefore can change anything I want to." It means, discuss coming up with a new consensus before arbitrary and unilateral edits. Corvus cornixtalk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Anthon01 has been blocked temporarily for violating 3RR on the page in question, so may not be able to comment here. For what it's worth, consensus certainly can change, but the history of that article and the 3RR violation on Anthon01's part suggest that it hasn't changed yet. MastCell Talk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Could someone please review Xgmx (talk · contribs). He has consistently tried to add links to his website SSFree for which he has been warned several times ([32], [33] and [34]). He was recently indef blocked for vandalism, and was unblocked when he apologized. Based on an older version of his user page [35] he is 14, so I argued that he should be given a little leeway, but even after his block he started stumping for SSFree again [36]. Burzmali 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

14 or not, the fact that he's ignored warnings and went back on his apology makes me want to indef-block him for spam. However, I will hold off on judgement until he gives his side of the story either here or on his talk page. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just here to correct you, 15 now. Kind of weird how you just realised I added my site on several pages. I did that like 4 months ago and your just now realizing it. Well that was before I was blocked, but now that I'm unblocked, if you look you will see that my forums are no where on the pages, except of course my own user page. Also if you look at my forum you will see that several companies use it as their forum as well (we let some companies use it, its a marketing strategy). So in fact if you say I'm spamming links, well it might actually be true that the SS Free is the official game's forum. Also we never put a link on Wikipedia, without first making sure their is a similar link on the SS Free back to Wikipedia or that the SS Free has a forum for that specific game, movie, music, tv show, or miscellanious other. Please also see that I have served time for this already, if you don't rec