Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369

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

Noticeboard archives


Trying to avoid 3RR for gratuitous gender comments in Code Pink[edit] has twice inserted "a transgender peace activist" into the Code Pink article, following text already identifying an individual as an activist. Gender identification is not relevant to a political article, but I have reverted it twice and don't want to violate 3RR.

On the Talk: Code Pink page, has overwritten some of my response and is being generally confrontational. Clearly, anything I say will have little effect on someone so intent on having his/her/its way. Might I ask an Admin to review these actions and determine if they qualify as vandalism, and, as such, a 3RR exception?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at the article talkpage. I suggest you form a consensus that including one aspect of the individuals background, one that appears irrelevant, is inappropriate. While there is just the two of you (plus my opinion, for what it is worth) it is a content dispute. Kudos for standing back from 3RR and requesting outside help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another look[edit]

Would another admin or two take a look at the recent block involving User talk:David Shankbone? Specifically, I'm quite confident in my assessment that modifying the section heading another person added to a talk page over their objections is just like having edited one of their comments, and is (1) bad form, and (2) certainly bad to edit-war over. But Shankbone doesn't seem to believe this. Also, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) offered an opinion on the situation but then hasn't responded to a note I left him. Mangojuicetalk 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked too deeply into the context of what these people were quarreling over, but in general I'd disagree with your assessment of the section heading issue. Changing section headings is not so uncommon, it can be part of legitimate refactoring. Since section headings, as a structuring textual device, are not really part of one particular post, but are designed to be a shared feature structuring all the following thread, they really cease to "belong" to the individual editor who first posted them, and become more like a common property of all the users of the talk page. Especially when a section heading is felt to be offensive or needlessly inflammatory, replacing it with something more neutral seems legitimate to me. At least, I did it myself just the other day.[1] Fut.Perf. 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I previously concurred with the block at an earlier section (here); DS ought to know by now that simply getting into revert wars is inappropriate, no matter how justified he believes his position to be (and that has also been a bone of contention in the past). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As I just noted above, I unblocked David a bit ago. I left a fairly long message on his talk page.
While it's not necessarily wrong to refactor talk page comments, that's not what happened. The first revert cycle can legitimately be seen as that, but then David and Yorkshirian simply see-sawed the contents back and forth several times. It was classic revert war / edit war behavior, though I had apparently miscounted the 3RR check / time period.
I even agree with David that the original section heading was unnecessarily provocative. The problem was David getting down in the dirt and fighting over it, rather than calling for help and having someone uninvolved try to reason with him or bring the fifty-ton mop of civility down on them. That rapidly degenerated into both sides having done wrong. Who started it is slightly relevant (and accounted for a longer initial block), but both sides clearly misbehaved.
More of my comments can be found on User talk:David Shankbone
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


I filed this report Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/ on 3 Feb 2008 regarding the long term vandal user:Mmbabies. Is there thing the Foundation or Mr. Jimbo can do to speed up the process of getting law enforcement involved to prosecute this joker. He has been harassing people for over a year since Feb 12 2006 ; he has made death threats against VIPS, and wikipedia users. Can someone inform the board of the Foundation or Mike Godwin, the lawyer . I think a admin needs to see the abuse report. Thank for your time Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone respond Rio de oro (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's much we can do, until someone responds to the abuse e-mails. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User warned

They started with Katherine Heigl and later went to Category:German-Americans and Category:Americans of German descent. Other odd edits include Leopold Katzenstein and David Letterman. Not really sure if this is vandalism or just a POV or something else. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Their Talk page is a red link. Try talking first. Corvus cornixtalk 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Second that, maybe just communicating with the user will solve the problem without the need of administrators. Tiptoety talk 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I welcomed the IP user, and noted WP:POV. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked by me. 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AkiKimura99 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing an unsourced tag from the article they're working on. I gave them four warnings, including a final warning, and they keep removing the warnings from their talk page, which is okay, except that looking through the history of their talk page, they've already had a final warning for the same behavior about a month ago. They never use Talk pages, never use edit summaries, and never address the concerns of other editors. And now they've given themself a whole slew of barnstars, signing them with other editors' names. Corvus cornixtalk 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. A 31 hour block is in place to get his attention. If he returns with teh same behavior, let me or other admins know, and it will be replaced with a longer one. 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This user copied a barnstar that I awarded to User:Nlu and placed it on his talk page. For the record, I have no idea who AkiKimura99 is and never awarded him any barnstars. Grandmaster (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed all of the bogus barnstars from the talk page. All taken care of. 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The one from Nlu was legit. I've restored that one. Corvus cornixtalk 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:ScienceApologist has googled my user name and is insisting on posting an off-wiki link that reveals an off-wiki pseudonym. A clear violation of WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:HARASSMENT. Can someone please put a stop to this? Ronnotel (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jimbo comments on Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss.[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

For the record, I did not say that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have investigated that claim repeatedly and I have been unable to find any proof of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, immediately after you claim this here you say My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the same thing, and it is exactly right. I have never said that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have said that I believed it at a point in time. There is a huge difference between saying that something is a fact, versus saying that I believed it. Belief, knowledge, not the same thing. I have been completely clear about this on multiple occassions. To this day, I have no proof that it is true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
However, that you believed it would seem to indicate that it was a reasonable thing to suspect, and that people shouldn't have been considered "proxying for a banned user" just for voicing that suspicion. —Random832 14:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance tag vandalism[edit]

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on National Policing Improvement Agency

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on Serious Organised Crime Agency

Bamford (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) works for the NPIA, see [2][3][4][5]. Despite being invited to the discussion on COI/N, The account and IP's continue to edit, and have have persistently removed the maintenance tags (see above), despite the fact that he/she is infact the one with the conflict. Input please.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford does seem most insistent about that tag. I'll drop him a note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, we have all tried to communicate but with little result, hopefully you'll have better luck--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If he removes the maintenance tags again, I would endorse a block. After numerous notes from multiple editors, it looks like Bamford just does not "get it." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd endorse a block along the same lines. WP:AGF has its limits and this editor(s) is clearly pushing them. MBisanz talk 18:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Same here, also I left him a note on his talk page. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt you are going to extract any change of heart from this editor. They are not interested in community editing because they are certain they are the only source of the truth. I suggest that they are blocked, the socks recorded, and a checkuser run. If it proves that the editor is using the facilities of the establishment that is the subject of the article then a little email to the management might be in order... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Bamford ignored the various warnings, reverted the articles in question back to his preferred version ([6], [7]), and issued a rather scathing reply [8]. As such, I have blocked Bamford for 31 hours for his continuing disruptive editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This series of 25 edits to his talk page have me completely baffled. They appear to consist of adding four {{pp-semi-vandalism}} and fourteen {{COI2}} tags. While these ten edits appear to be the standard variety of rant against the injustice of following Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines (or so I presume - TLDR), I do not understand why even a disgruntled editor would add pointless maintenance tags to their talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User with multiple IPs keeps deleting the same material[edit]

The Illuminati article is having difficulty with a persistant vandal. I reported the situation to ANI-Vandalism, but they have said the situation is not blaitant enough and referred me here. This is the situation... On January 31, an IP user: deleted some material from the article without explanation... I reverted and requested discussion on the talk page (see: this dif.). The IP responded with a rather strange edit: here, which led to the following chain of edits and reverts: [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] ... note the change of IP address... same prefix though. At this point the editor (logged in as User:Edictorwikicentral) did respond on the talk page... seehere. To that point, I would not have called these edits vandalism. We had a content dispute, which several editors attempted to resolve in the appropriate way. However, the removal of the content has continued - to the point where it now is vandalism... The editor simply removes the content with no explanation (see: here, here, and most recently here.) In each case we reverted and tagged the user page with a vandalism warning... but because he/she uses a slightly different IP address each time, the vandalism warnings that have been mounting up are defused. Because he/she only reverts occasionally, it isn't a case for ANI-Vandalism or 3rr.

I doubt it would be appropriate to simply block the entire 189.30... IP range, but is there anything that can be done to convince this vandal to stop deleting the content? Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but my suggestion would be to request semi-protection to keep the IPs from editing so you can focus on the content dispute without interference from users who aren't logged in. --clpo13(talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Guess it already is semi-protected. Never mind. --clpo13(talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection helps... but does not solve the problem. The IP editor in question just waits for the protection to be lifted and repeats his/her deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Propol[edit]

I have getting tagged by this out of control editor with delusions of socks on his head. I have warned him four times, and he continues to harass me with is war of tagging my my user space with is sock puppet BS. [14] [15] [16] [17]

If he think I'm a sock then let him file, but just unilaterally placing tags on editors talk pages is just a form of bulling and harassment. I think someone should stop this rude and childish punk. Propol appears [18]to have a long, and uncontrolled reputation of this and needs to be disciplined as to the rules. This child is out of control?Oldschooltool (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this appears to be in bad faith. If the user felt strongly about his/her accusations, then they should have filed a sockpuppet case involving your conduct with a list of diffs as evidence. Since this has not been done, it could be construed as trolling (at the very least). Did you attempt to mediate the situation on his talk page beyond the level 4 warning you gave him/her? Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message on the user's talk page regarding the situation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent! Sri Lanka - moved / hacked[edit]

This article has somehow been moved/hacked to a page entitled Sri Lanka - hacked by Bleezhulk. This user has been vandalizing a number of pages in a similar way, see [19]. This user needs to be blocked.--Gregalton (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User blocked by Riana, articles moved back and deleted redirects created by the moves. Thanks for the heads up! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For immediate attention[edit]

Could we get a block on this IP immediately. User talk: See these edits:

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I tried a level three abuse warning, but this just escalated things. I hope this is the correct place to report such problems. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP![edit]

It seems a broader block may be required. Is this possible?

User talk:


Nouse4aname (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Iced him. east.718 at 10:18, February 15, 2008
It's a dynamic IP from a large block owned by a British ISP, so I'm afraid a range block wouldn't be feasible. Please just bring it up on WP:AIV if it acts up again. (Tell them it's a block-evading repeat offender so they won't be asking you for prior warnings and stuff.) Fut.Perf. 10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

has received two lasts warning[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indef.

User:Bubbleshum received a last warning about making nonsense pages and he deleted it from his talk page [26], and has now received *another* last warning for making yet another nonsense page with related thematic. First page was John Iliston, and second page is Ilistonitis, and both were speedily deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talkcontribs) 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already blocked --Enric Naval (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbered user[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. Two main protagonists given short blocks to cool off. Khukri 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been changing with original research or simply non at all a great number pages. (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The user continues [27]Despite being warned that what he is doing it against the rules.Megistias (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be handled at Talk:Ioannis Kapodistrias. No need for ANI. (Although another pair of eyes from an uninvolved admin might be useful, now that it's here.) Fut.Perf. 11:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't say "see discussion" in the article (see what discussion?). You need to cite|cite a reliable source so your claim could be verified. El_C 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That was, I think, Mavronjoti's mistake, not Megistias. Anyway, it's reached the stage where we need an uninvolved admin to swing the trout over at that article. Fut.Perf. 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Since they both have names that start with M, I'm unable to distinguish between theM. El_C 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I cite sources and rules this person doesnt.I am not the offenderMegistias (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Mavronjoti = Albanian, brings questionable sources, has also been editing as IP, has breached 3RR
  • Megistias = Greek, defender of article status quo, did two reverts, is under revert parole.
  • Tassoskessaris (D.K.) = Greek, defender of article status quo, has been unnice to Mavronjoti.
Makes it clearer? Fut.Perf. 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
i thought the limit was automatic!.I suck but i did defend the article!Megistias (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Defending" works differently. Defending is done through friendly, relaxed, patient discussion and through "writing for the enemy". Ever tried that? Writing for the enemy means, you assume an active role taking the opponents cues, actively check how much of their claimed sources may in fact contain a kernel of truth, and then work that into the text, on your own accord. Fut.Perf. 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You that they just remove the secondary sources and then incite an edit war.I took the bait last time.Megistias (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How strange...[edit]

Someone please take a look at this strange/suspicious upload of 10 Feb...

The .pdf is not linked to by any article and the upload constitutes the user's only edit.
Paranoid snot that I am, I wouldn't recommend opening the file. I hear it screaming "exploit".

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems harmless. It's a text about a location in India that was apparently meant as an article. Fut.Perf. 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling username[edit]

Resolved: User hard-blocked —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get User:UntimelyMaroon blocked for the trolling username. Let me explain. Earlier today a new user showed up at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, under the name of User:Ultrastoopid. This username is a clear jab at User:Ultramarine, who is a regular editor of the article. Furthermore, the user's edits were heavily critical of Ultramarine's contributions. I had Ultrastoopid blocked by a report to WP:AIVU. Moments later, the same user (no need for an request for checkuser per WP:SNOW) showed up under the new name User:UntimelyMaroon. Once again, this username is (in my mind) a clear violation of the username policy, since it targets the editor User:Ultramarine with the explicit goal of being offensive and disruptive. However, Slackr, the usernamevio admin, did not see the name as a transparent violation. He/she recommended that I send the complaint through a different channel. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - nicely explained. I hard-blocked UntimelyMaroon. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: All Quiet on the Western Front --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism? I'm not sure quite what Staygyro (talk · contribs) is doing. Could somebody block this user and fix the tangled web of moves? Corvus cornixtalk 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its just a misguided attempt to create redirects for possible spelling variations, not anything malicious--Jac16888 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
that is my intention Staygyro (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
if you want to create a redirect to another page, rather than doing it through page# moves, create the pages with the spelling variations, using #REDIRECT [[Name of the article to redirect to]]. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

on the same issue, i have accidentally created a page called Dmitri Hvorostovsk. Can an admin please delete it Staygyro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking this page[edit]

{{resolved|Persistent vandal-only IP blocked by [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Someone want to take a look at this user: He just blanked this page and when I went to warn him, I saw all the warnings on that page and thought I should just ask an admin to take care of it. Tex (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(editing conflict) Next time you could be proactive. It's good practice : ) If the IP is still active and continues to blank after a warning (level 3 or final), then you or someone else can report him/her to WP:AIV. Looks as though they've already been warned. and blocked Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Blanking one's own talk page is permissible, unless it's a shared IP. It's practice; a proposal to use punitive measures against blanking one's own talk page failed to gain consensus, and probably won't. (Of course, this is a bit controversial.) GracenotesT § 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an IP with a long history of sporadic vandalism, including page blanking. They didn't blank their talk page, they blanked this page (AN/I).[28] Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops, misread. Sorry about that :) GracenotesT § 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. IP blocked from anonymous editing. {{anonblock}} noted on talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Vassyana. Apparently my original post wasn't clear. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say. Tex (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why has it been blocked for six months? It blanked the incidents noticeboard once - which was of course quickly reverted - and, prior to blanking, had not edited for almost a month. Six months seems, at best, excessive. --Iamunknown 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but according to wannabekate, that IP has 165 mainspace edits and every one of them is vandalism. If it were an account, it would definitely be indef blocked as a vandalism only account. Tex (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP has only been used for vandalism and has a long history of vandalism. The sporadic nature of its activity, the length of time between edits and the established history of vandalism all factored into my block. Users on that IP can still edit logged-in, and if they do not have an account they may request one to gain editing access. To my knowledge, this is a standard treatment for heavy vandalism anons. Vassyana (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block. Seems like a fine solution to a long-term vandal with no constructive edits. 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: all articles fixed, RM can be opened for future move requests

Hi all. I'm requesting that someone with admin privileges restore the page now at Inverness, Highland to Inverness. This is a controversial move made in the last hour, but moving editor User:Laurel Bush has already edited the previous location Inverness, redirecting it to Inverness (disambiguation), so that no editor without sysop privileges can reverse the unilateral move. I don't think it's unfair to request that the page be restored, so that Laurel Bush can then open a WP:RM if she desires. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved back to original locations. Left a note on the talkpage to open a RM, though I'm not sure why we'd want to move this article now. Black Kite 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Having a look, the disambig page isn't a bad idea except it's being used for all things pertaining to the various Inverness's, and not different types of Inverness's themselves. Also the page I think with naming convention it should be Inverness, Scotland not Inverness, Highland. However I see you haven't left a message on the editors talk page prior to bringing it here, and only a message on the disambig page and discussion hasn't been thoroughly explored but will look to move them back. And it was done as I was typing. Khukri 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've move-protected it until a discussion takes place, if one does. As a general point, we usually don't use a qualifier for a city if one is by far the most well-known, which I think the Scottish city is. Black Kite 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A similar course of actions had been taken on Nairn yesterday I think. Again, the irreversible action was taken first, then a notice was posted on the Scottish wikipedians' noticeboards. The move ... unnecessary and controversial from the responses, involved the cutting and pasting of text, and has left hundreds of wikilinks pointing at a dab page (now at Nairn). In both the cases of Nairn and Inverness, the pre-move page appears to be clear primary usage ... though moves in both took place before this matter had been examined by the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a nightmare ... took a while to work out what happened! It fairness to User:Simply south, who did the cut and paste split, the split wouldn't have been so bad if he'd chosen to make Nairn, Scotland (now thankfully back at Nairn) the successor of (pre-move) Nairn rather than the other one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And done. Black Kite 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to note that i did before place notices both on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Also, after the split i made Nairn a disambiguation page so there was no successor to it, as you have put it. Simply south (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot, reprogramming suggestion[edit]

Resolved: No forest fires, please ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am increasingly seeing how this bot works through its invasions of my watchlist and watching the results. What appears to be happening is that images with no rationale and images with an attempted rationale, but no article link, are tagged as being completely the same, i.e. deletabble in 7 days, i.e. here: [29]. I believe this is unnacceptable, as the cases of attempted rationales would clearly pass muster in a court, which is what the policy aims to meet. In order to decrease the stress and anger this bot is causing every time it goes on a 20,000 tag run, it should be reprogrammed to only run a few hundred images at a time, and to dump the resulting tagged images into an expert clearing house, before placing a huge warning and endless spamming of talk pages, only some of which are appropriate, so that images can be screened into the obvious 2 categories here, non-compliance full stop and in need of time and attention, and non-compliance with the bot's specification, but fixable in 10 seconds without stress and alarm by experienced editors, and the consequent uneccessary loss of images/editors. This would also increase the accuracy of the bot process as a whole itself, as the bot can be defeated easily by putting a gibberish rationale, as long as it contains the appropriate number of links. I know time/numbers is a factor, so I suggest images in the clearing house not given any attention in 7 days are then tagged and users warned as usual, irregardless. The clearing house can be accessed by anyone, in a collaborative effort that WP is supposed to be. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You do realize we have almost 300,000 non-free images? If it only did 500 per day, it would take about a year and a half to go through all the images we currently have. And that assumes that there are people willing to spend hours per day going through the images and fixing minor errors. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And you have assumed every single image present is in error, which they are not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be better if changes were made to the upload process that required the use of the FUR template, which makes it clear when there is anything missing that it must be added. The problem is at the beginning of the process and with the uploaders. The bot is just pointing out the mistakes. LaraLove 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not a reason to not change the bot as described above. Pick a random sample of tagged images, this is not purely a new image problem. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That actually probably makes the situation worse. Don't know if it still holds true but the license list used to contain licenses which were invalid for use on wikipedia, such images quickly got deleted. Why would we do this? Simply we want people to be honest about the license, not just use something which works. So user uploads image, select FU as a "license" is forced to enter all sorts of stuff they don't understand, ah what the hell PD it is then... -- (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I did just noticed uploading two images a second ago that (unless it's the advanced wikEd editor that put it there) that the non-free rationale template is automatically inserted into the rationale edit area for image uploading. --MASEM 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It was inserted a couple of months ago. Remember the Dot did the programming and either I or him suggested it at the Upload talk page and I believe VP-Prop or VP-Tech. MBisanz talk 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are getting spammed messages from BCBot on your talkpage it is because you are doing it wrong. The images are supposed to have a machine-readable rationale template, and the bot tags images that do not. The purpose is not to be sufficient for court, Wikimedia copyright liability for images is not the primary issue. Please do not create new threads for BetaCommandBot when there are already half a dozen on WP:AN and threads from this board have been moved there recently. Avruch T 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Roll-up disputed, see actioner's talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

La dii da[edit]

Resolved: indef blocked

Brand-new account, only edits are to blank arbcom pages. Possibly a sockpuppet? —Random832 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, user was blocked within minutes of the blanking edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:VigilancePrime and "fake" template[edit]

Well I've got a request - can you remove that fake block template from the top of your page? it's misleading. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand that and have changed it to be obvious that I am NOT blocked. Avruch and I worked that out civilly (as opposed to the way SqueakBox operates, and that's the point of the problem there). Fixed. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the joke associated with the use of the fake template? You're a rebel? Or some other message? I agree it is confusing and distracting. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
since people are focusing not on the actual question, I started this into a seperate ANI
Lately there have been some very knee-jerk overzealous blocks. I have been somewhat vocal about how they are probably a bit excessive (I support a block in both instances, but indef is clearly excessive). The only reason I haven't been blocked is that I gave up on WP:NPOV and the like before the fireworks began. There are a couple people that would like me blocked for life because they don't like my NPOV-ishness and demandingness regarding the following of actual policy and precedent. That is why I have the "yeah right...don't you wish" and "well it's about time...not" in those boxes. The humor value of it. I'm careful not to let me emotionality (totally) get the better of me on Wikipedia, in spite of the personal attacks I sometimes have been subjected to (as above). Anyway, it's moot as the page has been thusly changed so as not to be misleading-able or mis-read-able. Thanks for the interest! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm getting moderately tired of you, too, VP. It seems if you aren't bitching or moaning about something, you're complaining. Have you considered taking up collecting stamps as a hobby instead? HalfShadow (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How is that a constructive comment? Do you expect him to take your suggestion seriously? I removed it hoping that you would think better of it and either not replace it or replace it with something that isn't inflammatory. Unfortunately, you put it back word for word and threatened to "report me." Feel free. Avruch T 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't you just ignore people rather than waving the red flag? David D. (Talk) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I also think the block notice is misleading... the text you changed is rather small, and mostly, what you notice is the big red X with its familiar bold indef text. Perhaps you could at least change the background color, or some other code that results in a more visible difference from the actual indef template? Equazcion /C 22:05, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Who cares?. Honestly. Let him be. If he wants to leave the template on his page, let him... What is the offense we are supposed to deal with here? 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not offended, but I don't think its really appropriate because of the potential for confusion - seeing it without reading it closely (or at all in its previous incarnation) could lead someone to redact his contributions, to refrain from posting on his talkpage or otherwise interfere with communication. I think we should stay away from letting people put blocked templates on their own pages. Avruch T 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Initially I thought it was confusing. From what he wrote above it appears to be taunting. It might be his own user page but taunting opponents is exactly the wrong way to go about creating a good editing environment. Hence my don't wave red flags comments above, i really think this is bad judgement. David D. (Talk) 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If it was a joke it was in bad taste. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
He's converted the template into something amusing. Way to go. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment, abuse of admin rights[edit]

Resolved: Troll thread Will (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked for a period of 31 hours on account

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit war on Ante Starčević, using multiple reverts without gaining consensus to do so..

as it can be seen here [30] by Jayron32. Consensus is something completely meaningless here - due to the fact that the existing version was not a result of any consensus. I was motivated to put previous version back - seeing that huge portion of sourced text was baselessly removed. I was supported by other editor (Smerdyakoff) - see here [31] and here [32] . In this edit war participated only two other editors - Spylab and Rjecina - see [33]. Rjecina refused to discuss the removal of sourced text, Spylab claimed that the text was POV and written in poor English - see [34]. As to the truth about POV - the removed text is strictly referenced but Spylab removed valid reference. Moreover, Spylab does not read or speak Serbo-Croatian in which almost all references are written - the fact proving that (s)he has no valid knowledge to justify removal of the text under being POV.

Bottom line - administrator Jayron32 acted baselessly and baselessly called upon Wikipedia's blocking policy. Looks like that consensus is obligatory to only one side - the one picked by Jayron32. Constructive contributions must be based on proven knowledge and impartial and verifiable references - which I supported by putting back the previous version of this article. --Stagalj (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line - you're a troll. Next please. Will (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Should I respond, or just let this post speak for itself. 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection... The edit patterns here were both suspicious and vaguely familiar. It appears that Stagalj is a sockpuppet of indef-blocked Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Indef blocked... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Assorted harassment part II[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Antandrus already

There's another ip out there who's really getting to be pretty belligerent, he/she apparently has a fairly solid knowledge of how wikipedia works given references to 3RR and modifying user pages, but there's a lot of personal attacks, disruptive mainspace edits and more. see User: A quick glance at Special:Contributions/ should be enough to warrant action in my opinion. thanks, CredoFromStart talk 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind, it's been dealt with. CredoFromStart talk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Already taken care of: [35]. 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:MascotGuy and Dr. Sunset's Chariot Railroad (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Ryulong dinged him. 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While looking over the modus operandi section of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy, I noticed one user who seems to be doing one of MG's hallmark contribs - plural redirects (for example, this). While the user in question has a pretty good net productivity (the redirects themselves are generally considered to be good contributions, I think), is there a protocol for telling someone their edits are similar to that of a sockpuppeteer?

Am I completely misreading this situation, am I being to bitey, or is this a legitimate problem? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No edits to Talk pages, editing Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy/list. Smells like a duck to me. Corvus cornixtalk 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was about to block him, but I noticed someone got there first. Thanks to Ryulong for taking care of this. 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Seems to believe there is subsequent reason to delete userboxes he disagrees with or believes are nonsensical. Several users have complained, including myself, about nominating the userboxes for deletion, yet he continues to believe they have no purpose here on Wikipedia.

Examples of userboxes he would like deleted:

[36] [37] [38] [39]

I don't know how one would properly handle this overzealous use of nominating articles for deletion, so here is the incident. Thanks, Milonica (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If he believes a userbox to be nonsensical that's a great reason to nominate it for deletion, even if most would think it funny. There is absolutly no need for admin action here, so don't put it oon an admin noticeboard, take it up with him on his talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 14:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The first one is a reasonable nomination for deletion because it attacks another user (a bot is obviously run by a user), but the others are obviously jokes and somewhat pointless to nominate, and I see all three have been Speedy Kept. Black Kite 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[40] The policy on User names says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. WP:sig suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[41] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[42]. The first request was immediately archived,[43] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[44]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone. Gladys J Cortez 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gladys. It is funny. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Username policy is a policy that "all users should follow", and "a user who acts against the spirit of them may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." The policy states that inappropriate user names are ones that are misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and "these criteria apply to both usernames and signatures." I already explained why the signature is controversial. I was once blocked for not following WP:sig, which is a guideline and not even a policy, see this conversation. Someone please enforce policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between User:Boston Red Sox lover and User:New York Yankees hater in my mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem? Baha'i Under the Covenant 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I brought it up on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree, WP:sig is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also seen that he has not responded to my comment either here or his talk page. I'm really not sure, as an administrator, what should be done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. I didn't think further comment was needed. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly I know essentially nothing about the religion in question, so I can't say for myself whether this signature in and of itself is contentious. But what strikes me as a potential bad faith is the way this came about -- from a content dispute regarding the religion in question.

I'm of the opinion -- and this is an opinion I came to by taking my lumps first -- that anything potentially divisive should be left off the wiki ... this is why I changed my username from something contentious to something just plain silly. The difficulty here is that not all people hold this view. Jeff obviously doesn't, and it would seem, from a policy point of view, that he's entitled to not hold it.

Is Jeff doing something whereby we can make him change his signature? Probably not. But in the spirit of good cooperation he should consider changing it as a measure of good faith. However, Jeff's comments here, such as these:

I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required".
I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about.
Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. (emphasis mine)
Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. [...] I didn't think further comment was needed.

do not indicate an overwhelming amount of dedication to the cooperative spirit. Sorry to assume mediocre faith here, but I'm not thrilled with the spirit of these responses. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Revolving, how strange that you'd decide to cut and paste around the comments which are absolutely agreeable and polite, and display my comments in such a unfavorable way? Why leave out "I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes."?
I wasn't even notified about this directly, but was sideswiped, so-to-speak, by an email from Rudget (which was very polite and agreeable), so I came into the conversation after two days of discussion had transpired. I didn't change this, as Cunado implied, on the 14th in the middle of a discussion, but on the 12th basically on a whim. I don't feel compelled in any way to bend to Cunado's will as I believe his concerns are unfounded and a bit overly dramatic; but that doesn't automatically mean my actions here are in bad faith? Cunado's stated concern was this violated policy by being "promotional and controvertial", and I disagree. That is within my rights as far as I'm aware. Being made aware of Ryulong's concerns shed a new light on the matter, and I immediately made the changes he requested. If that is all then I'll thank you all for your help in the matter, and if there's anything I can be of further assistance for please notify me directly as I won't be keeping abreast of any further evolution of this discussion. Cheers. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You were definitely not "sideswiped". I asked you twice to change it and told you that I would follow up on the Admin notice board.[45] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Negated fallacy of division -- just because not all of your comments are lacking a spirit of cooperation does not mean that all of your comments are not lacking a spirit of cooperation.
Given the number of people who have approached you in the last week or so (3) vs. the number of them you have directly responded to (0) and your long-standing message that you don't want people to comment on your talk page about anything substantive, I think that a little more effort to reach out to the community would be very helpful in this situation. - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to user name policy[edit]

I can sympathize with admins not wanting to make a value-based judgment on what might be offensive in a religion, but this requires such a judgment. Would it be appropriate to update the user name policy to avoid showing religious or political affiliation? That seems to be in the spirit of what to avoid, and would differentiate this from the User:Boston Red Sox lover example mentioned above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the best place to do that would be at WP:U where there is ongoing discussion regarding these types of things. As a matter of fact, the issue of religious or political references has surfaced. I ask you though, do you honestly propose that usernames that make allusions to a religious figure should result in a block? Remember WP:CENSORED. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a big difference between censoring in an article and avoiding controversial subjects in a user name. We already have a policy of not using promotional or offensive user names, and it is supposed to be enforced by a block, but right now it's not specific enough to include religion and politics, which to me seem obvious. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, at one time it was specific enough to include (and this is more of a intuitive assessment of the name now) an inflammatory or offensive POV - If the username were to specifically disparage a religious icon or political figure, that would be one thing. However, there is an enormous difference between this and simply mentioning a symbol of your faith or ideology. Would you insist that IlikeAynRand to be a blatant violation of policy? Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just bear in mind that there is much ongoing controversy over the username policy, not all administrators can come to an agreement, and in its current form there is nothing that would suggest the username you put forth is overtly offensive. The bottom line is this: virtually any username could potentially insult, aggravate, annoy or inflame somebody based on a personal point of view. This doesn't mean they should be reported to WP:UAA though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This can be archived now. Any further discussion I'll take to WP:U. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Repeated tactics[edit]

[46] If they dont get it its not my fault.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting themMegistias (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users: User:Dodona, who is indeed a disruptive editor and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy User:PelasgicMoon, who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. Fut.Perf. 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vuMegistias (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( Fut.Perf. 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Still at it.[47]13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone please remedie this situation in its entirety.Its all wasted time against people that have a dogma [48]Megistias (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a propagandist[edit]

talk, User:Taulant23 at the bottom of the talk says"his main propaganda agenda" referring to me.Megistias (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really the worst of personal attacks, if it even qualifies as one. What do you want done about it anyway?--Atlan (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For him to stop doing it.Megistias (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff. While it's borderline, comments like this are not helpful to the debate. I have left a note. — Satori Son 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
User PelasgicMoon is doing the sameMegistias (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Diffs please. — Satori Son 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Its at the bottom talkMegistias (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
User Dodona "that i am what i am called"[49]Megistias (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's time to apply a few trouts here. Can somebody uninvolved please take over at Chaonians? (I've IAR'd and applied emergency shortterm protection for just two hours, but we need a taste of WP:ARBMAC I think.) Fut.Perf. 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if I called you a Greek propagandist. But, it started with the Albanian page by putting maps after maps, showing North Epirus (southern Albania) as a Greek region.The maps and the article, sound it like a right-wing Greek nationalists favoring the long-term goal of unification of so-called North Epirus with Greece.If Megistias (talk) doeesn’t like something, he takes it off. or reverted. He deleted my sources (and other users too) and call all my authors pseudo historians (even if some are ancient Greek writers). I don't go on Greek articles and edit their page nor do I claim Greek land or their heroes. We Albanians have our own history (ancient and modern)! I do apologize again, and I am offering to work with you. However, please respect my people, our history and let’s edit in peace.--Taulant23 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My maps are source according to Wiki rules.Involved admins(all of them) approve of my actions and your slander here against me is even more encumbering in your case.Admins all call your sources pseudo historians.Admins at a great number and non Greek ones too.Megistias (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So four different users are wrong when they complain about your acts? Since when all Admins(all of them) approve your actions? and my slander here against you? I did apologize, and offered to work with you. What else do you want? I was sincere of what I think of your actions in Wikipedia.I do believe you promote Greek propaganda.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions and that of those users you speak of is rejected by All the admins involved.Since you believe that i am that thing you say i want swift justice and measures by admins on you.You should also know that here only the violation is disscused not its specifics how you put them because those are resolved by the admins in the given pages.Megistias (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Some things you did and carry on it seems.Also note that i use secondary sources according to Wiki rules whilist you do not.So that makes me corrrect in all thesis support.You realise what that makes you and your likely minded users.

Megistias (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you carry on in here is even more unbelievable.Megistias (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are a lost case,kρίμα Megistias (talk) because we can help each other.I do suggest that you listen to Fut.Perf. [58] advice.Please do contactDeucalionite (talk),see if he can be your mentor.Enjoy your break.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[59]see talk page[60] admins-User wants an edit war and provokes to this effect ignoring secondary source and pretending he cant read.Most likely sockpuppet .Megistias (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a minor content dispute - I've suggested a compromise, hopefully this will solve things. I suppose both yourslef, Megistias, and the IP (who then created an account, Arditbido (talk · contribs)) could both be blocked for 9 reverts each, but Fut Perf's protection has just as easily calmed that down. Neıl 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He doestn get it.He wants the edit warMegistias (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not a new user for certain.I am tired .Megistias (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that I only protected for two hours as an emergency measure. I've been involved with various related conflicts, so I'd appreciate if somebody else took care of whatever sanctions are appropriate. WP:ARBMAC applies, if necessary. Fut.Perf. 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a new user.[61]Megistias (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at what he is doing.I have answered a dozen times and provided myriad sources both secondary and primary and he just goes on.[62].Megistias (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He is not a new user he even knows how to switch his name [63] into appearing as another "balkanian".You dont go from nymbered user to that in an hour!Megistias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, User:DragonflySixtyseven made a substantial edit to Chaonians and then protected the page. This seems like a no-no. I've asked him about it on his talk page, but he seems to be away from the computer at the moment. Anyway, I haven't investigated this situation fully yet, but it looks like we've got a handful of POV-pushing disruptive editors who are using a combination of dodgy sources and flat-out original research, with some possible sockpuppetry tossed in. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys impose some sanctions on the whole of the disruptive editors?They dont change or learn .Just do something.Megistias (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Listen guys we have wasted endless hours these past few months

with this team of disruptors and they dont change nor will they.They have clones they do they same thing again they ignore users,admins and rules and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User trying to use Jimbo comment as a club[edit]

Before this gets too ugly, I want to make sure a few uninvolved admins start keeping an eye on a situation that appears to be developing. Jimbo made a comment on 7 February in which he stated:

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.

Since that comment was made, a relatively new user, Lightedbulb (talk · contribs), has started an editing campaign to put "GNU" in front of every instance of "Linux" he can find. More so, he is trying to proclaim the rule of Jimbo in his edit comments with statements such as, "GNU/Linux has been confirmed as the correct naming convention for Wikipedia by its founder Jimmy Wales." He is doing this without prior discussion and is not responding well to talk page discussions trying to get him to slow down and discuss the changes. He is taking the stand of "Jimbo said it therefore it is the law".

Since that time, at least two other editors, Gronky (talk · contribs) and Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs), have jumped on the wagon and started using the same sort of edit comments.

Personally, when someone says "my opinion" I take it in a different context than "this is a Wikipedia rule". This editor runs the risk of making it appear that Wikipedia is driven more by the whims of its founder than the consensus developed by the community. Some help in explaining that this is a consensus driving project is appreciated. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"OMG! St. iGNUcious strikes again!"

Note that Jimbo could be said to have something of a conflict of interest on this particular topic too. ;-) (look at the page footer, or here) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) OMG! He's fallen into the evil clutches of Saint iGNUcious!

Now they think Lightedbulb is using a sock to get around 3RR Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle. Sarah 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in fact, the Wikipedia rules do say the opposite; whether "GNU/Linux" is "more correct" than "Linux" (an argument I do not want to enter), "Linux" is by far the most common english name for the group of operating systems driven by a Linux kernel, regardless of the presence of GNU tools— and therefore the one that should be used. — Coren (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, we even have an article GNU/Linux naming controversy. —Moondyne 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They were edit warring on that page, too, Moondyne. "Because Jimbo said!" :) Sarah 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am undoing these edits on sight. The essence of Jimbo's opinion, IMO, was that creating an organized project to expunge the name GNU/Linux was inappropriate. Gronky and the others are engaging in the exact same inappropriate behavior in the opposite direction. But, y'know, we all remember the scene from Life of Brian with the gourd and the shoe. Nandesuka (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am undoing the inappropriate work of the organised project. No more. --Gronky (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That movie completely misrepresented the situation. Those gourdists are nothing but a cult, and should not have been depicted as comparable in any way to the one true Shoe.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting very disruptive - see Gronky's edits for some more (many haven't been reverted). --Iamunknown 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One (presumably rainy) weekend, User:Thumperward went through a few hundred articles which mentioned "GNU/Linux" and changed them all to "Linux". A few people objected, but no one had equal time to undo this consensusless spree. I would call it an "edit flood". I've been meaning to undo those edits ever since, and others have also expressed an interest. Jimbo's comment is just the final motivation to actually start. There was never any justification or consensus to strip Wikipedia of "GNU/Linux" in the first place. User:Thumperward's campaign completely ignored and undermined the community process that makes Wikipedia work. So my 15 or so edits today are not a campaign, they're just a partial rollback of an edit flood that should never have been. --Gronky (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well with people like YOU (Prolog, StuffOfInterest, Nandesuka and a couple of others) acting here as the owners of the last word on what stays in wikipedia it's not surprising to see why in many Higher Educational Institutions the use of Wikipedia is discouraged and in some cases even forbidden.

With arguments such as to use the most common or most popular words to name things you are not helping to build an Encyclopedia but a kind of blog that you use to express your personal preferences. I will not get into a lengthy demonstration of this disdain of Wikipedia by the the serious international academic community. But for anyone here who has a doubt about that just go to the nearest University and talk to any professor to see what they think of Wikipedia as it is thanks to you guys, wonderful old seasoned editors.

The image wikipedia is getting is one of an outlet that is even used by corporation executives that pay people to edit anything that concerns them or their interests. By the way I can say I am not affiliated to any organization or company that sells any product or service related to GNU/Linux or as you so passionately prefer just "Linux". I don't get one cent from my efforts. I wanted just to share what I know with people seeking information.

The aim has never been to deny the Linux kernel but rather to add. Now your aim seems to be to hide the fact from many users that to be able to use this OS GNU/Linux there is complete freedom to the user and that he/she does not need the services of any company to supply him with the software as happens with proprietary sotfware. It is clear that as the creators of the "Open Source" initiative declared they wanted that what was until then known as "Free Sotfware" became more acceptable to the business community and to investors. Thus there is a systematic pattern by many people to omit the mention of GNU which has as its main message the idea of freedom. Freedom is not what interests "open source" companies such as O'Reilly which by the way is one of the main publishers of books with the Linux title to refer to the entire OS. In a well known documentary one can even see Linux Torvalds wearing and O'Reilly's T-shirt with the words "Open Source". As one of the editors who deleted my contribution said AdrianTM and to whom Prolog readily seconded the reason for eliminating GNU is that he hates the idea of "Free" Software and Richard Stallman. Just as Linus Torvalds does. Well if that is not POV then what?

It is a pity that this idea of a free Wikipedia Encyclopedia will end up as a failure to become an accurate and reliable source of knowledge and information. For that Microsoft Encarta, a proprietary product, will be a far better choice.

Lightedbulb (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The shoe is his sign! Let us follow his example. Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise." Nandesuka (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am SO tired of arguments that include the phrase or likeness "well, THIS is the reason academics don't like Wikipedia!". I have some great ideas for what to do with the shoe when arguments like that one are made... - Philippe | Talk 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with the common name arguments, maybe you should try and get the guideline which says to use common names changed instead? --Haemo (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Presumably you meant WP:COMMONNAMES in the link above, but WP:COMMON is I think much more appropriate here. (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

cough. Sniff. 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request edit summary change with less offensive comment[edit]

Request that an admin kindly remove these WP:ICA "vandalism" comments from edit summaries here andhere. Thanks, JGHowes talk - 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot edit edit summaries. Sorry! Metros (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An oversight could remove the revisions? --The Helpful One (Review) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They could but I highly doubt that they'd consider this a needed removal. They generally only do this for personal information being revealed; not a bad-faith edit summary. Metros (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if we oversighted mean edit summaries, we'd be at it all day. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spamming and threats[edit]

I caught an anonymous user adding inappropriate links to here and here. Now Contextflexed showed up and not only readded the links, but threated me here saying he will be forced to out your identity. Stop headhunting me or else. IrishGuy talk 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for a block - possibly indef. Also blacklisting for the external site. Can't very well stand for nonsense like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMike did a soft usernameblock. I upgraded to a hard block for the threat to reveal a RL identity. Anyone want to add the blacklist line? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Disruptive single-purpose account, possible sockpuppet. Edit-warring on Homeopathy, which is under probation. I have deleted the copyrighted image they uploaded but am not sure if they should be blocked at present. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly new (if precociously tendentious) account. An alternative to a short block for edit-warring (which would appear justified) would be to place them on 1RR and disruption parole, per the terms of the article probation, and give him/her another chance to shape up. MastCell Talk 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone impersonating, or a sockpuppet of, User:Danaullman, who edits the same article. It is too soon to determine which, but it certainly raises a red flag. I'm not saying we need to act now, or indeed if there is anything to act on, but its something to be aware of. 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD Deletion of User Conduct RfC[edit]

The language on the User conduct RFCs say:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)."

Am I correct in assuming that the person who wrote an filed the RFC obviously does not count as the threshold for two people? This is regards to the talk at User_talk:Pegasus#Deletion_review, because I tagged Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds for deletion today. Only User:Johntex had certified it after 1+ week. Lawrence § t/e 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, Lawrence, you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. If it meant "two additional people" it would say so.
That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC itslf. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. You never once came forward with an opinion that my certification was not sufficient.
Also Lawrence, it is ironic that you say that "as possible partisans in this both your and my opinions are to be immediately devalued here for the community to decide".[64] I am happy that you agree because it proves my point. You, as an involved party, should not have tagged the page for Speedy Deletion.
If you felt the page should be deleted then you should have taken the more up-front approach and listed it at MfC. That would have allowed community discussion.
Also, this proves my point that deletion of the RFC is NOT an uncontroversial matter. A controversial deletion should not be based upon a "speedy tag" placed by one of the partisans.
The RFC page should be allowed to restored and allowed to run its course. If Lawrence disagrees then the appropriate venue would be MFD. It was not appropriate for Lawrence to tag an ongoing RFC wihth a "speedy deletion" tag. Best, Johntex\talk 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The RFC as I read it was an uncertified work of pure harassment, and an attack page on a valued editor. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have made your opinion clear on that. Again, it points to your personal involvement with this why it was improper for you to tag with speedy deletion. Numerous other people did not agree and have already commented on the RFP. Many of them had criticisms of CC's actions. You are doing CC no favors by trying to sweep this under the rug with a speedy deletion. The deletion needs to be overturned and the RFC allowed to continue. Johntex\talk 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Johntex on this one - the plain language of the header says "two people" -- not two people "other than the filer." Lawrence's intentions are good here - but there's a dispute between BQZ and CC that needs to be resolved. An RFC is a fair-enough place to do so, and they seemed to be moving in that direction, so let's just let them resolve things if they can -- and if they can't then, ok, we tried. Arguing about whether or not the RFC was properly certified just seems drama-inducing, rather than helpful. --TheOtherBob 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Here are recent sample RfCs that were certified by a total of 2 people, including the original filer.
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Angie_Y._2
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree
  3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2
  4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COGDEN
  5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

This mistaken deletion of an in-process RFC is a grave error and this improper deletion should be un-done forthwith. Johntex\talk 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh - what possible reading of the RfC guidelines tells you that the filer isn't a certifier? It says two people must be in the dispute. If the filer is in the dispute - thats one person. The filer of an RfC is routinely a certifier. Additionally, what would cause you to tag an RfC for deletion? RfC's serve a purpose beyond whatever technical satisfaction of the page guidelines you are looking for - clearly there is a dispute there that hadn't been resolved by other means and required community input so that the editors could appropriately weigh the correctness of their actions. By getting the RfC deleted (which, if its restored, you can see I specifically argued against without taking a position on the dispute) you have short-circuited the process here. Additionally, the CSD category that was used to delete the RfC was cited improperly. The deleting admin should have noticed that there were a sufficient number of certifiers and refrained from deleting the pages. Avruch T 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Pegasus, for restoring the RfC pages. Avruch T 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you Pegasus! Johntex\talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


User:Davidbinder14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From the editing pattern, and particularly the comment on Talk:David Binder (now deleted), I think there is a high probability that Davidbinder14 is a role account. The account certainly indicates a significant WP:COI issue - I don't think it's Binder himself, but it might be a PR firm or agent working to improve his Wikipedia coverage (from none to copyright violation - great improvement! :D). Something to keep an eye on, and possibly take action against if it does prove to be a role account. Happymelon 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but from my end all I really see is a WP:COI with the account. It may very well be David Binder, or an associate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


This article was mentioned on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish today. Apparently at the time the United States was listed with a {{fact}} tag. A reference to Abu Ghraib was subsequently added by a couple of IP users. This strikes me as a possible WP:NPOV problem so I'm reporting it here. MoodyGroove (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Assorted harassment[edit]

I'm having a problem with an IP user ( I believe that it's the same one who has repeatedly vandalized my userpage (and others) over the last couple of months, related to Trenton, Ontario. Now it seems that s/he has started on a page I started last spring. There were some issues and they were resolved, but this person is vandalizing the article (Whitby Public Library) and calling my reverts COI. I'm not sure how to deal with this - he just made a comment on WP:Long Term Abuse. Any help appreciated. Blotto adrift (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address for trolling. I find the claims unsubstatiated, and his spamming every admin noticeboard around as disruptive and harrassing of the user. Feel free to comment on the block, or recind it if you feel it is out of line. 05:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongly endorse. This is the same editor that has been trolling and harassing various editors related to the Trenton, Ontario article. Multiple IPs have been blocked. His targets have been Blotto adrift, myself, and several others admins that have blocked him from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift[edit]

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has been trolling every admin notice board, and his claims are unsubstatiated. I have blocked them for harrassment and disruption. --