Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive479

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

Noticeboard archives



I just nuked Bangle-butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per WP:BLP, having been attracted to Chris Bangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a request to link a petition to sack the designer at Mediawiki The article documents (using the word loosely) a derogatory term used by detractors to describe a specific design feature associated largely, though not exclusively, to this one designer. It's a love/hate thing, and the biography and that nuked article are dominated by the hate group. Feel free to undelete the article and give it a more appropriate title, and strip out the derogatory overtones, if you can find sourcing. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the article has been around since 2005, and a 30 second search reveals more than enough sources that would warrant an article under that specific term. I think the article should be undeleted or started anew from scratch. --Conti| 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how "No one bothered to nuke it before now" somehow makes a subject encyclopedic. Age does not always denote worth - check out any dirty old man or meddlesome old lady for proof of that. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought that linking to dozens of reliable sources using that term was the better part of my argument, too. :) --Conti| 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If it should be anything (doubtful), it should be a redirect to Chris Bangle with some sourced information (if that's possible) at that article. Black Kite 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Good idea; I've redirected, although I have not added any content to the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the article numerous times in popular car magazines 100+ instances,3 instances,164 instances (mainly forums, some reviews. Here's a quote from a Motor Trend Interview with Bangle: Love or loathe his work, Bangle's impact on auto design has been profound. No other designer, not even legendary GM design chief Harley Earl, has so rapidly become a part of the industry lexicon. To "bangle" a design is now an auto-industry verb for ruining it. Auto writers use "Bangle butt" to describe a tail with an extra layer of metal on the trunk (think new Mercedes S-Class). Bangle, some rivals will remind you, is only one letter away from "bungle." Whether or not the term deserves it's own article is debatable, but at the very least should be addressed in Bangle's bio. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on what else to do with it, but redirecting it to the BLP is NOT a good way to leave it. Someone googling that term would think that the term is referring to him and not realize that it is referring to the car. It should either redirect to an article subsection, be an actual article, or redirect to an article on automotive slang (if there is such a thing). But leaving it as a redirect to the BLP really isn't acceptable IMO. --B (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree it should not redirect to Bangle's bio. It's a bio about his whole person, not just his butt. The term Bangle-butt should stay redlinked, per WP:NEO, WP:BLP, and WP:CSD#R3 (Implausible). I've heard the editorial comment "that car has been bangled" (verb) as well, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the term isn't notable by itself. If I read this right, this is all automotive related, right? Don't we have a list of automotive industry related slang or some other similar minutiae?--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it quite fits as part of List of automotive superlatives. Maybe the BMW is the "first car to be criticized as ugly enough to disparage it's designer?", although I can't hardly imagine this is the first designer to be criticized in car mags. Someone stunk up the world with the Ford Pinto and the AMC Gremlin after all....18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised the article is deleted. The subject is well known among car enthusiasts. And imho notable. [1] --Boivie (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: editor blocked for 72 hours (and report is old by now anyway) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), fresh off a block for 3RR (actually 6RR - see discussion above), returns to the article to begin revert warring[2][3] and uncivil rants.[4] Has been warned plenty of times, and calmly offered advice on learning Wikipedia's content and behavior policies (see his talk page, for instance). Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility of this editor got under my skin enough that, for the very first time, I committed a 3RR violation myself and was briefly blocked for it. Mtngoat63 has not, as of yet, engaged in a single discussion over the contentious material s/he has been edit-warring over, despite repeated -- nay, continuous -- efforts to engage with the editor. I am beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia has been subjected to one of the long-term abusers, such as Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. --GoodDamon 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor has reverted a third time.[5] GoodDamon reports that the citation links are copyvios. I'm proposing to restore stable neutral article content (this would be my 2RR today). Anyone, please feel free to tell me no or jump in. All attempts to communicate or reach consensus failed at this point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I didn't catch them earlier. One of them is a pure C&P of text written by Barack Obama, stored on someone's non-reliable (and presumably non-permitted) website. The others I removed are literally scanned pages of books, stored at a free image hosting website. I cannot comprehend what would lead someone to believe those would be suitable and permissible uses of copyrighted works. --GoodDamon 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the short Obama paragraph being taken out when the Hillary Clinton paragraph just above it is left in? Saul Alinsky influenced Barack Obama, didn't he? That's what all the sources that mention both of them indicate. Seems like important information for the Alinsky article and, in fact, it's the kind of information on influences that would typically be in a Wikipedia article. How is your edit warring on this any different from POV pushing? I've read the discussion at Talk:Saul Alinsky#Contentious paragraph re-added without discussion and the discussion doesn't address why you wouldn't want an adequate mention of Alinsky's influence on the Democratic candidate for president. Because neither of you adequately address this point, it's pretty damn obvious why an editor would be increasingly upset. You POV push for obviously bogus reasons (trying to protect Barack Obama from criticism that might come from being more closely associated with the radical Alinsky) until someone gets so upset that a behavioral violation results, and Wikidemon immediately files a report at AN/I. I call it the "Wikidemon Method". See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible WP:CANVASSING at Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Weatherman WP:RfC for a similar application of the Wikidemon Method. A non-POV-pushing way of doing this would be to find acceptable language, acceptably sourced, that mentions Alinsky's influence on Obama. This is part of a POV-pushing campaign that goes from article to article, battling to scrub each one of anything that might be inconvenient for the Obama campaign. It's on Obama-related articles, it's going on at Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Weatherman (organization). It's often got the same editors involved. Vague allusions to Wikipedia policy are made, evidently for the sake of apearances, because no specifics are mentioned. "Reasoning" that is utterly bogus on its face is proffered: GoodDamon saying that it is forbidden for Wikipedia to link to some web page on which GoodDamon alleges that there's a copyright violation. Where is that prohibition in Wikipedia policy? The POV-pushing pattern is clear. -- Noroton (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we please strike the above comment? It's really unwarranted - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong about linking to a copyvio web page, as GoodDamon pointed out to me at Talk:Saul Alinsky, so I've crossed out that part. See how it's done, guys? You actually pay attention to the facts and when you're wrong, you admit it. Because the facts are more important than your personal preferences. Too bad you didn't follow that practice at Saul Alinsky, where you first claimed that you were removing a paragraph about Obama because it was poorly sourced and improbable. It turns out, the Wikipedia old hands didn't have a clue and the newbie they roughed up knew just what he was talking about. Pathetic. See Talk:Saul Alinsky#Contentious paragraph re-added without discussion. But for the shameful treatment, go through the short, sad history of Mtngoat63's talk page and his discussions at Talk:Saul Alinsky. Ugh. -- Noroton (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Good job on recognizing clear violations of policy, but... what? Looking back on those earlier edits, Mtngoat63 was first trying to get the paragraph in with laughably awful sources including copyright violations and a creationist blog (the "dancingfromgenesis" one), and refused to even acknowledge that other editors might have a problem with that. I literally "begged" the editor to take the content dispute to the talk page, and simply got insults for it. Let me be blunt: Ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is mever a valid excuse for personal attacks, especially on editors who are trying to help. --GoodDamon 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The article in question... oh, wait, you're bringing up Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn here? Why? Well, anyway, as near as I can tell, Barack Obama never met Alinsky, so any information about the influence of Alinsky's writings on Obama actually belongs somewhere in the Obama family of articles, not in Alinsky's biography. But as Alinsky and Hillary Clinton did meet, that may merit a mention. So, as for the rest of what you wrote... Can you remind me what it has to do with this incident? --GoodDamon 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment - Mtngoat63 has continued to edit the article Saul Alinsky, with the apparent intention of turning the article into a list of supposed Alinsky followers, with a particular emphasis on Barack Obama. See here for a diff comparing the article prior to this editor's changes and after those changes. The editor is no longer sourcing those edits to copyright-violating links, but is now almost solely reliant on one opinion piece appearing in the Washington Post. Saul Alinsky is a notable political figure, and there is a lot more biographical information available from many reliable sources. But at this point, I am firmly convinced Mtngoat63 is only interested in turning the article into a coatrack for guilt-by-association listings of other political figures, several of which, like Obama, never seem to have met the man (at least, not from what I can tell with five minutes on the Google). The editor has made no effort to expand the article's biographical content. --GoodDamon 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Will an administrator please take some notice of this? There is now an anonymous editor defending the continued coatrack editing of Mtngoat63, and I strongly suspect the anonymous editor is a sock of another editor based on edit summaries. --GoodDamon 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an issue for dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The editor in question has been abusive and antagonistic to the point where I don't think this can accurately be described as a content dispute. Nevertheless, if that is your determination, I'll open a new report there. --GoodDamon 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have some assistance with this editor? Continuing to revert war over poor content.[6] That's the 9th revert of this material in 3 days by the same editor, [[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[ [[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]] and about 13 in a week, fresh out of a block for 6RR on the same content in another article, accompanied by ongoing vituperation and suspected IP sock behavior ([[16]]). There is utterly no sign of acknowledging policy, working with other editors, etc.[17][18] I would rate the chance of this working out without administrative intervention at about zero. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...okay, the editor just violated 3RR again so I filed another report there. Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As an alternative to kicking a new editor in the teeth, repeatedly, as a way of welcoming that editor to Wikipedia, and filing complaints at 3RR/N, the Sockpuppet noticeboard and here, I've left a friendly, courteous note on the editors page, at User talk:Mtngoat63#Some unsolicited advice (diff here [19]). Please watch, give it a chance and maybe it will have some positive results. Obviously, if disruption continues, it didn't work. I've posted a similar note at 3RR/N and the Sockpuppet noticeboard. I should have done this earlier. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If it works I'm all for it! This report is stale now anyway. Don't forget to be nice to established editors, too :) Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Deviljin60 self-identifies as a militant and refuses to clarify[edit]

I am more than a little concerned by Deviljin60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who recently described themselves as 'a pakistani militant' in an edit summary [20] and then deleted a talk page request to explain or clarify [21] .

He's been editing in a somewhat but not seriously disruptive manner, however the "I'm a militant" claim raises a whole bunch of other potential problems. It's generally rude to put a deleted question or comment back on someone's talk page. However, if this is a (violent terrorist type) militant, then I think that we probably would want to politely show him the door.


  1. Ask again, and if he deletes again or fails to clarify block?
  2. Ask again, but don't block even if he turns out to be a (violent terrorist type) militant?
  3. Ask again, but don't block even if he just deletes the question again?
  4. Someone else do the asking?
  5. Don't worry about it?

Other options and input welcome as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. 1. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1, but only to coerce him into answering the question. --erachima talk 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

5, I find the claim to be highly dubious. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly not 1, as users are usually allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages, and simply not answering a question is not grounds for blocking (how would it be preventative?). Even if this user comes out and says s/he's a terrorist, I'm not sure how justified a block would be unless their edits are disruptive. I would say 3, 4, or 5. -kotra (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say do nothing about the "militant" statement. I could say I'm Osama Bin Laden, but if I don't provide third party verifiable sources for any information I include in an article, I should be reverted. And if I continue to ignore any warning to provide such WP:V, then block away. Militants may have something to add just like anyone else, as long as they are not disruptive and don't ignore WP policies and guidelines.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that if you say you're Osama Bin Laden, someone would at least run a checkuser. :-) Hesperian 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That $20 million reward is tempting huh? :)~ --«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, JavierMC's course of action would be the sensible one. Alternatively, we could block him along with other militants on the project, such as anybody with this on their userpage. I thought we (used to?) at least pretend around here that U.S. foreign policy doesn't determine Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, "militant" ≠ "terrorist", folks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the crux of the matter is whether he is a constructive editor or not. What difference his "militancy" if he does not carry on here with it, in either his editing or in using Wikipedia to promote an off-Wiki agenda. Dlohcierekim 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3, 4, or 5. If its not showing in his editing, no big deal. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. If you take a look at the history of his user page, you'll see that his command of English isn't very good. He's probably in the Pakistani Army. I once had a conversation with a fellow from Spain who repeatedly told me that he used to be a "militar", while he did a little pantomime of marching. It didn't take me long to figure out that what he had been was a soldier. The answer is obviously 5--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still a polemic in violation of WP:USER. How does his identifying as a militant help the encyclopedia, with such obvious examples of how it hurts it? SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You're in violation of WP:AGF. Bear in mind firstly, militant does not mean terrorist. Secondly, remember he's editing in good faith, and not causing any trouble. Thirdly, be aware he isn't a native English speaker, and "militant" to him may mean "soldier", "military man", or even "military fan". fish&karate 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at the user's edits. He's been updating articles with technical details of Pakistani military equipment. He's added things like Its armor can withstand more than 10 RPG's(Rocket propelled grenades). to Al Khalid II Main Battle Tank[22]. This editor is either a soldier or a military buff. Quit worrying. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF would suggest that one give the user the benefit of the doubt on that question, but that doesn't mean we have to wilfully ignore what they wrote in particular. Which is why I first asked on his talk page, and then when that was deleted by him without answering I came here. What I asked them included that exact question - whether they were what is known in US english as a military buff, explaining how "militant" is used in normal english. Rather than actually answering the question, they just deleted it.
I can continue to AGF, but it's a worrysome enough possibility that I think it's worth following up, hence the post here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please, please, do not take any action that would make the city of Boston look sage and cautious by comparison. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: Every minute he's on wikipedia is a minute he's not out trying to kill somebody. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So we want to block a constructive editor because . . . ?[ If he were a terrorist, he'd hardly announce here, would he? This is a bit preposterous. And certainly, if anyone linked to terrorism were editing here, wouldn't the CIA be unto them? This is one of the busiest websites on the Internet. Anyone who doesn't think CIA monitors activity here is probably pretty naive. And I'm sure they would figure out who and where someone was faster than you could say "WhoIs"? Dlohcierekim 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Dlohcierekim, the US government has a few question to ask you... We are taking this way to seriously. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
See intro - user is somewhat disruptive, but AGF'ing indicates it's just new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia ways. They have been resistant to repeated polite requests to change, so far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: warning given by Allison--Tznkai (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This user (who has rollback and untill recently ACC, it was just revoked) has been caught red handed by CU, logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it then proceding to brag about reverting vandalism on IRC. He has also run a bot on his account (and may still be running)

All this was discovered when we did some looking up on the IP's he was using to connect to IRC, some interesting contributions to say the least, then finding out he was also reverting them.

For these reasons Im proposing removal of rollback due to the vandalism and a block untill he declares that the bot is currently not running, nor will run untill its approved.

For evidence see here and here   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Alison has got it under control, she's given him a final warning. His rollback might be an issue though, I'd support its removal. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to remove it, it just feels to punitive. After all, he's unlikely to fuck around now and would likely just get it back soon enough when he decides to "reform". John Reaves 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note on the bot, he's running a copy of Addbot which can be seen by comparing the source pages --Chris 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I revoked the account creator right however. John Reaves 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
My goal here is to have him stop the vandalism; that's my primary concern. He's had his warning, so that's the end of that game. I don't see too much of a need to punish the guy, to be honest - Alison 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
When do we remove rollback it not in this situation?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
When people edit war with the tool or, say, start reverting non-vandalistic edits. John Reaves 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So disrupting the project, leeching others time by reverting his own vandalism and then reporting to AIV, then logging back in to effectivly evade his own ip block doesnt count? Rollback is a privledge, this user has made it quite clear that he needs a break from it.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
and lets not even mention the un-approved bot.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't. Rollback is a meaning less tool we give to revert vandalism, not some sort of reward for good behavior. He hasn't abused rollback, therefore he still has it. John Reaves 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
By policy he may not have abused it, but by principal he has. Making vandalism just to revert so he can make drama and bragging rights is abuse and is counter productive to the project. But since some people are more concerned about what the rules say in black and white rather than using initative, i'll let this slide.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Let it slide"? It's not like any one is answering to you. John Reaves 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No one in thier right mind answers to another wikipedian. In other words im withdrawing despite what i think.  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Promethean that this constitutes an appaling breach of the underlying basic principles, the spirit of our policies and I also echo his wondering why people here seem reluctant to identify TylerPuetz's actions as a reason to revoke his Rollback access. He has proven that he cannot handle it responsibly, what more is needed? Everyme 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (Reopened as discussion had clearly not ended). I've removed TylerPuetz (talk · contribs)'s rollback rights; using them to tool around by reverting your own vandalism is not for what the tool is intended. I think Alison has been admirably restrained in only giving him a final warning. fish&karate 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Your actions and Promethean's point are supported by me. Good work in my book.--VS talk 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, Whilst I wanted it's removal I think that it should be made clear to TylerPuetz (who is fairly young as a contributor and person) that this is not the end of the world, we are not ganging up on him and that given good contributions / behaviour (logged in and out) for a period of time (not too long) will re-establish trust and that he can have rollback back. (if he still wants it)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, if you ask Troy_07, he confirmed my other IP was a shared IP, and my current IP,, has few contributions. About the bot thing, I've only made one edit via that sandbot to test it out, Only 1 at all. And it was to my userpage. The old IP was shared by about 8 different people, so please keep this topic open so I can discuss it. TylerPuetz (talk/contribs) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • That may be the case, IT seems there are two possibilitys, you have either edited from an IP at the same time a massive IP changing vandal has innocently, or you are that vandal. Im looking into this further.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
              • In further review im getting Alison just to confirm some things as i tiny detail has popped up which may change the way the storyline goes. This so called shared ip you used, do you know what it was for (eg school etc)?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

←For info of those who aren't aware, although he's blanked the conversations regarding them from his talkpage (which he's certainly entitled to do) this isn't TP's first issue. – iridescent 15:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

                • You were asking what school, Millennium High School, in the agua fria union high school district. --TylerPuetz (talk/contribs) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there a big lack of evidence for anyone to review here. There's Alison's word, which I trust, that he was logging out to vandalize, but she wasn't the one who started this section, and Promethean's comments have included things that don't appear to have been confirmed on-wiki:
"logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it" - Alison confirmed he was apparently logging out and vandalizing, but has she confirmed that he was logging back in and reverting it? The former could possibly be explained by a shared IP (though without knowing the IP, its hard to tell if its shared), the latter would not be.
"For evidence see here" - Umm, more specific please? He has a lot of edits, and I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for there.
"He has also run a bot on his account" - Where's the evidence of this?
Does Promethean know the IPs in question? If so, why not provide them as evidence? If not, why is he acting as the "official spokesman" for this, when he's almost completely in the dark? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; yes, he's using a shared IP right now, as he states above. However, the logging out occurred on an IP address that he also uses which is a domestic one - Alison 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was doing what I was accused of, but even if I was logging out to vandalize, and logging back in to revert, if you look at my contributions, and do extensive searching, I've only reverted probably 15 of my edits, and they were to my user page/sandbox, or undoing my own edits when I had made a mistake. --TylerPuetz (talk/contribs) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
There was not a huge quantity of them, by any means, no. Hence my dealing with the situation; you got warned to not do that. And there it basically should end, right? Problem solved? - Alison 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that main thing bothering me was the fact that I had rollback + account creator rights revoked, yet, a thoruough investigation had not taken place. I think my use of Huggle has been fair, despite the problems I had nearly 5-6 months ago. I'm confused about the status of this incident, can someone fill me in with a final descision? --TylerPuetz (talk/contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent page redirecting[edit]

I'm not quite sure whether or not this can be considered vandalism, or even wrong per se, however i've decided to bring this incident to AN/I because it may require admin intervention. User (talk · contribs) continues to blank and redirect the article "Jazz Jackrabbit (series)" to Jazz Jackrabbit (character) ([23][24][25] without explanation (Which was incidentally, originally a redirect of the former.). After reverting his edits twice, I left him a note on his talk page and explaining that he must use the article's talk page to discuss the redirect. Instead he simply ignored that and reverted my edits. The article originally contained good quality content, which acted as the the main page of that topic (Jazz Jackrabbit).

I'm unable to continue to revert his egregious edits, because I'm already in violation of 3RR [26]. However what I find more worrying, is that a similar ip address (from the same vicinity or area) belonging to blocked user Fangusu did the exact same thing 5 days earlier [27]!
I think these bad faith edits are more sinister than they appear. --Flewis(talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not in violation of 3RR - it doesn't apply to vandalism, and once you tried to communicate with the IP and they continued the unexplained redirecting, it became implicit vandalism. So no worries there. I've semi-protected the article in question for 5 days, so you've now got time to convince the IP to talk to you, otherwise there's now time for him/her to get bored and go away. I have no opinions on the other IP or on Fangusu because I've not looked into the matter. ➨ ЯEDVERS is repressed but remarkably dressed 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the apparent lack of Notability of the Character/Series separately, and the fact that they probably belong in the same article anyway is a discussion for elsewhere :-) BMW(drive) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes. The content element is nothing to do with me or any other administrator (in an admin capacity) and I never even looked at it; the repeatedly redirecting an article after being asked to stop bit is 100% admin territory. The IP can easily slap an AfD template on the article in question and a rationale on the talk page and I'll list it when DumbBOT next updates. ➨ ЯEDVERS is repressed but remarkably dressed 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly a sock of blocked user Fangusu. He has been editing from IPs in the same range for the past few weeks since his main account was blocked. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty clearly, yes. I've blocked the IP for a week. Feel free to let me know if you find more, so they can be blocked and this one can be unblocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread... I blocked the entire range for 31 hours. If that doesn't cause a problem, we can start increasing the duration. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat at Sanford Bishop[edit]

Resolved: Georgia Board of Regents and FBI notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ran across this lovely thought this morning at Sanford Bishop, added by (talk · contribs) yesterday, and I figured that if anything further needed to be done besides removal, there'd be someone here who's better equipped to deal with it than me. (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Email sent to Georgia Board of Regents (abuse contact) reporting incident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
How about contacting the FBI? I think they frown upon people threatening to kill members of Congress. KnightLago (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like that resolves to a high school, actually (universities wouldn't use anything at for emails), so I'll bet it's a prank. Happened around 9 AM local time, too, so during school hours. Still, no harm being cautious. The Board of Regents should be able to handle it from here, forwarding to other agencies as necessary. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You could be right, but I just got a call back from the FBI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So what did they have to say? "Thanks for the tip"? "Don't call this number again"? "What's this 'wikipedia' dealie"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
With no doubt the FBI would be very interested in this. While it may be a silly prank of some high school kid they should all be looked into by the appropriate law enforcement agencies (read: no wikipedia editors) and let the threat level be determined by the experts. Bstone (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
They appreciated the info and asked for clarification on how to interpret the diff and exactly what text the IP added. For future reference, here is the URL: to report such. Those of us who report TOV to authorities might want to keep that bookmarked. I also got a response thanking me from the Georgia Department of Education saying they had identified the school and were investigating. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Kudos. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats against User:Orangemike by User:Wangtopgun over editing dispute[edit]

Resolved: Triple indef block conflict. KnightLago (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy is a combat veteran, says he's worked as a mercenary; now he's escalating an edit dispute to what he describes as "war"; when I posted a moderate notice on the Wikiquette board, he said on my talk page, "As I stated clearly, let the war begin . . . and if you think this is just cyberspace, think again." Am I unreasonable to think this is inappropriate? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not being unreasonable. I was on my way to indef block him, but someone got there before I did. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked until they retract and promise to stay completely away from you in the future. --barneca (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Make that a triple Block-conflict - I was going to do the same. Good block. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well shucks, the indef block might just negate my sparkling new Civility Warning Welcome Template that I left on his page BMW(drive) 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oooh. I'm going to remember that template. Definitely could have used that in the past. Yoink. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the operative part of that user's ID is its first syllable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock necessary perhaps?[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a template on the talk page saying the IP address,, is registered to Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria circuito exterior s/n, 04510 - Mexico - DF, MX. Kralizec! (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) blocked it for 31 hours last week, and Icairns (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) did the same today for one week.

Last night, unaware of the 234 IP, I blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the same vandalisms.

Looking through the articles that the two IPs likes to add its information to,

have all been doing the same thing.

I was wondering if a WP:RANGE block was in order. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That 189 range would be enormous at a minimum. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Mcumpston (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) making PAs as a result of my notification of a copyvio and the removal of some images of questionable merit; see all his edits between 23:48, 25 September 2008 and 06:29, 25 September 2008; mostly made after my advice that he read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. I suggest you try dispute resolution or Wikiquette Alerts first, as there is no real need for admin intervention as far as I see it. Regards SoWhy 09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

←This is more than a mere content dispute:

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless this should be handled as dispute resolution. There is no apparent need for admin intervention as far as I can see it. Or to rephrase that: What do you think an admin should do about it? They are not mediators that's why WP:DR exists after all (to quote from WP:DR: The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.). Regards SoWhy 11:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur, this is a matter for WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though he's since reverted to the Copyvio version? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From the talk page: Let me say this about the alleged copywright violation. The apparently violated passage linked to this page is a UK based-commercial blurb of a book WHICH I WROTE AND TO WHICH I HOLD THE COPYWRIGHT. This is obviously and transparently sourced in the reference section of this article--Mcumpston (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC). So, Andy, once again you appear to be acting ni a disruptive and WP:POINTy way. Now would be a great time to stop. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • From the copyvio boilerplate: "If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Walker Colt.". Now, please stop making baseless allegations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kindly keep your penile insults to yourself. I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. I note that you have now reverted to the version of the page containing the apparent copyvio. I've seen no verification of his claim to be the author; have you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on completely missing the point of that long-standing meta essay. If this happens again, all you need to do is point the user to the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page. When they read it, content authors either send a release or run screaming (usually they do not release under GFDL, in my experience). The point is, the dispute is usually resolved swiftly and with minimal disruption. Simply revert-warring does not fix the problem, it prolongs and escalates it; instead, you need to engage the user and get him to realise what he must do to release the text and exactly what that would mean. And usually just reading the release page is sufficient. As to reverting, I simply reverted to the last version with content, on the grounds that the massive copyvio tag with zero actual content was not actually helping anyone. Had you left it at a version with content I'd not have rolled back. And what's happened is that we appear to have conspired, once again, to drive off a potential contributor with some subject knowledge - I was sort of hoping that might be avoidable in this case. Why the bluntness? Because we have been here before. So, if this happens again, please just link the release page, most authors will speedily withdraw rather than surrender all rights, as this one did in about 45 minutes, including the time it took him to read the page. That would be a great way to avoid drama if any similar dispute arises in future. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed: I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. If you wish to revise the Copyvio procedure, which I followed, this is not the forum to do so. You owe me an apology,; though it's clear from your talk page you don't intend to make one. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It's almost as if you have a reputation for disutatiousness and edit warring, isn't it? Oh, wait, you do have a reputation for just that. And trolling, quite a lot. So, sorry, it's a case of "give a dog a bad name". I posted the lnik to the page on releasing material, and Mcumpston immediately ceased the dispute - 45 minutes post to post. If I can do it, so can you. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From my lofty perch safely outside the conflict, it seems to me that you two have gotten on each others nerves, and are now sniping at each other more from annoyance than anything else. IMHO, this issue is more or less resolved, and things would work out better if you both walked away, even if not 100% satisfied with the results.
To facilitate this, I will offer my trademarked World Famous Bigger Person Award not yet designed; I'll get right to work on it though to the person that lets the other one make the final post in this thread. Guy, unfortunately Andy has a head start in this regard, since you were the last one to post, but life is unfair sometimes.
Surely no one would be able to resist such an award? --barneca (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
update: Mcumpston has now made explicitly clear that he does not wish to relinquish his copyright. Your revert to the Copyvio version now seems increasingly unwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The current state of the page seems to be in order. Mcumpston has ceased editing. Anything else? Stifle (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes. The images. Mcumpston uploaded two with the {{PD-self}} tag, and has since removed the tag and replaced it with "withdrawn". PD releases cannot, however, be withdrawn, and I've reverted one removal while Andy has reverted the other. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I would query whether the two images Mcumpston uploaded added much value, and suggest if he wishes to delete the two images he uploaded, it would be a gesture of good will to do so. fish&karate 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they qualify for G7 — it's fairly clear that he is attempting to withdraw the license illegitimately. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A user can change their mind on submitting their own text to Wikipedia, but not the images? This doesn't seem right. A gesture of good will would not require images to qualify for any speedy criterion. fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Umm, the GFDL is irrevocable. John Reaves 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Umm, so? That means we can use the images, not that we should. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's more that the images are quite useful whereas the article can survive fine without the text. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
As Mcumpston has - as Andy says - stated he does not wish to permit re-use under GFDL (he was intially unaware this was a requirement of donating material), use of the material is again a copyright violation, so I have reverted Walker Colt to the last good version. This can probably be marked as resolved. fish&karate 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've selectively deleted all versions of the page since Mcumpston showed up. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on their edits (mostly the same gun articles), are User:Cumpston and User:Mcumpston the same person? fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record (no impropriety suggested), note that he seems to have previously posted as Cumpston (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
No, no improprietry - just trying to track all his edits to see if he'd submitted anything else from his own books to other pages. I can't find anything. fish&karate 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't see your post when I made mine; I meant that I was not implying impropriety. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Also Cump (talk · contribs) (again, no evidence of improprietry, just logging it here for contribution tracking). fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston is now edit-warring over rights on images. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing if I can explain it to him, hoping that I'm not completely wrong. Let's try not to edit war, though, eh? lifebaka++ 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So what's being said here is that images are being deleted left and right at a furious pace, all over Wikipedia, due to rampant copyright paranoia, but this guy can't delete his own damn photograph? That's cute.

What's wrong with his putting a {{db-author}} template on it, and letting it be deleted? Just because a free image exists, doesn't mean that we're required to use it.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Based on User talk:Mcumpston, it seems that he is the copyright holder of the images. He submitted them under a PD licence, and subsequently changed his mind. This means Wikipedia retain the image. It does not mean we are obliged to, however. There are plenty of Walker Colt / Colt Walker images on Flickr, surely a couple of them must be under CC licensing. If anyone good with images could spend a few minutes finding a suitable one (Flickr images are blocked for me - I can see search results but not the images), the images Mcumpston wants deleted could safely be deleted. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This one is BY-NC-ND 2.0 licensed. I'm not entirely au fait with Wikipedia's licensing polices though, so I don't know if that's OK, but I'm just trying to help out here. Codeine (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
<reset indent>I don't see the problem with deleting the images. It seems he didn't understand the license (specifically the commercial aspect) so I don't really see how the license is valid anyway. I'm rather inclined to delete the images. Sarah 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears there is indeed a licensing issue with these images, sadly - as they are good ones. Not everyone understands our copyright rules and I think there would be grounds to delete under invalid licence (also note NC is not compatible with Wiki) Orderinchaos 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the three images (one was orphaned) that he was not happy with. I don't see how it can be considered a valid license when he has made it clear that he didn't understand the terms and didn't intend to release them for commercial use. And as he has given us dozens of other images, it seems sensible and decent to show a little consideration with respect to these three pictures when he has made it clear that he didn't want to release them under a free for all license. I agree with Orderinchaos that it's rather unfortunate because they're nice pictures but, as others have said, I'm sure we'll be able to find replacements, either through flickr or something similar or via one of the gun editors. Sarah 00:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Goingoveredge again[edit]

How many times does Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) need to be blocked before finally being banned? It doesn't seem to stop him, he just waits till his block expires, then he comes back to edit war and to repeatedly attack other edits with edit summaries like this. Corvus cornixtalk 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of trying to encourage Goingoveredge of any form of discussion. Tried to file an RFC on him HERE and now I am even tired of keeping all his violations in this RFC list as they are very long. Please provide your feedback on the RFC: user-Goingoveredge as well. Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody??? Corvus cornixtalk 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I support an indef block on this one. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hold on that for now, but consider a block for edit waring with dubious edit summaries. That having been said, this fight over... apparently all things India is a bit more complex than just Goingoveredge's behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

His recent destruction of content in Religious violence in Orissa (see my additional comments at article talk page) has resulted in protecting the page. The destroyed content is still missing. Additionally, the sock and his puppeteer are really troublemaking others and have to be seriously treated. --Googlean (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block His edit summaries

  • "khalistani troll" [28]
  • "incitement to genocide" [29]
  • "Khalistani racist" [30]
  • "genocide inciter" [31]
  • "khalistani hatemonger" [32]

are violation of WP:NPA. After a quick review of the edits of this user, I support an indef block on this one. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block as Goingoveredge does not seem like an honest editor making honest mistakes, but somebody who is religiously adamant on fearlessly violating Wikipedia policies and pursuing POV propaganda. He seems like somebody who knows the policies and seems to believe he can hide his tactics behind wikipedia tags by creating confusion and wasting other editors time. --RoadAhead Discuss 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

His more recent edits represent a slight improvement, however he still needs to tone down his rhetoric. I don't support an indefinite block at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that was just for distraction for a while. He is back to leverage on those edits and now is using same kind of personal attacks [see HERE]. Regards,--RoadAhead Discuss 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More TyrusThomas4lyf[edit]

As seen in this thread from earlier this week, we have yet another returning IP sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. [33] Exact same pattern, changing things on NBA record pages with no discussion (or pretended discussions implied in edit summaries) and refusing to follow consensus, only sourcing things with off-line sources against consensus. His claim of an NBA record by Ben Wallace has been googled by multiple editors and nothing has been found, but he keeps inserting it.

He's been recently banned as (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). I'm requesting an admin please check the matter again, it's obviously another sock back tonight. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, (talk · contribs), for 48 hours. Next time you report one of these, please include the IP/username in question. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Orgone - help with pointless POV tag[edit]

There are a couple of editors who keep editing in a POV tag on Orgone - see here, [34], here, here, and here. I've tried to get explanations as to why it needs to be there (see here, where I opened a section on it), and the explanations I've been given (as unsatisfactory as they are) I've tried to address as best I can, but Tmtoulouse has only bothered to respond twice, saying that the word 'pseudoscience' needs to be in the lead, citing Gardner as a source (in the link above, and here), and User:Orangemarlin has replied mainly with incorrect statements (see here, and here where he asserts that the article claims orgone exists or works - the article doesn't - and here where he complains about the the use of 'putative energy', which is a direct quote from an (arguably) reliable source.

I don't think any of these concerns merit a POV tag,and while I wouldn't mind trying to address them, the overt hostility of the latest talk page edits from OrangeMarlin, combined with the tendency of both editors to revert without comment - I've had to press them both to participate on the talk page at all, including this note I left on OM's talk page here (which just resulted in more hostility) - makes it abundantly clear that I (personally) am unlikely to get anywhere through discussion.

I'm just trying to figure out what's needed to get rid of the POV tag; can someone please act as an intermediary? --Ludwigs2 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An opening like: "Orgone is a theoretical energy first postulated and then promoted by Wilhelm Reich. There is no evidence that it actually exists." would probably go a long way towards helping. - Nunh-huh 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
hunh. ok - I'll throw that out on the talk page (if you don't mind me using your words) and see if it flies. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It would help if there were obvious qualifications inserted into the entry, perhaps like those suggested by nunh-huh. For instance, the second sentence of the lead reads: "Orgone energy in its full sense was described as a universal life force flowing through all things, and responsible for almost all observable phenomena; an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomena including, according to sceptical critics, "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." I tend to agree with the assessment that this type of language implies that orgone energy exists, since it offers a description of something without making it clear to the reader that this something is purely theoretical and has not been empirically observed.PelleSmith (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
well, I will say that part of what I was aiming for when I rewrote this article was to give a decent explanation of what Reich thought orgone was without presenting it as remotely true or queering it with too much criticism (and this article has run the gamut both ways, believe you me...). if you all think it's too Reichian, that's easy enough to fix; I'm just hesitant to take any action in the current article climate. I was really hoping that someone here could do something to nudge Orangemarlin and TMtoulouse to commit to forward progress of some sort. any way it goes that's going to be key to resolving this issue. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments that this article is a POV pushing mess. The article implies or frankly states outright that Orgone exists. I made numerous searches of reliable sources, and I could not find anyone who confirmed it. It's difficult to prove a negative, but I tried to insert comments that "there is no scientific support for this type of energy" but editors kept removing it. So, the POV tag stays until such time as the article can be made NPOV. Oh, by the Ludwigs, thanks for the notification of this ANI. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
well, all I can say is that I don't think I would have removed a statement like that, and I don't remember ever discussing it with you. and let's be frank - it's logically and scientifically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist; all we can ever say is that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably support the claim (which is certainly the case with Orgone). Claiming orgone does not exist is just as POV as claiming it does; I mean, it literally is a putative energy (an energy that is 'reputed' to be, rather than one the actually 'is'). but this is all something we ought to be discussing on the talk page, yah?
as to your other comment... <shrug> I figured it was best to let other people inform you. can you really object? --Ludwigs2 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by LamyQ[edit]

LamyQ (talk) has uploaded several copyrighted images and these have been speedily deleted, but now he is re-uploading them. He has been warned after each violation on his talk page. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of those who aren't spending a ridiculous number of hours on this (and thank you, btw, Uncia): LamyQ (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is almost definitely a sock of PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If he's blocked, he'll just show up again next week with a new account.
Dori (TalkContribs) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, there's more past history at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Repeated_copyright_violations_by_Dowhatyoudo and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Image_copyvio_uploads_and_socks. This guy just keeps on coming back. Dori (TalkContribs) 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since our last posting here, LamyQ (talk · contribs) has reuploaded a previously-deleted copyvio image (5th time for this image), another of his uploads has been determined to be copyvio, and he deleted the speedy deletion tag on that image. He has been warned on each violation. Any chance for speedy action? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that blue box above is distracting people from this thread. If there's still no reply after a while, you might want to put this entire thread at the bottom of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've now done that. Dori (TalkContribs) 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda edit war[edit]

Minor edit skirmish in Richmond, British Columbia, in which I do not want to violate 3rr: [35]. Input requested. Repeated insertion of unsourced, appears to be used as a forum. JNW (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the contested section and removed POV statements as well as issuing a 3RR warning. Report to 3RR if POV editing continues. Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of maps[edit]

There are mass deletions of properly-licensed commons map images on over 600 WP pages by Commons Delinker: Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. Apparently the map images erroneously listed for deletion at commons but have been (or are being) restored:[36] but the bot has been deleting them. Message has been posted to operator’s talk page. Can someone stop the bot and roll the changes back? Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot; Haukurth seems to be engaging himself in cleaning up the mess. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock the bot. It's not the bot's fault. The images were tagged {{subst:nsd}} at the Commons and then deleted, without either tagger or deleter pausing to think about what they were doing. The images have been restored in the meantime, but I don't know if CommonsDelinker has an option somewhere to automatically undo its edits for a particular image. Lupo 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, there is no "issue" to "resolve" with the bot.[37] The bot worked exactly as it should. The problem was caused by a human error. Lupo 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock done. Lupo 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the Block and the Unblock. Even if it was human error that caused the problem, blocking the bot is the quickest and surest way to stop the problem from getting worse - and is not a reflection on the bot itself, as evidenced by the quick unblock. Just wanted to toss that in. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup. It appears the bot had finished with its unlinking at 11:14 UTC. So there was no need any longer to keep it blocked. Lupo 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all. As Lupo mentioned here, the bot apparently was deleting images that had been restored a short time before; as was unclear that the bot was finished, a block was appropriate to limit the damage. Kablammo (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It started up again so I reblocked it and rolled back the additional edits. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Haukurth. The problem extends to other projects, per these fairly direct comments. Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
If the problem is continuing, you could probably request a temporary global block of the bot over at Meta until the problem is resolved. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of blocking CommonsDelinker on all wikimedia projects; this bot doesn't delete any images, it only unlinks red links. Anyone who would like to block the bot should rather contact the Commons admin who's making the mistake. guillom 13:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the bot will unlink deleted images even if they have been restored in the meantime. Haukur (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Minute, notable objects[edit]

I didn't know exactly where to take this, so I'm asking here. This isn't a proposal, just a question that I think could turn into a guideline/policy, or something, based on the views of everyone here.

Onto the topic at hand, since it was not listed, I was wondering about the notability of objects, such as all the parts of a film-set, the specific lens-filters used, the way the filming camera is created/modified to suit the purpose at hand. I honestly don't think each of these tiny objects needs a separate article, yet at the moment, there is no guideline or policy under which they would fall(at least to my knowledge).— dαlus Contribs /Improve 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • If the object is the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliabel independent sources, then it meets the general notability guideline. Whether consensus would support a given object will depend on just how far you need to stretch the values of "substantial", "multiple" and "independent", I guess. Some people think WP:ITEXISTS is enough, others don't. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The individual projects covering entertainment mediums, for instance, would probably have guidelines or consensus on how to cover these things within articles. As far as split-out articles are concern, they are already covered under WP:N, which is deliberately vague but stipulates that there should be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What 'significant' means is not something that can be nailed down very well so it's a case-by-case deal. If a part of a larger topic is covered in this way, then an article is theoretically possible, but the most important thing when splitting it out is to present a good case for doing so, building it in userspace and discussing it with other contributors would make things go more smoothly. If the sub-topic is genuinely of note, then having a separate article is beneficial because it means readers can be linked to it directly and have it explained as a separate item, rather than merely an aspect of a whole. An example is Gravity Gun (Half-Life), whereas the vast majority of weapons in games are scarcely worth noting outside of a few examples, this one proved so influential and is referenced so frequently that having a separate article makes sense. It just needs more citations to reflect that *adds to things to do list*. Someoneanother 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, the more minor the spin-out seems, the more emphasis has to be placed on presenting a rounded picture, supplying sources and actually building an article. It's no good throwing up an article on an aspect of something else and typing out a few sentences, if the only conclusion which can be drawn is "yeah, so?" then it shouldn't have been created. Stubs are good, but you can't expect someone to step in and write an article for you if it's just expansion of a theme, there aren't enough weeks in the hour. Someoneanother 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean objects like Fatsuits? The AFD could probably be informally speedy keep'ed at this point, I think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the possible objection being raised in the original question is that if, say, a fog filter is used in a particular film, would the use of that filter in that particular film be worth a separate article--and the answer is clearly that it it would not, but that it would be discussed in the article on the film if significant, and possibly mentioned in the article on the filter --and just conceivably an article on the production of the film might be justified if such production is sufficiently extensive to warrant a spinout article-- which would be extremely rare indeed, but that use in that film by itself would never be worth a specific article. I hope the question was not asked as a preliminary for proposing the elimination of actually notable settings or the like--if it was asked to get a statement that there is a limit of appropriate minuteness, yes, I at certainly do agree to that. Following up on the example just above, a specific fatsuit would not be worth an article. DGG (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, say one finds an article that lists such a thing, as in, a non-notable minute object. Under what criteria could it be speedily deleted under?— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable user accounts[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to be done at the moment.

There seems to be something funny going on. Recently, I discovered a user account with the rather absurd name of User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese, which had been used to vandalise the edit histories of several articles. When I checked its log, I discovered that there is another user account called User:Nefbmn which seems to exist only for nationalist provocations. The user and talk pages contain slanderous comments. In particular, this user seems rather obssessed with another user who now appears to have been banned (see user contributions for proof). I believe User:Nefbmn needs to be warned one last time. If this user does not change their behaviour or cease editing altogether, this user should be blocked indefinitely. (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing much to do here, the first account is blocked and the second hasn't edited for a week. Whilst there's a bit of soapboxing on their user/talk pages, I don't see anything slanderous. Black Kite 07:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm again[edit]

Resolved: indef blocked Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

relisted as discussion evolved to ban proposalToddst1 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like additional eyes on a situation that seems to be growing out of hand. Bogorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to think the best defence is a good offence. He or she has lashed out at both me and Tiptoety (talk · contribs) more than once. This sockpuppet report seems to capture most of it, rather than posting dozens of diffs which I don't quite have time to pull together right now. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say continue the SSP and grab an uninvolved admin when ready. I'll note the RFCU does not rule out the possibility of socks, just that proxies may have been used, so continued investigation is appropriate. If he keeps up the attacks, try and ignore them, he clearly is warned by this point and will be blocked if they continue. MBisanz talk 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
(To Toddst1) The diff is a reliable manner of demonstration - the beginning of Toddst1's biased attitude towards me was here, where I presented evidence disproving the soundness of my blocking, whose proponent just handpicked 8 accidential edits of mine from one article and presented them as "reverts". User:Toddst1 decided to blank it in lieu of investigating it and even to block me for daring to refute 5 "reverts" as counterfeit. Probably some more zealous admin would investigate it, it does not take time at all, the 5 refuting diffs are in the last link above.
Following this, he accuses me of having a sockpuppet, although I made an edit from the Balcan peninsula at 21:27 UTC, 9 Sep, and at 21:34 UTC some editor from San Jose, an impostor of mine, deliberately edited his talk page. Evidence for the whereabouts is to be found here in the "contra-evidence" section. The CheckUser decided that it is inconclusive, id est, no connection to be proven, and he still maintains the Template:Sockpuppeteer on my user page, and he even provides it with the parameter "evidence", which is allowed in the template's documentation only for conclusive, affirmative outcome. Yes, sequence of actions violently disregarding WP:AGF presents en effet and undeniably an incident. Bogorm (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I am an editor from Bulgaria, the IP-impostor is an editor from California. My IP-address is static. Sapienti pauca. Bogorm (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an example of this 'lashing out' and I can't. Edit summaries?Yeago (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) UTC)

I am grateful to you for you cherishing WP:AGF, you are the first admin whom I encountered and who showed such an attitude. Since I am trying to combat deletionism I would like to recollect my report on deliberate obliterations of certain sources (Toddst1 disparaged it as "frivolous" when it is providing any nevessary evidence of single-purpose deletionist actions) - at first this user was reported to have blanked ( 10 times !) large sections of information regarding Chechnya and South Ossetia simply because the sources are Russian (he deletes even scientifical books and numbers quoted from them !) His edits are only in this topic and are far from impartiality. This edit of his is in direct relationship to your term "Article hen" - he obliterates sources from Ukraine, USA, Russia and Israel and even admits that he has no knowledge of the Russian language (demonstration in the first diff) and has not asked any knowledgeable person - this is an instringent and disruptive deletionism, please take the case in consideration. I hope I am not the sole editor who is indignant about people with no knowledge of the source language but are zealous and intransigent in light-mindedly erasing whole sections (reckless deletionism). Bogorm (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia and as such I don't think your complaints about his not knowing the language apply. As for me, I am not an admin. I think you are confused--you gave a link to 'his edit' but the link went to one of your own edits.Yeago (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, the diff has been redressed. The previous one showed the refutation of his 3RR claim, while copying I must have duplicated it inadvertently. Bogorm (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm continues to insert extremely poorly sourced and dubious material. He's been asked several times not to, and has been explained several times on the talk page that that his contributions break certain policies, but since his 2 week block for herassment expired he went on with it. Anyone who reverts him is accused of "vandalism". Now he seems to go around everywhere accusing me of past "vandalism", probably because I once reported him for a clear 3rr violation. I already tried to explain him that the report for 3rr was not meant personally, but this was in vain. Grey Fox (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested, here are the diffs of lashing out at other editors that prompted me to start this discussion:
I would postulate that at this point it is not all the other editors that this editor has interacted with that are disruptive - rather, Bogorm is disruptive. After this editor and its sockpuppet have earned 4 blocks in a very short time, I believe Wikipedia would be better off without this editor's contributions. I believe it is time for a ban. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what to tell. I tried to explain WP policies to Bogorm [38], [39].. The whole idea was to sit out the block, behave quietly, do not blame anyone, and edit something non-controversial for a while. But he is doing everything to inflame the conflict. He hurts himself and unfortunately others.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm should definitely be banned if he feels so strongly about having his way. This is a serious abuse, if not a big waste of time for everyone who has to deal with him. ~ Troy (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with this. His having four blocks in a short span of time and then to return after the last block without a change in editorial attitude and an unwillingness to work within established guidelines and policies, even so far as making an attempt to engage in civil consensus debates, shows he believes his way is the right way and be damned with any other. There appears no middle ground for appeal when any attempt to engage him results in acclamations of bias, recklessness, ineptitude, etc. against his fellow editors. It is exactly this kind of behavior which drove me away from the 2008 South Ossetia war article and to work on less contentious subjects for a while. One can only take so much incivility.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. There is nothing to object.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
More here, here, here, here, and here during this discussion makes the outcome pretty clear. Indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Genocide against Sri Lanka's Tamils[edit]

Please comment whether we can create a Category:Genocide against Sri Lanka's Tamils and include Gotabhaya Rajapaksa there in reference to FEIN: A genocide inquiry? on The Washington Times.Christina71 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Added on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa - He is accused of being complicit in an ongoing genocide against Sri Lanka's Tamils and Category:Genocide, please comment?Christina71 (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ping pong. I don't think we can use such a disputed title for the category. I think Category:Sri Lanka Civil War would be much better. Wars are ugly and have atrocities. You can add the sourced info to a relevant article, but I do not think there is a sufficient preponderance of references (yet) to establish "genocide" as the most neutral way to describe the situation. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's not forget that "genocide" is a legal term, not simply a rhetorical one. In the case of Bosnia and Rwanda the category is appropriate as a reflection of the verdicts of the courts. I'm pretty sure no such legal determination exists for the Sri Lankan conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Technological problems[edit]

Resolved: Stuck SHIFT key. Next... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My keyboard is acting weird> I have to turn on the CAPS key just in order to type with lower case letters> I cant make punctuations because my keyboard is working backwards as you can see when I try to put a period I get this > or a comma I get this < please help me this is so weird> Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what administrative help is required here, unless you want me to recommend a vendor for a new keyboard (hint: eBay). howcheng {chat} 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Try typing with the keyboard rotated 180 degrees. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
lol - I'll leave a tech note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have spilled something on the keyboard, cleaning and drying out the keyboard might help. Running a virus scan on your PC would be advisable in case it's not the keyboard that's at fault. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Everything's all good now, I don't know what caused the problem, but I think switching user accounts (Windows XP) solved it. I am running a virus scan now, so thanks to everyone for their suggestions. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do spill Coke on the keyboard, disconnect it immediately and run it through the dishwasher. (Wash cycle only - not dry cycle.) That actually works. However, let it air-dry for about a week before trying it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This just means the software missed a key-up or key-down event, and the keyboard and operating system got out of sync. Pressing and releasing each shift, control, and alt key, and the caps lock and num lock keys will usually get things back in sync. --John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
XP doing that? Forsooth! VISTA, I could see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No need to use the wash-cycle... just rince it off with distilled water and put it in the oven at 150 degrees for some time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Before doing that, rinse it with lime-away to remove corrosion, then put it in a crust and after you've baked it you'll have a key lime-away pie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Or you could aim in another direction when looking up porn. And don't tell me you aren't. HalfShadow 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a little too much information, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naughty IP returns[edit]

Apparently recently returned from a 1 week block, this IP is now edit warring and telling us to fellate him. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has been semi'd, so that should handle it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on him, he's just here looking for a date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ain't we all, honey....ain't we all. Gladys J Cortez 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. And how's it working out so far? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(...says the guy who dresses up as women. Tricking Elmer. Yeah. Sure.) HalfShadow 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Elmer is so easy to fool, I've written a book about him: "Gullible's Travails". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport Returns[edit]


Not 1 week after my