Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sock needs a block[edit]

Resolved

Pat Wynnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I've started an SPI, but Wynnon is editwarring over the inclusion of the sock tag on their userpage, and is doing the usual disineguous "Who is Scibaby?" stuff. Pls block, and a CU can clear out the drawer via the SPI. → ROUX  23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PW blocked indef. Tan | 39 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ta. → ROUX  23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Roux on blocks of fox in socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Except "Roux" is pronounced "roo". :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
roo on bloo of foo in soo???--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sacre bleu! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never been to the Soo. → ROUX  17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Soo? Si. Yikes. Now I'm channeling Mel Blanc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting times. Everything here rhymes. -- Pinkgirl34 16:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and citations[edit]

Over at Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Cleaned_up_Family_section, User:J M Rice has said that the "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" part of WP:V means that all material that doesn't fit this description doesn't generally need a reference; he has thus now twice removed all citations from an entire section of Sacha Baron Cohen. Surely all biographical information, especially on a WP:BLP, needs at least one reference, even if this material hasn't been challenged? All Hallow's (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and thus not appropriate for AN/I. Please try dispute resolution. I would suggest asking for a third opinion. → ROUX  02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment. Mediation may be necessary here, judging from the article talk page, but I can't see any administrative action being appropriate here. Law type! snype? 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for a WP:BAN[edit]

There have been a number of user and talk pages recently created which are apparently tracking some sort of game, and using Wikipedia as a free web host. Sockpuppet case is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ILMORGAME/Archive. And there's an example of this foolishness is at User talk:ILMORSEASONTWO. This user (or users?) clearly have zero interest in contributing to Wikipedia and are determined to take advantage of Wikipedia, and do not respond to attempts to discuss the situation, except with the occasional profanity. I suggest that this content and those creating it be banned, and that any of these pages be deleted on sight without further attempts at discussion, as it has been made clear that they do not respond, but simply move on to a new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:MFD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not a response to the last sentence of the post above. Hell, it misses the point entirely. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would at least get the pages deleted in the meantime. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We went through this identical situation a few months ago. Suggest an admin has a word with everyone involved, informs them that this is not what Wikipedia is for, and deletes any and all pages related. If they continue after this, ban 'em all. → ROUX  04:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wassermann[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#User:Wasserman. An IP editor, User:172.131.130.5, has been editing identically to the edits for which User:Wassermann was brought to task in the above section. Behavioral evidence alone is obvious, although I misread the block log and thought Wassermann was still blocked, and reverted all the edits. Is a longer term user block combined with the appropriate IP anon range blocks called for or not? -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wassermann's contribs, he hasn't edited under his main account since June 25. Agree with Avi--the quacking is getting awfully loud. Indef might not be too harsh at this point, considering his block log. Blueboy96 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This account has been a problem for a long time, and this new editing looks like the same kinds of problems as before. He was most recently blocked for a month. Either a much longer block or an indef would appear appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The IP's just AOL, so not much to be done there; I'd indef the guy, but I'm not particularly fond of yellow-badgers, so I'm way biased. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I too agree with an indefinite block: socking, long term bad edits... let's just get it over with. Triplestop x3 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked him indef. Blueboy96 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparent AfD trolling?[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention needed here. Now play nicely. the wub "?!" 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Moondyne is rapid-fire copying and pasting across multiple AfDs, including even four of these copy and pastes in even under one minute, i.e. nowhere near enough time to actually read the individual articles under discussion, the comments in the respective AfDs, and to verify whether or not sources exist (checking Google News in at least some of these cases show that they do...). Anyway, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. As I am not sure what to make of this and thus seek a neutral opinion as editors should be making serious considerations when discussing articles, especially ones being actively improved as seen at Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Addressing_articles_on_individual_characters and as such it is discourteous to those of us actively working on these articles to treat with them in a copy and paste across even four articles in under one minute rather that checking for sources (some of these actually are sourced, incidentally) per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling? I can assure you I at least scanned them all before !voting. I opened several Firefox tabs to save going back to the deletion sorting page which is why it my have appeared to you they weren't read. Posting this problem here is ridiculous and an inappropriate use of the ANI noticeboard. –Moondyne 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Beyond ridiculous; beggars belief even. For those who don't know, Moondyne is a long time editor and former administrator, who has never demonstrated any propensity to troll or disrupt, and has many times over earned the good faith A Nobody can't be bothered assuming. Hesperian 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It gets old when some of us have been working on articles to see these kind of rapid fire copy and pastes that demonstrate neither knowledge of the topics under discussion or effort at researching the individual articles and considering what specifically is out there for the specific articles under consideration. Editors in discussions do not just repeat the same thing tirelessly as doing so is not a discussion. A discussion considers what the participants have looked for and what specifically they have found and how it might be used in each individual case. When I see four copy and pastes done in one minute's time, it is hard for anyone to see how that adds anything to the actual efforts to see what can be done with these articles over on the wikiproject page and yes, rapid fire copy and pastes across AfDs is rarely a sign of anything constructive, but as I do not like outright accusing, I included the question mark above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At least the section heading is accurate. Reporting somebody at AN/I for voting to delete something that you want kept is indeed "apparent AfD trolling". Hesperian 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Verily. → ROUX  07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't personally want all of those to be kept and I wouldn't bother here if it was a mere concern about some disagreeing with me. I noticed a slew of rapid fire copy and pastes across multiple discussions, including even four of these in under a minute, which from past experiences with accounts that have done that at AfDs, naturally seems suspicious, and as such asked, not asserted, if others thought something of it here rather than just declare as much to the user. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words, "I came straight here to Drama Central because I didn't want to cause unnecessary drama." Hesperian 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I came here because I saw something that struck me as odd (applying the exact same comment to articles for award-winning performances as to ones that truly are not all that notable) and was hoping for good faith input if it is okay to just say the same thing in rapid-fire fashion without more carefully considering these differences. My hope is that if it is a bit haphazard, a fair admin would politely advise the user to be more careful. I am not asking for anything beyond that. If I was, I wouldn't have a question mark in the section heading and would be far more declarative. Ideally, the user would see that some of these can be sourced and join in our efforts to improve those we can so that we can work colloboratively together to improve our project. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You should do more than just "scan" them, but check for sources and discuss specific sources rather than simply copy and paste the same comment that does not necessarily apply uniformly to all half dozen plus articles, let alone providing no valid reason why at worst we would not at least redirect these verifiable articles as deletion is an extreme last resort. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We know that you hate to see any article deleted. We get it. But get over it. It happens. Also, what Hesperian said. I certainly see no admin action needed here, and this should have been dealt with via a conversation with Moondyne. Framing a good faith vote as some sort of action against 'some of us who have been working on articles' is repellent; there is no grand conspiracy to destroy work, and this sort of thing is precisely why a) the inclusionist/deletionist identification needs to stop, and b) why groups like the ARS should be turfed as promoting divisiveness. I suggest this be closed and you be stringently warned against using AN/I to further your extreme positions. → ROUX  07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hoaxes and libelous content should be deleted and I have nominated and argued to delete those sorts of articles. My concern here is not about wanting to delete, but about copy and pasting the exact same comment across four discussions in under a minute when it does not adequately consider the individual merits of each article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. Moondyne holds exactly the same opinion about four different articles on four different characters from the same TV show. Time for a community ban then? Hesperian 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are you descending into hyperbole? I certainly did not call for a community ban. I asked what the deal was with this rapid fire copy and pasting that did not seem to reflect careful consideration of the individual articles in question. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't see the need to read every word of every article in that walled garden to form a view of which ones are minor characters and non-notable. –Moondyne 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree that some are not easy to fix, but take one for instance where the actress won an award and was nominated a second time for her performance, i.e verifiable real world information about the reception of that character's depiction. They are not equal in notability and thus do not deserve the exact same comment. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If the actress won an award then the actress is notable. Not the character. Sheesh. → ROUX  07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
They go hand in hand, because the coverage of course includes it being a notable depiction of the character. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah um no. → ROUX  07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
By any reasonable standard, yes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why you didn't, y'know, just talk with Moondyne? → ROUX  07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to see what someone totally neutral from either of us thought. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you couldn't be bothered? You'd rather stir up some drama? Please. The correct response is to talk to the other editor first, rather than accuse them of some underhanded conspiracy against poor hardworking editors. → ROUX  07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are the one stirring up "drama" with this feigned outrage. I asked a question; if someone thought his approach okay, then they could say as much and then that is that. I didn't come here demanding action. I saw something odd that didn't seem right and hoped a neutral and fair party would see what they thought and if they agreed it was just going down the Afds indiscriminately would caution against that, or if not a big deal, suggest as much and that's that. Why you are reading beyond that is beyond me. People should be able to not feel bullied out of asking questions when they see something that doesn't feel right and not everyone who posts here does so expecting or desiring some kind of needless uproar. There is no reason why one fair minded admin could not have politely said either "Yes, that does seem strange; let me ask him" and then archive the thread or "Well, not too big of a deal; just check with him instead" and then so be it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Feigned? I assure you not. Your final statement is telling; "just check with him instead." There is no good reason why you did not. None whatsoever. You have been here more than long enough to know that. → ROUX  07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen several accounts who actually do troll AfDs with rapid fire copy and paste deletes and are indeed now blocked for it, which is why I am suspicious when I see it again. Yet, I do not want to assume that is the case. And anyway, I am not an admin; I cannot make any final judgment myself. Thus, I cannot imagine why it would be a bad idea to in good faith first ask for a neutral admin to see what he/she thought, i.e. for advice. And in the interest of transparency, rather than email someone, just post it here. There is absolutely no reason why on an admin board such as this it should have to descend into anything unpleasant. I was not calling for sanctions and certainly not for any kind of public humiliation of the user, just for a neutral admin's thoughts, because I did not want to just post an accusatory message on the user's talk page if it wasn't warranted nor a more friendly request for clarification if my suspicions are more correct. Where else, other than email, can we ask a random established admin what his or her thoughts are? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What part of 'discuss it with the user first' have you not understood in your multiple years here? Bah, forget this nonsense. → ROUX  08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted advice from an admin as to what approach to take in this case. If there's an admin advice board I am unaware of, please let me know. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If in each AFD the same reasons for deletion apply "Minor character, no real world significance," how is Wikipedia improved by making the Delete argument be phrased differently in each case? There is no WP:ELEGANTVARIATION guideline which says that the next AFD has to have different wording "Lacks real world significance, and is nothing but a minor character." Edison (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern stemmed from the shear speed of the copy and pastes. I usually spend several minutes on any Afd I comment in: 1) to read the discussion; 2) to read, not just scan, the article to see if I agree/disagree with the comments in the discussion; 3) to see if I can find any sources on Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, Academic Search Complete, and J-Stor; 4) if I do find sources, to add what I can, or if not at least make some grammar or stylistic fixes as evidence that I did review the article and so that if it is kept, then I at least did something to improve it. One cannot do these things for four articles in one minute's time and a fifth article in the next minute. And when I do argue to delete, I vary my arguments to fit the circumstances and discuss where I looked for sources and the results of my searches a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Shanti Giri, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chihuahua heights, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Negative Value Theorem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Scott Hilk, etc. Moreover, my concern was that while some of those did concern minor characters, others did have real world cited significance, such as for one performance that won and was again nominated for an award, i.e. the same copy and paste wording did not accurately apply across the board. Doing more than just a scan of the articles would have revealed as much. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in huge trouble for this[edit]

Resolved: Editors have worked through the issues in a collegial and cooperative manner and are moving forward on improving the encyclopedia accordingly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-reporting.

  1. My edits: moving discussion[9], moving discussion[10]
  2. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: this is not "discussion"; these are, quite plainly, lulz. do not refactor or otherwise fuck with our lulz, Durova. you're treading on thin ice, young lady.[11]
  3. My edit: restore move: commentary is admittedly disruptive[12]
  4. I post to his user talk:[13]
  5. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: You're in huge trouble for this....[14]

He has not replied to my attempt at polite communication. Seeking independent review and opinion. Durova277 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, he did mention your youth... style points? Anyway, if shenanigans like that continue, sanctions should ensue. Tan | 39 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back made a disruptive comment in his edit summary. To be fair, you responded with a sarcastic comment on his talk page that didn't really address the conflict. If I had found a message on my talk page like that I wouldn't have known how to immediately respond to it, and neither would I have seen it as "a polite attempt at communication". It's quite possible that I don't understand the seriousness of moving this text, or the immediate trouble that is sure to follow anyone who does so. IMHO, both parties are at fault. a little insignificant 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, I have significant respect for you as an admin, but anyone who has spent as much time on this "project" as yourself should have long ago relieved himself of the delusion that "this is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz." Look around.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
technically TFMWNCB is not an admin so your edit summary was incorrect Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right... I keep forgetting, sorry... a little insignificant 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with the above. The revert, and edit summary seem to be pretty uncivil and disruptive. I've gone ahead and informed The Fat Man Who Never Came Back about this thread. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I was attempting to lighten the tone, rather than attempting sarcasm. Durova277 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that I ad an edit conflict, so I was actually agreeing with Sandstein & Tan :). I can't see a big problem with your message. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alternately, Durova, you can be satisfied in the knowledge that people agree that you are technically in the right, but then just let it go as not worth the drama. C'mon people, this is not Utopia, we can allow things to get slightly messy and imperfect without threats of blocking and sanctions. Durova's response on his talk page was perfectly fine. It's all a joke, it isn't hurting things that much, TFMWNCB pushed the joke a little too far when reverting a second time. But let's go find something else to do. Also, I wish someone would call me young man. It's been decades. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If ever there were a page that needed some lulz, that would have been it. Nonetheless, Durova's edits were proper from the prescribed format point of view. Let's drop this now. Incidentally, given the number of times that he seems to come back here, I call BS on the Fat Man's username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So I come to back to AN/I from time to time. Big deal. I like my name. If you found out I had a svelte, Pilates-toned physique, would you complain?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see either one of two editors blocked over something like this. a little insignificant 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ignore him Durova, you are definitely not in any trouble. It clearly states at the bottom of the page [[15]] that discussions should be taken to the talk page. And his personal remarks to you are also unnecessary. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC))
I'm sure Durova is relieved at your reassurance that she is not in trouble. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all for the swift responses. This looked like the kind of thing that could turn hot, so was mainly seeking third party intervention before any blockable action happened. If the threaded commentary was correctly moved, would someone reinstate the move please? Other than that, would be glad to mark this resolved. Durova277 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Why. So. Serious? ViridaeTalk 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead[edit]

This user has been a minor problem for some time now, being a single-purpose account that exists apparently only to promote and maintain positive comments and puffy text regarding the film The Hurt Locker and people connected to it. This has been going on since mid-2008, including a series of edits that add glowing comments, excessive details, selectively chosen review quotes, delete negative remarks, add non-standard formatting, and so on. Editors who challenge his edits are usually reverted, often with misleading edit summaries. I have had to constantly watchlist the article, and to also review all changes to it by this editor (including following up on reviews and references to ensure they are used correctly). Today, after dealing with the latest problematic changes, I noticed that Inurhead had begun to indiscriminately revert other edits I had done in articles unrelated to anything he had seen before, This included restoring spam links and incorrectly placed material. Anyway, long story short, I don't feel comfortable acting as an admin in this case because of the past history of having to clean up after this guy, so I'd appreciate a third pair of eyes to review it. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a (veiled) warning, and with luck it won't happen again. If it does, let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is a bad faith, Bad Lieutenant of Wikipedia. He trolls around certain limited sites and deletes and undoes the neutral hard work of other contributors. He should be thrown out of Wikpedia forever. Seriously. This guy is VERY, VERY bad news and so much so that other users have created third party thesaurus entries to describe exactly what a "Ckatz" is. Please, if anyone of authority at Wikipedia has an ounce of integrity, back track this user and see where he has chased certain contributors and maliciously deleted their material. Ask yourself, why has he chosen this one single movie to pick on? Why not TRANSFORMERS or BRUNO? Or any number of films? Inurhead (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Nor is this rather eyebrow-lifting talk page. → ROUX  07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that the guy chooses to use hate pages by banned users as a way to justify his actions speaks volumes to the problem here. As far as I'm concerned, Inurhead has had more than enough chances to try to cooperate within the parameters of what is expected. He's a single-purpose editor who is determined to promote a particular pet topic, and he is completely unwilling to tolerate input from others. Frankly, I could care less about the foul garbage he spews when his work is questioned; his most recent toxic blast on his talk page is proof enough of where he is coming from. However, I certainly don't think this attitude should be tolerated. --Ckatzchatspy 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've focused on one small part of the changes noted above - the release date. From what I could tell from looking at WP:FilmRelease, the correct release date for the film is 2008. I've opened a section on the talk page, left a message on Inurhead's talk page [16] about the warring and pointing to the talk page. Inurhead has deleted that message, plus others on this topic. Yup, the year is a minor aspect, but if the user won't even attempt to discuss that, let alone anything else, on the talk page, it's not worth the time to go into the other topics raised above. At least today (so far), the edit summaries from Inurhead has been polite, so I guess that's some sign of hope. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Aasi (A sub Clan of Chadhar Rajputs)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi

I, Shehzad Asif Javed, President,The Club Group of Companies, Pakistan belong to a prominent Aasi family of Jhang and i head the aasi tribe, whenever i tried to write down my name at that page it always goes for speedy deletion, You are requested to solve the issue... Regards. Shehzad Asif Javed shehzad@theclubgrouppk.com

Removing unreferenced material about living people? Sounds good to me. This is not the "solution" that Shehzad Asif Javed is looking for, but I stuck an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article and removed the section where a few names were listed as "Prominent Aasis" with no sources or even explanations. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And the OP IP promptly reinstated the list.--64.85.211.140 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a symptom of a huge number of South Asian articles. Lots of lists of names, puffery, and little to no sourcing. I mentioned this at the Village Pump just the other day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow and RfA irregularities[edit]

At Kateshortforbob RfA, impersonator accounts JauarBeck and Tnxmen307 (now blocked) voted supported. Jauarback, another impersonator account, voted in Skomorokh Rfa. Today, Mikhailov Kusserow voted support in both RfAs. In his votes he included <noinclude> tag, effectively hiding the support and neutral sections on the main RfA page. Mikhailov had previously been blocked for abusing sockpuppets on RfAs w/ a supposedly alternate account Michel Mapaliey (see spi), but was unblocked because he supposedly didn't know that it was against the rules.

This does not look reasonable to me. Both accounts had been registered for almost 2 years, and even if he really did not know, it's commonsense not to vote twice. Now combined w/ his recent actions, I see too much of a pattern to assume good faith. I believe administrator intervention is needed at this point. Rami R 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence to link Mikhailov to those impersonation accounts? I agree that circumstantially he could be involved, but it doesn't look clear cut at the moment. ~ mazca talk 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Beyond what's listed here, no. I'd ask for a checkuser, but the SPI page suggests that for ongoing votes ANI is preferable. However, even w/o the impersonator accounts, I'd say that something too fishy is going on. Rami R 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 Confirmed that the following are mutual matches for each other:
  1. Backslash Forwerdslash (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  2. Tnxmen307 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  3. Jauarbeck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  4. Jauarback (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  5. Queengirlq (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  6. Siabeff (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
  7. Don't Feed the Zords (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
IP's already blocked. I have not checkusered Mikhailov Kusserow or Michel Mapaliey at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you throw in Free Hans (talk · contribs) and Bullrangifer (talk · contribs) to see if there is a connection with these two accounts, as well? MuZemike 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I should be flattered. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I blocked 76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs) on the basis of his behavior over several days, as detailed below. I strongly suspected that this was an IP sock of MataNui44 (talk · contribs) and set the block length to match the named account's 3RR block. MataNui44 was blocked for the third time for edit-warring on July 10 at 04:24. 76.95.66.209 appeared to continue a conversation begun by MataNui at Talk:Code Lyoko a few hours later, becoming abusive [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. After MataNui44's block was reviewed by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) he turned up on her talk page to advocate for MataNui44 and to campaign for a retroactive 3RR block against The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) [22]. Increasingly hyperbolic comments ensue [23], [24], [25], and demands for punishment [26]. I tried to engage the editor at that point, resulting in further escalation, unfortunately [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Losing patience with a catalog of incivility that would have had many editors blocked long since, and believing per DUCK that this was MataNui44, I blocked on the primary basis of long-term incivility and assumption of bad faith and set the block length to coincide with MataNui44's one-month block.

Since I'm the one that blocked him, and given his general demeanor, I doubt that any attempt by myself to convince him to modify his behavior will succeed. A sanity check on the DUCK test would be useful as well, as that influenced the block length. As an aside, Code Lyoko could use additional eyes; it's been in and out of full protection and has been the scene of a great deal of conflict. Admins are free to modify my actions if a consensus is apparent. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User page to article space redirect[edit]

Resolved: User page reverted again and fully protected. BJTalk 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to User:Otterathome that it is unacceptable for him to redirect his user page to the article Autofellatio in protest over the supposed failure to apply WP:NOTCENSORED on that article? He seems disinclined to take my word for it. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I've undone his redirection again. Definitely a WP:POINT violation and also a violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:USER. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also notified Otterathome about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that cross-namespace redirs aren't allowed. → ROUX  19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It also violates Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects. Exxolon (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Only if they are from an encyclopaedic content namespace to a non-encyclopaedic one, e.g. from the article namespace to the user namespace. There's no blanket prohibition, and there are many cases of cross-namespace redirects between project and user spaces, both of which are not part of the encyclopaedia proper. The better points to make are (a) if someone redirects xyr user page somewhere, it really has little to no effect on the encyclopaedia proper, or indeed on any other editor; and (b) it's a bit daft to protest that an article isn't as one wants it by making one's user page the same as the article that one doesn't like. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I really buy that. Redirecting a user page to a non-user page or non-user space page goes against the very reason for user pages, which is "to facilitate communication among participants in [Wikipedia's] project to build an encyclopedia." Also, WP:R#DELETE tells us that redirects must not cause confusion, must not be nonsensical, and must not cross name-spaces. It's one thing to redirect a user page to a user talk page (although I can't see a particularly good reason to do so unless the user is banned), but there is no situation where I can see it being proper or useful to redirect a user page to a non-user page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well you should because it's the case. It's user talk pages that "facilitate comunication". User pages are used for several sorts of things, far from all of which are facilitating communication. Many people have draft articles on their user pages, for example. And those are, ironically, of far greater concern (because the draft articles might have BLP problems or be advertisements masquerading as user pages) than a daft redirect. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Not according to WP:USER. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Arbitration RFC[edit]

More eyes, please, before we have a political purge disguised as a guideline. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Cite check tags on Kosovo article[edit]

Resolved: Purely an editorial dispute, no need for admin intervention.--Aervanath (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dbachmann, an admin, has unilaterally removed the tags here, with the reason "rm stale templates. There is the usual nationalist noise on talk, but this doesn't establish that there is any bona fide issue. If there is, use inline tags to help localize it."

The POV tag is dated December 2008. The Cite check tag is dated February 2009. I have been here for a couple of months, in that time no substantial edits have been made to merit the removal of the tags. I explained my position to the said admin here and was asked to inline tag all the non-neutral and dubious cites on the article - a move which would mean over half the article is tagged. This was explained to the admin in his talk page. The admin also accused me of improper conduct on Wikipedia, an notion I reject. The said user did not agree with my views and thus branded me a Wikipedian who gives the "usual nationalist noise on talk". I would agree that my actions have not always been proper, but my presence in the article is necessary to counter other points of view. The said user has assumed bad faith on other occasions, but I would like a response to this incident.

Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I observe Kosovo with amusement, and can only condone dab's actions here. If the article is really that bad, please go and inline tag it. ninety:one 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The article beings; "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans." This, in its self is a POV statement as according to 62 nations (mostly English-speaking nations), it is a country located in the Balkans. Why shouldn't I be allowed to address these points without being called a "nationalist". Why should we remove the tag when a Serbian POV has been allowed to override the article and thus un-due weight is given throughout. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).
No, it's an NPOV statement because it fairly describes the existing situation. While Kosovars have unilaterally declared independence from Serbia and 62 nations have supported this, Serbia still claims Kosovo as a province and not even a plurality of the world's nations have given their support to its declaration of independence. Until Serbia drops its claims and nearly all nations have accepted Kosovo as an independent nation, then it's quite fair, objective, and NPOV to say it is a "disputed reason". If you could provide reliable sources confirming that Serbia has accepted Kosovo's independence and given it such recognition, then your POV would become NPOV. As it stands, there is no reason for administrator action in this case. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys could formulate some compromise wording that is acceptable to all - I doubt that we would use the phrase "Israel is a disputed region in the Middle East." because a number of countries do not recognize Israel; or "Iran is a disputed region in the Middle East." for similar reasons; or "[North/South] Korea is a disputed region in Asia." or anywhere else. Perhaps using facts rather than the ambiguous weasel-word "disputed" such as Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, 62 countries recognize such independence, and XX countries recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. or something else. I'm not sure any admin action is required here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Friends, my comment was with regards to the tags being removed, this discussion on here highlights the point I'm trying to make -- that the Kosovo article still has outstanding issues which have not been resolved? What do you mean this case has been "resolved" when none of the users commented on the topic I discussed (?) The said administrator removed the tags without any consensus on any issues having been resolved since February or December respectively. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

The fact that this was marked "approved" without any proper discussion or relevance to my discussion on the tag removal is testimony to what I am pointing out. I have tried here and here to have a constructive debate surrounding the issue and the said user has not justified his unilateral act once. He has merely weaseled his way around answering the qeustion. Ridiculous how much power administrators have. Will an administrator not involved in Balkan related articles please look into this properly -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright news[edit]

Resolved: Again... ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this article to your attention, with the hope that people can "do stuff". I'll mention it on the copyright notcie board too. I have no connection with the NPG. It's a shame that they seem to have had such trouble, eh? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23719265-details/NPG+launches+legal+battle+against+Wikipedia/article.do 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we know all about that. It's been being discussed for several days. See WP:POST. ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At some point, the judiciary in these kinds of cases are going to say, "If you upload images, you assume the risk for them being copied. Case dismissed." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That logic doesn't work ("upload a picture? People can treat it as public domain and copy it" doesn't make sense) and it would be a public policy nightmare for them to decide in such a way. Members of the judiciary also don't "pass law" as such (see the void principle) and would only be able to interpret existing statute, much of which is against us. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Websites that are in the business of selling photos will sometimes, or maybe often, have a built-in function so that if you hover over the photo a "watermark" will appear, and/or if you right click to try to download it, it won't let you. If that museum failed to protect their precious photos, they are on shaky ground complaining about people grabbing them. "Here I am! Totally accessible! Don't download me, though!" Right. That doesn't mean those photos qualify for wikipedia. But thousands of other sites could grab them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bugs, but that doesn't mean that anyone can rip off images from other websites, bring it here, and fraudently post it as public domain, CC-BY-SA compatible, etc., because said website didn't take any actions to protect their images from being downloaded. MuZemike 07:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. I'm just saying that if you leave your car running with the doors unlocked, then you share in the blame when it gets stolen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kiss-the-cop[edit]

Resolved: Law has blocked Kiss-the-cop for a month. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to query whether any action is warranted to deal with the actions of User:Kiss-the-cop. I don't think I have come to the admin noticeboard previously, so please redirect me if this is the wrong place to raise this issue.

As can be seen here, the user now has had multiple speedy deletes, as well as a bot-generated warning about vandalism (the nature of which I can confirm), all in response to a very limited number of edits in recent days.

User contributions, limited though they are, appear to be either creation of pages that then get deleted, or vandalism. An example is here.

Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The last three edits appear to be vandalism, so I have given the user a final warning. Normally I'd say that WP:AIV would be the place for your concerns, but given the nature of article creation, speedy deletions, and now a pattern of vandalism, AN/I can certainly be of service. I really hope the user decides to consider the warning, but the pattern indicates a downward spiral. Law type! snype? 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Antiedman[edit]

Resolved

Antiedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has a history of POV pushing on the Barack Obama article despite repeated reminders and warnings regarding consensus: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. He stopped editing the article for a few weeks, but has returned. I have no idea what action, if any, this history merits, but it seems to me the user should be restricted from editing any articles related to Barack Obama. DKqwerty (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor should be restricted from editing any articles whatsoever. After Graham87 indefed and then unblocked on the grounds that this editor was apologetic and should get one more chance, Antiedman has been at ANI repeatedly for ridiculous things, as can be seen on the editor's talk page; for example, editing warring to place a POV tag in Multiracial American because it didn't state that people with ancestry from multiple European countries are multiracial. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
And the user persists: [43]. DKqwerty (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Has this user been warned about the article probation currently set on Obama (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation)? If not, then give one and only one warning. If so, then block away for violating article probation. MuZemike 06:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Antiedman got a final vandalism warning back in May. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Block, then. He was indeffed and unblocked when apologetic, but apologies mean nothing if not backed up by good behaviour. If he isn't willing to follow the rules of the game he should be thrown off the pitch. Ironholds (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - was given another chance and obviously realises what he is doing is not appropriate. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rhysdavy[edit]

This user appears to work for PETA. He vandalized two beef-related sites - Slaughterhouse and McDonald's logo. Both have been reverted, but the user should be sent a warning of some kind, which I don't know how to do. Groink (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is useful for issuing warnings to users. I've done so now. (addendum, looks like a PETA supporter rather than employee) weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like just a drive-by, but if he keeps it up, report him to WP:AIV and they'll put him in the meat locker. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
He might have a beef with that line of action. He might feel that calling in the pigs is a bit extreme. Perhaps he's just chicken of being labelled as the goat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Anon user 98.204.183.125[edit]

Can someone please block 98.204.183.125? It seems to be a stable IP address of someone who repeatedly adds racist rubbish to several articles. Thanks. Zerotalk 11:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Try reporting at WP:AIV, vandals will normally be dealed with faster if you report them there :). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Can't you block them yourself? What's special about this case? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) Addition of racist material, even repeatedly, is not pure vandalism as I read it. (2) I am not allowed by arbcom ruling to "use [] administrative tools [] in relation to someone with whom [I am] in a dispute". While I think this example would not be considered a violation, I'd rather not have to argue it. Zerotalk 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I personally would categorise repeated obvious racism as vandalism. It would be a personal attack in any case. Note: I haven't actually looked at this IP address' edits properly. Thanks for pointing out the arbcom situation. - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a 4im warning (the last 4th warning was 2 months ago), and will check back on the contribs. I know I tend to extend AGF further than a lot of folks, but that's just my nature. Zero, you should probably add a notice of this thread on their talk page as well, just to cover all bases. — Ched :  ?  12:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment needs correction post haste![edit]

Resolved: User blocked, page deleted – Toon 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This change to my user page [44] alerted me to this creation [45] by this "new" editor [46].

What do I want? I would like the user in question to be blocked. I would like the material oversighted/deleted, then I would like a checkuser to investigate the situation and figure out who the owner of YackThompson2 is and block the owner. How do I go about getting those things done? And if someone with the power to do them reads this can you go ahead and do them. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clear such pages and tag with {{db-attack}} in the future. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: the attack page is gone now, but the user who created it has not been dealt with. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User is now blocked. – Toon 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Boyz[edit]

Resolved: Deleted and salted by RxS. – Plastikspork (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please delete and salt Jackie Boyz? This article has now been created three times, by three different users, all copying material from another site. The three "different" users keep just copying and pasting the information, and never discuss their edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The information is repeatedly being copied from http://winwab.com/2009/02/jackie-boyz-lyrics-bio-music/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks...RxS (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless it's salted, it's just going to come back again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like that was done as well. Plastikspork (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the salting show up in the history log? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
See here. Plastikspork (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah. It doesn't show here. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the low sodium version. Plastikspork (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User copy/pasting text[edit]

This user has copy/pasted text to a couple articles, even after I left a warning. See 1, 2, and 3. The Prosper text was copied directly from prosper.com. swaq 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin incident involving 3RR block being lifted on basis of personal attacks[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: nothing to see here. Admins are allowed to revisit their blocks and change their mind. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

A rather clear cut case of a 72 hour block issued for edit warring was lifted by an admin, William M. Connolley, here upon the blocked editor making personal attacks against the reporting editor in an appeal to the block here. Are personal attacks against reporting editors now an accepted defense against 3RR blocks? Admin User:William M. Connolley is apparently worried about being de-sysopped, as noted here. Yaf (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, he did self-revert and offer to talk here. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And then he reverted another 4 times or so, while making the same changes, showing the self reverts were not in good faith, since he continued edit warring. 6 Reverts or even 5 reverts in much less than 24 hours is clearly in violation of 3RR. As for making an offer to talk, you might take a look at: this. Yaf (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No opinion on the case as a whole yet, but I also see no personal attack in SaltyBoatr's unblock request. Plus, Yaf's method of apparently trying to cast aspersions on WMC's authority as an admin by mentioning the (entirely unrelated) arbcom case, does not cast a very positive light on his conduct here. Fut.Perf. 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The MedCom case recommended for ArbCom was a case of the same editor "offering to talk" once before. It is entirely related, since it was about the same POV edit warrior and his "talk", regarding the exact same article for which he is now edit warring. Looks very much related to me. Yaf (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be talking about different things. I was referring to your snide remark about WMC being "worried about being desysoped". Fut.Perf. 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just the facts, sir. He made the statement, not me. As for the personal attack, the comment regarding "And, the reporting editor Yaf is one who flatly refuses[47] to follow WP:DR.", which is entirely false, hence is a personal attack the way I see it. Also, the mention of me removing a note from my talk page after the block was granted. The note was removed from my talk page prior to the block being issued. The personal attacks through lying about facts regarding an unrelated editor (Yaf) to escape a block seem rather clear, but perhaps I am just taking the falsehoods personally, being they were directed at me. Yaf (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Asking here in the bright light of day: Yaf, will you agree to full good faith participation in the procedures outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution to resolve our dispute? For my part, I make such a commitment wholeheartedly, here publicly in front of these witnesses. Yaf, do you make this public commitment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any personal attacks in the unblock request. This looks like your usual soapboxing, Yaf, against WMF. seicer | talk | contribs 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Stating that someone "flatly refused" is a personal attack? No. Not even close. Tan | 39 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, it might be. Using the word "fuck" in an exasperated sense already is. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Yaf's original assertion, my block of SB wasn't clear cut. Unusually, I did it on the basis of the reported diffs, rather than on looking through the history myself. Because of that, I missed SB's self revert. That made the block questionnable, and on another inspection I couldn't see 4 clear R. Furthermore, Yaf's failure to mention the self-rv showed bad faith. So I unblocked SB, because I was no longer happy to sustain the block. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing comment[edit]

I object to the closing comment. Referring to a "snide whiney" comment is basically a WP:Personal attack and counterproductive. Please strike it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not reach anywhere close to being a violation of WP:NPA. It's a comment about an EDIT and not an EDITOR. Please don't extend the drama any further than needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying that someone behaves like a fucking prick is not better than calling the person a fucking prick. If there's going to be an accusation that someone was snide and whining, then let's have a quote.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Radiokid1010[edit]

Resolved: he removed the unblock request right after Sarek of Vulcan told him not to, so now he's also blocked from editing his talk page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiokid1010 (talk · contribs) is removing his unblock requests and the denials from his Talk page. Isn't that disallowed as long as the block is in place? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says 'may', but in practice it is not allowed. And personally I think it indicates they are attempting to pretend any unblock they put up is the first one. Admins should check, of course, but it's just a bad idea. → ROUX  03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:BLANKING, one of the things they are NOT supposed to remove is block notices and declined unblock requests while the block is still active. Once the block expires or is lifted, they are free to do what they want with them. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what WP:BLANKING says (emphasis mine): "Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests". But y'know, since policies and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not proscriptive, I'm going to go ahead and change that. → ROUX  07:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

BorgQueen tried to give Radiokid a second chance, and he immediately went back to removing interwiki links, so BorgQueen blocked him again for 72 hours, he's now requesting an unblock. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing over Early life and career of Barack Obama[edit]

Editor Barwick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to edit disruptively by re-introducing a the birther argument to Early life and career of Barack Obama over the birth certificate that various editors, including two admins, have said was going no where, was denigrating into a forum discussion, and had no consensus. This editor then first went and created a sub page [48] (Barwick later said they misunderstood archiving and thought it was fine to create a sub page.) and then edited out the other comments of other editors leaving only Barwick's edits [49] with the summary of: "Archiving old rants from multiple parties (see Archive 1), and cleaning up to discuss the facts and items under dispute". User:DJ Clayworth closed and deleted the re-hashing of the argument [50] "This dicussion was moved to another page and then closed down". Shortly there after Barwick re-inserted the section [51] with the edit summary of "No, it was not "discussed", it turned into a "forum', and was useless "my dad can beat up your dad" pettyness. This is a discussion of the facts,". I then deleted it and then Barwick re-introduced it again. All through this, no new reliable sources were presented to back up the argument. This editor continues to not understand that the argument was closed. Brothejr (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest form the Barwick has shaped the section [52] with the summary: "Here, let's make it even easier and separate the facts section so you can find it..." Brothejr (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of this notice, and I agree with Brothejr's summary. Barwick has several times attempted to restart a debate on the 'truth' of Obama's birthplace. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
As per precedent, disruption on Obama articles should lead to blocks after one good faith warning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This story, if it proves to have any legs, could complicate matters: [53] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That story is already documented at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Cook_v._Obama --guyzero | talk 17:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be the place for it, then. Until, or if, something comes of this issue, it should be confined to that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically Barwick is only disrupting the talk page. However if another admin would like to block him that might be a good idea. Even though I came to the article as a neutral arbiter (he's not my president!) I've probably been there too long to be considered neutral now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Disruption of the Talk page has led to numerous blocks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Just warned Barwick that he could be blocked for disrupting the talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a tag team of sorts now; one hits the talk page, while the other does the article. Already earned a 1-day block just 2 days ago, and appears to be back at it as soon as that expired, already racking up 2 today. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jawesome98's block expired. Looks like it's time for a renewal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Renewed, 3 days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This discusoin here seems to intesect with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories they have contributed extensively to. i was wondering if anyone here can ehlp me stabilzie this article be looking up some minutiate points regardin some of the minor people who hare involved with this subject, princiaplly the lawyer in the Cook case, a Mrs. Orly Taitz who has been listed as both a dentist and lawyer on this page. if we can clear up this confusion, I am confident that user Jawesome and User:Brawick will be willing to come to a negotiation on that talkpage instead of messing with the Early Life of Barack Obama page. Smith Jones (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jawesome98's Talk page has drive-by edits saying that he was mentioned at WND. I tried finding the mention at their website, but couldn't. Does anybody know what the IP editor is talking about? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
have you considered my proposal? re: WND, I launched an exhaustive inquery into the nonreggies claim on Mr Jawesomes talk page on the website of both World Net Daily and several of its affiliates websites. There was no matches as can be evidenced [http://www.wnd.com/search.asp?offsite here]. I think that Jawesome98 might have posted on WND's forum under a diferent username than the one he uses for Wikipedia, or maybe the non-reggie had him confused with someone else with similar plitical leanings. Anyway, I think it might be ared herring and not material to the nature of Orly Taitz Smith Jones (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the last two entries about Jawesome98... Why does everyone assume people are tag teaming? This makes no sense. Regardless... I have already brought this matter up by asking the Mediation Cabal to review the actions of the two editors whom I believe have slowly lost their neutrality on this issue. The reason I believe this is because over the three days I have been advocating this discussion, while my main facts have never been addressed, the administrator's demands went from "Let's discuss this on the talk page", to "Provide reliable sources", to "This isn't relevant to the topic", to "Everybody else believes this has been settled", to "Only conspiracy theorists believe this", to "This has already been discussed", all while still failing to address the main facts presented.

This discussion I brought up was going nowhere because *nobody* was responding to the facts I presented, or responding to the claims that were made based on those facts. That doesn't mean the argument has no merit, it means the opposing viewpoint so far has not presented a defense.

The link to the Mediation Cabal is here Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-15/Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama--Barwick (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to really mediate. The matter of Birther conspiracies in Obama-related articles is quite settled on the grounds of WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Continuously edit-warring to jam it in wherever possible is disruptive and usually dealt with accordingly, via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles or Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany (terminology)[edit]

Resolved: No administrative intervention required (yet). In case there's edit warring in the future, please report it on WP:AN3. — Aitias // discussion 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in that article someone is replacing the content by a redirect. I do not want to start an edit-war, and I easily admit that I am not very familiar with the rules in en.wp. Could someone have a look at the case? Thank you in advance --Ziko (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems to exist in favor of the redirect on the talk page but it's quite weak and mainly based on the fact that the article does not cite sources at all for any content. You can try to invite members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany into the discussion or start a request for comments but I would advise against reverting the redirect until more discussion has taken place. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect - I don't see a consensus for it on the talk page. In any event this is not a matter for ANI (yet). – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is now resolved: User:Cs32en has moved the content to History of Germany and restored the redirect. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Norcalal & User:Highspeed[edit]

Resolved

These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion. I have blocked User:Highspeed as a sock of User:Biaswarrior per WP:DUCK as Biaswarrior had engaged in previous similar stunts, but Norcalal considers that I am biased against him and so I'll let an uninvolved admin figure out whether he's a sock, a problem, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see where Norcalal has 'vandalised [your] talk page'. Would you please back this up with a diff(s)? — neuro(talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
He posted this to Highspeed's talk the same day that Highspeed vandalized my talk page, it's clear who the personal attack was refering to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Long thread on the larger topic here, WT:WikiProject Cities#Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities. Pfly (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That provides some background, but that issue and vandalism/wikistalking/sock puppetry is what we're discussing, unless you think that others in that discussion are involved? I don't but maybe you know something more, please advise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I take exception to the following: "These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion." ---I have never vandalized anyone's talk page or nominated any article for deletion. Therefore, I could not have wiki-stalked articles for deletion. Its true that a lot of article creation in California counties has been a cause for concern, if not occasional ire but the charges from Carlossuarez46 are unfounded or untrue. However at this time, I would make the point that it looks like said editor is willing to trump up charges against me over a difference of opinion related to the value of some (not all) of the articles created. I do not know what a sock is. I imagine it has something to do with a ghost account that an editor might use to look like someone else. But as far as I can see that has nothing to do with the articles in Humboldt County that I am mostly concerned with. It is true that I have been trying to make sense of the rapid article development as of late in many counties, but I have made mostly small adjustments related to some of additions in articles I know quite well. I think that is normal editing. No one has ownership of any article. In at least one case, I made a very clear point in the City of Arcata. If San Francisco was briefly called Yerba Buena why is it not listed as "(formerly Yerba Buena)" in its header. But the information related to use of Arcata's brief original name, that information was ALREADY cited and placed in the history section long before any more recent changes. As I read the interesting arguments about the use of GNIS I see that there has been much considerate deliberation. I hope it all leads to more complete, well organized articles and templates. But one thing is for sure at the moment. There are repetitions and errors in templates that are ill conceived by relying totally on the GNIS. The issue with Bucksport and Buck's Port in Humboldt County is one of the issues around recent prolific stub article creation that needs clarifying-there was only one and the same location, but references may have developed from old sources to confuse that. Even so, there should be an (single) entry about this (single) historic location now completely absorbed by the City of Eureka. Again, I have seen some similarity in concern in Mono County and Monterrey County for what I saw happening in Humboldt, but I have never wittingly worked together with anyone in the manner described above. It is not in my nature despite being upset at the onset of this period of massive article creation in many counties in California that I am familiar with. Norcalal (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
What caused you to post on Highspeed's talk page about me on the day he vandalized my talk page? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of vandalism from Highspeed toward you or anyone else. My perception was that he was having a similar reaction in Monterrey as I was having in Humboldt. The posts of his that I noted were only related to your edits/article creation that he tagged for "speedy deletion" related to obscure article stubs related to the GNIS source debate (a real debate going on parallel to this issue here). I assumed Good Faith (not knowing otherwise) and had no idea that he had tampered with anything. I still have not researched the claim of vandalism to your talk page...mostly because I only look for discussion on the GNIS issue, which has taught me quite a lot about the process of development around here. I track a lot of coastal articles (and their counties and templates for that matter) related to my many interests, so there is good reason for me to watch this issue and others in the larger California setting. My issue is only this: If you created an article related to a mistaken/misspelled name of a locale in GNIS, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a resource to say that a place that never was never existed. I resent being brought on trial here and lumped in with this "Highspeed" character because there is no connection. This is the last I will engage this discussion. Norcalal (talk)
So, you see that he is trying to delete geographic article - a kindred spirit you had no prior contact with and leave a negative comment about me after he vandalizes my talk page, which you didn't notice per WP:AGF. OK. FWIW, if an article's title is mistaken/misspelled, you can always WP:MOVE it to its correct title, but after being here as long as you, I assume you know that. Just make sure that you have a reference that verifies that title. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not research why he was trying to delete an article, I saw others as well suggesting articles for deletion...again I assumed he was a real editor with a vested interest in the locale. You still seem surprised at the undertone of antagonism that comes your way. Perhaps your responses where you decide calling other editors a "DICK" might be inflammatory. I have not had a stranger call me that since the 7th grade so I know I was taken aback...perhaps others are/were too. On the flip side, I have had extraordinarily patient editors and admins have reason to be upset with a mistake I or others have made, take time to help make sense of it all and none of those reduce their interaction to orders and demands as you do. So whatever. Your use of "Kindred spirit" in the above may relate to what I expected (assumed) to find in Highspeed: A local editor in shock over your rapid article creation (without knowing otherwise). The statements made here and in other posts related to the GNIS mess as I see it are honest ones from an editor who has been here a while. I don't research everything in a controversy, just the stuff that matters to me. I bet in that respect I am not alone. Norcalal (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm sure I've ever been called "rapacious" before. So we all have new experiences here. We're here to write an encyclopedia, to increase the knowledge available to the world. Where the inclusion of articles that are referenced is met with so much antagonism, attempts at deletion of notable articles with little more than "it's not notable" as a rationale, and now vandalism seems heavy handed. I'm not saying that all the articles can be expanded quickly to more than stubs, but Kneeland, California demonstrates that is quite possible. Now, you know more first hand about Humboldt County than I do, but I can use sources that are reliable to put together a little something. Perhaps by focusing your efforts from deleting articles like Kneeland, you can put it into improving them and expanding them. Anyway, this seems resolved and I'll take you on your good faith that you didn't know Highspeed from before. And will mark it such. If you want to continue the conversation, my talk page is open.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
My term "rapacious" resulted you AFTER you ordered me to move on AND after you called me a dick. Secondly, I have not deleted any articles. Even in the resolve (according to you) you sting because you can. It is unnecessary and you continue to retain the inflammatory tone that you are now, perhaps, (in)famous for. Thanks for that contribution. BTW, there are other editors, many of whom have been around for a good long while, who have questioned not only your reliance on GNIS and one other admin questioned your attitude of what could be described as bullying or heavy handed use of admin privilege. I will consider this resolved if you stop the attack of words.