Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive411

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

Noticeboard archives


IP permanent block from editing[edit]

Resolved: WP:OTRS, Tiptoety talk 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP address belonging to this messages' ('this' being the current message/complaint) author belongs to that of an Australian High School, and is reccommended that it should be blocked from editing permanently. My understanding is that you have been recieving many edits which are not of proper standards, and it makes logical sense that those who are familiar with the process would create edits that are satisfactory. Since users who regularly edit can use an account or alternative IP address, it would prevent student misbehaviour in school, and within wikipedia, as well as save time on giving warnings and temporary bannings.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You will need your network administrator, or school to official contact OTRS. Tiptoety talk 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant harassment, personal attacks, and stalking by repeat offender.[edit]


User:Shabiha is not a stranger to this board. This person has previously been warned by site admins and was also issued a temporary block for insulting me on my talk page without provocation. This did not stop them from actually using the same insult again right here on the noticeboard.
Recently, this person has now been harassing myself and others in addition to edit warring and disruptions. This all began over a simple editing disagreement just like the last two incidents but started again with insulting edit summaries and such. I tried, as always, to mediate this myself first by contacting User:Itaqallah to mediate as a third party and then warning Shabiha myself. Rather than help things, this person began Wikistalking me, following me onto random pages they never edit and reverting decents edits of mine; in one instance Shabiha stalked me onto a page, reverted my edit, and then accused me of editing warring even though THEY were reverting ME. This person has also insulted me on the talk pages of other users without provocation. To top it off, they said something cryptic about making personal attacks on Itaqallah and myself and has now launched into attacks on that user too.
Look, according to the last encounter Shabiha had with site admins they were told by User:DGG that they were receiving a final warning and a number of other editors have also warned Shabiha about this. This user has been temporarily banned before for less offensive behavior and this has now escalated. I recommend them for a permanent ban at this point, because all attempts including by site admins have failed at moderating this person's behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see edit warring and POV edit summaries on both sides, but nothing that is really a personal attack. FayssalF has already appropriately warned both parties, and protected some of the articles. DGG (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like consensus supported at least one removal by the reported party. Rudget (Help?) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
MM has now posted on my talk page that he is satisfied, and does not want to pursue this--and promises to pay attention to the advice & warnings. DGG (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling it done then (or at least done here on this page...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

aggressive editing of Deborah Jeane Palfrey ..[edit]

Resolved: protected for a week to muffle an unseemly melee --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with it, the page changes by the second. The allegations of suicide should be removed as the body isn't cold yet ...

emacsuser (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine[edit]

User: Mykungfu: Indef Block Evasion via Socks, Should be Banned[edit]

In a nutshell, user has returned, via multiple socks, after over a year, attacking the same articles & editors. Several admins refused to re-instate him/her after wikistalking, personal & racist attacks, etc, but there is question as to whether he is subject to a permanent ban, as likely he should be (currently tagged as such). Current suspected socks listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th) (backlog). I would appreciate clarification and action, if deemed necessary, on this issue. Thanks, -RoBoTamice 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

and for reporting him and reverting disruptive edits, more wikistalking here.

Edit warring in UEFA Cup 2007-08[edit]

Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the discussion page a few users decided that it's not fair and want to count 10 Pogrebnyaks goals, and that way making 2 top scorers. The thing is, i dont think Wikipedians are allowed to decide what's fair and whats not. An UEFA desicion, an offical one, is what counts.

P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shpakovich, please read WP:CANVASS. This is the third place I know of where you've posted this. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Tachyonbursts topic-banned from anything related to 9/11 for 1 month by Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) under the terms of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: [2] [3] This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself: ([4]) -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's pretty clear that Tachyonbursts is the returning NuclearUmpf and before that Zer0faults...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. RxS (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that his account is recently created and has almost singularly focused on the September 11 attacks article or users editing that article. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of banned 9/11 editors that might create a sock to edit this article. But that's sort of beside the point. It's this user's contribs that matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing he's a sock; RxS is welcome to present any evidence he has. I'm just remarking this user has focused exclusively on this and it might be useful to topic ban this user for a short while. See if he moves on to something else (besides accusations of government propaganda). -- VegitaU (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
All due respect, I don't think it's beside the point at all...when an editor is blocked for disruption it's relevant if he just comes back with another account. I'd add Quantumentanglement to the list as well. Note the themed usernames, editing style and POV....also blocked for disruption on these articles (which are under an Arbcom resolution as you know). RxS (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick comparison doesn't show an obvious correspondence between Tachyonbursts and NuclearUmpf. At the moment I find more concern with Tachyonburst's conduct as such. Edits like this[5] seem awfully WP:POINTy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've formally notified him of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which I believe were intended to curb things like disruptive single-purpose accounts on these articles. If he continues to behave problematically, then it can go to WP:AE or you can ask an admin to look at it under the umbrella of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Note to Admin: I believe this issue has been resolved. If you could put the proper template on this discussion, I can get this page off my watchlist. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, do you fellows honestly believe that fueling decent discussion, demanding citations and seeking answers to unanswered questions is violation of policies? You're playing with your own freedom here, how free would you folks like to be? Seriously. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts, I think one of the biggest issues we have is your attitude. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but you come across as very confrentational in your edits. I hope I am not assuming bad faith by saying that. I'm trying to work with you on this issue, but you have to meet me and the rest of us half way. If you have a problem with the way something is worded, first check the archives, because most of what is said has been gone over many times and consensus has been reached to the best of our ability. The other thing I can sugest is to cite RS from the beginning. Simply saying "This is wrong, fix it" does not help us determine if there actually is a problem, of if it is your oppinion there is a problem. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but VegitaU, one has been through all the archives, since the beginning of the test, so to say, I already have a final response for you, if you want to make it final. It has been written. That sentence above is as clear as clear one could be. One cannot choose for you, you choose as a whole.

I'm sorry, I understand that this can be as silly as those popular references are, but this was far more than I'm allowed to go. You were given an organon long time ago. We can wait no more. Please decide, will you allow the questioning (discussion, that is) or are you ready to wrap things up. Simple yes or no will do. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirly understand what you are trying to say. If you are asking that editors take your objections into concideration, of course. I can't speak for other users, but I will always try to listen to the other side, even if I don't agree with it. I admit, I haven't been this way in the past, but I would dearly love to avoid continuing down that path. The main problem, however, is repetativeness. Just because I am willing to hear all sides doesn't mean I haven't heard it before. And unfortionatly, many of the debates we are currently having have already been fleshed out in the archives. However, if you have some new information in the form of RS, or have noticed something that hasn't been talked about, by all means. This is an open encyclopedia after all. But the biggest change I can sugest is civility. I'm doing my best to remain calm, and restratin myself from making persional/sarcastic remarks. If we all do this, we'll be a lot better off. --Tarage (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

24 hours it is. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that pursuant to the 9/11 ArbCom case and the accompanying discretionary sanctions, Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) has topic-banned Tachyonbursts from anything related to 9/11, loosely construed, through May 30. For the record, I fully support this action, as this is exactly the sort of behavior that the ArbCom sanctions were meant to curb. MastCell Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the time? Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A bit more than 2 hours, what will it be? Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What will what be, what happens in 2 hours? RxS (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of our last encounters as you'd think of Arbcom. My job here is done; I'll respect your decisions as you will ours. You are as free as you've decided to be. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon at Savant syndrome[edit]

I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants Savant syndrome to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the anon's talk page. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm really unhappy about yesterday's talk page vandalism, which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a dynamic IP that has been all over the Savant pages; blocking won't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one, WhatamIdoing. OK, this has had a couple of AN/I threads, Jfdwolff has intervened several times, but this altering of past editor comments for deceptive purposes takes it to another level. There are two editors (who are friends) and two IPs, one Comcast, the other Utah Educational Network, one edits during Utah daytime, the other in the evening, they're also working on Kim Peek who is a Mormon savant. This has gone on long enough and has been disruptive enough that it now needs a checkuser. I've never done one before, and will be out all afternoon, but I'll muddle my way through the instructions at checkuser later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

need help with Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association[edit]

I would be grateful for someone's help with Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association. JCeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and an IP, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (both presumably someone at the organization itself) has added back what appears to be copyvio text that I deleted. I do not want to get into an edit war or risk a 3RR sanction. This may be pigheadedness rather than actual vandalism, but the end result is much the same. I think that the old version (which includes references) is more appropriate than the current version. --Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the copyvio and left a second warning for the IP, asking to discuss the matter before they re-add anything to the article. Some of that information may be useful as background, but it can't be added verbatim, as both the IP and the user have done. Though the connection between the two appears obvious, I'll add that JCeph and the IP have not been editing together; the IP started in when JCeph stopped. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
May be a simple case of forgetting to log in. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspected spamer: User:Halahala123[edit]


Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

looks like this user promotes a company, has bot warning about ads and one of his/her spam articles was removed. see contribs. not sure if it's really spam...pls investigate admins. thx. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very prolific if this is the case. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Do I really have to read uncivil profonity on my talk page. Especially by one editor ChrisNelson who has been banned before? I work hard, follow the rules and get abused. (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You may remove or delete anything from your talkpage that you want, so far as such removals do not distort or change others comments in a disruptive manner. Feel free to archive or remove anything you like. See WP:USERPAGE for more info. You may also wish to create an account, as membership has its privileges. Good 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Membership also has its problems. I will do as you suggest, and remove the profanity, but what I was looking for is someone in authority to "cool down" chrisnelson and yankees10. (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mate everyone is in authority here. An admin is just another editor who was handed a mop. They handle what we those without the mop can not handle. I will warn the user if he continues and then if needed report to WP:AIV or here. Though I am looking at his conversation and seeing that he is just pointing out truths..though with an over use of profanity. Rgoodermote  02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would an experienced user please help with repeated vandalism?[edit]

Resolved: school, stale vandal Toddst1 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recently vandalized the CSI: Miami page, and upon checking I found that this person has repeatedly vandalized pages with irrelevent, sometimes racist and profane comments. They have also been warned repeatedly, and apparently continue to vandalize as no action to block them has actually been carried out.

I am not a brand new user, but I am still learning about Wikipedia and am unsure how to deal with this other than reporting it here. I hope I am doing this correctly.

May I politely request that an administrator (and yes, I understand you are all busy) investigate this issue and block this person if they feel it is necessary. I personally feel a half dozen "final warnings" are about four too many. Thank you very much. Bloopenguins Bloo (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention them here. You'll get a faster response. HalfShadow (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a school. There are likely different people every hour. This one's actually not so bad, only two instances today. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Last edit was about 12 hours ago anyway. The trail is too cold to smack 'em. School-IPs tend to be a pain, though. If it starts up again, mention it's a school; they often get longer locks because they're a school. HalfShadow (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring & personal attacks by User:Kolkhianboy[edit]

User:Kolkhianboy wages an endless edit war on the Laz people article, removing reliable and sourced information. He ignores requests to explain his edits and several warnings on his talk page. He repeatedly leaves offending messages on my talk page and on User talk:Iberieli, full of ethnic insults and accusations of "fascism".[6], [7], [8]. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --KoberTalk 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy's a troll who can barely speak English. I've alerted User:Moreschi, an admin who's dealt with him before. With any luck we can pull the plug on this. --Folantin (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 31 hours by Angus. Let me know if he goes back to the same behaviour after the block and I'll give him a much longer one. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature[edit]


I’ve just come up with user:Aditya Kabir's recent contribution and his misusing of rollback feature. Rollback feature (for non admin) is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (Vandalism). But his recent action on these pages ( [9], [10], [11] and [12]) seems to violation of rollback feature and sign of edit warring. The rollback should only be used to revert any vandalism. Misusing this feature is not helpful at all.--NAHID 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if I am wrong. But, both my reverts were part of an ongoing discussion (see here). I really can't see how it was considered as an edit war. I have noticed that my rollback right was removed, which may be fine if an edit war was involved. I hope you have noticed that from a whole host of edits made by User:Blnguyen (see here), I have reverted only two that explicitly concerned the discussion. I have been within the confines of "as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits" per WP:ROLLBACK at all time. As I see it, WP:BRD would be a more applicable guideline in interpreting these edits than WP:EDITWAR. Do you really believe that it represents an edit war? If yes, would you, please, explain how? It would be very helpful to know. On top of that, though it may be a minor issue here, out of the four examples provided against me one was made by using Twinkle, and not rollback (see here). Aditya(talkcontribs) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ROLLBACK is not to be used for anything other than the most unconstructive edits. If you wish to revert a constructive edit, you should at the very least, leave an edit summary which rollback does not permit you to do. [13] does not appear to be vandalism, no matter whose POV you believe in. Thus the argument of BRD is not applicable here. If you can appreciate the difference, I will not be opposed to any admin re-adding your rollbacker rights. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I beileved it was not about POVs. It was about following policy. And, I was under the impression that I was following "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute" per WP:EDITWAR, as those particular reverts by User:Blnguyen, as well as the whole edit blitz, happened in the middle of the discussion without notice. I think the discussion is still continuing. The edit made without an explanatory summary was made under the impression that since the incident was between two editors, and since the issue has been addressed in the discussion, it was not too necessary. The best thing is that the discussion is getting towards a constructive solution.
If I am mistaken, I, of course, am ready to apologize to all parties involved. Unfortunately, the short time of two hours between a notice on my talk page and a removal of the right provided me with no opportunity to clarify in the case of misunderstanding or apologize in the case of a mistake or undo if there was a harm done. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as per the discussions/instructions here and here I understand that rollback is for explicit vandalism/improper humor/edit test and suchlike. For the rest we have Twinkle, and even more appropriately, a simple undo. Did I get it right? This would be easy to remember and stick to. Even if my rights are not reinstated, I apologize to everyone for misunderstanding and inconvenience. Thanks to all who have responded. Cheers.It's always easy to have good humor back when I know exactly what happened. Not knowing is dreadful. Not having a chance to discuss good faith efforts is even more so. Thanks. My day is made already. Aditya(talkcontribs) 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, and most importantly Rifleman 82's statement that he would not be adverse to restoration of the tool if an understanind of it's use is given, I have re-enabled rollback. I believe Aditya Kabir now understands what the tool is for. Any misue will see it simply removed again, possibly on a more permanent basis. I am confident this will not happen. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Yang[edit]

Resolved: semi-protectd and major amounts of unsourced material removed

Toddst1 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


This page needs serious BLP help, there appears to be an edit war going on over party has added "Disclaimer: Please do not attempt to delete or change any content in this page. It would be swiftly replaced back by the author." I don't even know how to separate fact from fiction in this mess. Could someone who's RL job hasn't melted their brain please take a look? :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a mess, you're right. I've removed the disclaimer, and tried to clean it up a little. We'll see what happens. It'll need a lot more work, though, I'll check back in on it later.
Semi-protected the page - it appears that numerous socks are at work here. Warned those recently editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out a couple more sentences of unsourced accusations. More needs doing. It is indeed a mess. Aleta Sing 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out quite a few more unsourced sentences. I think the article complies with WP:BLP now and I've left a note on the talk page saying BLP will be enforced. Toddst1 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
An now they're all gone, with Affinity12 again promising to continue making his changes. I've reverted and warned, I'll let an admin take it from here since I think that's the only way to slow him down. Redrocket (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gina Bold and Keithmb (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm getting increasingly concerned about Keithmb's edits on Gina Bold. A bit of history first: Keithmb was allowed to edit here following no objections to his agreement with JzG that he could perform some edits on the article that he and JzG had discussed on OTRS. Fair enough, I trust JzG and OTRS in general. However, following these edits he has started to remove references and make other edits that have nothing to do with enforcing BLP[14]. I asked JzG about this[15], hoping there was a good explanation that I simply weren't aware of. I was asked to ask him directly which I did with no response[16]. I made a partial revert[17] as I saw no reason for the edits and wasn't getting a response from him. Today I see that he now returned to the article and once again made significant removals of references[18]. This concerns me. He is basically here to edit just this article and is not communicating at all. He has been asked nicely to explain his edits either in edit summaries or on the talk page. I have offered my assistance without getting any response. We don't normally allow people to edit on behalf of the subject, a rare exception was made. Where do we draw the line? I'm not going to edit war over this but surely something needs to happen. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • He is editing on behalf of the subject, who is not at all computer literate - he seems to me to be a pleasant chap. That does not give him a free pass, of course. I'll email him ad ask him to start discussing on talk pages. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that there also seem to be some fair use problem tags on images used here. Since he is editing for the subject, our fair use rules probably need to be explained in some detail so that he can make the necessary markings here and there to keep the images from being deleted. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've dealt with the images for now. One of them needs to go from the article but which one is a content issue. I've invited him to discuss this on the article talk page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. He's welcome to ask me any questions he might have about editing and references in particular. As for the images those can be hard to figure out when you are new here and he did make an effort to put a fair use rationale on one of them but he is more than welcome to ask me about those too. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was hoping someone here could direct me to the right place. I've never known how to deal with disagreements over POV/content if the other side doesn't listen, especially with IP users. In this particular case, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on removing sourced information. From what I can see, the sources look solid and seems to be POV-pushing. Any advice on how to handle this, both now and in the future? Thanks. erc talk/contribs 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot advise you on future problems, but may be I can help a bit with your current issue. You know that the burden of proof lies firmly on the shoulders of editors that add or restore content, nothing new for you, right? Now, let's read [[19]]: Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Would you spend enough time reading the sources to understand if they present the claim as true, or they simply let some talking heads express their (talking heads) story? That may be all it takes. I hope this helps even if a bit. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I might be inclined to reword it as "there have been unreliable allegations...". The allegation seems to have been made, and it appears from the citation that the person making it was some acedemic, possibly one who gets much of his funding by appearing on talk shows or TV news programs. And the quotation in the citation seems to indicate that the entire allegation is nothing more than that, and it is in particular completely unprovable.
On the other hand, I'm not in favor of including stories from News of the World in biographies, and this doesn't seem much different. Loren.wilton (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ads for Elcoteq[edit]

Emailggg, an SPA, keeps reverting the Elcoteq article to reinsert what seems to be promotional material for the company. I reverted the unsourced stuff that seemed like ad/promo copy [20] and tried to talk to the editor about it on his page [21], and he ignored me to continue his reverts. I'm at my limit on the page, I would appreciate it if someone else would check and see if it seems fishy. Redrocket (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits are blatant spam--I've reverted and added a {{uw-advert3}} template to their talk page. I'll keep an eye on them, but since the three-revert rule doesn't apply to cases of removing obvious spam or vandalism, feel free to continue reverting them, upping the warning levels, and reporting them to WP:AIV if need be. --jonny-mt 09:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be bits of information in that spam that could benefit the article, such as the company being global (probably meaning they soource from China). However, it is so buttered over with corporate marketeese that it is hard to believe much of any of it as anything other than puffery and misdirection. Loren.wilton (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack Article[edit]


This needs to be dealt will and deleted ASAP: Tyler ford. Noah¢s (Talk) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's gone, and someone has warned the creator. Thanks for spotting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We've gone to italics I see[edit]


A comment would not sum up how weird this one is. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of Wikipedia text is in italics. Who gets trouted? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...what are you talking looks fine on my side. Rgoodermote  03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Er... OK, apparently it's just me then?
WTF? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree: WTF? Looks fine to me, except that hideous screen shot you just posted. Darkspots (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And back to normal now! I guess its good I at least hadn't gone plaid? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Er...check your internet browser settings..and maybe a couple of scans..because that just isn't right. Um marked resolved. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd just be you, mate. But check your browser settings—trouting your computer can work wonders (though not always the good kind). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's your monobook? But seriously, let's use that logo for April Fool's next year.-Wafulz (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the logo :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That logo was not on the version that Lawrence uploaded. Someone over-reacted and redacted the logo from his original. See the image history for details. Horologium (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank heavens somebody else thinks that redaction and re-uploading was an over-reaction. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of redaction does leave me kinda speechless. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious over-redaction. Though at first I thought he was trying show us he was seeing a strange logo image. Jonathunder (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was a relevant commentary and topical humor on the recent issue of using (or not using) the Wikipedia logo in Wikipedia pages. Plus in this case, the actual logo doesn't really add anything to understanding of the topic, so it's also an example on when removing copyrighted images doesn't hurt. You can point to that the next time you're trying to explain WP:NFCC to someone. - Bobet 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It cracked me up either way! (Thanks for explaining why you did it) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have previously uploaded screenshots of Wikipedia to illustrate technical problems, and they have been deleted under NFCC. It is rather bizarre (to say the least) that one cannot use images of Wikipedia pages on Wikipedia in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the extra tools Lawrence is using. They look fascinating! :-) CSD, Last, RPP, XFD, Unlink. Which toolbox is that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be Twinkle, you can get it as a gadget. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Block this user?[edit]

Resolved: Premature report, even so, AIV is the right venue. Rudget (Help?) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This user may need to be blocked: User:Jaklo24. See his talk page. Noah¢s (Talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the section immediately before this one, the user has been warned and his single edit (the attack page) was deleted. Until they do something more, no block is necessary - they might just stop editing and that's that. If not, now that you've notified us twice, I'm sure there will be plenty of eyes to monitor this user. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat disruption[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Mentors are discussing ways to improve the behavior of both blocked users. WP:IPCOLL is the best venue for that since all administrative actions required here in this thread have been taken. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I got an issue that needs inspection on Saeb Erekat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Two editors tag-teaming to edit war a "dispute" tag out of the page even though both are uninvolved in recent discussions and a mediation.

One of the two, PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already given a last chance pre-indef block via forced mentorship and also previously noted by one of his multiple previous mentors that "[removal of dispute tags is] usually frowned upon". The other editor's (Rama (talk · contribs)) last contribution on the talk page was in September 2006.

PalestineRemembered also repeated the same personal attack that got him a 31 hour block: "01:18, 29 October 2007 GRBerry (requested by mentor)".

And also managed to recently cast a support vote to a permanent ban adding that "It's time this cancer of gang activity was cut out."

He also noted there that "There is another top "Palestinian sympathetic" editor I've really wanted to contact but who has been similarly impervious to my advances." (PalestineRemembered) - apparently, User:Rama was not that editor.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I don't think the removal of the totally disputed tag was a controversial move by PR. I think there's consensus now for the current version and all editors apart from yourself seem to find it acceptable. Tagging an article as disputed, when there's an overwhelming consensus against that isn't really appropriate. Not a huge fan of Rama rolling you back, I think a manual edit would have been better. If you still have concerns, could you consider bringing them up on the talk page and we can work them out? I still don't see any need for a disputed tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The AE case has just been closed and there was a clear and final reminder to everyone involved on this mess. I know Rama is not directly related to this issue but it is clear that his rollback revert action is not appropriate adding more troubles than it could resolve anything. Jaakoubou and PalestineRemembered know better; Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions.
Jaakoubou blocked for 1 week.
PalestineRemembered for 1 week.
Rama blocked for 24h. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am (fortunately) not familiar with the amount of bickering and mediation around the whole case, but isn't it quite harsh? -- lucasbfr talk 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Given both of their rather lengthy block histories, 1 week apiece was benevolent, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Rama is unblocked as per this discussion. 1 week is the least minimum Lucas. Too much troubles and noise but fortunately we haven't lost yet the sense of judgement - with all the disruption caused at a large set of articles including BLP ones. Next time we can just go direct to article bans if people persist - and without warnings because there have been thousands of them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work, Fayssal. El_C 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, seconded. There's been a lot of bickering and needless reverting been going on from the pair of them for months. A 1 week break to stop the disruption seems fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't PalestineRemembered under CSN mandated mentorship? Where is his mentor? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
His mentor is here. PR's been away for a while and this removal was one of his first edits back. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just checked your talk page and apparenly Jaakabou brought this to your attention hours before posting it here. Why did no communication occur prior to him posting here? It seems like this could have been taken care of before it spun into ANI drama.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Some things take longer to deal with than others, and given I've just come back off holiday, I've got plenty of other things to deal with. I was planning to look through it all today, but Jaakabou had already posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nod. I don't disagree with this block and hope that once PR comes back we see some more proactive mentoring rather than letting things get out of hand. He needs watching. It took him four whole days to get blocked for a week after being gone for two months.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you have to tell to his mentor Kyaa? Jaakobou's mentor is also informed. Mentors are feeling tired and suggest better things to sort this out but these users, instead of partcipating at ineteresting discussions as this proposal they go on with their troubles. Do you have a word for them Kyaa? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that jaaka responded to Durova's note (the same one you linked to) on his talk page in a not-completely negative way. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That was his response and he was not blocked for replying positively or negatively but blocked for all the reasons mentioned above. And if WP:IPCOLL didn't want to walk through it is because real administrative action is missing a bit. It was decesive for the smooth running of WP:SLR. We cannot push people to be friendly with each other but we have no better offer. This is a collaborative project and there are limits. There are plenty of projects around here serving for the main purpose - building an encyclopedia in a friendly and neutral manner. So we won't spend more time wikilawyering while keeping the articles locked or open for wars. Nope. Establish an online magazine or something similar. SLR is working and editors from both sides are feeling better. The I-P area is full of bickering and wikilawyering. And there's one single solution to that --> discipline (after all "discipline" is not-completely a negative thing). Please think about it. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, I don't disagree with this block. Jaakabou has made some damn fine, even featured, contributions to this encyclopedia. He gets into deep shit in Isreal/Palestine articles. Maybe he should change his focus.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody gets into deep shit in Israel/Palestine articles and that's why some order is needed. We don't want it to smell like 'shit' all the time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)What may be helpful here is upon PR's and Jaak's return, there should be some form of temporary injunction on each one from communicating with the other. The two have individually made contributions to the project, but they seem not to be able to get out of each other's way; as if each one is the other's catalyst. As sad as it sounds, if they could first learn to IGNORE each other, that may be the initial step in them--eventually--learning to work with each other, if only from a distance. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I have long thought you would make a good role model and additional mentor for Jaakobou, as you are someone with a similar (but not so extreme) POV, long experience, and who knows how to edit Wikipedia ethically and within the rules. This is no reflection on Durova, who has done a good job in encouraging J to spread his efforts outside I-P articles, and whose mentorship I hope continues. It is clear to me, however, that something extra is necessary to improve J's behaviour, and reduce the problems he causes. Would you be willing to consider such a role (with Durova's agreement of course)? What do other editors here think of this proposal?
--NSH001 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw the note left by Jaaka on PR's page the other day, but I don't have time to deal with this kind of thing (wikilawyering, imo) anymore, so I leave PR entirely in Ryan's capable hands. A week's block for both is fine, though it's not helpful that Jaaka keeps a running list of every even slightly dubious edit PR ever makes and constantly works to portray those edits is the worst possible light. Someone really needs to tell Jaaka to stop running to AN/I every time consensus forms against him, on top of endlessly pushing PR's buttons. I doubt a week long block is going to get that through to him. -- Kendrick7talk 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)NSH, with Durova's permission and blessing, I have been trying to work with Jaak. Here is one of the major issues in my opinion, and the following may equally apply to PR. Jaak has contributed many valuable edits to the project. However, Jaak also has a history of being somewhat, shall we say, confrontational in his edits. This, in my opinion, is due as much, if not more, to feelings of isolation and defensiveness as to a natural personality trait. Jaak feels that he can not perform an edit without someone reverting or complaining. Now much of this is a result of past interactions that were less-than-civil. However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" and not dig up old history for new issues. This does not always work, ala Isarig, but without the ability for others to allow the mentored editor some freedom from the past, then it is not fair to the editor in question and is bound to fail.

I would be glad to take a more active role in mentoring Jaak, with Durova remaining the primary mentor. That would possibly include temporary topic or userpage bans, but it must also include a commitment from the wiki project members, especially those who have fundamental philosophical differences with him, to allow him the fresh start; to understand his POV and realize that as long as he conforms to wiki policies and guidelines, he is allowed to have them; to treat him with the same civility and respect that they themselves desire; and to contact his mentors with issues, and not even always on-wiki, to minimize any wikidrama. It takes time for people to change habits, and everyone should be afforded that opportunity.

I also feel that the same measures should be applied to PR in the interests of equity and fairness.

-- Avi (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Jaakobou came to me yesterday about the problem and I advised him to contact PR's most recent mentor. He did, and then while I was sleeping a lot of other things happened. I certainly appreciate assistance with mentorship, and this dispute in general would benefit from more attention on the part of the community. Most of the editors on both sides are intelligent and basically reasonable people. This situation needs clear boundaries with consistent, swift, and (usually) mild enforcement.

To other admins and editors who'd like to help, I have a few positive suggestions:

  • Please put relevant articles on your watchlist.
  • Please intervene early in mild ways. This ANI thread and its blocks probably could have been avoided if someone had placed 48 hours of full protection on the article when the template dispute first broke out.
  • Please recuse yourself if your own history creates an appearance of bias, even if you know in your heart that you're neutral and perfectly fair. AGF is worn and tattered around here.

I've done what I can, and I'll continue, but one mentor can't work miracles alone. DurovaCharge! 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I think you and Ryan should discuss the possibility of some suggestions for both PR and Jaak vis-a-vis each other; just a thought. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to discussion. I also think this problem is not going to solve itself without intensive community oversight; the problem isn't so much two editors as an area that's underadministrated. Too many people who might have intervened have shied away for too long, so anyone who's active on either side of the dispute has a laundry list of legitimate unaddressed grievances. These complaints that keep erupting aren't entirely frivolous or disruptive--they're the symptoms of deep frustration. On the one hand I agree that it was exceptionally poor timing for Jaakobou to open this thread less than 24 hours after the lengthy AE thread closed. On the other hand, he has a point when he says this effectively denies him all means of seeking intervention when a problem emerges at a dispute where he's outnumbered. He is not an SPA who pushes fringe theories; he's a featured content contributor who wants to see a notable but controversial viewpoint included in the range of discussion. As a community, we're not handling this dilemma well. A handful of mentors for the individuals in this dispute is not going to make the problem go away, when the participants keep running into the problem that sysops don't intervene with the tools on the mild, consistent, and firm basis that would actually regularize things. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not difficult. We've wasted far too much time on Jaakobou and PalestineRemembered. We have better editors to worry about who aren't here just to fight out the Middle East wars all over again in cyberspace. Next time either of them gets caught treating Wikipedia as a battleground, in such a manner as this, we should just topic-ban them indefinitely from all articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Neither of those two is going to be part of a constructive solution to the problem of Arab-Israeli articles. IMO they're incapable of writing neutrally on this manner, and, perhaps more importantly, understanding this policy when it comes to dealing with their fellow editors. Ok, this is my "ban the bastards" approach. Simplistic, yes: also effective. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together like that, Moreschi. If I'm following this episode right, Jaak taunted PR for what everyone agrees was a consensus edit,[22] PR complained about Jaak's threats in no uncertain, perhaps even colorful, terms to his mentor and upon Jaak's own request,[23] and then Jaak came here and labeled PR's complaint about Jaak's threats as being the real harassment (above), and so now they are both blocked. Jaak used to maintain an entire User sub-page tracking PR's every edit with a paragraph long complaint next to each one (long since deleted, I believe). If it wasn't for Jaak's endless goading of PR, I don't think we'd have a problem here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreschi, Kendrick, and everyone, talking about indef banning either PR or Jaak from various articles is premature, especially without input from either of their mentors. Furthermore, one cannot just look at this one incident. I think it is fair to say that in his own way, PR has been similarly difficult as Jaak, to the point he was almost indef banned from wikipedia in toto, if it wasn't for my intervention with the suggestion of mentorship. Both of these editors have problems with each other, and with the I/P topics in general, and, in my opinion, both of them should be put on regimens that will help them learn to deal with the frustration that comes to ALL OF US when dealing with topics of these sorts without ending up at WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC every other week. If a strict regimen, combined with the authority of the mentor to both discipline and protect each of them does not work, then we can reopen the topic ban discussion. However, not only to the both need to break certain bad habits, they both need the time, and latitude to do so. It will not work if everyone is just going to dump on PR or dump on Jaak every time there is a mild infraction. Let the mentors know (and there should be multiple mentors for both, some JOINT in my opinion) and lets give them the chance they need. -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, no, and no. These guys have had so many second chances it's ridiculous. They need to realise they are both now on their last chance. They are not tender little newbies who need to be gently taught the rules: they've both been around for long enough to know better. We've already tried out the "Wikipedia Rehabilitation School for Clueless Nationalists" approach in this case. It hasn't worked. Time to expel them from the club if they fuck around with the encyclopaedia any more. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL, right, that ban almost happened because Jaak insisted PR had accused him of war crimes, which I think was pretty ridiculous. It's the same pattern, Avi. -- Kendrick7talk 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Has no one read my posts to this thread? DurovaCharge! 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have. Did I say something different than what you said, other than perhaps asking the mentors to put them both on some kind of regimen? -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very different. The community needs to become more involved in solving this dispute. It's unrealistic to expect a handful of mentors to pull rabbits out of a hat. I've been on this for months; I'm fresh out of rabbits. And I'm keeping the gerbils to myself. DurovaCharge! 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood. However, I am afraid that the more people become involved, the more likely things are to break down along pre-existing geopolitical tendencies. Where is the safety valve? As long as no permanent sanction can be placed on Jaak without your OK, or on PR without Ryan's OK, I guess its better than throwing our hands up in defeat now :( -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This notion that mentors get veto power over community sanctions is strange; I'd like to know what precedent there is for it. I object to it on several levels, either for myself or for anybody else. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Not veto power per se but from a psychological and human nature perspective, anyone with a distinct history of a problematic character trait needs time and sheparding to change it, and I am afraid that the general membership's patience is worn somewhat thiin with both of these editors. If mentorship has been instituted, then the mentee's should be allowed to have the space needed to grow and change under the guidance of the mentor, otherwise what is the point? -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait a sec, are you aware that these mentorships formed under very different circumstances? PR's was explicitly as an alternative to sitebanning. Jaakobou sought me out himself, under no pressure at all, because he could see he was in a tough dispute and had enough self-awareness to ask for help. DurovaCharge! 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know about PR's, it was my idea Face-smile.svg. -- Avi (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't want editors to become fearful of seeking help proactively, if sometime later it takes on the appearance of a scarlet letter. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect, that doesn't apply here. I think if you hadn't been known as mentoring Jaakabou he would have been topic-banned long since, so the incentives for seeking out a mentor are unchanged. I'm not even touching the PR siteban discussion, which IIRC was something of an absurdity. Frankly, we can do without either of them on these articles. Them being here is not good for the articles, for WP in general, or, I suspect, for them. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Struck out a mistaken reference. I was thinking of an earlier discussion where Jay accused PR of intentionally and disruptively introducing "facts" from holocaust denial websites onto Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the history of the trigger article and its talk page, it has been Jaakabou against everyone else who showed up for several months. A pretty clear example of tenditious editing against a consensus of other editors. A narrower topic ban or a really restrictive 1RR limit might be in order after the block expires. I won't be imposing it because I read the ARBPIA "uninvolved admin" definition very strictly, but an admin who feels free to act under the case could, or his mentor could. GRBerry 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is appropriate that I comment here (even though no one asked for my opinion), because I have been following Jaakobou's record a lot and have been accused of 'taking every chance to defend him' (or something along those lines). On this issue, I mostly agree with Avi and Durova, namely with the following:

... However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" ...

It does appear that Jaakobou was never given a fresh start and it looks like today, it has become an acceptable trend to completely ignore his views and edits (whether good and well-sourced or bad) and auto-revert them. There seems to be a group of editors whose names I won't mention here (this isn't about them) who don't have clear records themselves, but today seem to be viewed as righteous upholders of truth while they get away with blanket reverts of even Jaakobou's best edits, lack of discussion on talk pages, repeating personal attacks, etc. I'm not sure why this is, but there have been many contributing factors, namely the CAMERA fiasco (which almost surely has nothing to do with Jaakobou) and the (rightful) banning of quite a few pro-Israel editors (Zeq, Isarig, Amoruso, etc.) who would probably have supported Jaakobou.

I agree that Jaakobou is sometimes out of line, but no more than many other editors who frequent the I-P articles, and therefore instead of constant blocking and topic-banning, I think a completely different approach needs to be taken. For a start, what happenned to article protection? This common and sensible practice so frequently used in the past seems to be largely ignored today on I-P articles, even though it's very often warranted under Wikipedia policies. I think this has not been suggested before, so I will suggest: there can be several unofficially-appointed admins who will monitor I-P articles (similar to Durova's suggestion), and instigate temporary but full page protections wherever there's a dispute just starting - this way, even heated disputes can at least be kept to the talk page and don't have to escalate into huge edit wars with severe instability and constant tag-team reverting.

I think this approach is better than topic-banning or blocking individual editors (namely, PR and Jaakobou) because, as I said above, it is really an issue with at least 5 editors, and that's also temporary because time has showed that every year or two, editors from both sides completely change (some lose interest and others arrive), and if some of the above suggestions for blocking these two users are accepted, this will only solve the probably in the very short term, and will just fuel more lengthy and almost-pointless discussions such as this one we're having now. Hopefully, this will be the last lengthy and thoughtful post I will make on this subject (although from experience, I can tell that it won't be :(), because I have better things to contribute to on Wikipedia, and am sure the same is true for most of the editors who have participated in this discussion so far.

Best regards,
Ynhockey (Talk) 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Persistant Spam Account (Part 2)[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked by admin. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I mentioned a problem with Skimurphyski and their continued addition of material to the Take a Bow and Good Girl Gone Bad articles concerning "...the video may be seen at her official website" The result of that complaint was a 72-hour block of the registered user, as well as a one-month block of an associated IP address.

Tonight, I logged in to WP, reviewed my watchlist... and lo and behold, a new user, Rihannaupdate has appeared and is making the exact same edits to the above mentioned article. Thus, if someone could run a checkuser and assist, it would be much appreciated.

Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Report to WP:SSP and present your evidence there. Rgoodermote  03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As a result of the multiple account creations, I've blacklisted the link. This can no longer be linked on wikipedia. See WikiProject Spam report --Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request admin intervention at Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama[edit]

There are a number of editors who automatically remove any criticism. The sourcing is not an issue: the deleted material came from Reuters and the San Diego Union-Tribune, no cause for complaint there. The most recent edit summary from this crew said simply "remove slander." [24] The editor also removed the NPOV tag that I posted, without waiting for the dispute to be resolved. A look at the talk page indicates that this is a long standing problem, and that there are editors who may be in violation of WP:OWN. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt has not explained what the neutrality problem is. He might want to do some research on this. Sunray (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that I suspect Terrawatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Strettolicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) of being the same individual? I don't think that removing speculative sources which are in any case more about the Tibet-PRC dispute than the Dalai Lama are in any case a sufficient grounds for POV-tagging a reasonably decent article. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that you suspect that I and Stretolicious are the same person? Hell if I know. Do you normally engage in this sort of speculation about persons with whom you have a content dispute? And the topics discussed in the deleted edits [[25] are not more about the Tibet-PRC dispute. One is a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Pope cancelled a meeting with Mr. Gyatso. The other is a Reuters wire where a Tibetan Bhuddhist functionary claims that Gyatso is acting in conflict with the tenets of the faith. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why this sourced material ought to be deleted. It appears to me that it has been deleted strictly for POV reasons, which is the basis for the neutrality dispute (Sunray take note.) I object to JzG going in an unilaterally removing the NPOV tag -- is that normal practice? --Terrawatt (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Heads up for all concerned: recent changes in China's policy about internet access make it increasingly likely that previously minor issues are going to flare up into major problems involving multiple articles in the familiar pattern of warring national mysticisms. Please add some of these to your watchlist:
That is, of course, a small subset of those have seen some troublesome activity. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add Dorje Shugden to your list. Lots of anti-Dalai Lama editing going on there. Corvus cornixtalk 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Retracted bomb threat[edit]

Here, retracted here. Revert and block done, but we usually like some drama in these cases rather than following with an ignore. Options? ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellently dealt with by the block Redvers. No need for any other action. Revert, block and ignore. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see any need for further action here. henriktalk 12:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's much better to report such threats when nothing comes of them than not report them if they're legit. WilyD 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How could anyone remotely see that as a real threat? The guy even says he's joking. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we blocking people for having crap senses of humour now then? Shit, I better keep my head down. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, when someone actually from a school makes specific death threats against named students in that school, yeah we should report it. Here, the silly twit is nowhere near London (not that I wouldn't like to see some punk kid get hauled off to Scotland yard for an uncomfortable couple of hours). Thatcher 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be delicious. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think inserting bomb threats into mainspace articles is funny, then yeah. SQLQuery me! 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2)We block people for making real-world threats, whether real or "jokes", because to do so is disruptive and not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Also, a bomb threat, in this day and age, is never funny, under any circumstances. The Americans even put people in concentration camps just in case they might make bomb threats. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh for heavens sake! I was having a little wry grin. I apologise for my subtlety - move along.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)@Thatcher, David Copeland lived nowhere near London. Given the username, I think it's worth reporting, if only because of the possibility. --Rodhullandemu 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably ping David Gerard then, he's in the UK and is a checkuser so he can provide the information to the correct authorities if he thinks it is serious enough. Thatcher 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. --Rodhullandemu 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reporting this is a joke, a complete waste of authoroties time and effort. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be three Albert Streets in London. One appears to be a fairly long residential road in NW1 near Mornington Crescent, with no bus route along it as far as I can tell. The others are titchy cul-de-sacs in NW12 and N15. Of course, this presumes both that the person posting was not joking, and that they got the road name right. Oh, and Joopers, forgive me if those living in London don't find this sort of humour funny (1, 2, 3). I agree it looks like a joke, but would be happier if there was follow up. If others who have done this sort of follow-up before could deal, that would probably be best. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think there are any Albert Streets with bus routes along it, as far as I know. No need for follow-up in my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't wanna split hairs, especially over what really seems to be a joke, but what if a)a private coach on a known route is bombed? b)the bomb is on board a minibus? It's essentially like loading up a van but if the minibus was cheaper, why not that? No-one ever suspects that... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A Slovenian anon making POV remarks[edit]

User blanking talk page comments[edit]

I posted a comment on Talk:South Korea earlier today regarding inadequate sourcing in the article, only to have my comment blanked by User:Youngjoon Shin [26]. This user subsequently blanked a whole discussion on the same page [27], before removing the warning I left on his user talk [28]. I've reverted all three, but was sufficiently concerned to look through his edit history, and found a few more examples of the same thing. This could perhaps be construed as removing spam, but a substantial amount of content was blanked several times on Talk:Samsung Electronics, something he appears to have already been warned about [29]. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You've put another warning on there. Let's see if that works. If it doesn't, bring it back here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested banned user sock block[edit]

Resolved: Indeffed.

Can someone please block Paskor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paskor? Kelly hi! 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

tag team (meat puppets) attacking Obama article[edit]

Resolved: article deleted, sock blocked SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Scjessey are tag teaming (meat puppets) who are wiping out the Malia Obama article and making it a redirect. If they claim the article is not notable, they MUST discuss it, not tag team dictate their whims.

They are getting rude and uncivil.

Please force a discussion, not allow them to destroy hard work and article building. Block them for 6 hours if necessary to stop this encyclopedia destructive behavior. Watchingobama (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure for them is not to tag team but AFD and vote merge/redirect, not destroy (wipe it out completely) the article by tag teaming. Watchingobama (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference - Malia Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect, it appears that some discussion has taken place at the article's talk page, prior to the article being nominated for deletion. The concern is that there is only trivial mention of the subject in reliable sources, all of which relate to her father, Senator and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama. I'll add that, as you note, the proper procedure is in place and being followed at the deletion debate, so further discussion on the merits should be directed there, particularly if you have any sources or information which would document the subject's notability in and of herself. Do you have diffs of any rudeness or incivility in relation to this article? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They were tag team throwing the article away but it has stopped for now. It is now an article for deletion debate. That's ok but vandalism is not. I suggest that if anyone wipes out the article, they must be stopped and blocked. You can't vandalize an article just because you think it should be deleted. You have to wait until the formal discussion is over. Watchingobama (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should probably review what vandalism actually is. Grsztalk 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I was getting there, as well - we're all on the same team, here, and accusing other editors of vandalism and meat-puppettry (as Watchingobama appeared to do above) isn't really assuming good faith. Let's calm down and discuss the merits, instead of each other, yes? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that a deletion debate is ongoing, I agree wholeheartedly - blanking the article, redirecting it while it is under discussion in this manner, or removing the AfD tag would be vandalism. However, if the consensus at that debate is to redirect to Barack Obama, as is proposed, then that is what would happen. So, as you indicate, the formal discussion will continue for the time being at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note the timestamps: the redirect revert that I did was prior to the filing of the AfD, and I agreed the AfD was a good idea and said I would revert my redirect, temporarily, pending the outcome of the AfD, which I didn't get a chance to do. Calling a redirect blanking vandalism is incorrect and this claim of tag teaming/meat puppetry is, well, very reminiscent of the actions of a particular sock farm, and that bears looking into.Tvoz/talk 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a note, it was redirected first, then undone by watchingobama, then prodded, undone, and now brought to AFD, and will be deleted. Grsztalk 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the fortnightly posting of Tvoz (talk · contribs) and Bobblehead (talk · contribs) (plus another, this time) accused of bias regarding either, or, and and, the Obama and Hilary related articles. Since the bias complained of generally changes depending on the viewpoint of the complainee, it appears to me that Tvoz and Bobblehead are generally getting it right (which is a whole lot different that spreading the truth, eh?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Having read the AfD and watchingobama's contributions, I'll note that one editor may see tag-teaming where another sees consensus. I particularly liked the piece in "her" article (added by wob) where she asked her father if he shouldn't be vice-president first. Nicely done, that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I need to come this user has not been blocked. It basically says on his/her talk page that all the account is going be used for is the deletion of anything that puts Obama in a bad my knowledge that is violation of WP:NPOV. Rgoodermote  03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I reported at UAA twice. And now that he went of on a rant and started nominating every presidential candidate's children's articles he could find just to make a point, he really needs a block. Grsztalk 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So is this another sock of User:Dereks1x, or is something else going on here? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. Dereks1x usually jumps to a new topic once found out. Most of the recent socks we've ferreted out have found something entirely new to work on each time. Most recently, he's been spotted assuming complex personalities and getting promoted to Admin, but he's been real quiet since that once came out. If you ask my opinion, diving back into the Obama mess would not be in his character. My guess is he's playing the good user trying to build a good cover for his next adminship run. This kind of thing just doesn't smell like him. No, this is just garden variety political editwarring... 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, I have to disagree with you - I am with Akhilleus on this, and I smelled exactly that a couple of days ago. This editor fits more than one of Dereks1x's mo's - not just this bogus accusation of Bobblehead and me, but also his language and including his visiting one of Dereks1x and his socks' perennial Obama hobbyhorses, the FOP endorsement. There are other behavioral similarities as well, and in fact one of the ways we've found many of his socks was from such similarities. Note the forum shopping, as well, a typical move of his - 4 days after establishing his account. And, unfortunately, I've seen him dive into Obama and other familiar places over and over and over again. Tvoz/talk 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes. Good catch Tvoz. There looks like enough here to request a checkuser. Most of the major Checkusers (Alison, Thatcher) are familiar enough with him to spot him on sight. I hadn't looked that closely; I was more involved with the Archtransit end of his operation, where he avoided the entire Obama situation. However, given the standard behavioral patterns, I would have to agree with you on that. I stand corrected. 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
One RFCU filed. I generally wouldn't bother on an indef blocked user, but he's being rather persistent in trying to get unblocked. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchingobama is now disrupting the AfD by repeatedly adding several other articles which he argues must be kept or deleted if Malia Obama is. Other editors have commented that the articles should be discussed separately; I agree. Watchingobama is now edit warring to include those other articles. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And now Watchingobama has been blocked for being disruptive. Can't say I didn't see this coming... Its always funny to me when the originator of a thread gets themselves blocked for being disruptive. Like the hundreds of admins that watch ANI aren't eventually going to figure out what is going on... 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And now unblocked. Grsztalk 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And blocked again; thanks Alison. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And re-blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Dereks1x (talk · contribs), per the filed RFCU case - Alison 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism[edit]

User:Krzyzowiec removes referenced info from National Rebirth of Poland article [30], and resorts to personal attacks ("fucking pig") [31] on talk page. User was warned not to resort to personal attacks multiple times[32] [33]. and now he has violated WP:3RR M0RD00R (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He also seems to be adding aquite a few geocities sites as external links, all detailing accusations against the subject. Seems like WP:EL, easily. Redrocket (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Krzyzowiec has six reverts on that page in the past 24 hours and also edit-wars persistently at Jan T. Gross by inserting geocities links and deleting references to sources like the Washington Post, calling them Soviet propaganda. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Left a clear final warning on his page that any further problems will result in a long block. Black Kite 08:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently final warning was of little effect [34], [35], so disruption reported at 3RR notice board here. M0RD00R (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Concern over multiple SPAs adding spam external links[edit]

Struenang (talk · contribs) Smeunum (talk · contribs) Quastbel (talk · contribs) Lerhinkim (talk · contribs)

All these users seem to be single purpose accounts with the intention of adding external links to Filefront-hosted videos from wikipedia articles on upcoming videogames. The pages linked to are usually nothing more than the press video hosted on FileFront (usually copied from the game's official site) surrounded by a collection of adverts. I've reverted most of the changes for the newer ones, but the older edits will take time to go through. As they feel like spam accounts, I'd probably suggest a block, but it looks like the accounts are used for a day and then abandoned. Anything else that you feel would be appropriate in the circumstances? Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff WriteRead 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gave them all a friendly warning. If they continue, they'll be blocked as spam accounts. EdokterTalk 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

quick sanity check on User:Fantasy Game Productions‎[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked; page salted

Could someone else take a look at the page history of this user page for today (May 2), and his other contributions for today, and the bottom 2 sections of his talk page, and let me know if I'm right that this should be discouraged, or if I should just go find something else to worry about? I know that wall of text shouldn't be in the article he put it in, but should I let the user page go? --barneca (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. Edit: And it done got 'sploded. Damn, I love being right. HalfShadow (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess the (now) red link should be a clue I was on the right track. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's back again. Boy, some people are born with more than their fair share of thick, aren't they? HalfShadow (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Page is back, and I'm about to sign off for the weekend, so I'll let someone else worry about it. Seems to be annoyed his article got deleted, no longer communicating with anyone AFAIK. Have a good weekend, folks. --barneca (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Would someone mind sweeping this under the bed, please? HalfShadow (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Account has been indef blocked by X-persian Girl (oh, y'know!), and I have salted the userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism patterns[edit]

Recently Desert Vista High School and Mountain Pointe High School have been getting vandalized with near identical vandalism. Which is not too surprising since the same person or persons seem to be doing it. Going through the page history of recent events, I find the following vandalism-only accounts:

Desert Vista High School
Mountain Pointe High School
Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan)

The Chelsea High appears on the end because curiously the same IP vandalized it as vandalized the Desert Vista High article, in the same general time period.

None of these accounts have ever been blocked, and all the named accounts are recently created vandalism-only SPA (DPA?) accounts that only operate on these two articles.

I don't konw what should be done about this, or if this is the right place to report it. Suggestions? Loren.wilton (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Both pages should be semi-protected. miranda 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thecrypteasy is there now making similar changes, although not to the same lengths. I can't check his deleted contributions, but it seems to be the second time he's uploaded an image, which is the Mountain Pointe school logo. Judging from this [36], it looks like it was deleted before. Redrocket (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure this is a vandal. There have been a (few) constructive posts to those schools from anon IPs that are obviously students. From what I've seen here I think this may be a GF editor from the school.
They did indeed upload the logo once before, and it promptly got deleted for no free use rationale. They then uploaded a second time. It isn't clear to me if we have a real free use problem here, or simply a new editor that quite reasonably has no clue about our byzantene free-use hoops that must be correctly jumped in order to stick an image on something. That is to say, I don't know if there is an actual problem with the image that needs to be explained, or simply the metadata hasn't been filled in correctly. Trying to start a conversation with the editor would probably be best. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER movers[edit]

Resolved: Faarquad's edict has been carried out. All is well in Duloc. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 03:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user: I think 2 + 2 = 22. (movelog makes a set of familiar edits/moves, gets banned, pages restored. Is it what we gonna do?

It seems that plenty (if not most but definitely not all pages) can be safely move-protected. Why would there be a legitimate reason to move Australia or New York articles, without WP:RM anyway? Same applies to user pages. Why should Raul and others have their pages haggerred from time to time? The general proposal is more of a policy issue, so feel free to move this discussion to the VP. --Irpen 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibilities are being considered HalfShadow (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirm The Kill[edit]

I really have no idea what to make of this one. Evidently (from the edit summary) this article about a band was deleted. So Gamer9678 objects, userfies the page (good!) and then attempts to redirect the mainspace title to the userfied article (bad! I think) Huh?? Anyway, here are the diffs, maybe someone else can make sense. [[37]] and [