Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive415

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

Noticeboard archives


Disruptive editing and page moves by User:Ludvikus[edit]

User:Ludvikus has moved Revisionist Zionism twice this week despite consensus on the Talk page to leave it as it is. Most recently, he moved it while discussion is active. In fact, he is the only editor who feels that the article should be renamed.

In general, User:Ludvikus has been engaged in disruptive editing. He has started several disambiguation pages that serve no clear purpose (e.g., Historical revisionism (disambiguation), Standard work). He has proposed mergers that make no sense and created articles about subjects that already have articles (e.g., Ninteenth Century (sic), Union of Zionist-Revisionists).

Can somebody please intervene with User:Ludvikus? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SHAME on users who have political usernames (another example: User:Flying tiger) going after voices of objectivity and reason. The thin, weak voice of NPOV will not be drowned by a cacophony of politically-motivated aggression. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
For reasons that I do not quite understand the complainent has been stalking me. Wherever I go to edit he/she sems to appear and Rvt my work. The article he's complaining about is Revisionist Zionism which I believe should more properly be labeled Zionist revisionist movement. He seems to be working with one other editor, whose name is very difficult for me to remember. I welcome any independent, cool-headed voice that can help resolve the dispute. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus's nonstop disruptions, which indicate little understanding of the subjects he disrupts (one of many examples) has indeed required constant monitoring. It would be a relief not to have to monitor him. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea about Malik Shabazz (isn't it likely to just be his name?), but which of the meanings of "Flying Tiger" is politically motivated? (Unless my memory is wildly wrong, Flying Tiger was also a Spiderman supervillain.)iridescent 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My User name (and certainly Flying Tiger's) is a red herring. The issue at hand is Ludvikus' behavior, which is disruptive. Please take a look at Talk:Revisionist Zionism, Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism), and Talk:On The Jewish Question, where I have hidden many of his disruptive comments to bring some semblance of order to the pages. On many of the Talk pages, he discusses other unrelated pages. Please, can somebody try to help? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm prepared to implement a move probation. User is restricted to use the WP:RM procedure (to be closed by an admin), even for noncontroversial moves for the next month. RfC is probably the next logical step if issues continue beyond that. El_C 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're here, might I also call attention to User:Ludvikus#Certain engaging editors? I'm reading that as this user calling three other users Holocaust Deniers, which seems to run afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You got that wrong. We are all writing about Historical Revisionism, which scholars say that that's the same as Holocaust denial. Please don't be reckless with your accusations. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's best not to list other users in a way that could be inferred as negative. I doubt those users wish to be listed in such a way. El_C 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've modified that. The purpose was mere to be able to click on their difficult long name. That's all. Also, I have not heard an objection from them. In fact, you and I have been working together on articles related to Marxism. Would you mind it if I did the same with your name? If so, I'll not do so. Please let me know. Furthermore, are you now addressing me as an adminstrator? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am addressing you as an administrator. I would rather not be listed. I, actually, intervened as an admin to that article, because you made a questionable, undiscussed move to it that needed to be reversed. El_C 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! As per your request. And I've done the same for Shabazz and the other editor whose name is difficult for me to spell. Is that another issue resolved? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the question: maybe they can answer it...? El_C 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to end all issues between all the parties. Look above. There are many accusations against me. I want to solve them all now. Put an end to it and have peace. So I'm asking you to deal with all the issues raised above. Not just the (1) "move" issue and (2) the names on my "user page." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else you expect me to do. It's up to all of you to follow the steps for dispute resolution. El_C 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what issues remain to be taken to "dispute resolution". You cannot expect me to write my own indictment, do you. Wikipedia should not be Stalinist Russia. Since your an adminstrator who has taken action against me, inform me now what the rest of the complaints against me are outstanding, which you say you cannot resolve, but must be taken to "dispute resolution." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what those issues are. I suggest you tone down the polemics and talk to the people whom you are having problems with. El_C 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the disruption occuring this very moment while I'm trying to resolve the dispute with Shabazz (--Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)):

==RfD nomination of [[:Union of Zionist -Revisionists]]=== I have nominated Union of Zionist -Revisionists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the stub I created, and while I'm here responding to his complaint, he's not willing to cooperate with me at all but persists in provocation. What he has done is called in Wikipedia "stalking" I believe. He goes around looking for anything I do so that he could have it "deleted". I want that problem ended. Can you help. As you can see I'm extremely cooperative, while Shabazz continues to provoke. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What I've nominated for discussion is the article (now a redirect) with the mis-typed name (note the space before the hyphen) that you started, then moved to Union of Zionist-Revisionists. I don't think any readers will mistype the name of the organization, so I proposed deleting the mis-named redirect. Please click on the link to the RfD discussion page before you jump to any conclusions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin, show mercy and close this case[edit]

The issue has been addressed by move probation. Can a merciful admin please put this case out of its misery and close it? thanks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There is still my complaint outstanding of being WP:Stalking by User:Malik:Shabazz. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:STALK:
[P]roper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam).
When I noticed that you were making disruptive edits on a few articles, I looked to see whether you were making similarly disruptive edits on other articles. That's perfectly acceptable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And I discovered more disruptions on other articles. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:On The Jewish Question[edit]

  • Disruption is taking place at the moment which is caused by another editor - you guy know who he is - but you do nothing to stop it. I'll be back in a moment with the Diffs. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • First look here: [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the problem given in the block below - I'll get the diff momentarily(--Ludvikus (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)):
    deleted commercial advertisment, --User:Schwalker (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a Reverion, not a Deletion. Here's the Diff which shows (on the bottom of the page) the text he's removed by Reverting because he (User:Schwalker) alleges is an advertisement (Ludvikus (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)): [2]
  • Furthermore, please look further up this noticeboar to the section: User:JPG-GR. It the same dispute degarding "disruption by User:Schwalker. He is currently involved in two(2) disruption disputes on this Noticeboard. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do look at #User:JPG-GR, which describes another example of Ludvikus's disruptive editing and moving at another page. Or visit Talk:On The Jewish Question to see that his disruptive editing continues. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


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.
Complainants advised to seek dispute resolution. Discussion has reached an impasse of mutual recrimination; nothing is going to be solved here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Suggest users move matter to mediation, as this situation appears to be better suited for that forum versus this one. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done my best to avoid requesting admin attention ... but have finally reached the last straw. I have been continually attacked, and harassed, by User:Mattisse for several months. We have a long ongoing feud that goes back to around Feburary. Recently after his/her several week break - he/she has returned to his/her old tactics. I have requested numerous times that the user STOP = on his/her talk page and am unsure of what recourse I have. Mattisse has made it a practice of slandering me in public forums, to admins, following my contributions and trying to challenge every one of them, etc. I know there is not a "block" option ... but is there a way I can have an admin review the situation and possibly tell Mattisse to no longer have contact with me/my edits/ or use my name to attack me in public etc? I am also seeking help because I am aware that I am becoming so frustrated that I can no longer remain civil towards this user who has expressed Bad Faith with me on a constant basis. Thank you for what ever assistance/advice you can provide.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified. It would helpful if you provided diffs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afriad I am not privy to the lingo per "diffs". What would you like me to do ?   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know the background on this, but feel it should be noted that the two come freshly off an edit war at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig. Dorftrottel (troll) 00:37, May 9, 2008
    • The background appears to be a conflict that stems from Che Guevara and its talk page. From what I can tell, the article lost its FA status due to a number of issues, one of which was POV. It is my understanding that during FAR, Mattisse tried to help improve the article and preserve its FA status, and at this point, she came into conflict with Redthoreau who was in turn supported by Coppertwig. Looking at the FAR and related discussions, I get the sense that Mattisse felt disrespected and attacked, as her efforts to improve the article were repeatedly reverted. I have asked Redthoreau several times on his talk page to just ignore Mattisse and stop leaving her messages, but he refuses to do that. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe Mattisse has asked him to stop using her talk page as well. As someone who has come into conflict with Mattisse in the past but now has a good working relationship with her, I think it is fair to say that she is often misunderstood. Recently I found myself seriously disagreeing with one of her edits, and when I inquired further I discovered that she was 100% correct, and I was wrong, and in the process, I even managed to learn something from her. I would like for an editor other than myself to ask Redthoreau to stop contacting Mattisse, and hopefully this will die down. I think Mattisse has a right to be upset, but she needs to focus her energy into the appropriate DR outlets. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Viriditas, although I respect your opinion, and the fact that you are her friend, I question the validity of your interpretation and objectivity in this regard. It appears to me that you have accepted and parroted her "revisionist" view of the reality, and I would ask you to view her own talk page and the numerous times I have asked her (just in the past 2 days) to stop attacking me.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggest one or both parties take this to mediation. That is the proper forum for this matter, not AN/I. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont know, I think they are past mediation, and may require a more permanent solution. Tiptoety talk 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'd hate to see two users who appear to have good faith in mind, but different ideas about how to accomplish said good faith, get blocked for something that could possibly be worked out via mediation. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and I am not recommending blocking. But both of their behavior on the last few hours has resulted in a great deal of disruption to the project, and I am finding a pretty lengthy history of such events between them. Tiptoety talk 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I just read Coppertwig's RfA; did Redthoreau really use the words "multiple personality" to describe another editor ???? No matter how much bad blood these two have, that's over the line. ("I consider it an epic travesty that anyone would waste more than 1 minute addressing the troll-like/multiple personality behavior of Mattisse.") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Mattisse' freedom to edit: Mattisse apparently wants to edit Che Guevara but stopped editing the article a few weeks ago apparently because Mattisse felt threatened by me and by Redthoreau; I was trying to play a mediator-like role between the two of them. After Mattisse stopped editing Che Guevara, Mattisse began editing The Motorcycle Diaries, a Che-Guevara-related page, and Redthoreau complained about Mattisse choosing that article to edit; I cringed at the tone of Redthoreau's messages to Mattisse since I thought Mattisse might feel unwelcome to edit that article too. See an earlier AN/I thread re incivility by Redthoreau towards Mattisse.
Complaints about complaints: Both Mattisse and Redthoreau have at times accused the other of following them around. Their complaints about each others' behaviour often contain strong words such as "harass" and these complaints then become a source of further complaint, leading to repeating cycles of such complaints. They have been warned not to post templates on each others' talk pages for this reason. I suggest that both users consider doing nothing in response to such complaints rather than continuing the cycles.
Mattisse posts allegation: The current problem seems to stem from Mattise posting an allegation that Redthoreau was the cause of Polaris999 quitting editing Che Guevara; not very credible since Mattisse has also recently posted a number of baseless statements about me on my talk page and on my RfA. Redthoreau takes offense at the allegation.
I agree, I think they should go to mediation. Perhaps I should be included too. Coppertwig (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, my head hurts now. *grin* Times like these almost make me wish that there was a WP version of a restraining order available that could be applied to editors in situations like this, because - looking at the edit histories - I don't really see any other major issues involving other users... just these two toward each other. I still stand by my suggestion of mediation, but obviously that's a step that one or the other of the folks involved here will have to initiate. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply from Mattisse: I do not think you should take the outcome of a few hours to determine my fate. I have been on Wikipedia for over two years and have over 45,000+ edits. I realized a long time ago that I was no longer allowed to edit Che Guevara nor have I have not done so since that was made clear to me. I was also made clear that I was not allowed to edit any Che Guevara related articles. When I was working on categorizing biographies I, without thinking, included Che's The Motorcycle Diaries in my work and was attacked by Redthoreau (although defended by Coppertwig who is usually his patron). I reiterate I realize that I am banned from editing any Che Guevara or related articles. The problems today were caused because today I chose to express myself in in public forums on public subjects, more than one of which (eg questions on image copyright) Redthoreau chose to revert and was reprimanded.

If you choose to reject Viriditas thoughtful analysis, then so be it. User:Redthoreau has not presented diffs for his criticisms, despite the requests. Those who are interested can see for themselves the unfortunate results of the conflict of the RFA for Coppertwig. However, any disagreement or interaction I have with User:Redthoreau is limited to that RFA, despite his continued unfortunate posts on my user page. I am not permitted to edit pages on his sole topic, Che Guevara, and I do not do so; therefore there should be no problem. I absolutely refuse to engage in any kind of mediation or dispute resolution. User:Redthoreau has not provided any diffs that indicate the need for resolution.

I admit that I am unhappy about being kicked off subjects that I have been involved in for two years by a single subject editor who started editing last November or December. However, such is Wikipedia, although I am considered one of Wikipedia:Highly Active Users on a wide range of topics. Considering that, I have had extremely few editing problems with other editors and have received many Barnstars and other rewards of thanks. I am not a problematic editor. However, if you chose to treat me as such, I will have to consider my options. I have already decreased my editing considerably due to the whole interaction and outcome of the Che Guevara article. User:Polaris999, who had edited the article for some years was driven off also. I realize that in very many ways, Wikipedia is an extremely unpleasant place and I try to adjust accordingly. I am doing my best. I am willing to consider all suggestions and am sorry about my behavior regarding the Coppertwig RFA, which spiraled out of control. However, I am a human being and can only take so much abuse. Surely, I am allowed to question the copyright status of images, which I believe is Redthoreau's sole complaint about me currently besides my public views on the User:Iantresman issue and my votes on the RFA. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to Mattisse. (1) Your amount of time and number of edits on Wikipedia are irrelevant. You have also been blocked 6 times, and the majority of your edits are categorizing, or creating small stub articles (for songs, obscure places etc) which only you ever work on - hence you don't have to use "people skills" in editing with others. (2) Per "diffs" as I state above - I am not sure what that means. If he is referring to citations of your behavior then sure. In the 2 days since you have been back from your several week hiatus (in which I harmoniously edited - with 0 problems with other editors), you have made obvious veiled references to me as being a "POV pusher", "aggressive", "amoral", and "abusive". You have made obvious but 'cleverly' veiled references to me not only on 2 editors talk pages 1 2, but also the Wikipedia Administrators' notice board 3. All of these were unprovoked, as I had not had any contact with you in weeks - as I had (naively I guess), believed that you were finally willing to go about your way and edit without constantly making unfounded and merit-less attacks against me --- as you did during the several weeks where you made it a hobby to harass me, my talk page, and any article I was working on a daily/hourly basis. You continued to make unprovoked attacks WP:APR against me by referring to me "stalking" you, being "abusive" etc. You have also taken up the former hobby of following my actions around and attempting to get content I upload/add deleted as you have here, and here. You have been warned about this practice before 7 weeks ago ... From your own talk page archive:
  • Following the contribution history of a user and posting to articles they've edited can be appropriate at times, but is inappropriate if the purpose is to punish or annoy the user. Since other people can't always tell what one's intentions are, one needs to be careful if following someone's contrib history because it might look as if one's purpose is to annoy. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You have also slandered me in public Here. (Polaris never stated that I was the reason he quit, I admired Polaris and always ceded to his judgment as I publicly stated many times. I would have followed any of his suggestions as I showed time and time again. For all I know you most likely were the reason he left - as you were for SandyGeorgia.) I was removed from the process at the time and had stopped editing while you, Polaris, and Sandy worked things out. You then ran them both off on your own ... leaving just me and you. YOU then became angry because I wouldn't let you run me off. Coppertwig arrived and was actually fair ... and thus you accused him of "defending me" even though he was just being fair against your behavior. Furthermore, it appears that this is usual practice by you as several editors have emailed me today and told me that they have had previous run ins with and sock puppets of yourself that resemble mine, and apparently you have built yourself up a reputation (making it easy to see why you are now trying to "Change" your name because of the backlash from your behavior). I am willing to go to mediation, have a restraining order, do anything possible to ensure that I never have to be harassed or have my path crossed with you again. I love Wikipedia and what it represents, and have shown that I can edit thousands of times without many problems - except in relation to you. I have extended olive branches to you in the past, and would again if I actually thought it would get me anywhere. Sadly I don't think it will.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum To correct an impression conveyed by User:Coppertwig above that I edited the article until my recent break, my last edit to Che Guevara was on April 4,2008 after Coppertwig began heavily editing the article in the later part of March 2008 and it was made plain to me that all my edits would be reverted so therefore that there was no point in my editing. I tried to offer helpful suggestions via the FAC and talk pages because of my familiarly with FAC and MoS but my suggestions were not well received so I ceased participating, although it hurt me to see the article loss it's FAC status. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum2 If there is any insistence that I enter a mediation or dispute resolution with Coppertwig and Redthoreau, I shall refuse since the problem from the beginning has been that they have edited as one and had a very cozy relationship, although Coppertwig (I note he denies this now) presented himself as an objective mediator between us, addressing many posts to the both of us in a fatherly tone as if he were neutrally seeking a consensus between us. This was not true. His remarks above are the most revealing he has made. Until those, he has always worded himself as neutral party when addressing us in one of his many mutual posts to the two of use or in addressing me solely. Of course, I was aware of his many flattering and overly friendly posts to Redthoreau (considering he was, I thought, neutral) but I chose to disregard the evidence. Redthoreau took over the Che Guevara aricle in December of 2008 and made hundreds upon hundreds of edits subsequently. I urge anyone who wants to try to determine the truth to look at the number of edits by Redthoreau and the articles he edited and when the edits were made, using Kate's tool. (You can do the same for Polaris999, Coppertwig, and me.) I think the results will be revealing. As I recall, Redthoreau made more edits to Che Guevara in three months then Polaris999 did in several years as the main editor of the article. Therefore, at that point, I thought Coppertwig was our only hope, although the FAC people backed out immediately, seeing the situation for what it was. If you read the FACR transcript you can see what happened. I urge anyone standing in judgment of me to read it. –Mattisse (Talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Classic vintage Mattisse on display. If you don't agree with him/her you are just out to get him/her. If you side with him/her then you are fair and considerate. If you challenge his/her behavior then he/she brings up all of his/her edits thinking it adds credibility and calls you in effect a "peon". Everything is harmonious as long as you never disagree with him/her. He/she will never back down ... (to the death) it seems ... and knows no such thing as compromise. If he/she doesn't get her way ... he/she will make you life a living hell (as I have sadly found it) by tendentiously editing, gaming the system, and disrupting to make a point. Coppertwig is the fairest person I have ever seen on Wikipedia and he has also rebuked me when I have been in error. At one time, Mattisse liked Coppertwig - when he/she thought the rebukes were only going to be in relation to me. But sadly Coppertwig is now learning the "hard way" what happens if you double cross the notorious Mattisse ... who will edit hundreds/thousands of times in a week and bury you in your attempt to keep up with him/her.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is not the proper forum for this discussion. Please take this to mediation and present your respective cases there. Redthoreau, your statement borders on incivility and does not reflect well upon your argument here. As I stated above, I don't see any major disagreements with other users, as of late, in regard to either of you.... just between yourselves. So, I must ask a logical question -- Why not simply ignore each other, if you don't want to try to work things out at mediation? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies InDeBiz1, I wasn't aware that your statement at the top meant we weren't supposed to talk here anymore. To your question on ignoring ... I would gladly agree to never mention her/his name ever again, never contact, edit, or have any contact. But I fear that he/she wouldn't abide by the same rule. I have pleaded with him/her for this agreement going back weeks - and thought it was in place why he/she was on vacation for a few weeks. But within hours of his/her return he/she began attacking me all across wikipedia - forcing me to respond and defend myself. Can I go to mediation if he/she refuses ? Would it just be me there talking to myself ?   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Amen, brother. I don't know about everyone else, but I've had enough of this squabbling and am archiving the thread. Nothing is going to be solved here. Take it to WP:DR. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible external link to malware[edit]


(ec2) Link removed Spartaz Humbug! 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to click the link to http://www.majalla dot org/books/law/rulesnamaz.htm in the article Salah#Other, but my antivirus software indicated that it might contain malware. Do others have the same problem? If so, the link should be removed asap. AecisBrievenbus 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, don't hyperlink it if you think it might be a problem. ViridaeTalk 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I got the same so removed the link. Aecis I don't think anyone would challenge you if you just went ahead and removed the link if it happened again. Spartaz Humbug! 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have looked at the link in question and examined a couple of hyperlinks within. I find (as of my only run) no attempts to inject or download anything other than http web pages. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The stylesheet within the page writes some dodgy escaped javascript which then writes some iFrames. I haven't looked into what exactly it's trying to do, but it's probably not good. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good catch, I used ff, no iframes. I did not look at the underlying code. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC) for more information. Note that the script will not execute directly when loaded as a style sheet - the problem is the style sheet is a broken link and the site's error redirector page is compromised. --Random832 (contribs) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


The user has made a number of disruptive edits already. I've warned him he's in danger of violating the 3RR rule in two articles and got this message on my talk page. Just to note that the last sentence in Slavic languages means: Eat my d*ck. He has also uploaded a bunch of images: [3] [4] and [5] with most probably false PD-self tags. --Laveol T 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the user in question has asked another user for help with me [6]. He seems to have called me a kapuk (must be some not very nice word whatever it means. --Laveol T 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have left a warning on their user talk page regarding the personal attack for now.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope he'll calm down eventually. --Laveol T 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
He broke WP:3RR on Template:Ethnic Macedonians after I warned him [7]. Should I go to the 3RR noticeboard? --Laveol T 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
User doesn't take any warnings seriously. He broke 3RR again on Bulgarians--Laveol T 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked. He's been pretty disruptive all through the day on various fronts. Fut.Perf. 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Err we have an issue.[edit]

A user ( Nicoleta Sofronie (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ) moved Keith D (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) user and talk page to Roger Parslow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and now I'm lost! Looks like a vandal move however Bidgee (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil NeilN promptly took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, that'd be me (very similar user names, I know). --NeilN talkcontribs 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
D'oh.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be part of some weird vandal/sockpuppet ring, originally dealing with boardgame articles. There was an ANI thread about it a week or so ago. It's related to User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja; I can't tell if all of these are her puppets, or if she's being impersonated by someone. I suspect the former, but since I'm not positive, and it was complicated, I'm only blocking the socks, not Nastasija Marachkovskaja.

I've blocked, I think, two of them, maybe three. There are a few more, but I didn't know it was going to turn into something, so I haven't kept close track, and I can't look into it for a while. In the mean time, if she hasn't been already, I'm going to block Nicoleta Sofronie as part of this little group, based on my interpretation of WP:DUCK. (Update: I see PPG already blocked thiso ne while I was typing.)

I recommend a good test of future socks is: If a new account edits, or otherwise pays attention to, the user pages of:

and doesn't respond to questions about what they're doing, they are not here to be productive, and I'd indef block them as part of this ring.

An adventurous soul could try to find the ANI thread, see who started that thread, and ask them for more insight, and add user pages to this list. Or do an RFCU to see if there are others. Or, look into it a bit more, and determine if User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja is a puppeteer or a victim. If/when I have time, I'll look at it in more depth myself. --barneca (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#Vandalism/sockpuppetry at board game articles is the archive link and I agree with the sock blocks. Woody (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I started the thread and it also included the user Billy Costa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) so those accounts might bear watching, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Woody, and Steven, yes that's the thread.
Based on her behavior previous to the creation of these socks, I'm blocking User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja indef as the master account. This is not an innocent user being harrassed, this is an account that engaged in very similar behavior prior to the socks' creation. I can't imagine a situation where this user is not behind the additional accounts.
There are more socks, but I don't see the need to list them all here anymore, per WP:DENY.
I'm adding all of the above user pages to my watchlist, and will indef block new accounts engaging in similar behavior per WP:DUCK. Since blocking account creation doesn't seem to work, I assume this is a dynamic IP. As such, there may not be much left to say on this thread. WP:RBI. If it gets bad, I'll ask for a Checkuser to look into a rangeblock, but right now it isn't disrupting the mainspace very much, so I don't think it's needed right now. --barneca (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: There is one account, User:Eremia, that I am convinced is the same person, but which doesn't seem to be doing any vandalism. I don't know enough about the subject matter they're contributing to know ofr sure, but it appears, at first glance, to be legitimate (or mostly legitimate). Since I'm sure it's the same person, should I (a) block the account, (b) watch the account, or (c) attempt to discuss the situation with them at this user talk page, and try to convince them to stop the disruption. Does option (c) ever work? Anyone interested can see user:barneca/watch/bvr. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the policies, but given the history of disruption, I'd say that any new socks are blockable on sight. The strongest evidence is this edit made by User:Sofronie to Eremia's user page without any apparant objection by Eremia. (Note similar username to User:Nicoleta Sofronie.) So far as I know, none of these socks have responded to any discussions anywhere, but I suppose you can give it a try. I guess the approach most consistent with AGF is to find an active account, inform/remind them of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and invite them to contribute constructively to the project. As an aside, if you google these user names, you'll find that most of them are either real people or characters from fictional works. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This person's got several issues, but their main one seems to be that card games and board games should be called card sports and board sports. So, she changes article text, moves article pages, and populates and depopulates categories to achieve this, across multiple, multiple articles. She is always reverted by whoever is watching that particular article. She has never, as far as I can find, discussed this with anyone on any article talk page or on her talk pages.
New clearly-disruptive socks of the same person are blockable on sight without warning. I think I've convinced myself that this person (on several different account names) has been told her changes don't have consensus enough times that continuing this on any account, regardless of whether that account is actually being used to vandalize, is disruption, and I think new accounts starting this same thing up right away can legitimately be blocked.
I plan on making this point known to her on the Eremia account's talk page, and if the changes and page moves continue, I'm going to block that account too. I'll tell her that if she finds a talk page to discuss this, and stops making multiple accounts to do the same thing, then it's a simple content dispute, and WP:DR is available, and I will leave one of her accounts unblocked so she can participate. If the sock creation continues, I'll block all accounts, whether or not that particular account is disruptive, and whether or not they are participating in WP:DR with that account.
Further review of this approach is welcome. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. Clearly disruptive and intolerable. Your approach makes sense to me. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with what you're doing, Barneca. It may also be worth noting that User:Aliena Kvacha has received a bloqué indéfiniment from an administrateur as a result of a decision from the Comité d'arbitrage at the French language Wikipedia, so these accounts may have some trouble with the English language. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the process today of looking at pages this person has vandalized, I discovered that on the French Wikipedia (or, at least, some French speakers on this Wikipedia), a sockpuppet is called a "faux-nez", which still makes me smile every time I read or write it. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"False nose?" That is 31 flavors of awesome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


User:DemiLovato15 ignores repeated warnings (reverts them with messages like "stupid warnings are useless") and leaves insulting and argumentative messages liek this one on other people's talk pages as a result. -- David from Downunder (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

People being argumentative on Wikipedia?! Call the sheriff. </joke> Equazcion /C 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, yeah this user does seem to need a good stern warning about civility. Equazcion /C 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left the user a message regarding civility. Hopefully it'll do something. Equazcion /C 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
See here. Just saying.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Help desk query (Review requested)[edit]

I'm just posting my actions here for review. This post at the help desk which is from a Pakistani religious organization who are very upset about the content of this userpage. If you click the version, it's actually an article about the organization in question, posted as the userpage of a Wikipedia user who (apparently) is part of another organization which opposes the first. The userpage makes a bunch of claims, such as:


Naturally, this is totally incompatible with userpage guidelines, and clearly is using Wikipedia as a free soapbox for his political/religious views. It was previously deleted when it was being used as a promotional venue for the second organization mentioned. Bizarrely, on March 6, an admin protected the page when an IP user tried to delete some of the material mentioned, and a number of other users reverted them as well. It's clear that not only is this material confusing to users, who think it is an article, but it's also non-neutral and probably violates BLP guidelines, since the members of the organization are easily identifiable in the article. I have blanked the page, and left a note telling the user not to re-add this. --Haemo (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your actions. I would also consider protecting the blanked page version should the material be re-introduced (outside of any sanction imposed on whoever reverts.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted and protected the page. Reviews, please? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Again concur. I suggest you note your actions to the users talkpage, in case they wish to create a legit userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done so, thanks. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur with the deletion. Inappropriate material for a userpage, so a valid deletion and protection, given that the account is pretty SPAish. GBT/C 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also concur. Necessary action. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism including identifying info[edit]

Resolved: Edits deleted, editor indef'd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dimondlover vandalized three pages (Talk:Birth, Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page, and Help) by adding an individual's personal identifying information. I deleted the revisions from Talk:Birth, but the other two pages have enormous histories. I'm a bit out of my depth here as to how to handle this without causing problems. I don't want to crash the database by deleting and restoring all those revisions. Should this be oversighted? --Ginkgo100talk 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a go at deleting/undeleting the articles - they should work if less than 5000 edits and I managed a 6000+ edit history just yesterday... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) * ...and done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:True Steppa[edit]

Resolved: Discussion already open at WP:AN LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to request the blocking of True Steppa (talk · contribs). This person is disrupting the list of electronic music genres page by adding something that has no valuable data and there is no mention of the subject in question. Fclass (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What up with User:Enigmaman ?[edit]

Resolved: It was a misinterpretation, is all. All is now well again - Alison 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

David Shankbone made a really great defence of Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review and was told he was a fool for it because Wikipedia would never thank him. So I thanked David on his talkpage in the name of Wikipedia, to both thank him and to prove the idiot at Wikipedia Review wrong. User:Enigmaman deleted it so I explained in clear English on his talk page what I was doing and restored the edit. So he deleted both messages. What is up with this guy? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I've had good interactions with E-man. Have you told him about this thread so he could possibly explain his edits? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just restored your comments and asked him not to do that. I can see no legitimate reason for removing your comments let alone edit-warring over it - Alison 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably an over-enthusiastic application of WP:DENY and/or WP:EL. I know Engima really detests WR and giving them any attention on-wiki. MBisanz talk 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, however it doesn't fall under the auspices of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, IMO - Alison 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I'm gonna guess its the link that annoyed him, can't say I'm too happy about linking there from here either, but probably wouldn't have reverted it like Enigma did. MBisanz talk 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder though if Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links would apply. A good part of that linked thread is assassinating Erik's character. MBisanz talk 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, simply removing the link and leaving the quote would have done the trick, too... HalfShadow 21:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 90% of the WR threads in some way could be seen as harassing some Wikipedian, removing the link would've been the better thing to do. MBisanz talk 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like removing the link is a good compromise :) - Alison 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[Enigmaman has inadvertently wiki-break'd himself out, so I am pasting this reply on his behalf] - Sorry, it was my mistake. I badly misread it and somehow thought it was harassment. My apologies to User:WAS_4.250.

I shouldn't have reverted you once, let alone three times (once on my page and twice on David's page).

I still don't think the link is appropriate, given its contents, but had I read it properly, I wouldn't have reacted in that way. -Enigmaman (Pasted by ScarianCall me Pat! 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC) from MSN)

I've removed the link and left the quote. It's a moot point now, but ... HalfShadow 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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


Resolved: Socksploded

This is surely somebody's sock, but I can't tell whose with the tools I have. From the contribs, I'm guessing AntiEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Enjoy! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for checkuser request. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IfD rapidly running out of control[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.
See the DRV and the links towards the end of this section for the wider discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg - I do not subscribe to the view that we should keep shild porn just because we can, but regardless, the thing is running out of control. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested it get closed but I appear to have been ignored. Rgoodermote  20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, are you asking for an uninvolved admin to review and close one way or the other? GBT/C 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope not. It's just being reported on Gawker (although, oddly, without a link to the IfD) and that's pretty 'big' in the blogosphere. Of course, people who think that they can vote on what is or isn't legal (which is up to the courts to decide) are coming and voting en masse. --TIB (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the image has been deleted. I can't see how kowtowing to a minor right wing organization trying to stir up publicity for itself is ever a good thing. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:Angusmclellan for a policy-covered reason for the deletion, but, barring one, I plan on opening a DRV. I'm just going to wait for a response from the deleting admin before I do that. I might be surprised by his response. Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh. Just edit the article to include the meaningful discussion of the cover necessitated by the non-free content criteria cited in the closing argument (whew!) and get it undeleted - that'll give you fewer hoops to jump through (and consequently less drama) if you want the image back. --Kizor 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is currently protected, else this would have already been done. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
User:FCYTravis has now restored it. I think going DRV would have been a more cool-headed route, but I also think that Angus's deletion, which was by his own admission for a rationale other than those under discussion in the IFD, was a de facto speedy, and needs to be discussed as such. I don't think such a discussion reflects well on his decision to delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I was just on my way here to say the exact same thing. Ford MF (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Kizor has it spot on. Since the original debate never really touched on the NFCC#8 issues, there should be no problem getting the image undeleted once there is enough discussion of the image in the article to warrant having a copy of the image in the article under our non-free content criteria. Incidentially, WP:NFCC criteria #5 and #6 also apply here - the image needs to be encyclopedic and must meet "general Wikipedia content requirement" (ie. not be pornographic, which is what some people claim it is). But at the moment there is far too much drama around all this. I have a related discussion I want to get started once I find a location for it, but I fear it will get lost amongst the noise. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good God, what a mess. Well, if media outlets other than WorldNetDaily haven't picked this up, they certainly will now. IMO, the deletion was entirely correct; I was arguing for it to be deleted on ethical grounds, not having considered the fair use issue, but I agree with the closer's argument re WP:NFCC #8. In cases related to image licensing, it is perfectly acceptable to disregard consensus where said consensus violates licensing restrictions, since those are non-negotiable. I also think it should be deleted for fundamental ethical reasons, but let's not re-hash the IfD here. WaltonOne 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you argue that non-free images with borderline adherence with WP:NFCC should be speedily deleted without discussion of said adherence? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Then the closing admin should be in the process right now of speedy-deleting all album covers. If album covers fail NFCC, fine. Let's say that. Delete them all. FCYTravis (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(to Sarcasticidealist) Generally, no. Image policy isn't my area of expertise, but I certainly wouldn't endorse that statement as a general rule. However, the fair use issues combined with the ethical issues certainly merited deletion. They are also related; the main problem is that the album cover is simply not necessary to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic, which means that the fair use claim is dubious, and also raises the ethical issue of why we are keeping something so morally questionable when it isn't even necessary. WaltonOne 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, those sound like issues that we could discuss! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't disagree with that. I have proposed on the DRV that we speedy-relist the image at IfD, since I think IfD is probably a more productive forum for deciding this than either DRV or ANI. WaltonOne 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, a DRV has been started at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 9. Equazcion /C 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Follow up comment - Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. There is also a talk page subpage covering stuff moved from the Signpost tipline discussion page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion here, as there's an ongoing discussion at DRV. Corvus cornixtalk 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible flood of edits to Flock (web browser) due to tweet[edit]

Flock has asked its 723 twitter followers to update their wiki page. --TIB (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. HalfShadow 21:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll watchlist it - but I doubt if it is going to be vandalised by the birdwatching fraternity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a little faith here and hope that some of the contributors add to the article to improve it. Just canvassing for an article necessarily isn't bad, especially if the editors can be constructive, not destructive or disruptive. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Especially when the person offers rewards for significant changes. --TIB (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done some cleanup (copying the features pages verbatim does add text which sounds good), but the biggest concern should be copyright problems, not vandalism. I do think we have at least one or two new editors that might be coming out of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Eric.k.herberholz is at least trying to be helpful. Can't really hold that against him. HalfShadow 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories[edit]

Is there someone knowledgeable re: multi-racial categorizations? A contributor is reverting a number of such biographical designations [8], and I do not know if the changes are legitimate or not. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rule was, unless they were self-described or in a really good source, get the people out of the categories completely. Notified him anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No explicit rule. Going through 1, 2, 3 levels of abstraction about guidelines, it seems that for religious beliefs and sexual orientation, not unless the subject publicly self-identifies or the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. It isn't explicitly the same for ethnic groups but I'd follow a similar pattern. Any other ideas?-- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Though I'm not terribly fond of such categorizations to begin with, I was struck by the contributor's inclination to 'take offense', especially since most of the cats being reverted were supported by the articles' biographical information. But as suggested above, I am unfamiliar with Wiki policy on this. JNW (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, that kind of immediate offense, quick action, and immediate stop when questioned at all is really suspicious. I already reverted one because he broke up a ref tag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your research is appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC) spammer[edit]

An apparent single purpose account is edit warring and continuously adding a link to the external links section of this article. Looks like obvious spam to me, but I'll leave it for an administrator to deal with. Apologies for not including the user, but it's probably obvious from the edit history that the editor in question is FadeIntoYou. Rray (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified User:Fadeintoyou about this discussion. I remove the link to a site that probably doesn't pass WP:RS which is purporting to be reviewing the site. I'll look more into it later. The edit dispute doesn't belong here, but the possible COI problem is worth looking into. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire entry is spam for! Are you kidding me? I'm trying to protect people from this criminal organization!Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

no what you are trying to do is push a single point of view, and it is getting old quickly. You have been advised several times as how to work with other editors on this matter but it appears to be going in one ear and out the other. Enough now. SmartGuy (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No, what YOU are trying to do is push a single point of view. Why are you so intent on defending their propaganda? What is your agenda? Fadeintoyou (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 1 week for 3RR. Indef block might be considered if he resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For a few weeks has been removing sourced content from Hans Reiser and does not discuss changes despite being warned. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer[edit]

Resolved: What's the difference between Albertsons, Fred Meyer's, and Safeway and Wikipedia? On the latter you can't shop around. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. denial of editprotected

Apart from all other issues pertaining to this, I can't see why my request was denied, except that admins are afraid to deal with controversial issues.

Prior to the hysteria surrounding the press release, the article was stable.

It was protected, and happened to have the image moved down at the time;

My requests to revert have been denied even though consensus had clearly been reached.

I know that, in a few days, this will be irrelevent, but in the meantime it appears to the outside world that WP has bowed to external censorship.

--  Chzz  ►  04:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Being vague here doesn't help anyone help out. Look at Talk:Virgin_Killer#Editprotected_revert_request, you request a reversion, claim that consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg (extremely controversial, deleted and now at deletion review being discussed) and an admin rejects it (in part because of the oppose votes), so you forum shop. Recommend marking as resolved and head to WP:DR if you want to complain some more. If not, discuss it on the article page but it's dumb to do that until the discussion about the image itself is done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was vague. I didn't want to spam this forum with detail that can be obtained by research, and this specific request for an edit should not be related to ongoing isputes re. the image. I disagree with the admin rejection due to oppose votes, as consensus is clear. I agree it's dumb to discuss on the talk page, as discussion re. the image deletion is irrelevent to this request. I fail to see policy that substantiates denying this specific request, and discussion with admins has led to "I agree but I can't do it because it's controversial" (unfortunately not a citable quote for obv reasons). --  Chzz  ►  05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the section shows your view isn't the only one. If you were unopposed, it wouldn't be controversial. Even then, there is a reason why there's a process to get the mop and bucket and it is because we supposedly have better judgment =) Let the DRV and everything else sort itself out (which I think will require a ARBCOM decision in the end) either about NFCC (unbelievable) or about how far to take WP:CENSOR. I think we're done here though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced information with repeated offensive edit summaries despite warning[edit]

At the article Monica Seles I inserted information about her receiving Hungarian citizenship in 2007 with three reliable references. User:Tennis expert removed it with an offensive edit summary. I warned him not to use such an edit summary again, also referred to my detailed explanation on the talk page. I reinserted the information with a fourth(!) reliable reference, translated all the titles into English, even inserted a quote from one of the articles.
He deleted the warning from his talk page, then reverted my edit again, this time explicitly using the word vandalism in the edit summary. He called my edit "pushing agenda" on the talk page and despite my explanation again denied the verifability of the sources, because "these are not English news agencies". It's also kind of strange that the same user never questioned the blog of a young Serbian woman as a reliable source.
I'd like to ask an administrator to reinsert the well-referenced information with all the references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly in the right here on the content, but I'm not going to involve myself in an edit war. I have warned him. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I reinsert the info once again, but that means I'll have two reverts (which I don't really like). As he uses such phrases as "enough said" and "rv vandalism", I don't know if he will be able to finally stop. Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page regarding this thread. Hopefully he can be involved in this thread and maybe come to a conclusion. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And he reverted it D= [9] <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, Tonkleheimer, as Squash Racket did not do me the courtesy of doing so. Turning to the substance of this disagreement, Monica Seles is a very famous tennis player who was World No. 1 for several years and who very publicly became an American citizen in the early-1990s. She has lived in the United States for over 20 years and, before she stopped playing on the tour in 2003, she often played on American Fed Cup and Olympic teams. She is now one of the most beloved female professional tennis players in that country. Therefore, if she had become a Hungarian citizen in 2007, there is no doubt whatsoever that an English language newspaper or website would have prominently publicized that fact. But not one has. Various editors have tried for at least 6 months (possibly including anonymous IP accounts of Squash Racket) to add Hungarian language information, which appears to be nothing more than rumor-mongering or wishful thinking, about her alleged new and secretly obtained Hungarian citizenship. Various established editors, including myself, have reverted those attempts as not being supported by reliable sources and highly unlikely to be true. If anyone is reverting against Wikipedia policy, it is Squash Racket. Personally, I strongly suspect that Squash Racket is a sockpuppet of the banned user VinceB, who was well known for nationalistic agenda pushing concerning Hungary and for harrassing editors who resisted that agenda. See this. By the way, I have no idea what Squash Racket is talking about concerning the "blog of a young Serbian woman." Clearly, blogs are not proper sources. Tennis expert (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As two administrators immediately answered you on the talk page, one of them reverted you and you deleted my first message, I didn't feel the need to send a message (I hope you understand). If you have insecurities about who I am and have some kind of evidence, you should ask for a Checkuser. Although Deskana already said (back in the day) I was NOT editing from the same IP ranges as this banned user that you are trying to associate me with who basically didn't respect any Wikipedia policies ever. Very nice. Also take a little look at my contributions for a fair view.
It is enough to translate the titles of the articles (I already did that, you can check it with an online dictionary), you don't need to speak Hungarian. The references (for example this one) are reliable as explained on the talk page. And I have not asked for a block on you for your overall conduct.
"Clearly, blogs are not proper sources", but you never questioned the reliability of that Serbian blog, while immediately removing the reliable references that I added. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the point here, but I would highly suggest a hidden comment saying that there have been rumors of a secret Hungarian citizenship and to see the talk page before inserting it. It doesn't matter if 100 users every day add that nonsense, you should be assuming good faith at all times. Put a comment there, remove it if it's still insert and say, "see the talk page." That should be clearer than this conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Squash Racket, I don't understand your starting this thread without contacting me. Deleting a prior message of yours does not imply anything. As for the Serbian blog, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I delete blog references and links to external fan websites all the time. The whole problem here is that your sources are not reliable. Clearly. I'm sure that there are many in the English media who can read Hungarian as well as you. They would've noticed reports about Seles "secretly" obtaining Hungarian citizenship. Because she is such a well-known and beloved public figure in both Europe and the United States, they would've investigated those reports to determine their credibility. But not one has reported the rumor that you are so stridently saying is reliable. And aside from all this, you are insisting on adding information against editorial consensus that has been so explictly demonstrated over the last many months. Tennis expert (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, here is a translation: Titokban (titok=secret) lett (has become) magyar (Hungarian) állampolgár (citizen) Szeles Mónika. Here is the reference. The blog is still among the references (and nobody questioned it, although you say you were "protecting" this article for months from different IPs).
I repeat: I haven't asked for a block on you even though despite an administrator's warning (and mine) you still openly call my edits vandalism. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1UP Forum + 1UP Resources[edit]

Resolved: nonsense deleted...GBT/C 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Might an admin move 1UP Forum in mainspace back to User talk:1up king, and 1UP Resources back to User:1up king, over the original move redirects? The user appears either unaware or uncaring of policy on user vs. mainspace and WP:FORUM, per the comment: Ok, I did some redirects so I could proper titling for these pages. So this is now the 1UP Forum, and the page with all the links and content is the 1UP Resources page. Enjoy! BTW: you can now use the Wikipedia search to find these pages!!. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a good reason why we should be keeping "articles" full of non-free images around so that users can link to youtube and flash games? I'd suggest deleting the whole sucker and tell the user to quit screwing around and use the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Forget that. I deleted the whole sucker and told him to stop screwing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I did think about speedy tagging them, but since WP is a lot more forgiving about user pages and talk page content, I figured no big deal, it's most important to get the content out of mainspace. Without admin intervention I would have to tag the pages, hope an admin agreed with the CSD, blank the redirects, post to the (new) talk page asking the user to cut out the moves and why, tell them that "no, they can't have their own private forum", and then they would very likely ignore everything I said. Seemed easier to ask for a move over redirect back to status quo and work from there. But the double delete works for me, too.-- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden[edit]

A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the definition of the term that is completely inappropriate. Regardless, thanks for pointing to the dispute resolution page. I'll take it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talkcontribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The matter seems resolved here but we may just note for the record that I have discussed the matter extensively on the relevant talk pages and that my position rests upon reliable sources such as the OED. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Fascinating. Rankiri and other editors were in effect claiming the Oxford English Dictionary to be wrong, while Warden was simply holding the line against utter insanity. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. "Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). Please read the arguments before making fool of yourself: "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talkcontribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Coren Bot[edit]

Resolved: I guess -- lucasbfr talk 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please white list my account as I am receiving two messages a minute from Coren Bot which wrongly keeps taggin my new Burmese settlement articles of which I am adding two articles a minute. No response from User:Coren who operates it. Its driving me crackers. Will somebody help give the Bald Guy a break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it's saying you're copyvio-ing from a Wikipedia article - which would be true if formatting and non-substantive information in the article violated some copyright. Each article is a one-line stub that takes its format from the first article on your list, so I don't think there's anything problematic about any of them. Would there be any objections if I rollbacked the bot's tagging of those articles? As for whitelisting your edits, or edits in this area, or that source - I don't know. I'm not seeing a way on the bot's page, so my impulse would be to ask Coren. I'm hesitant to shut down the bot, but this isn't the first issue raised in the past few days. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The articles I spot checked are indeed copyvio-free, so I've removed all of the tags on your Burma articles. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I checked several as well, and, I don't see any obvious copyvio's. Would you like for me to protect your talkpage for the time being, until we can get ahold of Coren? SQLQuery me! 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The whitelist appears to be at User:CorenSearchBot/allies -- at least I found my name there, and I'm not getting the notices anymore. – Sadalmelik 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added your name to the whitelist - I've seen your mass article creations in the past and can understand how the bot might get confused because of them. If Coren objects, I'm sure he'll remove you, but I doubt he'll have a problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even know about that whitelist :P SQLQuery me! 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy days are here again in the land of Wiki bots I guess... Is anyone going to take a position on Corenbot's instant tagging of mirror scrapes, highlighted a few posts above, or is it just going to be ignored because it's seemingly accepted that a bot op can be absent from wiki for days on end while still running a bot (or months it would appear since my talk post about it). MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you wish: instant tagging is good, it lowers the amount of false positives. The error rate is low, and real people review every tagging. There are two white lists to prevent such things to continue when a false positive is raised. Do you need something else while I'm here? Otherwise you can come and help, you know, build a free encyclopedia? -- lucasbfr talk 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Has been previously banned
  • Suspected of sockpuppetry: USEDfan,, Booowooo, Usedfan1989
  • Repeated warnings for disruptive edits
  • repeated failure of understanding the concept of NPOV.

--SilverOrion (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That name isn't shown as registered. Are you sure you have the spelling and the case of the name correct? Nate (chatter) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Try User:USEDfan. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to try giving the guys at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets an insight, so they can investigate. Lradrama 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)



Isn't this just a content dispute now? And no one should be doing any unilateral moves like a DAB or rename if it's contested--everyone has to respect consensus from admins on down at all times or face consequences. Talk it out, if someone acts disruptive or keeps moving/renaming, thats what the 3rr cluestick is for. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not at all. I wrote: "if it's contested". If it is, the bold move (fine once) gets thrown back, and discussion decides. Like it is now, and like it should be. No one user on any one matter has any sort of sticking permanent power; we all have to bow down and accept a formed consensus when it forms. If that consensus is undesired by the one party, they have to change the consensus. If consensus is to not rename or DAB Fluffing, then anyone who goes down the BOLD route repeatedly is against consensus and could be validly sanctioned. Hypothetically, if you started an edit battle over this, as an example, and consensus did not support you, you could be sanctioned or blocked (3rr, disruption), as could any admin or editor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We had a User make a whole-sale page move with absolutely no discussion, make up a bunch of words that don't exist for the word "fluffing" and then put the current page under a wholly inaccurate term ("Fluffer(makeup artist)}, all under the guise of WP:BOLD - page moves always get discussed, but in this case, it was absolutely ridiculous. It's even spelled wrong - there's no space between the paren and the word Fluffer. I'm unsure how to undo the damage of a page move...?--David Shankbone 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you could start by not doing a wholesale cut and paste move back to the original location. ViridaeTalk 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How does one "start" by not doing something done? That's not really the start. --David Shankbone 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That is how you started though - cut and paste moves (or in this case restores) are a violation of GDFL. Either way the move has been reveresed - I am going to restored the dab page that was created into the history of Fluffing so no content is lost. ViridaeTalk 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How is moving information a violation of the GFDL license? --David Shankbone 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't attribute the original authors - all of the work was to all appearances written by you when you cut and paste it back without the articles history - sorry I thought you had been around long enough to know this, hence the sarcastic response. ViridaeTalk 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's real helpful, thanks Viridae. David is correct, this was done with no discussion, it's not an accurate title, and it's badly formatted to boot. If someone could kindly undo it, please,we'd all appreciate it. Thanks. Equazcion /C 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, this does need to be moved, and the main page made into a dab, since around half the article (including 100% of the independently cited uses) is a list of other uses, and it's far fomr clear that the main use of "fluffing" is in porn - actors fluffing their lines is probably in far wider currency. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What needs to happen, Guy, is for you take part in the discussion on the talk page - the article has existed for four years, and probably has collected a lot random facts and ideas. But we don't just move articles by fiat, especially ones that have been around for a long time. Creating a disambiguation page might be merited, but sorting out how to do it takes discussion, and certainly not in the misspelled mess that the user did it. --David Shankbone 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having only come across this article the other day (a dispute over the picture grabbed my curiosity, i believed the picture should stay), i was always under the impression fluffing was a polite way of saying fart. Im no expert on these things but i think a disambigious page might be in order. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

new account/refusal repeatedly of different usernames[edit]

I have tried using all sorts of usernames without success, suggesting that there is something wrong with your website section for setting up new accounts137.186.61.69 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)lakeside

Reasons why people tend not to be able to use accounts are;
  • the usernames are the same / similar to others already in use
  • a vandal who has been blocked from creating other accounts
Lradrama 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy[edit]

The page Jeremiah Wright controversy has been subjected to undiscussed edits by several users. Recently there was a discussion leading to a compromise text in the "comparisons" section. Several users who, of their own accord, did not participate in the discussion have persisted in reverting the compromise text to their version. Additionally, they have shown a lack of willingness to have a civil discussion about the academics section, or to reach any type of compromise. The administrator who was handling this has been inactive for several days and this page needs attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was just fully protected by PhilKnight. Sasquatch t|c 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone delete this junk?[edit]


Blocked/banned user:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as user:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.
After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:
  1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
  2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?
--barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked user:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of user:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden[edit]

A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the definition of the term that is completely inappropriate. Regardless, thanks for pointing to the dispute resolution page. I'll take it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talkcontribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The matter seems resolved here but we may just note for the record that I have discussed the matter extensively on the relevant talk pages and that my position rests upon reliable sources such as the OED. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Fascinating. Rankiri and other editors were in effect claiming the Oxford English Dictionary to be wrong, while Warden was simply holding the line against utter insanity. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. "Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). Please read the arguments before making fool of yourself: "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talkcontribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Review: User:Zscout370 blocking User:Redrocket[edit]

I would like a review by the community of the recent actions of User:Zscout370. Zscout370 blocked User:Redrocket, an established editor with over a years experience and 5500 edits, for 12 hours with the block reasons of "you were told not to post real names, yet you still did". To give a quick background on what happened, User:Hdayejr was attacking User:TPIRFanSteve (see [10], [11], [12], the user's contribs and here especially) and Redrocket helped revert some of the attacks. Hdayejr was subsequently indefinitely blocked. He has returned as many IPs and a user name, all of which have been blocked (see the checkuser case). TPIRFanSteve wrote a comment on Redrockets talk page, saying thank you for his help with "Mr. D***" (revision since oversighted). Another sock of Hdayejr, User:Harvey1976, posted on WP:AN/I (archive link) complaining about the users last name ("Mr. D***") being posted on Redrocket's talk page. This discussion was quickly dismissed, archived, and Harvey1976 was blocked indefinitely for socking and vandalism. At about this time, IPs (obvious socks) came to Redrockets talk page and tried to remove the name, with Redrocket reverting the edits based on the fact that the user in question was banned from editing and Redrocket deemed it unacceptable for the IPs to alter a comment made on his talk page by TPIRFanSteve. At about this time three editors commented on Redrockets reverting saying that he should not restore the users last name, even though the user is banned from editing. After which Redrocket replaced the users last name with his user name [13] (the revisions before his are oversighted) Then Redrocket explained the reason he was making the edits (obviously in good faith) here and logged off. Zscout370 responded to the comment with "I don't care..." and blocked Redrocket for 12 hours.

So ultimately a banned editor who has harrassed multiple editors on and off-wiki wins and gets an established editor blocked for restoring a comment made on his talk page that was being removed by IP editors (Redrocket was not the original editor to post the name). Now not only was this block purely punitive, Zscout370 failed to assume good faith on the part of an established editor, failed to properly communicate with Redrocket, as seen by his short 3 comments on his talk page, and his "block and run" (Zscout370 has failed to reply to Redrocket as of this posting, nor has he replied to my concerns or of the concerns of two other editors and another admin on Redrocket's talk page, he has only made a total of 4 edits since his block 19 hours ago as of this post). This block was grossly uncalled for, unjust, unfounded in policy, and was not preventative, as Redrocket was not actively editing when blocked, and he is an established editor, who should have been given more than one chance even if his edits were deemed inappropriate by Zscout370 (I mean come on, we give the worst vandals four warnings). So in the end we have an established user blocked because of miscommunication and trolling comments made a banned user (so much for not feeding the trolls) and an "over-zealous" (as deemed by his quick block) admin who did not take the time or energy to figure out the situation and give Redrocket the benefit of the doubt. Now we have a user who is crushed and feels betrayed, and probably questioning whether or not to leave this site (I know I would after a situation like this). Is this how we really want to treat the editors here?

In the end, the block will probably forever stand in his record, but there are some things that should be done to help Redrocket. I personally expect an explanation, admission of error, and an apology to Redrocket from Zscout370. Also, Zscout370 (or another admin) should block Redrocket for 1 second, explaining that the previous block was uncalled for and unfounded. Ultimately the community needs to clear Redrocket's name, and warn Zscout370 that blocks of this nature will lead to a bad path.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support suggestion, as written. Block appears to have been unjustified. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am not an admin, and since I have not been floating around long enough, I don't really know, but would my support/turn down of this have any meaning? Or is it only other admins?— dαlusT@lk / Improve 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Any user can comment on this noticeboard, and all comments will be met with the same weight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
By all means, offer your opinion! I, after all, am not an administrator (yet... someday, perhaps), but I'll often browse this board and weigh in if I have an opinion. As long as you're following WP:CIVIL and contributing something to the discussion, it's "all groovy," as the chill'uns say. :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Then I offer my opinion. The blocking admin was completely in the wrong, as he did not even follow policy leading up to the block. I see one warning, and the block was issued because RR posted the username. I do not see repeated warnings like the user stated happened. As Gonzo said, last time I checked, it was not only policy to remove edits made by a banned user, but it is also policy to warn a user 4 times, visibly on the offending user's talk page, so that others may verify said warnings. Such of course, in this case, was not done. Further, RR was not even the offending party, it just happened to take place on his page.
So, what happened here, an edit-war with a banned user on another established editor's page gets the established editor banned? My personal opinion is not only what Gonzo requested, but that the admin in question has his use of powers reviewed by other admins.
What is an admin that can't follow policy? I may be going to far here, but straight to the point, a temp de-sysop until the user in question knows WP policy like the back of his hand.— dαlusT@lk /