Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive186

User:Tactical Battle

Resolved

 – Blocked, talk page editing removed, WP:DFTT

Tactical Battle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently new account since first activity is today. Vandalised article BraveStarr in manner similar to that that has been done repeatedly over the last few weeks. Previous vandalism has always been anonymous IP edits for IPs subsequently blocked. Given the nature of the eidt in question it appears unlikely that this is not the same individual now using accounts, althoug hadmittedly this is the only vandalism so far. Only other activity is a few quick reverts, some of which were questionable. It may also be worth checking for accounts creatign at the same time from the same IP.

In addition, user is impersonating an administrator. He has added himself to the administrator's category and made edits to an unblock request in a manner suggesting that he holds this position. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Troll. Blocked. Resolved? Pedro :  Chat  12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved - I have re-blocked removing talk page editing after this trolling request to be unblocked. Perhaps I should have let another admin declie but I see no reason to waste time. Other eyes appreciated to endorse however, and if not endorsed please feel free to overturn my actions. Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing EXACTLY what you did before you beat me to it. Therefore, I completely endorse this action. We do NOT need this guy around here anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur - we are well shut of this person with haste - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've re-marked this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)

Moved to WP:BON#Problem bot (CSDWarnBot). –xeno (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfPP backlogged

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Enigma^msg 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Tiptoety ^talk 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

I'm sad to report that one of our fellow Wikipedians passed away last week. I tried, but have been unable to verify his passing beyond the initial message left by his son (via an IP). However, considering the editor in question had acknowledged a serious illness and his account has been atypically inactive since, I considered it acceptable to take care of the administrative aspects today. I have not done this before, so could someone else cast an eye over it? Its obviously not something we want to get wrong. Thanks, and the editor's page is here. Rockpocket 21:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, looks fine. As long as autoblock/ACB are off (which they are), it is pretty much just straightforward indeffing. — neuro^(talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef in memoriam — someone who contributed so much to Scottish football articles. RIP. – Toon^(talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that it is entirely appropriate to leave messages of sympathy and the rest (I did so myself), I beg of people to do it at the talk page, not here (wasn't going to mention it, but then I saw the above comment). — neuro^(talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That was meant to be encouragement, not a message in itself, if it came across that way... – Toon^(talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Neuro. It would be best if the page is indeffed. Chamal ^talk 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which has already been done by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on 28 Feb. Chamal ^talk 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have a feeling there is a page on Meta somewhere that catalogues and pays respect to deceased Wikimedians. I'll try and locate it. Do we want to add Titch Tucker there and write a short statement or no? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • m:Deceased editors. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Also Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think those pages are held to a fairly strict WP:V standard. –xeno (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You're concerned about the verifiability of this matter? Hmm... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the circumstantial evidence certainly argues in favour of it being true, but there's no proof to conclusively rule out a hoax or a cruel joke. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

I joined wikipedia to find out why my dad (Titch Tucker) enjoyed it so much. When I came across this I was going to ignore it but feel I have to say something. I found this through looking at Rockpockets edit history, and was to say the least a little dissapointed. I e-mailed Rockpocket yesterday and he was very kind to me. I'm sure he would have laughed at this, as I know my dad loved this place, but I don't think it's for me. Little Tuck (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fast track for cranks?

Have we got some sort of fast track for disposing of cranks (junk science, conspiracy theorists)? These single purpose accounts seem to take up an inordinate amount of time and resources with an obstinate willingness to argue their good faith yet ridiculous points ad nauseam. Simple vandals are easy to deal with, and edit disputes also have their own venue. But how shall we effectively deal with "flat earth" folks fueled by the "media" which is more than willing to give equal time to "opposing points of view" no matter how absurd. The general approach I'd like to see is a simple nomination of the offending user, a brief summary of the user's edit history, a vote by experienced editors/admins as to whether or not the offending editor is a crank, and a permanent banning if found as such. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to do that in a wiki that defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But there are ways to alleviate the problems; see e.g. the next section. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can edit - any way they want? - or can edit to help make the world's best, free encyclopedia? Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of becoming Crankopedia. This can be stopped, but only if there is a will to do so, and at the moment it seems that the majority of admins believe that all views should have equal weight. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll strongly disagree with Looie496's assertion that the majority of admins believe all views should have equal weight. (On a side note, I wonder why WP:AGF never seems to apply to statements about admins?) But I can see a problem with fasttracking cranks -- who exactly is the arbiter of who is a crank and who isn't? I sure don't want to make that call. But if we hold firm to requiring independent, reliable sources, the trend towards Crankopedia can be reversed. And we already have processes for dealing with people who insist on inserting unsourced material.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What process is that? Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Educate/warn/block. Same as anyone who insists on editing disruptively. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The "block" part gets a bit tricky because there's an appearance that the block resulted from an edit conflict (not allowed) rather than from cranky edits. Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The only tricky part is that the people warning and blocking need to focus on the true problem, which is making controversial additions without getting consensus on the talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all just words. Any clash of views gets classified as a content dispute, in which admins are not empowered to intervene. The practical effect is that all views are treated equally. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's problematical in the case of cranks. Content disputes take considerable time and energy. On the other hand, giving an individual the authority to determine what is crank/conspiracy and what is not seems to go too far the other way. Hence my search for some sort of fast track that provides sufficient oversight without becoming over burdensome. And, in the case of cranks, we're often not dealing with a single article but with a pattern of editing multiple articles to promote a specific crank theory. I think we need a process (or have we one already?) that addresses a user's pattern of behavior and addresses the user specifically rather than on an article by article basis. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you go to far down this path, review the case of User:!! and User:Durova from late 2007/early 2008. There are problems with quasi-automatic review of a particular contributor. To really evaluate someone takes time and effort, not just in review, but in attempt at education to wikipedia processes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The mechanism that Rklawton wants actually exists -- the problem is that it doesn't work. See WP:ANI#Community ban of ImperfectlyInformed for an example of what happens in almost every case. It typically takes around 100 net wasted hours to get people to support a topic ban, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to propose a system that might work? Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Users: Juanacho and Decodet

In the main Ashley Tisdale article which I have been editing for 1-3 days now. The page in the past before my edits included fake awards, Tisdale was never nominated for a Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards, the link provided to support this statement does not mention Tisdale nor does it list the nominees, here is the link: [1] Then another award which she supposedly got nominated for which was the Germany Jetix Awards. The links provided to support this statement ([2]) does not show in German that she got nominated for the award. I clicked this: [3] which is what these users posted and I found nothing mentioning the Jetix Awards. Another fake award nominated that got posted it the Nickelodeon Brazilian Kids' Choice Awards, the link posted to support this award (In Brazilian): [4] is a blog. The site's host is Word press and the site does not look reliable at all, the first link posted was an article in Brazilian that when I translated show the pre nominations for the award. The el superficial site was a blog, not just any blog a celebrity gossip blog which is hosted by Wordpress en Español. In the end of this page: [5] the copyright of the site is shown and the host.

Every time I edit on this page, these following users revert my work for no reason listed: Juanacho and Decodet. I put some of effort into fixing the spelling and pun caution errors (In January, 31, 2008, Forth, european etc. ), these children truly need education. And I have absolutely no idea how this article is a Good Article. I found 2 duplicate references, text that has references yet is repeated in another section with a brand new reference, trivial text (In her Music and Influences section, there was something about her singing a pop rock song in a TV movie. Well the song was a Shadows of the Night cover and was not released in any soundtrack nor was it over 2 minutes long. So why is it mentioned in her Music and Influences section?), over linking (over 3 links that are all reliable but are all of these references necessary? There was a very reliable reference from her official site that supported half of the text in her Early Life section that had dozens of references: [6].

All of Tisdale's magazine covers were listed, and most of them referenced. Now is this necessary to list all of the covers she has been on, she has been on dozens of magazine covers.. Notable or not, these two users were searching everywhere to find these links. It was a massive collection of links. To support the text stating Tisdale auditioned for the roles of Gabriella and Sharpay in HSM, t High School Musical Pop Up Edition would be used as a source. When it is just text, not even a link. I found many paragraphs which have been over linked with 2-4 references each sentence stating the same thing.

In the career section there was a lot of references from blogs, celebrity blogs and fan sites etc. saying when Tisdale's promotional singles, real singles, re-releases, music video releases, re-releases for album and singles got released in Germany, The U.K, Brazil, Poland, The U.S. and on. Why list and reference all of the release dates for her album's deluxe edition and Radio Disney promo single? Since all of this is listed and referenced in Tisdale's music pages which include her album page, discography, and on.. There is a large amount of links from Just Jared and Just Jared Jr which is a gossip blog, the site is quite reliable but the site is a gossip, celebrity site that posts rumors as well. Since it would take time and space to list all of her minor television roles, I listed a few of them. Her most notable guest appearances. All of her guest appearances have been verified in the past (IMDB, her official site). So I don't see why two references were added to support her The Hughleys and Still Standing appearances: [7] Honestly I am so sick and tired of cleaning up that article. It gets reverted every time. Gimmetrow and Gprince007 have reverted Juanacho and Decodet's reverts to my trimmed version,but it seems that these multiple accounts are never going to stop reverting. I am so sick of this. Please can an admin please stop this.

Look at these:

• [8]
• [9]
• [10] Time order? Unnecessary coverage of a EP that did not chart
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

I could explain each of these edits but I am honestly too tired to do so. There are many more edits that I would like to explain and show but at this moment I am not willing to do this. Can an admin please sort this out. This article need a lot of serious clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivewildes (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Without looking too deeply into this, there are no posts from any of the three editors on the talkpage of the article. I'm going to recommend to all three they start communicating on the talk page and thrash this out there. If they can't dispute resolution can be tried. Exxolon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell: Juanacho has a habit of making big reverts, often using misleading edit summaries [23]. This is rather frustrating to other editors like Olivewildes. Gimmetrow 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bootleggers 'reborn'

Resolved

 – Bootleggers redirected to Bootleg, dabs merged in

I remember a while back, an article on a web-based game called "Bootleggers" was deleted as non-notable, and eventually converted into a disambiguation. Now, someone has converted the dismambiguation page into an article on the game again, leaving the disambiguation links on the bottom. I would delete it, but I don't want to start an argument, so I'd rather get a consensus first. But as this has been brought up before(quite a long time ago, probably around a year). Is it even appropriate to list the game on the site?--Vercalos (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Converting a disambig into an article is the same as creating an article at a new title: it's cirucmventing AFD and should be deleted. And that "article" was a fluffy POV-spam thing, so it should be deleted regardless, which I have done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegging and Bootlegger both point to the dab page Bootleg, yet Bootleggers points to a two entry dab page of its own. Doesn't make any sense to me, and a 2 entry dab page is against policy anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed. Black Kite 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit

The Rabbit article has several very long sections that are copied verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica. It isn't that the E.B. isn't cited, but the length of the passages that is the problem. The entire section of: "Location and habitat", Characteristics and anatomy", "Behavior", and "Reproduction" are made entirely of material taken directly from EB. I added quotes and described the problem on the discussion page, but nothing has of yet been done. Could someone with better understanding of copyright policy and style guide please have a look at this? I double checked the text against my copy of EB, it is the same. My copy is: "rabbit." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Rapparee71 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be that these tracts of text come from the 1911 edition with the expired copyright. A large number of our articles started off that way. Rklawton (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the citation even states the 2007 version of the Encyclopædia Britannica Standard Edition. I added a non-free tag to the top of the article. I didn't know what else to do. It has four full sections that are direct copies. I added the quotes, but I'm pretty sure that that isn't proper usage.Rapparee71 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, except that copyright applies to the first, not latest, appearence of the text in published form. It is entirely possible that Britannica has not updated their text since 1911, which would remove the copyvio problem. Does anyone have a 1911 copy, or a link to one online, which would show whether or not this was the case? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

here. Have fun ;-) SoWhy 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edits that introduced this copyvio. And this seems to be the 1911 text. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently User talk:Serendipity15 was a known copyvio'er. He was known to add verbatim text copies of brittanica.com material occording to the block statement by User:Durova. It's a shame it took so long to detect these. I'll be going trough the rest of his contributions to be sure that we got it all this time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What does User talk:Serendipity15 have to do with it? The CV seem to have been made by User talk:Ed Brey, or have I missed something completely? --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget it and sorry. I missed the intermediate edits. Here's a better link that makes Serendipity's involvement clearer.[24]--Slp1 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to correct that. Sorry for the confusion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had to remove significant sections of Mammal, and I have serious concerns over Hamster health conditions. The latter seems way too similar to it's primary source, and although edited before it was brought to wikipedia, if you compare the original and the wikipedia version, it is simple to recognize. Perhaps full on deletion of this article might be the best approach??  :( --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a bot the googled random sections of major articles looking for copy vios, did this slip through the net somehow? Chillum 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New articles afaik. Majorly talk 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, full deletion is an overblown "solution". Remove and rewrite the plagiarised parts as necessary, even stub it down if you have to. Deletion of an article as important as this is a bad idea though. Majorly talk 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that he actually took Hamster health conditions out of the primary Hamster article. So it's not "his" plagiarism in this case. Still needs heavy rewriting regardless. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamster health conditions taken care of. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, there are these edits to Hamster. Although some of these additions are still recognizable in the current text, they have been edited quite significantly over the years, and I don't think they should be blanked at this time. I have notified the talk page of this article, and will keep an eye out to see if any editor can clean it up appropriately. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone might also want to look at the other rabbit related articles to see if there are other violations in them. Rapparee71 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Hamster health conditions should just be speedy deleted, as the entire history was a copyvio, and what's left is a original research paragraph and a how-to guide. Secret ^account

Interesting WT:UP discussion of non-contributors' user pages + some related MfDs

There's an interesting discussion started by MZMcBride going on at Wikipedia talk:User page#Non-contributors. There are also some related MfDs listed in the subsection below it. I encourage folks to add their comments pro and con; broader participation would be useful since user page content is a recurring tricky issue. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Could I get some people to take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Notabilitypatrol? It's a bit much to go over myself, however it seems Golbez has some good points about the conduct of this user. Considering the massive amount of text on that page, I felt the review would be better handled by several sets of eyes rather than one or two random admins that happen by the unblock category. Thanks, all. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez should not have made this block; there is too much personal involvement. Golbez should have brought the problem to ANI and requested another admin to block. This block should be reversed on principle, leaving it open to any other uninvolved admin to make a fresh block. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific block, blocks should not be reversed on principal, they should be reverse for good reasons only. Chillum 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the block itself as I have yet to review it, I am curious why (as you never stated the block was improper) would the block need to be reversed? I understand the need for un-involvement, but if it is a good block why waste everyone's time by undoing it, then having someone else redo it? No need for all that pointless bureaucracy. Tiptoety ^talk 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - but a note to the offending admin with appropriate suggestions would be in order. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not agreed. In my opinion, it is bad to have procedures that encourage admins to make dubious blocks. If the default, once a block has been made, is to maintain it unless there is consensus that it is bad, that encourages bad blocks. It should be standard operating procedure for blocks by involved admins to reverse them and then look for consensus. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pull it. User has been fairly good at adressing specific complaints so there is hope for improvement.Geni 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the user blanking every warning and scrambling other messages so that the conversation on the page is completely incomprehensible. I warned the user about biting a newbie and it was blanked; they responded to this as harassment, then I restated again that no, it wasn't so, it was a reminder to stay cool, which was once again blanked. I know users have a right to blank whatever they want on talk outside of warnings, but the user has changed his page so much it's hard to follow any of the threads brought up. I'm also trying to stay on the periphery of this due to the editor accusing me (and others voting to keep) of being a sock based on my vote in a previous AfD (which was later closed as punitive); I don't want to get involved in this drama and feel backing off is better than anything else. I don't have any comments as far as the block, but the user's actions suggest that sanctions might be in order should they continue to be an editor here. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I am aware of this discussion. As for the block, for several days I realized this editor needed some form of discipline, and while I was compiling my large list of grievances I realized that if I took this to RFAR I would likely be treated with a "This is a duck, just block them". If it is reversed, I certainly won't wheelwar over it. But I do suggest people look at the two-faced behavior of this editor, from forging comments (if anyone believes the story about it being a clipboard error...) to claiming to be so distraught over a "death threat" that they care not to delve into it and can't be bothered to give a link... but then continue to repeatedly bring up the death threat in some effort to garner sympathy. But my case has been made; fortunately it's in the history if we need to take this to RFC, either for them or for me. Should I have blocked? Possibly not, in fact I refrained for several days because I was so involved, but those days just gave more and more grounds for a block. Oh, and FYI, I am not stalking NotabilityPatrol in real life, nor do I intend to cause them any physical harm. Shock and disbelief, maybe. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Golbez did little wrong here. Based mostly on his username, Notabilitypatrol irked my "spideysense" and has been riding the disruption fence since he first showed up. Golbez may have been quite involved, but I don't see where this user has the best interests in Wikipedia at heart. Might it have been better to ask another admin to do the block? Possibly. Should this user be unblocked because of that minor lapse in judgement. No... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User has now asserted on their talk page once the block is dropped they will ask for a name change to "The Gigabyte Granny"; do we want to userblock that name and "TheGigabyteGranny" until a block expiration in case they try to register and round their block? Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until they show some semblance of calm and reasonableness. If they can ask like someone who seems like they will be helpful in the future, fine, but until then, I wouldn't trust that they aren't just going to be the same until a different username. If they cannot even make a request without being insulting or aggressive like that, we really trust that they are going well in talk discussions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And I think "I regret that I give up. It is clear User:Golbrez has won in his campaign to run me off wikipedia" means it's all a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet he (or she? who knows, but I very much doubt this is a little old grandma; funny how until a couple of days ago he'd never mentioned anything about age and stuff, but all of a sudden there's grandkids and witnessing the moon landings and the holocaust?) continues to spend lots of time and energy editing their supposed goodbye speech. I continue to be amused by them claiming I have so many extra hours a day to spend on this than them, when they managed to wrack up an average of 50+ edits a day during their time here, not to mention an impressive 50+ edits in just the last eight hours. I very much doubt every word this person says; if they do turn out to be a little old lady named Gladys (again, funny, how she'd be giving me MORE personal, identifiable information, if she's so afraid of me stalking her IRL?) then I'm deeply sorry; I won't hold my breath on that one though. He's not a little old lady, I doubt he's a zoologist, and I doubt he's said a single true word during all this. He's just someone, perhaps an existing user, who knows, who has some agenda against public radio and Luke Burbank for whatever reason, and has resorted to near-insane tactics. --Golbez (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Golbrez probably should have brought this up here rather than blocking himself, given his involvement, but I also agree with those above who thought that the account seemed awfully fishy. I'm basically not convinced that the operator of the account is all that interested in constructive contributions to the project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

The user in question has noted that she had a prior account. It might be useful to know which account for the purpose of determining whether or not the current account might constitute an active block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the block has been repeatedly reviewed and eventually declined, I think we can assume this was a good block(we can also tell by the contribs of the blockee). As to if the correct admin made the block, that is a matter for debate, but is more relevant to the admin than the block. Chillum 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In future, if consensus is that the block was essentially a good one but that the admin wasn't strictly uninvolved, one solution might be for a different admin to re-block with the same settings. This is less bureaucratic than automatically unblocking and (assuming consensus supports a block) later reblocking, and it removes the incentive for anyone to protest admin abuse.

In this particular case, I could informally hazard a guess as to which username this editor might have used before. Hint: [they] Received Death Threats. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:IReceivedDeathThreats is blocked indefinitely already for that username (block log contains link to the RFCN, if anyone cares). Taking a brief look at that account's contributions, it seems they also had a slight to moderate temper issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Joke accounts

Resolved

 – Users warned, one sock blocked.//roux   20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the Cookie Monster (talk · contribs) is going around adding {{cookie}} to various User_talk: pages. I have a few questions:

1. Are joke accounts allowed?
2. Is this a role account?
3. At what point does it become more than a joke and cross into disruption?

--MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(Also, can someone please inform the user of this thread, if appropriate. Thanks!)

I would say it's a role account, and we don't allow accounts that have no interest in making edits to the encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a role account here - no reason to think more than one person is operating it. However, I do believe that this account isn't here to help build the encyclopedia - and I think that this may justify a block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, just an observer, but I don't think this account should be blocked. I think they should be told that while giving out {{cookie}}s is a good thing, they should be working on articles too. Let's not break out the banhammer before the person has the chance to show they are willing to be a contributing member of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 3, 2009 @ 07:24

As an uninvolved admin, strongly agree with NeutralHomer. Please warn before blocking. This is not a role account, just probably a newbie fooling around. Andre (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The moment I saw this thread header I imagined the usernames "What did Tennessee?" and "The same thing Arkansas". :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but rather a new user who is the target of several attacks by the user who I believe is the sockpuppeteer account of this one in question. One BeebleBrox has been harassing me since I first showed up. Him and his other alt account, BACON EXPLOSION, trolled me within a day of my accounts creation. Beeble is hiding behind the ruse that I am only on this website to have a social network or something, when in reality I am merely taking my time to create and article for this site. He and his alt accounts will not leave me alone, and I don't know what to do. I fear he is trying to get me banned because he hates me for some reason that I do not know.--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion in this section, but... the reason Beeblebrox has been trying to engage you in conversation is that we are all here primarily to build an encyclopedia. A certain amount of social interaction goes along with that, and goes a long way towards fostering a collegial and cooperative work environment. The problem with your editing is that you are only using the site for chatting and whatnot, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. If what you want is social networking, please feel free to visit Facebook or Xanga or MySpace or LiveJournal or BeBo or any of the thousands of networking sites out there. At the same time, please start actually editing articles (try clicking here and correcting any errors you see, but you should probably read this first). Users who are here solely for socializing tend to be blocked from editing, period. Cheers. //roux   09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I recomend giving a level 1 civilty warn to User:GaryDaFatSnail and then semiprotecting his talk page for a couple of days thus forcing him to do something that contributes to the encyclopedia.  rdunnPLIB  10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FOR GODS SAKE! I am currently working on a page to add. What is it with you morons always trying to rush me to post something! It is not my fault that I have people trolling on my talk page, I AM NOT USING IT AS A SOCIAL NETWORK I AM NOT!! Please, just stop the other people from posting on it! Warn them, not me!--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your warnings for breaking the image use policy, and making non-constructive talk page edits do not constitute trolling. Papa November (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

1. {{uw-socialnetwork}} left for User:Its the Cookie Monster
2. No evidence seen for sockpuppetry by User:Beeblebrox.
3. Warnings regarding image use policy, civility, assuming good faith and social networking left for User:GaryDaFatSnail

• User:GaryDaFatSnail - Stronger Warning Required? - Call me old fashioned but I think that threatening to "CRUSH YOUR SKULL IN" to another user warrants a stronger response - see [25]. Exxolon (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  Genuine threats of physical violence warrant a block, but I assumed this was just a rather abrasive comment. I'm watching the user in the hope that he'll eventually become a constructive contributor, but I won't object if another admin thinks a block is necessary. Papa November (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that early edits by Gary and Bacon indicate that they probably know each other in "the real world," but I don't know what bizarre game is being played here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've run across these two before. They're schoolmates. They register for accounts, grief each other, get blocked, and create new accounts. Feel free to block both of them as they've been doing this for quite awhile and they're both quite unsalvageable. Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    Can you remember any previous usernames? Papa November (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    • I've reviewed my talk page history and my block log, but nothing stands out. It's been a long time, sorry. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

      • Gary admitted to being User:MrRogersLovesYou on both my talk and Rdunn's. Blocked etc. //roux   20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Issue for further followup? Its the Cookie Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got a sign here to support me campaign started their userpage, in response to a supposed 3 month block by an unnamed admin. Checking their block log, no such block exists. User also admits being BACON EXPLOSION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked for block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's probably for the best; methinks someone was peeking out from under their bridge, there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Range block review

Can I get a sanity check on these? User:Moulton is back (again) and I just punted a couple of his dynamic ranges. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the range which includes 141.154.72.204 (talk · contribs). I suspect the ranges you are aiming for should be at a minimum 141.154.64.0/20 and 141.154.80.0/21. You've blocked 4096 Verizon IPs for six months, or 6144 IPs including the range you missed, but I can only see 3 IPs from these ranges which you have had any dealings with recently. A proper sanity check would ask if you have balanced the collateral against the benefit for the next six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that he has access to most of the major IP ranges in the Boston area and the IPv6 nodes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot gone crazy

Resolved

 – Done. Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:SoxBot has a typo and is replacing lots of links with "expn" instead of "espn," like on the Amanda Beard article. Maybe someone wants to turn it off?--Braindude (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - bot blocked for three hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And fixed already by the owner! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Antony C. Sutton

Resolved

 – bad links removed

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

Is it me, or is this article full of links to copyright violations? THF (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What links? I see only links to the subject's website and to Google. However, if you see any copyvios, just delete them. I've already deleted the image as an obvious copyvio. The image was taken from one of his books.

I believe THF is talking about the links in the Bibliography section. These point to a Russian and an American copyvio website. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I wanted to get consensus before I removed these links; didn't want to be accused of furthering a conspiracy. THF (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. Do we know these are copyvio sites? Could the author have released them for online publication? While that's not the typical approach to publication, the author is not typical, either. If we're sure they're copyvios, then I vote we remove the links. Rklawton (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russian one is a copyvio and these are pretty common on the web, reformed-theology.org and reformation.org apparently claim they have permission of the author (see bottom of this and this page), the book on indymedia.org was scanned by some nicknamed contributor (very probably a copyvio). I had removed the links prior to commenting here, but I couldn't note that here because of my intermittent internet connection. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Wheel warring by YellowMonkey

Yesterday, in the discussion #Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation, I unblocked a user after the blocking user confirmed my understanding that "It looks like the discussion there's resolved."

Today, YellowMonkey, whom I had also invited to the discussion, re-blocked the same user without consensus for doing so.

I only want to report this here; I will not pursue this matter anymore. I have more important things to do with my life, and I am taking this occasion to take an indefinite wikibreak. — Sebastian 07:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the thread you cite: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Stopping_a_vicious_circle_of_blocking_and_account_creation, you did not have consensus to perform an unblock. Also, are you a checkuser? Cirt (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read in that thread and this one, you unblocked a clear sockpuppet for no reason I can ascertain. Yellowmonkey replaced this block which (also from that thread) you had no consensus to remove in the first place. Am I correct or am I missing something about assuming good faith to someone who has already had that chance and abused it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand what happened Sebastian. From this comment, the blocked editor promised to "remain civil and follow Wikipedia:SLR", correct? Then you said that because you felt the blocked admin was "awake but hadn't objected" (but never commented in the thread), you decided to unblock, even though I can't find anyone in the thread who supported that action. I will say that User:East718's comment after-the-fact that he doesn't have a real opinion on the original block I guess could justify this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll note here that WP:UNBLOCK requires that the blocking admin be consulted except in the case that it was an obviously bad block. Also, a checkuser block shouldn't (though I don't know if there is policy on this) be overturned without consulting the checkuser. I've unblocked some people without directly consulting the blocking admin (or seeing their tacit consent elsewhere), and each time I've realized it was a mistake. If I did unblock someone where the original block was reasonable and the admin blocked them again, I would consider that confirmation that the blocking admin disagreed with my decision (not a wheel war). Unblocking someone where the blocking admin continues to assert the validity of the block requires much more certainty than reversing one where they are ambivalent or supportive of the unblock. If you asserted in the unblock log or on the talk page that you felt the blocking admin had made a mistake (however reasonable or expected that mistake might have been) and YM reverted you, that could be considered a wheel war (IMO). Protonk (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• A new sockpuppet is busily forum shopping.[26] Durova^Charge! 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: the sock also cut/pasted the Jimbo talk complaint to an arbitrator's user talk.[27] Durova^Charge! 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Same thing, at another arb's user talk.[28] Durova^Charge! 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

      Got four pages. I've blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

      • Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

40 lashes, Joe Taliban, etc.

Resolved

 – Blocks for everyone! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

40 lashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joe Taliban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seem to be connected with the following, as discussed above: [29]

Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above are the latest (at this writing) of users created for the sole purpose of posting spurious warnings. This has been referenced in several places in ANI already. Can something be done to choke off any attempted new ones for awhile? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually intended to post this at WP:ANI, but I'll leave it here for now also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

40 lashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joe Taliban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

don't belong to

Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of my accounts.Cheares11 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started an RFCU to look for sleeper accounts. Mangojuice^talk 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Assistance on Action T4

I've been having some issues with a new user on the Action T4 article. It stems from a content dispute, but since I am involved I am hesitant to use my admin tools. I did however protect the talk page briefly (1 hr) since one of the users (an anon with dynamic IP) has been trying to remove my own comments. If I could have another admin look in on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, --19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. SemBubenny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been found to have failed or refused to communicate with editors who have raised questions about his administrator actions. As such SemBubenny is admonished and warned to:

• speedy-delete only articles that fall within the criteria for speedy deletion or are otherwise blatantly inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and to err on the side of caution in cases of doubt, unless the article contains BLP violations or implicates matters of similarly high concern;
• provide clear explanations of his administrator actions and to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding such actions; and
• not to take administrator action regarding any matter where he would be unable or unwilling to reasonably discuss any questions or concerns that may arise regarding that action.

Should SemBubenny continue to delete phobia articles outside of process, the user may be brought back to the Committee and a motion to desysop can be requested.

For the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ParaGreen13

Resolved

 – Already at ANI //roux   21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to take this to ANI as it's not immediately ongoing, nor is it of vital importance that anything is done quickly. ParaGreen13 (talk · contribs) has had multiple warnings regarding his/her use of the term 'negro' as a replacement for 'African-American' on articles such as Roger E. Mosley and Obesity. I feel that he/she has repeatedly ignored warnings that this term is offensive and addition of it can be classed as vandalism, and the user continues to add such remarks to articles. I am not going to ask for anything in particular, but instead would like opinion on what should be done here. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already at ANI. //roux   21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, I've spent today correcting myself from capitalising improperly. We're all basically kinda dumb ;) //roux   21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding picture

I work for the Tioga Central Railroad and I am trying to upload the newer version of our logo. I uploaded the picture to the wikimedia site but can not change it out. Last time i contacted an administrator and they changed the picture for me, so who should i send the picture to in order to change it out. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jss5104 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest ED attacks

I've been playing whack-a-vandal for nearly two hours over what I'm certain is another coordinated Encyclopedia Dramatica attack. Plausible sounding usernames, vandal articles regarding a non-existent book about Jimbo Wales. I've been simply blocking the accounts and the talk pages and I've been salting the titles as they've been coming in. Anyone with a CU want to run a check on some of these and maybe hit them with a range block?

FYI, the most recent attack came from User:HobbyHorseday. I suspect that there's a sleeper under a similar username a bit farther down the list. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And a second one for fun, [30]. If there is a common range a block might be nice. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still another one, but someone else just got it. The title variations have been along the lines of "Jimbo Wales Is A Thieving Cunt" and other such monstrosities. What makes me laugh is the fact that these kids log on, they follow their marching orders, the article goes up, it comes down in about ten seconds and their account is permanently blocked. I once read that the true definition of an idiot is someone who repeatedly does the same thing while hoping for a different outcome. We persist. Back to the new user log.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dangit! Who says Jimbo is a thief! I don't have CU, but I can block with the best of them. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Right on, bro.  :) I'm tagging and bagging as quick as they come in. Seems to have quieted down. The first one I blocked was User:Lyger99 and I've requested a CU on that account. Dang, it's harder to file a CU than it is to block the socks, but if we can initiate a few range blocks, it would have been worth it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign me up for CU. Um, where are the rules? Rklawton (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have any actual proof these are people coming from ED, other than your own suspicions? Jtrainor (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just my own suspicions. It fits their MO. All of the pages are basically the same, no one person is likely to have such a broadly shifting dynamic IP nor will a single person (short of a psychopath) would be hammering this site for hour after hour. It's a clear variation on the "Grawp" attacks. I was the victim of a coordinated attack the other day. Multiple usernames, one username after the other either pretending to be the "Pee-Wee Herman" vandal or usernames insulting me. It was utterly relentless for the bettter part of an hour. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these attacks usually from 4chan? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're right. I forgot about that charming little group. One way or another, it's still coming. Blocked the first sock at 2359 UTC on the 4th. I just blocked yet another at 0346 UTC on the 5th. Sheesh. Kids.  :( --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the checkuser report...and it may in fact be one person responsible for all this idiocy for the past four hours (with apologies to 4chan and ED). No shortage of insanity on the internet, eh? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyger99/Archive & RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). rootology (C)(T) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember WP:BLOCKME?

Resolved

 – Moved to WT:BLOCK. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I recently came across a situation where Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) apparently asked to be blocked and the request was granted. I remembered going through new admin school and reading about WP:BLOCKME and thinking that wasn't right. I went to the WP:Blocking Policy and found to my surprise that it was no longer policy. Looking a little further I found where it went but couldn't find any discussion. Did I miss something? Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would gather someone removed it because it's not that difficult to find an admin who will block you at your request, so the policy wasn't really set in stone any longer. –xeno (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A user has two options: ask nicely, or do something stupid. All things considered, I'd rather users have two options in hopes they'll take the former. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I removed it, saying I'd block anyone who asked. Saves them the trouble of plastering NSFW images across my userpage. I certainly have blocked people on their initiative (this guy comes to mind), so it also isn't policy on the grounds it is not what happens. Why wouldn't you block someone who asked? WilyD 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother investigating. It isn't policy, i'd prefer that people not do it (especially in cases where the user appears to be cruising for a block for unrelated behavior), but I can't elevate that preference to some binding principle. The right answer (IMO) is that we just don't block people. Either they install a wikibreak enforcer, scramble their password and disable email, or just walk away from the project. The kind of person who, when told that we don't do blocks on request, determines that the best course of action is to warrant a block otherwise shouldn't be our guiding light to change policy.

As for the ikip block itself, I asked the blocking admin and received a prickly response. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to bring up old issues. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...scratch half my comment. We removed this section of policy? Anyone mind if I move this discussion to the blocking policy talk page? Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind. Maybe I should have brought it there instead. Toddst1 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Ahmad Batebi -- He is revising his own page and is changing verified facts with misleading and unsourced materials. Conflict of interest issue.

I have noticed that Ahmad Batebi is editing his own page, and repeatedly replaces verified and sourced information with unverified content that is extremely misleading. In addition, for some reason, he does not want to allow certain information to be posted, despite the fact that the information is extremely relevant, verified, and neutral. If someone wishes to change the story of his own life due to whatever the circumstances of the particular phase in his life may be, that is best done on a personal blog or website, not on Wikipedia. The revisions that Mr. Batebi makes to his own page are not neutral, they present a conflict of interest problem under Wikipedia guidelines, and the fact that they are unsourced and slanted towards what Mr. Batebi has decided is in his best interest at this time in his life only adds to the problem. I find this behavior extremely problematic and would like to ask for a page edit protection or some other type of Admin intervention. --Kindness55 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation

This seems to be pretty much done. Unblocked user has been reblocked; see further down the page: Wheel-warring by YellowMonkey for the rest of it.//roux   19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A chain of administrators recently have been busy blocking sockpuppets of user:Melienas. He/she is not recreating accounts in bad faith, as is clearly evident from his/her openness about it. For this reason, and based on what I wrote at WP:HD#How to prevent a vicious circle of account creation and blocking, I would therefore like to unblock one of these accounts. I'll watch that account and nudge them towards becoming a normal editor. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem here is the use of sockpuppuets. YellowMonkey initially indefinitely banned the user due to the nature of his edits, inclduing repeated WP:BLP violations. If you see the edit summery one of his socks used here [31], you can understand the type of user we are dealing with. Unless their initial block is overturned, per banning policy, they are not allowed to edit pages on this project anymore. Therefore I don't think the ban should be overturned. The orignal account's unban request was denied by Sandstein this morning [32]. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But then it's not an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So we should get rid of bans altogether? Let every other vandal do as they please?--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Sebastian. It was his/her idea. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I have myself blocked people before. That is just an appeal to ridicule. I think my point is clear, that blocking is not the panacea, and it is a particularly bad idea if different partisan opinions in a heavily disputed conflict are involved. It's futile to try to enforce censorship by blocking accounts here. — Sebastian 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So removing junk science and conspiracy theories from articles is censorship? Isn't that a bad thing? And I've had great luck getting rid of vandals via blocking, so while it might not be a cure-all, it sure helps. Rklawton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk about junk science, I have stayed away from that area ever since the incident from which User:Paul August saved me, for which I nominated him for admin many years ago. In the area of this case, I found that only patience with the people behind the accounts helped. I've seen it work with editors from both sides, and I believe it is the main reason why the Sri Lanka conflict has less problems with sockpuppets than other areas. (See also WP:SLR#Why we can do without trickery.) — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to ridicule the comment. I was merely pointing out that there are people who are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - we know each other well enough to not be offended by such things. And I agree with your point; I'm not completely against all banning. — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I'm very well aware of what you mean by "repeated WP:BLP" - this is a silly revert war, which we already discussed at length at WT:SLR. As I pointed out there, this would have been easily preventable, if we had stuck to the "Don't re-revert" rule. If you guys had agreed with that, then I would have protected the article in your version.

The reason given for the indef block of the sockpuppeteer is "sock troll". — Sebastian 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Melienas (talk · contribs) is not the original account. I believe it is Marinecore88 (talk · contribs). The first edit by Melienas was a revert to Marinecore88's version, with the summary "RS supports". That doesn't sound like a new user.[33] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems very plausible. — Sebastian 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And Marinecore88's unblock request was denied this morning [34], not by a partisan editor seeking censorship of Wikipedia, but by, I pretty sure, a neutral admin. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this editor has done a number of bad edits. But I wouldn't condemn them forever for that. That was a month ago, and they has shown signs of goodwill since. — Sebastian 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock is Sobberrs. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calling YellowMonkey a "Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues", asking me to take online English lessons because I extensively lack writing skills, accusing admins of vandalism etc etc within the last week are signs of good will. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, these are not nice. But it wouldn't be the first user who started out like this and mellowed down with the help of WP:SLR. As long as we keep hectically pounding the user, it's only human that he/she reacts emotionally. Why not give it a try and break that vicious circle? — Sebastian 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should we trust that user to behave calmly when all that is asked is basic civility? Don't write that people are "maggots" on their articles and don't create a million other accounts to try to do the same thing. If the user's normal reaction is to melt down like this, I really don't want them anywhere near this project. If you cannot do a basic thing like read what people are criticizing and respond appropriately, you don't get to play here. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Because it works. Trust me, I have two years experience doing just that here. And please don't be so judgmental about other people who may live under circumstances that you may not even imagine. Are you sure you would be always civil if you experienced this trauma? — Sebastian 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a noble mission, but don't expect all others to join in, and don't be surprised if some do not. It's secondary to Wikipedia's primary mission: write a free and reliable encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. To be honest, I did put in more time than I would have if I were only motivated by Wikipedia's primary mission. See my reply here. — Sebastian 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a noble mission, and an inspiring one. I can only wish for as much patience and dedication as Sebastian has shown in guiding editing in a topic area that could very easily be as much of a disaster as Sri Lanka is itself. If Marinecore88 can come to realize that civility and well-sourced research pays, and that there are two sides to every conflict, (both on and off WP), then I would actually construe this as being, in a small way, part of WP's primary mission to bring knowledge to the world. If s/he can't, well, we just block again. I trust Sebastian, and if he is willing to give it a go, I say let him try. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your votes of confidence. It's deep night in South Asia now, so I'd like to give the blocking admin and the blocked editor a chance to say something before I proceed. — Sebastian 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a promise from blocked editor, and the blocking admin is awake but has not objected. I will therefore resolve this. Thanks everybody! — Sebastian 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Er no, there have been periodic sock bursts from the city of the said sock every now and then, all with intricate knowledge of all Wiki policies. Just the usual rampage from meatpuppets and socks. Seb, you've been had, again. Simply saying that one is sad about some victims of war doesn't mean people are here for fthe right reasons. Quite a few "model" users on that project consistent make synthesis to push their POV, adding massacre cats when no proof of intent vis a vis deliberate premeditating/targeting of air strikes. Most articles on SLR are a joke. Some people might be polite, but given that they are part of the media outlets and PR for some groups in the RL conflict, it's no wonder. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly agree with the first comment in this thread by Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs), as well as this most recent one by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for giving me the occasion to counter your opinions with facts that highlight the achievements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation with respect to sockpuppets. In 1996, before the project was founded, sockpuppets were one of the big problems in the SL conflict. A big raid on sockpuppets in fall 1996 did cut down on sockpuppets, but also left good editors with deep scars, such as Lahiru, who apparently had been wrongly accused because of technical pecularities of the IP number system in Sri Lanka. Since the project was founded, this ceased to be a problem altogether.

The reason for the present problem is that the user was caught in a vicious circle, from which they could not escape on their own. By addressing such issues calmly, we always break the vicious circle. We treat people like people with emotions and shortcomings, not like dreadful demons that need to be banned for eternity. We're not afraid of any bullies or sockpuppets, and we don't give in to any POV pusher. We set clear boundaries. This includes our unprecedented system of classification of sources, which alone reduced the incidence of edit fights dramatically. This will shortly also include our new Don't re-revert! rule, which will effectively eliminate edit warring, including any advantage people might gain from sockpuppets and tag teams. Facing our strict rules, some decided to leave, and others stayed and became better editors. Many, from both sides of the conflict, decided to join the project. I don't think anyone can deny this success.

Your disagreements with individual users and your assessment of the quality of articles are off topic here. You are cordially invited to bring that up at our project talk page, where we welcome editors regardless of their position in the conflict. But you have to be concrete, as vague allegations are against another one of our strict rules. — Sebastian 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking further I also agree with the decision to decline the unblock request as judged by Sandstein (talk · contribs) [35], who cited this disturbing diff of the sockpuppet on a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, it is me Marinecore88, unfortunately my account has been blocked so I made this account (notice the extra 8) to have a opportunity to voice my opinion here. First I'd like to thank Sebastien for his support. I appreciate it very much and I promise to be a well contributing member of this site if given the chance. The two only incidents of vandalism I made were a month ago, but I've not vandalised since and I've taken a serious stance on editing by voicing my opinions on the SLR page. I'm commited to making this site a better representation of what it should be. The first thing I'd like to note is that I am not associated at ALL with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares or any other accounts. The only accounts I have are Marinecore88 and this new one. I've been mistakenly marked as a sockpuppet. There is a large tamil population in my city so this maybe why yellowmonkey thought I was related with them (I don't really know how IP's work, but i'm guesing similar ISP's from similar areas have similar IPs? yes? no?), but I have no idea who they are or there stances. Melienas wrote on my talk page about one of the controversial edits but I've not been able to reply because I was blocked. Also, I believe users Sowhy and C_J_M_B, agreed with me that there were no WP:BLP violations, as I had argued on the SLR page. I admit I've made mistakes in the past but I'm ready to be a serious editor, including using the SLR page rather than do these revert wars. I have a strong ability in both english and knowledge on the SLR conflict. I'd like to use this account (or my other one if i could have it back) to help where possible. Also please note again that I am not involved with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares so any issues with them still would need to be adressed after you've delt with me, since we are not related at all. Thanks again. --Marinecore888 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock? [36] Compare against [37] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats not me if thats what your trying to say. Considering that you've falsely accused me and other users of WP:fringe, Wp:BLP, and vandalism, can you, Snowolfd4, please stop accusing people of being socks just because they have a different opinion than you. Again, Marincecore88 and this are my only accounts. PLease ignore Snowolf4d who seems to have his own agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SebastianHelm#Marinecore88.E2.80.8E.2FMelienas.E2.80.8E.2FMeliioure.E2.80.8E.2FSobberrs.E2.80.8E.2FCheares please read Cheares comment where he acknowledges that I was not part of his several accounts. --Marinecore888 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From my CU analysis, I've  Confirmed that StopGenocide=Marinecore888. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect Nishkid64's findings. He has a proven track record of being neutral in the Sri Lanka conflict. It doesn't necessarily mean that Marinecore lied; as I wrote above, the SL system of IP addresses has already burnt other editors. But it does mean that we have to treat the two accounts as one. This is settled, since YellowMonkey already blocked StopGenocide indefinitely for this reason. — Sebastian 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, these accounts have nothing to do with Sri Lanka. They're pretty far away in fact. [38] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock showed up and started spamming forum shopping complaints against Yellowmonkey, and has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wheel_warring_by_YellowMonkey. When weighing the appeal of a sitebanned editor it's important to double check their assertions before deciding whether to try a test unblock. Sebastian's heart may have been in the right place, but this was not well done. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability check on Bleeping Computer

Resolved

 – The consensus seems fairly clear here. Back to the drawing board! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently userified this article after speedy deleting it A7. An editor has since made further additions to the page, with an emphasis on finding reliable sources that discuss the topic. This user is now asking me if it should be placed back into the mainspace. The article is now clearly beyond A7, which is good, but I'm still not entirely convinced that it would survive an AfD nomination. As I'm a little bit involved here, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors who are knowledgeable about such things (particularly WP:WEB) could have a gander and offer an opinion on whether they think the article is ready for the mainspace yet.

Apologies if there is somewhere better to post this - the help desk didn't seem particularly appropriate, and I wanted to cast the net wide for some opinions from more experienced editors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

I once used that site to clear some adware junk from my PC. So I don't know if it qualifies as notable in general, but in my case it did. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It clearly fails criteria 2 and 3 of WEB, so the question is whether or not it meets the WP:GNG. There is no "gotcha" reference - an article devoted to the topic in a reliable source, so the question becomes "does this satisfy the five pillars anyway" – is this an encyclopaedic topic on which it is possible to write a decent-length, reliably sourced, neutral article that does not engage in original research? At this point, looking at the sources on Google News, I would say that it is not, because the coverage does not go beyond passing mentions. I'd advise the editor to wait until a noteworthy publication gives the site a write-up. For future reference, the usual forum for returning deleted articles to the articlespace is WP:DRV. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 12:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it desirable, given the editor is a newbie, to get some quick preliminary opinions before sending it to DRV, as they can quite often be merciless over there and I don't see any point in wasting their time unless there's a reasonable chance the article will make it through. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

(edit conflict) If the editor just wants to know if it meets notability, it might also be appropriate to seek feedback in a forum like WT:WEB or some relevant wikiproject or the other, since this isn't an admin issue, per se, and speedies don't necessarily need consensus for recreation. Generally, when asked to userfy articles, that's what I'll suggest. (Quite frequently WP:COIN works, since often I find those asking for userfication are in some way involved with the subject.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, pardon me for sticking my nose in, (having sworn off the drama boards, and de-watchlisting such things), but perhaps I can offer two sides to a "coin" (so to speak). To a computer tech, yes - without a doubt, Bleeping Computer is quite notable. In fact, the very mention of their site on Microsoft alone, is a huge deal (at least for them). There have been many articles about the site in computer niche mags. When us geeks get together, very few folks are unaware of the site. They are reliable, and provide some very valuable resources and innovative information and tools.

On the other side of the coin, computer related articles can be notoriously difficult to get up to snuff here. Part of the reason is the constant and rapid change in technology, viruses, and resources. Secondly, the technical knowledge required to discuss (or publish) this kind of information often leads editors (main stream as opposed to wikipedians), to avoid such topics in fear of looking like fools. As the article stands now, I would not be surprised in the least if it didn't make the cut at an XfD discussion. I'd probably suggest that the editor look for some assistance at the Computer Project here, or more specifically at the Security project here. The geek contingent at Wikipedia isn't real high, but it does seem to be growing somewhat. I'd suggest the editor keep the article in user space, expand and modify the "Media" section to paragraph form per MOS - get some feedback from some of the other computer geeks around, tweak, and then move to article space. all IMHO — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of indef blocked IPs need review

We got an email today at on the unblock list for an IP address that had been indefinitely blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me several years ago. On looking further, it seems there were several hundred of these blocked during his tenure as an administrator, nearly 200 of which are still under these blocked. I'm personally sick and tired of looking at block logs, having been at this for more hours than I'd care to mention, but if some really bored administrators wouldn't mind reviewing and shortening or lifting these blocks where appropriate, some potential editors would probably appreciate it. They're all listed at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Indef-blocked IPs by User:Cscwem. Please remove these listings when they are no longer indefinite blocks. Thanks, all! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He tends to have less patience for random IP vandalism than most of us do, and most of us don't like it to begin with. HalfShadow 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd gathered that by going through his entire block log... I'd forgotten when I started that he has the highest number of blocks by several thousand, despite having been desysopped for the last several months. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Open proxies - report to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Those which still are should be shortened to 5 years (current duration for open proxy blocks); those which aren't should be unblocked.
2. Other IP addresses - I think we should just unblock; however, if they are from IP addresses with a major history of abuse, it should be shortened to a year from the original block time.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

HBC Archive Indexerbot down ?

Resolved

The HBC Archive Indexerbot appears to be down/switched off/bored with it's job. It's set to run twice daily but the log says that the last run was 11:23:27 26 February 2009. I left a message for Krellis a few days ago but they don't appear to be around. So, here I am wondering what to do now. Any thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Email is the best way to notify him, aparently. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ahh..didn't think of that rather-obvious-in-hindsight solution. many thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be all set now, see my talk for the reply and resolution. —Krellis (Talk) 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarysky

After looking at the block around User:Tarysky, I feel that the "indef" is excessive. I would recommend that this would be shorten to something more appropriate based on the standard scale. The first, and only other block, was for 48 hours and skips standard progression. So, what would the next step be? I really don't know. I would recommend somewhere from 48 hours to 96 hours.

Blocks are preventative. Seeing as how this was the second block, not for a clear case of vandalism only edits, not for a bad user name, not based on mass community consensus, etc, I think that an idef block (practically a ban) is inappropriate. Iridescent suggests that the block may have an "if you do this you will be unblocked" type of clause. I believe that such are inappropriate and go against our blocking policy. By demanding an action in return for unblocking, that is one of the most egregious types of punishing a user that can be accomplished. It is also on the level of black mail and unfair.

I believe that this user has been treated in a manner unbecoming. I am not saying that he does not deserve to be blocked. But, seeing at the level of antagonism by certain individuals, there is enough to see an indef block as highly problematic. I have no plan to fight over this, as I only noticed this and wish to point this out to the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "infinite", Tarysky can post a reasonable unblock request anytime he want. John Reaves 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be punitive, not preventative. Indefinite are not to be used to force someone to post unblock attempts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He's more than welcome to not post an unblock request too. John Reaves 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what this thread is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Demanding an action (though I'm not sure that is a wholly accurate judgment of iri's position) is not punitive. Let's say we have a user who uploads copyrighted material and ignores warnings to stop. I feel that it is completely reasonable to block them until they make some response on their talk page noting that they have received and understand the messages. This would be designed to prevent future uploads of copyrighted material, which create work for other editors to flag and remove. In no way is it punitive. Comparing this to black mail is hyperbolic and inaccurate. Indef might not be the right length, but a week or two weeks (long enough to catch the attention of the editor and make it unreasonable for them to simply sit the block out) would work. However, the length doesn't turn it from preventative to punitive. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) If an editor has been blocked for disruption, they will generally succeed in an unblock request if they can convince an admin that they are not going to cause further disruption. That principle applies particularly to indefinite blocks, it is perfectly consistent with blocks being preventative and not punitive in nature, and explaining it to a blocked editor is not blackmail. Having reviewed this particular user's Talk page, I think an indef block is quite appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please find anything in the blocking policy that even comes close to verify what you say is appropriate as determined by the community. I just can't find it, Protonk, and I find that the promotion of it to go against most of our core values. Blocks are not a legitimate means to demand anything from a user. Any demand is a punishment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this blackmail / punishment. I can't see it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, what are you going on about? I stated that if there was a demand of action for someone to do while being indef, then that goes against our blocking policy because you cannot -demand- anything via indef blocking. That is not what blocks are for. Your comments above suggest that you have not bothered to look at the blocking policy in regards to the topic and concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to be more clear. Unless you would like to provide diffs to the contrary, I am asserting that no one has "demanded" anything; ergo, no blackmail, no punishment, no admin abuse, no violation of policy, and no reason for this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a legitimate explanation in the blocking guidelines to justify an indef block of this user, you have no grounds to stand on Sheffield. This block is excessive. I have consulted 7 admins and 4 users in high standing who agreed. This is a proposal to seek consensus on what a lower amount would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to panic about injustices quite yet. Indefinite only means "look, you're not getting editorial access back until you show you can be trusted with it". Indeffing a disruptive user is obviously preventative if it prevents disruption. Blocks like this happen. LessHeard vanU gets the benefit of the doubt to do things like this, but if a concern is raised (like this one by Ottava Rima) LessHeard vanU can explain the action and the folks on AN can review. LessHeard vanU's explanation can be heard in relation to Tarysky's defense (should he produce it), and a more appropriate (if any) remedy can be discussed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If blocks like this happen, then there is a severe disregard for the blocking guidelines. We are not preventing disruption by blocking to excess. That only removes any potential for the user to contribute and instead encourages them to do things like sock. This is common knowledge, which is why the standard progression of time increases is followed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first step should be to discuss this with the blocking admin. Have you done this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This block and the events leading up to it were on Iridescent's talk page. This was known. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree with Deacon. The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future... an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a user like Daedalus blanking the page and blanking the page only verifies that there was no method or desire to allow for any kind of discussion on the side of those who instigated the blocking procedure. Such actions go against consensus and only verify that this was punitive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of comments; I don't believe that "Indefinite" forms part of the "progressive" block length durations - it can last shorter than the minimum 15 mins or longer than the standard 1 year maximum. Unless it is being used in conjunction with a community ban, ArbCom decision, or Office action then it lasts for exactly the length required to ensure the discontinuence of disruptive behaviour. To that aspect I would make my second comment; per WP:BLOCK nutshell

Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

(my underlining) This is where I suggest the idea of persuasiveness in encouraging a blocked editor to give an undertaking not to continue their past behaviour in any appeal comes from. Who is going to unblock an editor from any tariff who appeals on the basis of "Yeah, I now understand that what I was doing contravenes WP policy and is therefore is disruptive... but I want to do it anyway. Can I please be unblocked?" Along with acknowledgement there needs necessarily to be an indication of intent not to repeat whatever behaviour gave rise to the sanction. Lastly, I would note that I do tend to give out indefinite blocks upon my personal determination of whether the previous recent block (whether it is the only other, or the latest in a long line) has had the desired effect - if it hasn't I do not see any reason why there has to be a continued testing of the resolve of the disruptive editor. If they are prepared to wait out the 24, then 48, followed by 72 hour, then a week, two weeks, a month then three months and then continue, are we then going to see if 6 months or a year will do the trick? If it takes 5 months to dissuade an editor from creating disruption then put them on an indef tariff and let them make the appeal 21 weeks into the sanction, and if it only takes 5 days all the better. Since, of course, I am wedded only to the idea that the indef block is a flexible tool then if a consensus arises that X time is exactly (or close enough) to that which will ensure that future edits from a previously troublesome contributor with be beneficial, then I have no problem with the period of any block I make being altered according (I have no objection to any admin exercising their remit and varying a block I make of my own determination in any event, to be honest - situations and circumstances change, and a different perspective may lead to different conclusions). I hope that people realise that although there is the potential for the indefinite block to be the longest available tariff, it is far more flexible (and therefore conducive to creating the best editing conditions) than the use of increasing sanctions in the face of repeated disruptive behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please find something in the blocking guideline that verifies this use of blocking? There seems to be nothing similar, nor anything deemed acceptable by community consensus on the matter. Your own justifications makes it seem like you blocked via time out, until they "learn their lesson", which is strictly prohibited. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I did. The nutshell, in which I underlined "encouraging change", conveys that sense of providing motivation for an editor to alter their methods. I also see nothing in the nutshell that disallows blocking other than for retaliation or punishment (or being applied too long after the event), but I am aware that policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Change is not encouraged by saying "you are indef blocked until you grovel to get back". Change is encouraged by blocking for 72 hours and saying "if you continue this behavior, your next block will be longer". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, this appears to be getting personal but I shall continue in attempting to discuss this civilly. I have now checked Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and found

...that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead.

(my underlining again.) While a guideline rather than policy, it is linked from the WP:UNBLOCK policy page. It appears that the notion has sufficient traction to be included there. I have now provided two links which I feel provide a basis for my interpretation of the application of blocks - I should now be grateful to be given links to where such opinions are considered wrong, and any place on the encyclopedia where I have used the term "grovel". I should like the last matter attended to first, if possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard, please reread this thread. This is not an unblock request. This is not a block appeal. This is asking for a reduction of time to a standard progression instead of jumping to indef on the second block. And even if you do not use the term "grovel", being on the other end of such a block I can tell the community exactly what is expected. Thankfully, DGG had the courage to stand up against the group of admins who sought to violate tradition then. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read - and I have explained why some admins (including me) utilise the indefinite tariff at certain times, and I have linked to policy and guidelines. I do not believe it "grovelling" to give notice that one will conduct themselves according to policy, guidelines, and practice - because, pray, what is the alternative? - when appealing a block. If the block is placed as part of an abusive process, then perhaps "grovelling" might be the only way of getting a chance of having a complaint heard publicly onwiki - but blocks placed in accordance to policy need only a polite undertaking to comply with the rules to be considered. No grovelling needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And many more admin find it to be a serious problem with you doing that. Your blocks as of late have been seen as too harsh by a lot of people. However, as I stated before, this is not about you. This is about the community coming to consensus if indef is acceptable or not and if it should be returned to a standard progression. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is in my opinion a foolish kindergarten tactic to insist on a formal apology. People who intend to go on as before are likely to give an insincere one; people with a reasonable sense of personal dignity but a sincere intention to reform are likely to be affronted. It reminds me of the Judge's justification for the death sentence in "The Fugitive", "the entire absence of remorse". You can't judge people by what they say under such conditions. Not just with OR, but others, I have spent too much time negotiating the exact details of an apology, as if exactly what was said mattered. the only possible value is in throwing it into someone face later: "see, you promised".

I do not think that blocks have to always be strictly progressive, but they do have to be reasonable and give appropriate chances to show what matters: a change in behavior. . The point of being progressive is to get the point across that we really mean it. Eventually almost everyone gets the idea. Even arb com usually talks about arb enforcement in much more important disputes leading to progressive blocks, up to two weeks.

As for the actual behavior, I think the source of this is a dispute in the formatting of words in articles on albums, particularly italics and capitalisation. I agree such disputes are a little lame, but i cannot see ever giving an indefinite block to anybody based on things like that, or calling it vandalism. It can bedisruptive, but reacting so excessively provokes further incorrect behavior.

I am personally prepared to unblock, with the understanding I will block again if there is further editwarring over such details. The time for the reblock would be 72 hours, up from the prior 48. DGG (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my impression of the reasons for blocking. It might be helpful if LHvU could spell that out more explicitly - perhaps on User Talk:Tarysky. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the intemperate comment at [39] That would, imho, warrant a level four warning for NPA, or if t here had already been one, a 24 hr block. DGG (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Tarysky; I took into account the notice on the talkpage prior to my block notice and the interactions with another editor, the message left at AIV when they were reported, the reverting without discussion of other editors, which indicated that the issues raised previously at ANI and which resulted in the initial block were not being addressed. I considered that a short block (although longer) would still be ineffective, but a long one would counterproductive. Therefore an indefinite tariff, which can be lifted as soon as the disruptive actions is addressed, seemed most appropriate. All this can be provided to Tarysky if they choose to exercise their ability to edit their talkpage.

However, I understood that this was not about this specific block but the use of the indefinite tariff without first going through the process of increasing finite block lengths first. Can I, and the apparent crowd of concerned editors currently alarmed at my actions, request that the basis of this particular discussion be defined so I know how to proceed? Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Ottava is clearly in the wrong here - he isn't even in the right ballpark. There is no requirement to use progressive block lengths, so his argument is wrong from the first word. In addition, the standard requirement for ending an indefinite block is to resolve the potential for future disruption by discussion. In other words, LHVU is right, and Ottava should stop discussing something he/she clearly does not understand. The relevant guidance is at WP:BLOCK#Indefinite blocks. It says "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. ... the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and—if unblocked—to refrain from the problematic conduct in future." GRBerry 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottave is actually quite right, as is DGG in observing that: "It is in my opinion a foolish kindergarten tactic to insist on a formal apology. People who intend to go on as before are likely to give an insincere one; people with a reasonable sense of personal dignity but a sincere intention to reform are likely to be affronted." What is this, a kindergarten or a serious endeavour undertaken by rational adults? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck my earlier question, the answer is obvious. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Ottava is wrong, as are you. There is a huge difference between an apology, which is Ottava's erroneous notion of what is required, and a commitment not to repeat the disruption. The latter is what is required. If they insincerely promise not to repeat their disruption but later do, we say good bye to them forever. If they promise not to repeat their disruption and they don't repeat it, the problem has been solved. Apologies are not relevant to unblocking - they are about repairing the relationships between editors. GRBerry 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When the community comes together under consensus and declares that indef blocks with the condition of "commitment to be good" is acceptable then I will accept it. Until then, I think there is enough to show that such a thing is problematic and sets up a double standard. I think such requirements also go against AGF, which is one of our core beliefs. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The community did so long since, see the portion of the blocking policy that I quoted. It has been there since at least the last day of 2007 with no significant changes during 2008. blocks]. As of June 2007 the policy was even more succinct "protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely." [40] What has been added since June of 2007 is solely the guidance on when to remove an indefinite block, which remains what it was even before then - when it is believed that the editor if unblocked will not be a problem. GRBerry 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps having an advance degree in English doesn't serve me well, but no where in the above quotation does it say that a statement must be produced by the individual and they can be indef blocked until doing so. AGF would ensure that such a thing would not be necessary. AGF would require someone to believe that the user would already be committed to doing the right thing. AGF would have to be totally removed for your interpretation to go through. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it seems like there might be stuff going on here that doesn't have much to do with Tarysky. It might be best to let DGG deal with it then. He has, at any rate, promised to keep an eye on Tarysky should he unblock. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to give GRBerry the benefit of my opinion on his/her evident misunderstandinhg of what's being said here, but on reflection you're probably right; perhaps a case of "least said soonest mended". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we archive this? I don't really see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments

I feel that things like this are the result of indef blocking a user without giving them the ability to explain themselves and seemingly put up an impossible standard. When you deny someone the clear time limit you remove any connection and desire that they have to not turn to such actions. This is why indef blocking should not be done unilaterally and should only be done in rare cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think the matter is resolved as they have turned to sock puppeteering, which would result in indef blocks of those accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we treated him too impatiently, he tried to evade it--he provoked us, we provoked him, and whoever blocked him and the people who defended it was the right thing to do resulted as they should have realised in escalating the matter. I see the tendency of some of my fellow admins to treat people this abruptly, but I can't defend everyone who is maltreated here any more than I can defend every article that's unjustly deleted. I'm not going to unblock him without support, but I do not think the matter is over. I share the opinion expressed above that there seem to have been some prior matters this was seen in connection with, and I would like to know what they were. The reactions to him are too strong to be rationally accounted for otherwise. If there's something I ought to have known but which might not be politic to say here, please use email. I gather the CUs are fairly sure it is Soccermeko, who does have a terrible record. If so, that does indeed close the matter. DGG (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We have quite a lot of those as of late. RHMED is now going down that dark path. Hopefully we can try and prevent the next ones from doing the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RHMED went about this all wrong. Doesn't he know that old Wikipedians should never die — they should just fade away.... A pity, really. --64.85.216.144 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request review of speedy close

Hi. I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Scots and Jews as a speedy delete, and my decision has been questioned, so I'm posting here for review. Please let me know if this close was a bad idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW was valid for several reasons. First, the AfD result was obvious. Second, the article was unsourced original research. I see no problem with a speedy delete. Rklawton (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any problem with a WP:SNOW close there, given that there were fifteen deletion !votes in less than 24 hours - it clearly wasn't going to end any other way given the content of the article, and there was no point in delaying the inevitable in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Yep, good call. Slightly IAR, but with ideologically sensitive topics like this it's better to get stuff out of the way quick. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be listed at WP:ODD. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant XfD...?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianne Silber - Is it invalid to include an image in an AfD, when the image only exists to illustrate that article? Do I really have to do an AfD to say that someone isn't notable, then a separate FfD of their now-unused picture? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the image is getting moved to commons where it might be used ... eventually ... somewhere ... =) –xeno (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GlobalAir.com

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure which notice board to put this on. The article in question has been written by user GlobalAir; that editor just removed my maintenance tags for COI and possible advertising. I'm stepping back from the article to avoid a tag-revert war. A More Perfect Onion (talk) (I forgot to sign this the first time through)

Article speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11, User:GlobalAir blocked per user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

After resolution:

The User has an unblock request on their Talk page. They are also claiming their IP is blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Tiptoety ^talk 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GoSentWin

User:GoSentWin talk • contribs

Editor made an incivil post to my user talk
Editor made another invicil post to my user talk

Editor blanked an article Kimmie Weeks

Editor created an advertisement article, with spam in it, and restored it.

I hesitate to report this editor because I am offended by what I perceive as personal attacks in the posts on my user page... I most certainly have damaged no one's reputation, and see an accusation that I have as a threat. I also fear I have been taken in by a hoax.sinneed (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article is a clear hoax, as I can't find anything about her through Google. If editor continues t repost article, might be best to report them to AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Chasewang and COI

Per his own declaration, Chasewang (talk · contribs) is the "official publicity representative" of the website Crunchyroll.[41] For some background. He created the Crunchyroll article. That article was originally CSDed and deleted three times on August 26, 2008, with him being the creator of at least two of those instances. At the time he was warned about using Wikipedia for advertising. In December 08, he returned and recreated it. It has been allowed to stay due to its having gained some notability in that time for going from a fansub haven to a semi-legitimate company. He then went mostly quiet, except for doing promo-type edits to that article. He has returned this month, however, and appears to be on a heavy promotional spree, creating two new articles for the site Crunchyroll Online Catalog and Crunchyroll Partners and going through a ton of articles to add multiple links to the three articles and a sentence about the company to them, either noting they are a "partner" (for companies), or that the series can be watched there (for anime). I have tagged the two new articles for CSD, reverted his promotional blurb adding, and given him a fuller COI warning. However, I figured it might be good to point some admins his way to see if any further action is needed and to have more eyes on things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

During the times that nothing was happening, I was researching on how to create a page that WOULD NOT be seen as promotional. If you look at this current version, it is purely information that has supported documents from Variety, Anime News Network, Publishers Weekly, etc. The contents of the Crunchyroll Online Catalog and Crunchyroll Partners are just lists that is PURE information and added information. There is nothing PROMOTIONAL about any 3 pages. They all conduct themselves within the rules of Wikipedia. None of the connections between any of the pages has stated for individuals to "GO TO CRUNCHYROLL TO WATCH THE SHOWS". It is purely informational and all links were supported by articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasewang (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:N and WP:COI, yet again. This is not an appropriate page at all. You created it purely to make it seem like Crunchyroll's list of partners is so notable, it needs its own article, when obviously they are not. Being upfront and honest about your roll is good, but that doesn't mean you are being neutral. Obviously, you are not if you think creating these pages is in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, continue to refuse to accept corrections on your edits, and continue attempting to flood articles with links back to "your" articles purely to promote the service (you tacking on a reference does not change that nor does your not just saying "hey, go to Crunchyroll.") It is still self-promotion and a clear conflict of interest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

There is a backlog that could use some administrative assistance at WP:SPI. Please do not be put off by the new format / procedures as it is pretty much all the same. The only difference is, once you have finished a case and are ready to close you add {{SPIclose}} to the bottom. Other than that, non-checkuser related cases work just like the old SSP used to. Thanks in advance, Tiptoety ^talk 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarek Abedrabbo

Resolved

 – Article speedied Rklawton (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I came across the article Tarek Abedrabbo while doing some NPP, and have prodded it. But I'm wondering if this is a nicely disguised attack page. Anyone want to take a look and offer their opinion?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a WP:HOAX, not worth much investigating after Google searches provide nothing. Just warn the user who created the article on their talk page about creating non-notable/unverifiable BLPs. — Moe ε 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User disrupting AfD

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor ignored; AfD proceeding with great verbosity but without further mangling. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

YSWT (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is the author of the MagicView article, which I brought to AfD based on concerns of advertising and lack of general notability. Aside from attempting to influence the discussion with determined verbosity, he's now inserting comments into the AfD rationale paragraph and overwriting SPA notices (I presume the IP address that's been seconding him is actually him as well). I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to stop, and undid the last text insertion he made... which he has now duly reverted. I'm not losing sleep over the probable fate of the article, but my concern is that the AfD page itself is the procedural record of the deletion process, which will probably end up mangled to the point of uselessness if he keeps it up. Don't know what to do about this (or even if it's an issue at all), so I figured I'd bring it here. My apologies if this is not the right way to go about this. §FreeRangeFrog 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. An experienced closing admin could sort this out in about 90 seconds. 1) view the article. 2) view the keep votes. 3) "case closed". The article is clearly problematical, and no amount of verbiage on the AfD can fix it. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll stop worrying about it then :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, anyone wanna bet on how many words this guy is going to type before the AfD closes? He's made 29 edits to the AfD - averaging a full paragraph each, not counting socks. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else had noticed that. I've been resisting "tl;dr", but actually following the thread of discussion was starting to turn my brain to soup.onebravemonkey 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Clusterf#@k

Resolved

 – Protected Rklawton (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi all, not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I'd appreciate if some admins would have a look at cluster bomb. A nasty little edit war's been going on there for the last couple of months with all kinds of policy violations, including editors calling each other terrorists. Cheers, Polemarchus (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for one month (or until disputes are resolved). In the future, report edit warring at WP:AN3 and/or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Michael Tobias

Bugsferg (talk · contribs · logs) and an IP 76.166.28.203 (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly deleted ([42], [43] [44]) a section in the Michael Tobias article using the exact same wording to claim that the information is invalid, but is actually perfectly well sourced and does not violate WP:BLP. Bugsferg is actually one of four SPAs involved in editing this article, including the obvious WP:COI creator:

• Gjsm (talk · contribs · logs)
• Sliveytove (talk · contribs · logs)
• Michaeltobias (talk · contribs · logs)

No attempt at discussion of the removal has been made in the article talk page, despite the two reverts so far. I can't help but feel that this is the original author being slightly hoisted by his own petard after creating a vanity piece, but schadenfreude aside, I think maybe protection or a limited block or something is necessary here. What I'm afraid of is falling into WP:3RR and being blocked myself. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Bugsferg for violating 3-rr (counting edits from his IP sock 76.166.28.203). I've blocked the IP sock as a sock and for 3-rr, too. The information deleted was relevant and had multiple sources, and the material did not seem to pose a conflict of interest, so I restored it. I'll look into the other accounts next. Rklawton (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Users

• Gjsm
• Sliveytove
• Michaeltobias

are obvious SPAs, but I'd like to see what CU has to say about their relationship. They don't appear to be a part of the current section deletion problem. If they do start up (assuming I haven't blocked their IP), then I suggest requesting a CU. Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I know Orangemike and DGG have been working on this article trying to make it a bit more encyclopedic (the notability of the subject doesn't seem to be in question), but I figure they are probably not online right now or they would have probably noticed. §FreeRangeFrog 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I know how useful it is to have a second pair of fresh eyes offer a second opinion. Rklawton (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another one has been created: Skunkyf (talk · contribs · logs) [45]. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue covers a developing story with professional reputations at stake. In short, it's ripe for BLP escalation. Let's take due care to use reliable sources with all due neutrality. Let's also do what we can to educate the special purpose accounts regarding our policies, guidelines, and remediation procedures. (Note to self) This is not the time for short-hand abbreviations, snippy comments, or short-cuts. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Systematic removal of mentions of Taiwan

Just a heads-up, a bunch of anonIPs seem to be on a mission to removal any mention of Taiwan from many associated articles. Replacing it with China(ROC) and removing mention of Taiwan as a synonym in those places, removing navigational aids and content explaining why China can have two meanings and how the term "Taiwan" relates to this naming confusion, removing factual content that seems to go against some viewpoint, bolding random occurrences of ROC in articles, insertion of the ROC flag icon in templates that specifically instruct not to use it, etc. I've handed out warnings, reverted many pages, been accused of POV-pushing, addition of info that nobody needs, etc--whatever, comes with the mop:) Finally gave up with

• 59.105.23.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and blocked him. Anyone feel free to unblock if I went over the top on one particular instance, but would also appreciate some other eyes on his favorite pages. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's one user with a dynamic IP address. Several they seem to have used recently:

1. 59.104.18.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 59.104.18.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 59.104.18.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 59.104.18.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 59.104.18.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (some content edits, here)
6. 59.105.23.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
7. 59.105.23.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For reference. 59.104.16.0/22 accounts for most, but not all of, these edits. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spotted a similar thing:

• 220.249.76.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [46]

--Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Background information for others: "Republic of China" is the official name of the country, not Taiwan. Sometimes they use "Republic of China on Taiwan" to avoid confusion. Wikipedia must be very careful in using neutral terminology. I am not saying what term Wikipedia should use, only that we should not inadvertently create POV. Wikipedia should never kowtow to mainland China and use the terminology demanded by the People's Republic of China. After all, this English Wikipedia, not PRC-Wikipedia. (signed with IP to show that I am not those 59xxx people. This information is only provided because some people in Wikipedia are unaware of the ROC and Taiwan name debate. 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is the most common name in English. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is because of heavy pressure from the People's Republic of China over the past 40 years. So much so that many kowtow to the mainland government without even knowing it. The NPOV way would probably be to let Wikipedia readers know that there is an international dispute over the name. That's why these 59xxx people are not doing the right thing by removing navigational aids. But neither are the people who insist on using the communist mainland's terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these anons located in the mainland? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the one I've looked at is in Taipei, not on the mainland - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I recognize this POV. It's from the Chinese government that was overthrown by Mao. They refugiated in Taiwan and they say that they are the legitimate government of all China, and that the CCPP is just a bunch of usurpers with no legitimacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mao government "say(s) that they are the legitimate government of all China (and Taiwan) and that the KMT is just a bunch of userpers with no legitimacy" (same quote as Enric Naval writes except reversed). If we listen to Enric Naval, we kowtow to the People's Republic of China. If we listen to the 59xxx IP's, we kowtow to the Republic of China. In Wikipedia, we should kowtow to neither side. That is true NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Taiwan is still the most common name in English. So, the articles should use it so readers can recognize what the articles are talking about it. Wikipedia is not the place for resolving old injustices. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some kind ASCII images and more...

I'd like to have someone have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matty267. I guess there will be more of those in the near future, if not yet happened. If we're lucky it's a static IP or at least a small range. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a G@@per post-JarlaxleArtemis, trying to impersonate him. RBI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarek Abedrabbo

Resolved

 – Article speedied Rklawton (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I came across the article Tarek Abedrabbo while doing some NPP, and have prodded it. But I'm wondering if this is a nicely disguised attack page. Anyone want to take a look and offer their opinion?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a WP:HOAX, not worth much investigating after Google searches provide nothing. Just warn the user who created the article on their talk page about creating non-notable/unverifiable BLPs. — Moe ε 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User disrupting AfD

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor ignored; AfD proceeding with great verbosity but without further mangling. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

YSWT (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is the author of the MagicView article, which I brought to AfD based on concerns of advertising and lack of general notability. Aside from attempting to influence the discussion with determined verbosity, he's now inserting comments into the AfD rationale paragraph and overwriting SPA notices (I presume the IP address that's been seconding him is actually him as well). I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to stop, and undid the last text insertion he made... which he has now duly reverted. I'm not losing sleep over the probable fate of the article, but my concern is that the AfD page itself is the procedural record of the deletion process, which will probably end up mangled to the point of uselessness if he keeps it up. Don't know what to do about this (or even if it's an issue at all), so I figured I'd bring it here. My apologies if this is not the right way to go about this. §FreeRangeFrog 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. An experienced closing admin could sort this out in about 90 seconds. 1) view the article. 2) view the keep votes. 3) "case closed". The article is clearly problematical, and no amount of verbiage on the AfD can fix it. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll stop worrying about it then :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, anyone wanna bet on how many words this guy is going to type before the AfD closes? He's made 29 edits to the AfD - averaging a full paragraph each, not counting socks. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else had noticed that. I've been resisting "tl;dr", but actually following the thread of discussion was starting to turn my brain to soup.onebravemonkey 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Clusterf#@k

Resolved

 – Protected Rklawton (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi all, not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I'd appreciate if some admins would have a look at cluster bomb. A nasty little edit war's been going on there for the last couple of months with all kinds of policy violations, including editors calling each other terrorists. Cheers, Polemarchus (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for one month (or until disputes are resolved). In the future, report edit warring at WP:AN3 and/or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Michael Tobias

Bugsferg (talk · contribs · logs) and an IP 76.166.28.203 (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly deleted ([47], [48] [49]) a section in the Michael Tobias article using the exact same wording to claim that the information is invalid, but is actually perfectly well sourced and does not violate WP:BLP. Bugsferg is actually one of four SPAs involved in editing this article, including the obvious WP:COI creator:

• Gjsm (talk · contribs · logs)
• Sliveytove (talk · contribs · logs)
• Michaeltobias (talk · contribs · logs)

No attempt at discussion of the removal has been made in the article talk page, despite the two reverts so far. I can't help but feel that this is the original author being slightly hoisted by his own petard after creating a vanity piece, but schadenfreude aside, I think maybe protection or a limited block or something is necessary here. What I'm afraid of is falling into WP:3RR and being blocked myself. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Bugsferg for violating 3-rr (counting edits from his IP sock 76.166.28.203). I've blocked the IP sock as a sock and for 3-rr, too. The information deleted was relevant and had multiple sources, and the material did not seem to pose a conflict of interest, so I restored it. I'll look into the other accounts next. Rklawton (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Users

• Gjsm
• Sliveytove
• Michaeltobias

are obvious SPAs, but I'd like to see what CU has to say about their relationship. They don't appear to be a part of the current section deletion problem. If they do start up (assuming I haven't blocked their IP), then I suggest requesting a CU. Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I know Orangemike and DGG have been working on this article trying to make it a bit more encyclopedic (the notability of the subject doesn't seem to be in question), but I figure they are probably not online right now or they would have probably noticed. §FreeRangeFrog 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I know how useful it is to have a second pair of fresh eyes offer a second opinion. Rklawton (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another one has been created: Skunkyf (talk · contribs · logs) [50]. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue covers a developing story with professional reputations at stake. In short, it's ripe for BLP escalation. Let's take due care to use reliable sources with all due neutrality. Let's also do what we can to educate the special purpose accounts regarding our policies, guidelines, and remediation procedures. (Note to self) This is not the time for short-hand abbreviations, snippy comments, or short-cuts. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Systematic removal of mentions of Taiwan

Just a heads-up, a bunch of anonIPs seem to be on a mission to removal any mention of Taiwan from many associated articles. Replacing it with China(ROC) and removing mention of Taiwan as a synonym in those places, removing navigational aids and content explaining why China can have two meanings and how the term "Taiwan" relates to this naming confusion, removing factual content that seems to go against some viewpoint, bolding random occurrences of ROC in articles, insertion of the ROC flag icon in templates that specifically instruct not to use it, etc. I've handed out warnings, reverted many pages, been accused of POV-pushing, addition of info that nobody needs, etc--whatever, comes with the mop:) Finally gave up with

• 59.105.23.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and blocked him. Anyone feel free to unblock if I went over the top on one particular instance, but would also appreciate some other eyes on his favorite pages. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's one user with a dynamic IP address. Several they seem to have used recently:

1. 59.104.18.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 59.104.18.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 59.104.18.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 59.104.18.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 59.104.18.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (some content edits, here)
6. 59.105.23.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
7. 59.105.23.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For reference. 59.104.16.0/22 accounts for most, but not all of, these edits. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spotted a similar thing:

• 220.249.76.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [51]

--Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Background information for others: "Republic of China" is the official name of the country, not Taiwan. Sometimes they use "Republic of China on Taiwan" to avoid confusion. Wikipedia must be very careful in using neutral terminology. I am not saying what term Wikipedia should use, only that we should not inadvertently create POV. Wikipedia should never kowtow to mainland China and use the terminology demanded by the People's Republic of China. After all, this English Wikipedia, not PRC-Wikipedia. (signed with IP to show that I am not those 59xxx people. This information is only provided because some people in Wikipedia are unaware of the ROC and Taiwan name debate. 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is the most common name in English. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is because of heavy pressure from the People's Republic of China over the past 40 years. So much so that many kowtow to the mainland government without even knowing it. The NPOV way would probably be to let Wikipedia readers know that there is an international dispute over the name. That's why these 59xxx people are not doing the right thing by removing navigational aids. But neither are the people who insist on using the communist mainland's terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these anons located in the mainland? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the one I've looked at is in Taipei, not on the mainland - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I recognize this POV. It's from the Chinese government that was overthrown by Mao. They refugiated in Taiwan and they say that they are the legitimate government of all China, and that the CCPP is just a bunch of usurpers with no legitimacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mao government "say(s) that they are the legitimate government of all China (and Taiwan) and that the KMT is just a bunch of userpers with no legitimacy" (same quote as Enric Naval writes except reversed). If we listen to Enric Naval, we kowtow to the People's Republic of China. If we listen to the 59xxx IP's, we kowtow to the Republic of China. In Wikipedia, we should kowtow to neither side. That is true NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Taiwan is still the most common name in English. So, the articles should use it so readers can recognize what the articles are talking about it. Wikipedia is not the place for resolving old injustices. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some kind ASCII images and more...

I'd like to have someone have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matty267. I guess there will be more of those in the near future, if not yet happened. If we're lucky it's a static IP or at least a small range. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a G@@per post-JarlaxleArtemis, trying to impersonate him. RBI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV...

Resolved

 – Back down to normal. — neuro^(talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

...has been getting pounded, and it doesn't look like many admins are watching it. I have to go to class now, and I don't want it to get backed up again. Earlier, there were literally 20 extant reports. Can a few admins keep an eye on it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Down to two reports at present - looks like people have had their coffee/tea/dinner/etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Threeskin

Resolved

 – Page deleted. — neuro^(talk) 13:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot nominate User talk:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Threeskin for deletion because the title blacklist is stopping me from doing so. I am requesting that an administrator create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Threeskin for me. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Even better, I will just delete it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please close the deletion discussion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like it closed, or just deleted per G7? Tiptoety ^talk 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done under G8; talk page of a deleted page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed, please -- IRP ☎ 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

after ec, clarifying to :::::Done under G8; talk page of a deleted page. Total screw up in teh drop down but I'm not going to restore and re-delete. but now it appears I'm going to restore and close. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All better now, sorry about that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:PIA03498.jpg

Hi there. I'm an admin on Commons, but with no rights here. A picture recently moved from here to Commons references File:PIA03498.jpg (local file on en:WP) as its source, but there's not file there anymore (blacklisted filename). Was there a file here once? Has it been moved? Where is it now? Or has it been deleted? Why? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that an image by that name has ever existed here. There's nothing special about the title being blacklisted -- images without enough letters in the name simply can't be uploaded. --Carnildo (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I consider the source as invalid then. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete some revisions

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanna have some revisions deleted that reveal an editor's name by accident. Where do I go? Or if s.o. wants to help me directly... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT. Daniel (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting edits on a biography

Hiya all, I was wondering if I could get some (impartial) eyes onto the content of Andrew Bolt over the next 12 hours or so, to try and sort out some apparent BLP and NPOV issues with this biography.

If anyone experienced with our BLP and NPOV policies could devote even five-to-ten minutes to make a start on pruning the article as required, hopefully it'll all add up and the article will get fixed. Given the subject's knowledge of this issue, and the field he works in, I feel this is sufficiently important to ask for assistance with here.

So, yeah, any help is much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

copyright violation

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This file copied from perspolis-club.ir that have copyright (not GFDL) please delete this file thanksAmir (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PUI is that way. — neuro^(talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Neuro, I understand and sympathize with the desire to keep this noticeboard uncluttered, but in a situation in which someone obviously not familiar with Wikipedia is bringing up a serious problem, the proper thing to do is to deal with it (for example, to start a PUI discussion yourself), rather than such a brief statement, which would be incomprehensible to someone who didn't understand our processes and procedures. Chick Bowen 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall initiated against MBisanz

Brrryce (talk · contribs) has instigated an administrator recall request against MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alleging that his deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) constituted an abuse of his admin tools. I have been asked to clerk this process, and am posting this notice here pursuant to MBisanz's recall policy. This policy stipulates that if five administrators meeting specified criteria endorse the recall request within 48 hours, MBisanz will either resign adminship or initiate a reconfirmation RFA. As I am posting this notice at a number of locations, I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Loreto college mullingar casing move blacklist

I was trying to move this to the correctly cased title but got a warning re:blacklist for move vandalism. The school seems to exist though. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Moved. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward Crean

Resolved

 – Page moved. hmwithτ 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This title has been blocked due to wikipedia identifying characters commonly used in vandalism. I am not sure what these are. However, this is the name of a former rugby union international who played for the British Lions touring side in the early twentieth century. Would it be possible for me to create this page?Kwib (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the page I am trying to move to this pagespace is User:Kwib/Edward CreanKwib (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved. There seems to be something very odd going on with the move function. Perhaps someone just added some pecular RegEx to the file. I think I'll drop a note at the Village Pump. - Nunh-huh 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Template blocked.

Resolved

 – Template:Christian music articles made a redirect to Template:Christian music. hmwithτ 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just been blocked trying to rename a template:

This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

We had found that there were two templates serving similar purpose:

Template:Christian music

Template:Christian music articles

The former had the poorer content and page-positioning, but a better name. The latter had better content (want to keep) and positioning (keep) but a poorer name.

Aim:

• End up with a single template, good in both name and content.

Summary of process:

• merge/rename was discussed at Template talk:Christian music with cross-reference from other template and on a a relevant project's talk page;
• ensure that all articles involving either template (many already had both) included the latter (with its better content but poorer name) and had the former removed;
• rename latter to former.

On attempting the last step the 'move page' was blocked as described. Any ideas? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If one of the templates is going to be unused, just copy the content to the one that is to be used and redirect the one to the other. –xeno (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move performed. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (And using move has nicely preserved edit-history of the good material, which is why I had been attempting a move rather than copy. Appreciated!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with move

Resolved

 – Page moved. hmwithτ 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would help to move Synthetic options position to Synthetic underlying position (see talk page for discussion). A separate article Synthetic options position should later be created for this somewhat different subject. The move is blocked now by the system for some reason? Regards Ulner (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move performed. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ulner (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, questions like this are better suited for WP:Requested moves. hmwithτ 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate pagemove being blocked by title blacklist

Resolved

 – Pages moved

I'm trying to move the disambiguation page Zombie Powder to Zombie powder since it's not disambiguating proper names, but am being blocked by the title blacklist with the message "This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." However, a cursory glance through the actual blacklist isn't showing any reason for the move to be blocked (but then, I don't know much about regexs...). Any help? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

moved, FWIW, no idea why it was blocked. - Nunh-huh 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having the same problem with moving Korolyov cross to Korolyov Cross, as it is a proper noun. --GW… 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't feel I can move this, as I am not convinced that "Korolyov cross" is wrong. (Greek cross, Latin cross, Celtic cross, Eastern cross, Geneva cross, Lorraine cross, Maltese cross, St. Andrew's cross, Saint Anthony's cross, etc. are all so capitalized in Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary - all types of crosses. The only crosses that it capitalizes are those of awards (Victoria Cross), constellations (Northern Cross), or organizations (Red Cross). - Nunh-huh 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying, I'll file an RM. --GW… 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another: Absorption Hardening (completely legitimate but miscapitalized nuclear-engineering term) cannot be moved to Absorption hardening. Hqb (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

also done. - Nunh-huh 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask not what you can do for Wikipedia. Ask what it can keep you from doing. (At least it's not blocking you ) --NE2 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way I'll ever approve the abuse filter is if NawlinWiki is forbidden to edit it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is being caused by one of two edits performed by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist... I'll notify him of this discussion in a second. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Reverted self, lemme try and figure out what I did wrong. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requesting permission to view deleted material

Resolved

 – RFA is down the hall, on the right. //roux   17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am a long time editor who has recently returned from retirement. I was wondering if there is anyway I can apply for the privilage to view deleted articles. Is this privilage restricted to admins or is there some way I can gain access to it? Thanks :) Valoem ^talk 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is restricted to admins only. Please visit WP:RFA if you are interested in becoming an admin. //roux   17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you might consider contacting an admin regarding a specific article you would like to view. Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or cheating by using Mr. Batley's Almanac... Skomorokh 03:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another random, strange talk page message

Resolved

 – FlyingToaster left the new editor a message -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

909bjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left this message on my talk page. Apparently he is pissed off that User:FlyingToaster deleted a page of his. I have no idea why he left this message for me, since I am not FlyingToaster. I don't know this user, and I don't feel like dealing with him myself, but I did want to bring this to your attention. Deal with the situation as you see fit. Thank you. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review of unblock request

• Jakezing (talk · contribs)
  • Jakezing has been blocked since January 1, 2009. I have contacted User talk:JzG (aka Guy), who issued the block, but he has not responded, and has not edited at Wikipedia since February 27. Since he does not appear to be active at this time, I thought that before I unblocked, I should bring this to the community to discuss. Jakezing was blocked indef for gross incivility, and his first several unblock requests continued the pattern. However, two months seems to have convinced him that continued incivility is an unwise course of action, as his latest unblock request is perfectly civil, and he has pledged to mend his ways. I propose we unblock him based on these conditions:
• That he is on 1RR parole (given that he has had prior problems with edit warring); and he is not to revert an article more than once for any reason.
• That he is on strict civility parole, even if he feels provoked. He is to remain civil and cordial at all times, even in the face of incivility by others. He may be reblocked indefinately should he violate this, and it is the opinion of the blocking administrator, not his own, as to what sorts of conduct is to be considered incivil. He must try to see his actions through the eyes of others, and act in a way that is above reproach.

If he will agree to these terms (and if other admins think that it is wise to unblock him) I will go ahead and issue the unblock. What do you all think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think indef blocks for non-cranks/non-POV pushers with a demonstrable history of constructive edits is excessive. I think the unblocking admin should also volunteer to serve as this editor's mentor for a few months. Rklawton (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but support giving one more chance, and one only. Concur with Rklawton on having Guy as the mentor, as Guy has little time for any game-playing. //roux   19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Tentatively support. I hope that this user can resist any future provocation - or else turn to an admin - rather than retaliate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. The attitude shown makes me think a relapse will occur rather quickly, but if Guy's willing to mentor, then why not, as long as strict and specific parameters regarding behaviour are laid out beforehand. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the premise of this community review that Guy wasn't around to answer questions about the block (and therefore wouldn't also be able to mentor). Rklawton was suggesting Jayron32 be the mentor. I'm not sure I agree with that (nothing about Jayron at all, I just don't want us to get in the habit of expecting admins who handle difficult unblocks to turn around and be 'mentors'), but I don't see a problem w/ Jayron's conditions for unblocking. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Protonk, although I don't want it to ever be a habit where the blocking admin has to turn into a mentor either. I'd rather no mentors; strict sanction compliance is enough of a 'last chance' in my opinion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but hopefully a mentor of some sort provides a "should I do this?" safety valve that will help prevent further outbursts. //roux   05:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with adding a general mentor provision to invite someone from the community - but I'd rather the 'mentor' make an offer or apply (to do the job), rather than others propose that Guy, Jayron32, or anyone else do the job when they themselves have not necessarily thought about it or mentioned it. Protonk may have explained this better below. I've often argued that general mentor arrangements should be tried, but admittedly, I'm not on that boat in this case (I'll re-review though). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that unblocking admins automatically become mentors. If an admin isn't willing, then he/she shouldn't unblock. I just don't think it's appropriate for some admins to create headaches for the rest of us to sort out all over again. It's not so difficult, either. Since the mentor is an admin, if managing the mentee becomes overly burdensome, the mentor just restores the block. Rklawton (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree. For one, simply setting strict unblock conditions (in cases where they are appropriate) and then enforcing them is sufficient sometimes. And 'mentorship' on wiki is overrated. Where I have seen it it is something entered into willingly (where the relationship looks a great deal like what mentorship is on the outside world) or it looks a great deal like babysitting. And from a practical point of view, forcing admins to mentor unblocked users will just keep admins away from the unblock queue--that's universally bad. Unblocks should be noted (if not handled) swiftly and attention to CAT:Unblock allows that. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK needs updating

Resolved

 – DYK updated. Graham87 06:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To any active admins, the T:DYK is two hours overdue, and needs updating. Instructions are in a comments field below. Thanks! ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The update is now complete. - Dravecky (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team

As an uninvolved editor, I'm bringing this page to the community's attention having heard concerns from users via email, at the WikiProject India noticeboard and now at Wikiquette alerts. The article itself has been a prime target for POV-pushing, and it's possible that this problem may worsen with time. And to make things worse now, parts of the talk page are smelling more and more like a forum. As such, I'm considering whether to propose a probation measure (for these pages) to be enacted by the community; similar to the Obama probation that I proposed last year (which is still in force).

However, the need for such a measure on these pages may not be so great either, particularly if there is a general sense of satisfaction by the wider community that no disruptive editing is occurring, and that the talk page is being used appropriately. I'd like a few more eyes on the page and would appreciate others views on these issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page is being used in a manner that violates WP:FORUM by some editors. This is why I added {{notaforum}} too, a few days ago. However, most (if not all) of these editors seem to be new and inexperienced with a very low level of understanding about our policies and guidelines. Most of the comments made are still related to the article and about things that should be added. However, some comments are on their own opinions etc. while some are very POV and fiery (possibly from "patriots" who don't want to see their country being shown in a bad light - but then that's not our problem here and we have to go by our standards). Anyway I don't think the situation is so bad to go to the extent of a probation measure. When the heat dies down about the incident, this situation will go down as well. Chamal ^talk 06:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I added:

I hope it works.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chamal's observation that while the talk-page is being used as a forum b some IP/new accounts, the article is relatively free of disruptive edits - perhaps because the new accounts have not "matured" yet and are not able to edit the semi-protected article. So for now talk page tagging by Cerejota (correct spelling! :) ) should sufiice, but admin intervention may be needed once accounts like Jailstorm (talk · contribs) et al are autoconfirmed. Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Addbot and the orphan tag

Resolved

 – Addshore has agreed not to run the bot again until an RfC has been performed. — neuro^(talk) 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This came to my attention when, User:Addbot (operated by User:Addshore) began edit-warring on some pages on my watchlist, and I admit I'm not too clued up on the bot process. I gotta say though, this ain't the first time I've come across a bot using automated tools to place big fat ugly tags on top of articles (another one a few months ago was tagging articles disapproving of Latin abbreviations). The approval given for this purpose is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_16, where the concerns of KP_Botany are -- seemingly -- contemptfully dismissed.

Myself, User:DGG, and others have asked the owner to stop doing it, but, typical of the feedback, in a recent thread User:Anomie instructed us to "take it to WP:VPR or WP:RFC and see if consensus exists to change the orphan tagging guidelines". User:Anomie I noticed was one of the users so contemptful of KPBotany's concerns on the approval page.

The whole operation of the bot owner's noticeboard doesn't come across as very clued. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if this even needs to go to an RfC. Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage -- of which User:Addshore is a card carrying member -- is not proof of community approval. Normal users like myself should not have to go begging to RfCs to get bot-owners to stop doing something the community never approved of in the first place. Is there a reason why, if it starts doing this again, I can't just warn the bot to stop or block it? Or is there actually more community support for its activities than meets the eye? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, I've been worried that this bot may have the opposite of its intended effect. The template might be driving away readers who would otherwise become interested and add more material on related subjects. Was any concept testing done before this was expanded to a large scale? Durova^Charge! 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really see value in a bot doing this task. If a human adds the tag, fine, but I don't think adding the banner en masse at the top of every orphan is going to prompt many random reader to create links from other articles. Dedicated editors who wish to do so can run a query easily enough without the tag being added. –xeno (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, new users proud of their first new articles don't want their nice new articles slapped with a big aggressive tag that serves little purpose. Regarding your question, I'll leave Addshore to answer that one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem mentioned above can be address by only tagging articles which are not not patrolled. Meaning anything that is patrolled or for an article that has existed for over 30 days. As I have said also I am happy to take the bot and its task to RFC but I am currently lacking time to do so. In the mean time I will keep the bot disabled as it would be due to changes and bugs in the lists and tool server. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not gonna use the bot for this tag until an an RfC approves, then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would make sense. But if people wait for me to start ad RFC that could be months :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering does anyone know of a templated way I can start and RFC for this? The templates I have seen are for the people that are agaisnt the bot to create and not for the person that want to keep it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments to be erased and account deleted

I've laid comments in various talk pages such as the Australoid talk page. I wanted to know how I can delete my comments because I don't want my comments on any of the talk pages on any site anymore. I also wanted to point out that before I had an account name "bcr" and I wanted to get permission to remove the comments I made on talk pages for the Australoid article, the hutu article, the paul kagame article, the tutsi article, the robert chestagu article, and the rush limbaugh article. I also wanted to know how I can have my account deleted. I don't want to have an account on wikipedia anymore. bcr was just a name that I had and I just want to remove those comments. But the current account I have under the name "cobenobo" is what I want deleted.Cobenobo (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm afraid you can't really do that. When you post to Wikipedia, there's text right under the editbox saying: Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

What that means is you have released everything you wrote under the GFDL licence. Further, accounts are not deleted, also for reasons pertaining to the licence. The easiest way to leave Wikipedia is to just stop logging in. Cheers. //roux   00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux is dead on....accounts are not deleted and information isn't either. If you want to leave, just stopping logging in, simple as what Roux said. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 7, 2009 @ 01:20 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So that's how it works. I remember this one guy who was so bitter at everybody else who voted on his AFD a few weeks ago, that he wanted everything about that article deleted from wikipedia. I think it was even reported here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You have the right to vanish, with limitations. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• An admin might want to check a few of his contributions, as he is removing article talk page comments of his own and of an IP address that was used and signed with "Bcr". --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed to wave cluestick

Indiawale (talk · contribs) (also IP 24.24.204.143 (talk)) is a SPA on Vishwakarma (caste) article which is filled with unsourced, dubious (or, rather false) POV fancruft. I last edited the article in April 2008 (see sourced neutral version), and when I recently saw the article in poor state I tagged it with appropriate maintenance templates. Since then:

• Indiawale has repeatedly removed the tags (calling them "vandalization") without addressing any of the issues. [52], [53].
• Indulged in personal attacks , threatening to edit "your rightwing extremist pages and would start commenting on your ilks misdeeds." (The comment was refactored after a NPA warning).
• Requested explanation for tagging, which was given in detail. (This action was very promising!)
• However, Indiawale apparently started looking though articles listed in "Articles I started" on my user page, and:
  • adding POV and irrelevant details to Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act, while misrepresenting non-RS sources. [54], [55]. (these edits were reverted by User:Barkeep, who explained and warned Indiawale)
  • adding unsourced and POV sysnthesis to BLP Shubha Raul [56]. After this was removed and the reason explained to Indiawale he tagged the article with irrelevant tags copied from Vishwakarma (caste) ‎[57]
  • complained about List of Hindu scriptures article on Hinduism noticeboard and insisted on adding a POV tag. (with the logic "I think this article should be marked as POV. You had done the same thing in the past on a different article!")
• Continued with milder NPA/incivility/assuming-bad-faith in edit-summaries and talkpage comments [58], [59]; and "reflecting back" warnings he has been given. [60],

I have tried to explain wikipedia's content and conduct policies to him on his talk page and here, but he obviously regards any advice from me to be in bad faith. While Indiawale's actions have been disruptive, I don't think they are serious enough to deserves a blocked since he is an inexperienced editor; and even a user RFC may be overkill at this stage. But it would help if an admin could wave the clue-stick at him, to prevent unnecessary escalation of such behavior. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had intended this for ANI, but posted it here. Feel free to move. Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, stop arguing on false premise! As you can see, I am discussing first and seeking persmission here before tagging the article List of Hindu scripture as POV. Based on my pointing out, you did edit the article and removed the false claim regarding Adi Shankarycharya being the FIRST Hindu philosopher who consolidated the principles of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. I never marked this article as POV. Also, regarding Shubha Raul, when I marked the article as POV, you removed the unrefenced comment that she is a champion of the Marathi language. After that I did not dispute the removal of POV status. So it is apparent that you see logic in my arguments and are forced to act upon it and edit your articles. On the other hand, you have cited Absence of Concensus as a valid reason for marking an article as POV and have gone ahead and done it! So I had provided you references, links, book name including page numbers and paragraphs, edited the article, yet you are refusing to discuss the article in a rational and logical manner and threathing to take action against me simply because I don't agree with your point of views! Indiawale (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 months Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. 66.61.87.219 is an IP address of serial sockpuppeteer Sleepydre. They have stated that they are back and are on the a similar editing spree of adding material that has been discussed by many editors to be removed. They appear to have some obsession with the article Akron, Ohio. They have made extreme threats against my life (claiming they would draw a gun at me) and I would like this to stop for good. Thanks for any help, §hep^Talk 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep^Talk 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Update

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 23:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The "In the News" section on the Main Page hasn't been updated in more than a day (WP Time) and there is current;y a message on the Main page talk page. Since there's been at least one fairly high profile event yesterday (The Tsvangari Crash incident) is it possible that someone could update? BigHairRef | Talk 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. — neuro^(talk) 23:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion help

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help with the remaning deletions needed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_German_Student_(radio)? I've got partway through the list, but I need to head out. They are now all redirects to User space. Do not delete the userfied articles - it is the cross namespace redirects that need deleting per WP:CSD#R2. Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

All done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations and plagiarism

After tagging Eric Voice for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, I reviewed the contributions of the author. It appears that Plindenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added large amounts of copyrighted text to Wikipedia verbatim, without attribution as direct quotations. Despite the numerous warnings on his talk page, Plindenbaum created a new copyvio article, Ian Reay Mackay, within the past month, and just yesterday started Pierre Solomon Ségalas of Etchépare, which uses a sentence lifted directly from [61] without indicating that it is a quotation. Administrative help is needed in stopping further copyright violations and plagiarism by this user. Erik9 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be a huge task, this user has about 3,500 edits. I suggest:

• Contact user, explain the problem (block if he/she continues)
• Create a "decon" project page
• Split edits by date range
• Allow editors to verify/authenticate each block of edits
• Close when all blocks of edits have been verified

Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed Erik9's examples and don't see any problems with copyvios. Erik9's edit history is very unusual (8000 edits) and the account is less than two months old. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The text of Eric Voice is copied directly from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article493480.ece , while Ian Reay Mackay is copied from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18502096 , both without attributions as quotations. If you really believe that these aren't copyright violations, then I dare you to remove the speedy deletion requests - but you should consider the matter quite carefully first. Pierre Solomon Ségalas of Etchépare plagiarizes the sentence "he created the idea of an exclusive speciality to practise" from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19230322 by using it without attribution as a quotation. Unless there's a rule against making too many edits within a short period of time, you should withdraw your groundless accusation. Erik9 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting that Malcolmxl5, an administrator, has decided to remove what you claim is the non-existent copyright violation from Eric Voice and rewrite the article [62] [63] [64]. That's quite a lot of effort to fix a problem which didn't really exist :) Erik9 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict: took me a while to compose this one.) Erik9 seems to be right that there is a history of at least copyright misunderstanding here. The new article, Eric Voice, does infringe on [65] (probably not in any legally actionable way, but the article says, "was a Pro-nuclear British in Britain's fast breeder reactor programme who demonstrated his dedication by inhaling plutonium", while the source says, "Pro-nuclear scientist in Britain's fast breeder reactor programme who demonstrated his dedication by inhaling plutonium." There's no reason this could not be written in original language.) Several times, Coren's bot has picked up what seem to be similarities sufficient to pose concern. Popping in randomly at several recent contributions, I see some cause for concern. These articles tend to be brief, so such problems are generally minor, as in the recently created Edward Shearman Ross, where the sentence, "Before his PhD was conferred, he worked as curator of insects at the California Academy of Sciences" follows quite closely on the source, which says, "Before his PhD was conferred, he was employed as curator of insects at the California Academy of Sciences." (However, some of these, like Velvet (algorithm), seem to draw on public domain sources; obviously, while there may be plagiarism issues with such if uncredited, these are not copyright concerns.) I think a discussion about how to rewrite from scratch may be appropriate, but I wouldn't consider him a hardened infringer on what I've seen by any means. His contribution here if he receives the notice before it archives might be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors, during the last year have tried to start a series of articles based on the abstract of some academic articles from NCBI. Until recently, I honestly thought that those abstracts belong to the public domain. This was contradicted last month after an interesting conversation about this fact with User:Somno and on FriendFeed (see http://friendfeed.com/e/4950d465-2b8c-4570-b2aa-85c5317c8952/Does-an-article-in-pubmed-belong-to-the-legal/ and http://www.cotch.net/blog/20090126_1005). I was then convinced to re-structure those abstracts, changing the sentences before creating an article . I'm deeply sorry if I didn't change those sentences enough or if only one sentence copied on the web can be a problem. --Plindenbaum (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. There are certain circumstances under which copyrighted text can be duplicated verbatim on Wikipedia. These are set out at Wikipedia:NFC#Text. In all cases, they should be plainly identified by quotation marks and with attribution, and they should be used in relatively limited circumstances. Where it is possible to contribute in completely original language, this is preferred. The reason for this is that Wikipedia hopes to be free for replication in as many places and as many ways as possible, including commercial reuse. Even where the use of copyrighted material would likely fall within fair use on Wikipedia, Wikipedia prefers free content that can be licensed under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an error here, perhaps unintended: you can't fix a copyvio simply by changing the wording. If a passage is directly derived from a copyrighted source, the only way to handle it is to quote it directly and attribute the quote. To avoid copyvio requires using only a limited amount of the material, and combining it, in your own words, with material from other sources. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You can fix a copyvio by changing the wording, also known as "rewriting from scratch." You have to rewrite it sufficiently that it does not infringe on creative content from the original, in keeping with WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely." This language is also mirrored at {{copyviocore}}, which advises contributors to "write the article from scratch". If you think that "rewrite from scratch" may unintentionally mislead people, we might want to address that standard template. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though, if you're not reacting to the words "rewrite from scratch". :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The key is in the terms "creative expression" and "reformulate". Copyright case law shows that it is a violation to copy the logical organization of a source, even if all the words are changed. The bottom line is that one should never try to solve a copyvio by tweaking the wording. One should put the source away and then write a new, original account of the material. Either that, or quote directly. A tweaked quote is the worst possible solution. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the substantial similarity test. I'm also fairly familiar with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. :) I wouldn't think "rewrite from scratch" would be misleading in this regard. (Considering that I'm on rewrite round three here, maybe I'm wrong.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history abuse of User:Khalsaburg

I must recommend that User:Sikh-history be given a short block or a stern warning from another editor. The latest wp:personal attacks are here and here.sinneed (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A stern warning, yes, but a block seems over the top if this user doesn't have a prior history. — neuro^(talk) 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins needed at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – AIV now empty Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Backlogs getting created. Enigma^msg 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the backlog has been reduced to zero now. Marking as resolved. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Requesting topic ban of User:Hipocrite

Resolved

 – This does not need administrative attention at this point. It is a content dispute. Chillum 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

During the FAC for Water fluoridation it has been agreed (by all those that commented) that Opposition to water fluoridation is out of sync with the higher quality main article, and that it needs to be rewritten/synchronized with it. Unfortunately, the intervention of User:Hipocrite in Opposition to water fluoridation is making this process unnecessarily difficult. Hipocrite offers no substantive criticism of the changes implemented, but reverts them based because he "can't follow".

As demonstrated by the process that took place in the main article, in which Hipocrite did not participate, changes can converge towards a good quality article, with only a few contentious points hammered out in long, but substantive and fruitful discussions on the talk page. We have no need for disruptive tactics from users that refuse to substantiate what their objections are about. So, I'm asking for User:Hipocrite to be banned from editing Opposition to water fluoridation, because all he effectively contributes are unexplained reversals; he should still be allowed to comment on the talk page, assuming he finds something substantive to object to. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? I just wanted the massive change that was almost impossible to follow to be discussed on the talk page before it was made. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions for the sole sake of process aren't appropriate. If you disagree with the changes to the article, say so and discuss them on the talk page. Reverting simply because changes were significant is disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the place for this. A topic ban is not how we solve simple disagreements. Talk it out on the talk page. Asking that edits be explained and discussed is not inappropriate and not "process" but human interaction and how we build consensus. Chillum 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My understanding that WP:DR can be used if there are some substantive reasons for disagreement. If a user just reverts your changes, and repeatedly argues that he "can't follow" without getting into any specifics, you'd have a really hard time engaging in a meaningful dispute resolution because the dispute isn't even stated. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This edit is the one that Hipocrite singled out on the article talk page. As he notes, it does indeed appear to make a substantial number of changes without a great deal of explanation. (The edit summary "revising this page a fair bit" is certainly accurate, but a bit brief for such a major change.)

Rather than discuss the change in more detail, Xasodfuih makes the rather insulting suggestion that Hipocrite should move to simple.wikipedia.org ([66]), and then comes here to request a page ban. Not classy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow. Why should I be discussing somebody else's changes when I wasn't the one reverting? The onus for giving a rationale for removing/disputing sourced material should be on the person removing or disputing it. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I came here only after Hipocrite made further posts refusing to explain why he is disputing the material. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have also misquoted me, TenOfAllTrades. I wrote "If you have no concrete criticism to offer, I suggest you move another page, or even better to simple.wikipedia.org." Note the conditional. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is you who should be opening the discussion, not Hipocrite. You make a large change to the page, he reverts to the status quo. There is no gross policy violation, and so it is up to you to justify why the change should be made, not up to Hipocrite to justify why the page should stay as it is. Bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, revert, revert and patronise, discuss. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x X) Please familiarize yourself with the article history before commenting. The substantive changes, as evidenced by the diffs [67], [68], were made by User:ImperfectlyInformed, not by myself. Nor did I make any reverts, those were made by Hipocrite [69], [70]. My only contribution to the article space of this article (as opposed to the main one on water fluoridation) was [71], the addition of {bad summary} templates before any of the above changes by II or Hipocrite. Then II made some changes, Hipocrite reverted, claiming "multiple concerns", the only one of which he singled out on talk was unfounded. After that II put some changes back, but Hipocrite reverted again without giving any substantive reasons. For the sake of completeness, the 1st edit of II given here was also report to WP:AE by User:ScienceApologist, but the complaint was quickly closed as frivolous disruption. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask an editor to explain his or her major edits. 'Revising this page' is an insufficient level of detail if someone makes a good-faith inquiry. The diff is a complicated hodgepodge, but it appears changes were made to the wording and references in the lede section, to the format and contents of references throughout, to the entire section on 'potential health risks', to the 'history' section, and to the reference format in the 'conspiracy theories' section. It's not readily apparent to casual examination which sections have received only housekeeping attention (reformatting of references without other changes, wikilinking terms), which sections have been slightly tweaked (minor rephrasing, moving of footnotes), and which sections have undergone major changes (references added or removed in their entirety, tone of text changed to resolve or create bias issues, sentences or full paragraphs added and removed).

You seem to be supporting the edit to the extent that you're insulting another editor and calling for a page ban to defend it — you ought to be prepared to offer a description and rationale for each of those changes. Further review of your contributions suggests that you've gone to the editor who made the changes and asked him to make them on a step-by-step basis (good!) and also accused Hipocrite of "play[ing] thick" (bad!): [72].

This is an article on a very contentious topic. It is important to edit with caution, care, and open communication in order to prevent the inadvertent (or deliberate) introduction of bias, error, or omission. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to be supporting the edit..."—no I'm not supporting it, but I expect editors to object to edits with a substantive rationale. The first rationale Hipocrite gave was unfounded; it simply demonstrated that Hipocrite is not familiar with the topic. Then Hipocrite made a 2nd revert that was accompanied only by a "process rationale". This is WP:GAME to me. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this needs administrator attention at this point. Talk it out on the talk page. If there is edit warring or gross incivility then it will become and administrative matter. Chillum 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist addition

Resolved

 – see village pump (links below). — CharlotteWebb 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where would one suggest an addition to the watchlist? I'd like to see a feature where editors can have checked items on their watchlist highlighted when they appear on the watchlist. (I'm sure this is not where to ask, it'll get the most attention here, though). iMatthew // talk // 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals), I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If I read your suggestion right, you're looking for a way to create a sort of 'high-priority' category of watchlist items, where changes to those specific pages will result in highlighted entries on your regular watchlist, yes?

If that is what you're looking for, there's a couple of ways to achieve that without waiting for a software change. The direct way is to create a second account; add only the 'high-priority' items to the second account's watchlist. That can be a bit of a nuisance, though.

The more subtle method is to create a page in your userspace that consists of just links to your 'high-priority' pages. If you click on the 'Related changes' link (in the 'toolbox' to the left of the page), it will show the recent changes to all the pages linked from that high-priority page. You can create a shortcut link from somewhere in your userspace using the standard external link link format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:IMatthew/ImportantPages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be moved to:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Watchlist addition
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Categorised watchlist

Probably a better place for this. — CharlotteWebb 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

KGB (Company)

Can some help with KGB (Company) some keeps tagging it with a speedy template and its not even an hour old.HereFord 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy, as it doesn't apply. That's some very strange db tagging, I must note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedied - no evidence of notability, unsourced, 2 Google hits. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I got 21,400, but I'm sure many of those are false positives. :) (It drops to 4,000 when I narrow it down to New York. I don't know if they're notable. (They could be very good at self-promotion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. I'll undo. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclining to think good at self-promotion, though they've certainly got a highly visible ad. (I've seen it, anyway, and I don't watch much t.v. :)) I'll tag it for various, if you haven't already. Think there's a word about civility, though, that needs to happen in light of this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and since the article is deleted, I can't see it or its history), the fact that the article was not an hour old is no reason not to speedy it - that's what speedy deletion is for. The vast majority of speedy-tags are added within minutes of an article's creation. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This one in particular was inappropriate. After tagging it as "vandalism", the tagger then tagged it as "no context." And, I see, has just tagged it so again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've advised the tagger of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment- this user has been erroneously tagging many articles as A1. I talked to him about it but he responded with calling me a smartass. LetsdrinkTea 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a diff of that? I can't find it. Anyhow, I've warned the user again to stop tagging articles until they understand the CSD. If they continue, they could be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got it, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure If your areNot respectfull at this page.........I WILL FIND YOU on their Talk page is very collegial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Need history merge

Resolved

 – Done by JForget (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::{talk} 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please help the user who just did a cut and paste move at Eliyahu Koren? You'll also want to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Koren where the user explained why she was blanking the article bit-by-bit.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding redirect from juvenile pornography to child pornography

Resolved

Tried adding a redirect but it was blacklisted. Juvenile pornography is a term at least used legally and was referenced in an article I read, albeit without any proper redirect. Might just want to add that.

Thanks ! Dread Specter (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as the terms are synonymous—"Juvenile" == "child" (or is at least a sub-set) in most legal contexts. — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one make a change to a user name

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I just registered, and darned it, misspelled my user name. I meant to type "RunsWithScissors" and typed "RuinsWithScissors" instead. I can live with it but is there a way to change it? I've not posted anything as yet - brand new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiunsWithScissors (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 March 2009

See changing user name. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter is fine, my daughter should probably use that nick :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You really should take care, since you typed "Riuns" instead of "Ruins" - what a mess... Welcome! ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste time going through CHU, just abandon this mispelled name and create a new one, with the proper spelling. –xeno (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ruins with Scissors"...it's kinda evil...I like :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz

Tturner2009 (talk · contribs) and Alexanderamsterdam (talk · contribs) have one mission: to clean the article Kim Schmitz from "hatefull" content - i.e. to establish a POV version of the article that could be written by Kim Schmitz himself. After registering they immediately and exclusively started an edit war to enforce an allegedly more balanced version of the article. I suspect socket puppetry, perhaps COI. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"His arrogant style of dealing with the computer scene...", "...he made an obscure statement on his web site that could have been interpreted as announcing his own suicide." I've got to be honest, I believe Alexanderamsterdam has improved the article by removing these (uncited) sentences. I'm not convinced I'd regard this user as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view. I notice you've both attempted to discuss the issue; could you try again? It doesn't look (to me at least) that this is yet anything other than a content dispute.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If he had simply removed uncited sentences I would see no problem. But he added more twice as much uncited facts, opinions and rumors, put up an edit war, ignored the discussion and used a sock puppet and simply denied any compromise. I tried to clean up the article myself and added some sources but he simply reverts to the PR version of the artcile. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant that much was added to the article; however, I don't see it as being any more (or less) uncited that the previous version, though, and it certainly seems more neutral. If you think that there's sock puppetry involved then file a report at WP:SPI. I've not looked at Tturner2009's contributions so I can't really comment about sock puppetry (and I'm even less of a checkuser than I am an administrator). You could also try asking on WP:3O for a third-opinion; my main point is that this doesn't really seem to be something that warrants administrator attention (at this point). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought a stubborn two day edit war could and an IMHO extreme amount of POV could need some attention. I tried to file an report on WP:SPI but it seems you have to register first and so on. So I will forget the article and move on. Thanks for your time. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article, restored two removed subheadings, and left a note on the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I add some sources now. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is putting false information in Wikipedia and I am being called a vandal!

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

PROBLEM FIXED

Look at the Bank of Montreal article and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Both articles claim that the bank is the 4th largest by deposits. One of them is false. I am trying to correct it and User:BoomerAB and User:Rennaisancee are calling me a vandal.

They are accusing me falsely. Let's find out the true 4th largest and correct it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is "Wikipedia, the fake information encyclopedia." Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you really Wells Fargo Bank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 March 2009

No, see talk page of Barek. User:Bankofamerica is permitted to have his user name. I have also discussed with Barek about another name. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already fixed it. It is no longer a problem. What I was not liking, and why I reverted your edits is because you always mentioned Wikipedia in them, and Wikipedia can not source itself on an article, for more information look here. I will delete my warning, but please be more careful with touchy topics as economics. Thank you! Renaissancee (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation accepted! I don't hate you. I just found an error within 5 minutes of looking at Wikipedia and started the ball rolling to fix it. The end result is now an error in Wikipedia has been fixed. Thank you, thank me. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a funny thing goin' on...

One user, we may call him AntiCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) nominates an article that another user, we call him Middlesbrough99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has contributed to. A look at the edit history of both users is quite interesting I may assume. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, even more fun: Entrance Argentoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you think is going on here and why it requires administrator intervention? I'm afraid that I don't understand what it is that you're alluding to in your post. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to understanding, well... First I wondered how an absolute new user can make his first edits in perfectly nominating an article for deletion. Then I saw the second user, also very new, throwing with warning templates and going to WP:AIV. And then I saw the similiar names of two of the users, and their similiar position on the nominated article. Enough? It's quite easy, it's only less than 10 edits for each user. There might be more of them out there somewhere... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's something which urgently needs to be fixed, it might be best to take this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Argentoss. ;-) But I'm not too sure that this is the only problem here... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

May I take this opportunity to gently point out that having process-oriented edits as one's first is not prima facie evidence of sockpuppeting? (without commenting specifically on this case; it is merely relevant to the subject in general, and I've seen a lot of people here lately assuming that since a user's first edits were to XfD/RfA/DRV/etc. they must be a sockpuppet) It is entirely possible for someone to spend a lot of time reading up on policy and procedures before actually joining Wikipedia. Hermione1980 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is also perfectly legitimate for a user to abandon an account and start over with a different one, and is not considered sockpuppetry. Chick Bowen 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is addressed at me: I have opened a lot of sockpuppet cases and this is the first one where I'm not sure of the outcomings. That's why I'm here. Also, I need advice. This Francesco Bellissimo is nominated for deletion on several wikipedias right now or has been deleted recently (as stated in the AfD). Sorry, but something's really fishy, isn't it?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with visiting other wikis and taking action to remove spamed articles. I don't see much evidence that Francesco Bellissimo meets WP:BIO and the article is written in a spammy style, so the nomination appears reasonable, especially if the article has been deleted on other Wikis - editors there could be following the article's many interwiki links. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, I apologize if it seems my comment was aimed specifically at you. It was not intended as such. Hermione1980 03:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Hermione. I still wonder why I'm the only one to see something strange going on here. Maybe I'll do a bit of research on this guy and see if this helps. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what's going on looks a bit unusual, but there doesn't seem anything which is outright bad occurring. The sock puppet investigation seems to be all that's needed here, and it might be appropriate to mark this as resolved as no intervention seems necessary. I note that the editor who successfully nominated the article for deletion on the Italian Wikipedia seems to have posted a notification of this on our article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia for about five years before I ever edited anything, you can know a lot about the inner workings of Wikipedia without having ever edited. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Join the club. Some of my first edits were to ANI, simply because some of the cases were entertaining. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent glitch

Resolved

 – User was renamed and blocked. New accounts with the same problem can't be created. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can't be blocked. This is ugly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to take a hit off that bong and chill --NE2 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block log shows that they've been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They still seem to be actively vandalizing though? --John (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I spoke too soon. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block form leads to ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an innocent party. Can't find a workaround. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A bureaucrat could move this editor to a different username and then block that. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I was slightly wrong. The block form leads to the correct user (User:WP:ANI), but User:ANI receives the block. Good idea about the rename, any crats around? --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted a notification at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Must have already happened, because while deleting the leftover redirects, this user disappeared. I can no longer pull up his contribution history. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BN User:Angela did the honours. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there seem to be some side effects from this string of page move vandalisms and the attempts to revert them. For example, the U.S. state of Arizona seems to have disappeared entirely. WTucker (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed already. Appears to have been a side effect of having a half-dozen admins working on this all at once. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In case there are other articles that were deleted on accident, our vanal was renamed to WPANI (talk · contribs · block log). --06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Has somebody filed a Bugzilla report to fix the blocking page to allow blocking of these account names? Needs to be done ASAP as I'm sure the copycats will be appearing shortly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still not blocked, and it may come back again. But that is strange. I sent a report to WP:AIV, and... Versus22 _talk 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A short-term solution would be modifying MediaWiki:Titleblacklist—there is a parameter newaccountonly, which should help here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done at Meta, and the account's been globally locked. Kylu (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:17877 and bugzilla:17879. Dragons flight (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking File:Iran Navy.jpg's copyright

I'm a sysop from Commons. File:Iran Navy.jpg has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that no author nor source is mentioned except en:, where the picture was deleted after its transfer. Can one of you tell me whether a valid author and/or source was initially mentioned? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no source nor author information in the deleted revisions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem listing articel for deletion?

Resolved

I tried to list Who's your daddy? (phrase) (edit talk links history) for deletion. But it doesn't seem to have worked.--HeinousMacaw (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the AfD page and the link appears to be there. Also the AfD box on the page seems to link the AfD discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Concur, cross-checked here //FrankB 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation...

*This can be considered a {{Db-author}} by this very new HeinousMacaw (talk · contribs) newbie.revised per this My bad! // FrankB 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (mistooken page// FrankB 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

User re-creating creation-protected article under different names

User:Liampaulmurphy created the article Mintsoft Librarian. It was speedily deleted (G11/A7). After about four times article got speedied, I applied for creation-protection. After that, user created article under the name of Mintsoftware librarian. I warned (4im) the user. User then continued creating the article. User has not responded to any comment on his user page. I would like to see the user blocked. Guy0307 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has also been adding the phrase "This is blatant advertising" to articles on similar subjects [73], [74] [75], apparently in support of his claim that WP is unfairly discriminating against his article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I love his use of newspeak. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I salted the new article, suggest that no further action is needed at the moment, let's just keep an eye on him. I suspect that he will run out of steam. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Salted the article"? Theresa, are long-term editors like you & me expected to be Wiki-gourmets now? If so, I'd be in trouble: most of the recipes I follow begin, "Pre-heat the oven to 350 degrees". -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeff-griffin-0192

Resolved

Jeff-griffin-0192 (talk · contribs) made offensive threats against me before he was blocked. They are still listed at Special:Contributions/Jeff-griffin-0192. Is there any way that this history can be deleted? I am concerned at the ongoing presence of this material. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that for me,--WWGB-2 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that my WP identity has been cloned - see User:WWGB-2. Ho, hum. The real WWGB (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NICE. To whoever helped this guy out: way to sell out Wikipedia. Just because this person's feelings were hurt it's suddenly okay to delete stuff like it never happened? Way to go. Mechakucha (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through that user's edits, I see nothing bad enough to need deletion. That is, except for threats which have already been deleted from his/her user talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The threats were already deleted by User:Black Kite. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am Back and i will never go away. I have lots of ip address

I am a Technical Specialist. My knowledge covers LAN networking "hardware and software", hardware testing and benchmarking, some Visual Basic programming, HTML and web design, graphics design, excellent troubleshooting skills on computer systems, software implementation and compatibility, customize system performance on standalone PC’s, servers and entire networks. By Jeff Griffin --88.191.221.156 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have a collection of clockwork Std.8 cine cameras, most of which are in working condition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooh! I am a ghostlike image that can use a keyboard. I'm cooler than you both! HalfShadow 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Before this all started, the main things I did is revert vandalism and patrol new pages and recent changes. I also did minor grammar and formatting edits and try to improve articles. That’s until User:WWGB came to my page and clamed that I was doing vandalism. How he found me is wean I edited Ridgecrest, CA and anyone that edits that article, he gets them blocked. Well, I did nothing wrong and I think its time for him to understand the Misuse of administrative tools, Read ("Administrator abuse") at Wikipedia:Administrators. By Jeff Griffin--85.25.176.136 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You want WWGBm who is not an administrator, to read something about Administrator abuse? Why? If you want to be unblocked, there's a process for that. Meanwhile, you will be blocked for block evasion every time you appear. dougweller (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article picked up by Drudge Report

Resolved

 – WP:ANI#Barack Obama probation issue. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Just an FYI, WND did an article about the Obama entry and Drudge picked it up. Might be a spike in activity there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• *facepalm* These guys need a new hobby. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Reading the WND article by Aaron Klein,[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] and then checking the revision history of Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's hard to escape the conclusion that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this. Perhaps reporters with slow news days are going to start creating disputes to write about.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • In more ways than one you could say that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this article. If you catch my drift, although that crucial piece of information was not disclosed in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on ANI Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think all that stuff mentioned in the WND article would be in the 2008 campaign article as they all related specifically to that event. Rklawton (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus the whole Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article that they seem to have forgotten to mention. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Do you think they forgot to mention that because there's no mention of it or link to it on the Barack Obama page? (Yes, I see this is closed, but I'm adding a comment anyway). And I must be a fringe nut wacko, because the Barack Obama article looks strangely scrubbed of every notable controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WND? Would that be World Nut Daily? IMO, they're about as nutty as DailyKos. —Travis^talk 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

WP:AIV needs some cleaning.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 11:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done (although not by me). Stifle (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

dumdidum - full again.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 11:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also could need s.o. to speedy Gyanendra Shah for reversing a redirect. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be caught up for the moment, so I am tagging this as resolved. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2X BOT moves needed

Resolved

re: Category:German publishers(edit talk links history) & Category:English publishers(edit talk links history)

• AWB or BOT editors needed:

1. There are about 20 pages needing moved to tbe more appropriately focused category pages in the two cats listed above,
2. Waste of time for CFD, just name confused dups;... perfect candidates for being permanently kept as {{Category redirect}} pages, which is how I tagged them.

Cheers, and thanks. // FrankB 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, but I went through with some HotCat and did the work for you. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this redirect by registered editor User:A Man In Black

User:A Man In Black redirected the article Johnny Bravo (character) to Johnny Bravo and it was against consensus (I personally have no opinion). Both the AfD and DRV pointed to keep. I am a huge fan of policy. I reverted his edit and reverted back saying he is allowed to redirect at will regardless of consensus. Keep in him he actually engaged in the AfD and was well aware of the consensus. I'm not sure if this warrents a warning. In the past he is leaned heavily on deletionism including nominating article where he was the only one who argued for delete. Just wondering who is right in this situation. Valoem ^talk 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AMIB is correct that "AFD doesn't prevent redirects or merges." Discuss the appropriate status of the article/redirect on the article or redirect's talk page and reach consensus. Do not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Until there's any edit warring, there's no need for administrative intervention. See bold, revert, discuss for an idealisation of how these things should go. AFD/DRV should have binary keep/delete outcomes, other editorial actions may be discussed whenever. WilyD 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No i personally agree with his redirect. It was done in good faith. I do feel however that if someone does disgree with that redirect they do have priority to revert the redirect as it was against general consensus. Valoem ^talk 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, if someone disagreed with the redirect we could move from there. However, I don't see anyone disagreeing except you, and you just said you don't disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was merely basing my request on policy. I doubt he remembers but we had a inclusionist deletionist dispute 2 years which is way I notice him. Regardless that was a harmless statement. I have no further questions regarding this. Valoem ^talk 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" votes in AfD are functionally equivalent to "Keep" votes - they're only suggestions for how the article might be cleaned up in the event that it is kept. After the debate is over regular editors of the article can take any action they like, and form consensus among themselves. User:DHowell in fact explicitly said "Keep without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided [on the talk page]." Dcoetzee 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. It was a bold redirect. AfD is primarily concerned with deletion, not merges or redirects. If anybody disagrees with it they can revert and discussion can begin. Themfromspace (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is quibbling, and we've tolerated it too long. we're talking about a redirect. A redirect-- or a merge with nothing merged-- is functionally the equivalent of a delete. it removes the content of the article. The only difference is that it does not remove the history. Considering it otherwise is putting the Wikipedia deletion process at the mercy of those deletionists who want to remove content and are willing to do so against consensus, because if they do the redirect and get away with it, no keep decision will stand. There is however a solution without changing the wording of the rule or resorting to IAR--which is to simply revert, and then there must be consensus gotten for the redirect. unfortunately, this was already tried--Valoem reverted AMAB. The next step, as pointed out by BRD, was to discuss. But AMAB did not disciss--he reverted right back again. I've dealt with it for the moment by re-reverting. To follow BRD one must if reverted discuss. If not, in a situation like this, it is either editwarring or attempting to pervert process. There is a conceivable argument for his redirecting --there is none for his continuing to do so without discussion. I have notified him of this discussion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your entire statement would be relevent if there was someone who was engaging in the "R" part of BRD for anything other than their own personal unawareness of process. Specifically, the user who reverted wrote on AMIB's talk page before AMIB reverted back to the redirect - "I personally have no opinion." It's not BRD if there's no one to "D" with. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that the article is completely redundant to the section on the character in the main article; thus a merge is reasonable except there's nothing useful to merge and hence a redirect is effectively a merge. As AMIB said in the original AfD - "Nobody's saying that this isn't notable; the argument is that it is not in any way a separate subject." Black Kite 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this is not the place for your view on this. the place is the discussion of the redirect, as it would have been equally appropriate t the AfD, where this view was rejected. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, the less said about that Article Rescue Squad hitjob AfD the better. My point was in reply to your comment that "A redirect - or a merge with nothing merged - is functionally the equivalent of a delete" - but what if there's nothing further to merge? (I don't actually disagree with your revert, by the way, since it wasn't discussed after the first revert). Black Kite 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a rescue effort a "hitjob" is a bit much. If you do not think it was adequate enough, okay, but please avoid needlessly condescending language. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this isn't the place for Black Kite's opinion on whether the redirect was appropriate, why is it the place for your opinion on the redirect? I discussed it with Valoem, realized he thought there was some sort of technical point here and he didn't have any opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I do have an opinion, as I said in the first place at the AfD, and so my reversion just made should stand until consensus is obtained otherwise. I have started the discussion at the character talk page. I've modified my statement above, but I continue my view that do subvert a public decision by a less public move is a misuse of process. The real way of preventing it is a frank admission that redirect does what redirect does--or at least an actual requirement for public announcements of such proposed redirects. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced about the preferability of the redirect, but the way to overthrow an afd result s Deletion review or afd2 after an interval. alternate exchanges at ANB aren't a good way to discuss the merits of edits, redirects, or deletions. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not in any way a subversion of the AFD. You can't merge potential, and this isn't a separate subject.

And who the heck is AMAB?- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Me. --NE2 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that, AMIB, its the graphic confusion from the triangle in your sig :). DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you're contradicting yourself from the numerous times you have said in AFD discussions keep and then consider whether to merge or redirect by saying that we should be discussing mergers or redirections at AFD. Maybe I'm confused. (Not that I don't think that maybe there should be a talk page discussion first before doing any merge or redirection, as doing stuff like that without facilitating discussion is IMO asking for trouble.) MuZemike 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno. One could argue that the AfD outcome suggested that several editors felt the article shouldn't be a redirect. But we certainly can't take the AfD as proof of compulsion to maintain the article. We especially can't do that if we hold the opinion that mergers and redirects are outside the purview of an AfD. We run into a causality problem when we have folks who argue that an AfD is the wrong venue for articles which may be merged then argue that the outcome of that AfD suggests a consensus against merger. In practice this happens a great deal and it is frustrating as hell. But I would just suggest that this edit solves the issue temporarily. Now we can have discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Change Information about Local TV

Resolved

 – Same question answered at the Help Desk – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Dear Administrator,

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

Please review the above link. That is Channel Related.. But not about Local TV (Telugu channels like Gemini, ETV, Maa tvs) Above Link doesent have relevent information about local tv, Hyderabad, A.P, India.

local TV is Telugu Channel for telugu people in Hyderabad, A.P, India.

Website link : www.local.in

For more infomation about Local Tv, kindly visit www.local.in

Thanks&Regards E.Rangaraju Local TV Web Development, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.241.170 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• (non-admin response): This question was also asked over at the Help Desk; I've responded there. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON

talk to me 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 – Quack quack quack... --Fabrictramp

Can a CheckUser do research on this user because I know its got to be a sock but when I last saw,it had only one disruptive edit. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations would be the place for this, but without more solid information they'll probably decline it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. No fishing please. Synergy 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AltecLansing12 (talk · contribs) appears to me to be a agitation-only account. See contribs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And now he's been blocked as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Single Purpose account/sock puppetry

Could someone please check the history of this article? I was about to delete it, when I noticed that someone else had removed the csd tag. On checking the contributions, the edits of User:Albertwslice seem to scream out either a single purpose account or sock puppetry. Not being very experienced in either fields, I was wondering if someone else could take a look? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The user has no live contributions and two edits on the article you linked to which was subsequently deleted. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Turbochannel1.jpg

Resolved

- Peripitus (Talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get File:Turbochannel1.jpg undeleted? It was a lack of source and now the uploader is back and says that he made it, so I need it undelted so I can tag it properly and move it to Commons so it can be deleted here again.... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz

Amolz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the same page over and over again, almost compulsively, even when consensus is clearly against him. He began to move it for no good reason without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. Multiple attempts by different users to contact him have shown he's unwilling to engage in any discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see discussion, and the sign of consensus is discussion. LPML, you (and Amolz) have been reverting without discussion, and that is essentially edit warring, though it hasn't reached 3RR levels. I see an uncivil edit summary from you, when you reverted the single move: you want to save time? start behaving like everyone else. There is an attempt at discussion on User talk:Amolz, to be sure, by Ricky81682, but Ricky seems to make the assumption that Amolz is reading his Talk page. Some new editors have no clue what to do with the new messages message.

I don't see "multiple attempts by different users to contact him," only Ricky81682.

However, Amolz is, in effect and whether it's realized or not, disruptive, making many and massive edits without discussion. The editor seems to be a continuation of prior IP. Edit summaries are generally not being used.

Ricky81682 is an administrator, and doesn't seem to have a long-term involvement with the article. Is there any reason why Ricky81682 can't handle this? He's already somewhat familiar with what is going on. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find the discussions I mentioned because he signed up just days ago, but before that he edited as an anonymous user for months, showing exactly the same kind of disruptive behaviour. I did try then, as Ricky is trying now, to discuss the question, but when someone doesn't even bother to answer you back it's hard to assume good faith.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page about it and told him basically that if he doesn't respond, it's going to be vandalism. I even blocked him shortly but the issue became my involvement (since I disagree with him on content), so someone else should be involved. Since then, he's move onto a page move "to save time" and a fork at Indian Satellite Television Channels that he's vehement about. I've even asked at the relevant Wikiproject but no response. Can an outside admin warn him or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of data and citation

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation and data on Wikipedia on several occasions.

Case 1

Article: Coloman_of_Hungary; The article describes the reign of King Coloman of Hungary from 1095-1116.

Edit:[76]

Sentence manipulated: Coloman I the Book-lover, also spelled Koloman (c. 1070 – 3 February 1116), King of Hungary (1095-1116)<ref1><ref2><ref3> and king of Croatia.<ref4><ref5> (1102-1116)

Citations used to support statement: <ref4> = Kingdom of Croatia (910-1091), <ref5> = Karacsonyi, Janos: The historical right of the Hungarian nation

Quotes from the sources:

<ref4> "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

<ref5> "It is untrue furthermore that Coloman has been crowned Croatian king in Tenger-Belgrad in 1102."

Case 2

Article: Croats; The article describes the Croatian people in the world.

Edit: [77]

Data and citations manipulated:

Croats in the world

Country	User writes	Source used
Bosnia and Herzegovina	982,643	656, 414
Germany	836,600	source on Argentina (400,000)
Chile	380,000 - 500,000	380,000
Australia	376,000	118,046
Canada	297,050-310,880	110,880
Argentina	275,000	250,000
Serbia	170,602	70,602
France	150,000	30,000
Switzerland	90,848	40,484
Slovenia	75,642	35,642
Sweden	64,900	6,063
Hungary	55,730	25,730
Italy	41,360	21,360
South Africa	30,000	8,000
Montenegro	9,811	6,811
Romania	8,786	6,786

Note: Two users attempted to correct part of the false information but both of them got reverted by user Rjecina. [78] [79] --Bizso (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After Bizso informed me, I demanded an explanation here but following the last chaos, I wonder if we've reached enough. Falsification of sources, especially in this area, should not be a joking matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina's edits, at least in the population statistics case, seem to have been reverts to an earlier version. They probably fall into the pattern of his tendency for reflex blanket reverts of new users he suspects of being sockpuppets (often rightly, independently of the actual quality of the edits). Judging the issue of falsification would require investigating who actually introduced the faulty state in the first place. Do we have information on this?

The other question is why Bizso is bringing this up now, at the "incidents" noticeboard, when most of the edits in question were weeks or even months ago. Didn't we tell both of these guys they are not to bring further complaints against each other to the noticeboards? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if something happened 3 weeks ago, we don't even remember it now... it has been blissfully forgotten. Man, I wish the world would function this way.--Bizso (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Perf. I asked Rjecina about it and suggest we want until explanation. Close this as inappropriate at this point, and we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly not a revert. I asked Ricky81682 about this. Please check all the sources and edits.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself manually checked everything, I didn't include the current numbers for the sources column, but the numbers cited by the sources used by Rjecina at the time.--Bizso (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a revert, it's from these edits which were correcting some numbers, but breaking the total population number that Rijcena calculated himself on the talk page here (checked as correct by myself). Rijcena was blindly reverting to the wrong version thinking that it was correct. The numbers were originally falsified by an annoying IP that has been changing Balcan numbers for months, seeUser_talk:78.157.9.88#1_month_block. Rijcena has in the past tried to correct the numbers[80]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this be a revert? He introduced brand new numbers.

Enric Naval, please explicitly show me which edit was reverted by user:Rjecina.

Also, that IP only made circa 2 edits on that article and all were trying to reduce the inflated numbers, which Rjecina reverted each time.--Bizso (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this edit from User:Rococoko, Rijcena even reverted the sources that the new numbers had. Rijcena left the countries in a different order so it's a bit difficult to see what numbers were changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further verification has indicated that it was this edit by User:Toroko at Coloman of Hungary that introduced the false information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How was that edit? He removed the king of Croatia title, not added it with false references? He didn't even use the sources used by Rjecina?!--Bizso (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And edits by Mrubcic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introducted the false information in the Croats article. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Coloman edit (back in December, by the way) was reinstating a passage of text ("... and king of Croatia") that was previously removed by somebody else [81]. The addition of unsuitable footnotes is of course a sign of very sloppy editing; I wouldn't necessarily impute it to malice. The population statistics edit was an exact blanket revert to an earlier version [82]. The falsified figures were inserted previously by a different user, in an act of vandalism that apparently slipped through unnoticed by all the regular editors on that page [83]. Other parts of the incrimiated figures were inserted by yet somebody else, for instance the Chile figures here [84]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the references the Rjecina added to King of Croatia? Was that also a revert to some other vandal's edit? Also, could please give me link to Wikipedia's policy on sloppy edits? I couldn't find one under WP:Sloppy--Bizso (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read, I commented on that in my previous post. Now, will you stop stirring the shit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Will am I stop stirring the shit? Is that an answer from an admin? really?--Bizso (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that 12 edit reversion at the Croat article. But the Coloman article is still unexplained. The reference that was given by user:Toroko refers to King of Hungary. The other two references inserted by Rjecina were not there. I find it unacceptable that Future Perfect Sunrise refer to this thread as "stirring the shit". I do not accept this kind of presonal attack against me. If you have a problem with me, then block me, it's in your power.--Bizso (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"?

Next, why was Rjecina reverting "vandalism" when false data was, in fact, being corrected by the "vandals"[85][86]? Why did he cite two sources for the King of Croatia, when both references cited the exact opposite of what he was saying? Or is this sloppy editing of an "unexperienced new user", too?
For the croat article how could he say this ("I really do not agree with this data (inflated ?), but they are confirmed by sources)" ? Apparently, he knew that the data was inflated, but stated that the sources confirmed them.--Bizso (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edit has 3 sources, Rejcina kept one of the sources and replaced the oher two (Britannica and nationmaster) with other source that looks like found searching at google. It looks like sloppy work, he searched "king of croatia" and found that source without reading.... I don't know this them well, is there some nationalistic reason for Rejcina to falsify that information deliberately? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The original edit had 3 sources for king of hungary and Rjecina added another 2 for king of coratia. Please see the thread above. There was an ongoing dispute whether Coloman was crowned separately as king of Croatia in 1102. In addition, he knew the content of the sources as they had been talked about in other articles before in which he had participated. Furthermore, why was he not reverting the edits at the Croat article that were unreasonably promoting the falsified data, and why did he revert those that attempted to correct it?--Bizso (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute here, but we should avoid using Nationmaster as a source - they use Wikipedia as a source, and that circular referencing can cause problems with actually verifying information. Most of their other sources are acceptable in and of themselves and can be referenced directly. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but Nationmaster was used in an earlier edit. That's not the disputed edit here.--Bizso (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People, please only make a new post here if you have a better explanation for said user's falsification of sources and data than "sloppy editing" and "he thought he was reverting to the good numbers".--Bizso (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, you know what. You were warned specifically about this a few days ago. Either you stop this right now or I'm blocking you. Rjecina was not the one falsifying information and that's clear now. Copying over falsified information is sloppy and lazy editing, but not disruptive. However, if you refuse to accept that, you are not going to be welcome here any longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. You've make your point. Others however do not feel that sloppy editing from months ago is relevant. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me?

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.

Fourth, I wonder why the admins are defending the user concerned, and not the user himself comes here and explain his edits.--Bizso (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I have a tendency of defending Rjecina: because he's been the victim of a relentless harassment campaign from a multiple-sockpuppeting banned user. And you, with your decision to revert-war extensively for the reinsertion of that banned user's edits as well as other activities of yours, have created at least some basis for the impression that you may be part of the same pattern. Now, I don't deny for a moment that Rjecina's edits are often quite problematic. I wish banned harassers in such cases had the sense of realising that through their continued hounding they are actually protecting their victims. After having seen a million complaints against Rjecina, and finding that 95% of them originate from banned socks, admins just stop responding. No matter how seriously problematic his activity may be, we will just react with the reflex of "oh, it's the socks again". If the banned user in question really has the aim of getting his nemesis banned, then if he had any sense at all, he would realise that the best and only way of achieving his goal would be to finally leave this project alone and do absolutely nothing. Once the user in question could edit without the interference of the banned socks for a while, we would easily see what in his editing actually is disruptive and what isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You totally lack an objective viewpoint. This sux. I instead laugh at this. You should not have posted this utter nonsense at all. --Bizso (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bizso block

Probably the worst admin to do it but I've given Bizso a 48 hour block. The amount of disruption here at ANI (what 5 sections in a week), continued arguing here, plain ignoring everyone else, and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjecina_(1st) was enough for me. Both of them are getting equally bad but I think Rjecina has at least learned to assume some good faith with others. Asking for review and hoping for some sanity when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Forum-shopping is certainly unacceptable behaviour. I saw this at ANI yesterday and the fact that it's continued over and over is simply disruptive; repeatedly filing frivolous complaints will not be tolerated. This combined with the general conduct issues found in the above sections (and other related discussions) is problematic enough to warrant a block. However, unlike what may be implied from the block message, roux's proposal was not enacted by the community - there was no obligation to comply with it at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Concur I find Rjecina a very prickly customer to deal with (not that I have any real dealings), who advocates a POV that is not neutral and has a tendency to revert other POV's as the edits of a banned sockpuppeteer without adequate review of the legitimacy of the cited content... However, Biszo has conducted themselves with less good faith and more bias than they accuse Rjecina of - anyone who does not agree that Rjecina should be blocked is immediately cast as being an apologist or collaborator or pro/anti whichever POV is applicable. Biszo needs to understand that there are ways of arriving at NPOV articles/subjects and holding other editors to the proper standards, and that antagonising the sysop community (and others) who patrol the noticeboards is exactly the wrong way of going about it. I would suggest that, should this sanction not be effective, there may need to be a discussion on the topic banning of Bizso, simply to lessen the disruption like that which has occurred over the last week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Good call. I trust Ricky is aware he needs to step carefully in this field, since he has also taken part in content debates on the same articles, but I am satisfied he has acted with utmost impartiality in this episode. – Note that Bizso has announced retirement in response to the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Bizso needs to learn to be civil. He should stop running around noticeboards if his wishes are not listened to and ask himself why does it happen. However, this is hardly the right way. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• The biggest problem of Wikiedia are just its administrators - the above is yet another proof that Wikipedia is ruled by their how-do-you-dare-to-contradict-to-me. A huge cleanup is necessary just here. Reviewing Rjecina's and comp. (she + administrators shielding her) 'contributions' - the sock-puppets are everywhere . Thanks to it - a huge number of contributors is chased away, Ustashe are a revolutionary organization who fought for Croatian independence, medieval history of Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Hungary is actually Croatian history, etc. --138.88.212.182 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal but I don't tend to take advice from people who's best arguments consist of "my American lawyer friend's theory of copyright law". If you would like to discuss something, try doing it once without an insult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on PJHaseldine

Resolved

 – Per the WP:COIN discussion, the restriction has been enacted and listed at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction and WP:Editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:COIN#Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine there is a discussion of banning this editor from any articles related to the Lockerbie disaster. This is a long-running issue regarding Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and until recently, there was a sort of voluntary agreement in place by which Patrick would refrain from editing articles that referred to his own real-life activities. The voluntary agreement seems to be no longer working, so I have proposed a formal restriction, which would be added to the list at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Please comment in the COIN thread if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a further edit to this saga. It relates to THF, who is an avid supporter of the topic ban that EdJohnston has proposed against me, and has made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of the COI discussion nugatory.

Earlier today, I received the following email from a Wikipedia editor: "Can I tell you something privately? I am not too happy with THF. He has nominated ten articles I started for deletion yesterday, and it gives the appearance of an act of retaliation. Privately, I will share my doubts that THF is really committed to all the wikipedia's policies. THF really didn't seem to take the trouble to actually read the articles. I am saying this privately because, strategically, I think it is best to continue to give the outward appearance that one is still capable of assuming good faith -- even when one's good faith is exhausted -- because assuming good faith is the policy. Sometimes your correspondent loses their cool, and you 'win' because you kept yours. Sometimes, by continuing to give the appearance you still assume good faith you can force bad faith correspondents to also act in good faith, and you can reach an acceptable compromise. I don't know if I need to say this, but the other people are correct, the redirection from user space to wikipedia space was counter policy. I am sure that was an innocent lapse. I think we we will be able to get the Yvonne Bradley article restored. But I can't work on it until these ten {afd} have run to completion. Cheers!"---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's "retaliatory" is attempting to distract attention from your wrongdoing by bringing a frivolous complaint against a third party--likely in response to my deleting the self-promotional violation of WP:OR you added to two articles. For those that are interested, the eleven nominations are all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law: one has already resulted in a speedy delete, and it appears that at least eight of the others will succeed, and possibly all ten, so it's hard to argue that these are bad-faith nominations. I have for weeks complained about the creation of dozens of non-notable Guantanamo-related articles, so it is hardly a surprise that I am now acting on that complaint after my first foray into a deletion nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley, was judged by consensus to be correct. THF (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need I say more?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First you quote a private email, now you Plaxico yourself. What next? Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm doing a speedy nonadmin closure of several AfD nominations made by Troyster87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now indef'd sock account of Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Qrc2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc. Please no policy drama, this falls under IAR. Boomgaylove's particular mode of trolling involved nominating articles, mostly notable, for deletion. Any help undoing Troyster87's damage and finding any other sock accounts is most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz

Amolz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the same page over and over again, almost compulsively, even when consensus is clearly against him. He began to move it for no good reason without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. Multiple attempts by different users to contact him have shown he's unwilling to engage in any discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see discussion, and the sign of consensus is discussion. LPML, you (and Amolz) have been reverting without discussion, and that is essentially edit warring, though it hasn't reached 3RR levels. I see an uncivil edit summary from you, when you reverted the single move: you want to save time? start behaving like everyone else. There is an attempt at discussion on User talk:Amolz, to be sure, by Ricky81682, but Ricky seems to make the assumption that Amolz is reading his Talk page. Some new editors have no clue what to do with the new messages message.

I don't see "multiple attempts by different users to contact him," only Ricky81682.

However, Amolz is, in effect and whether it's realized or not, disruptive, making many and massive edits without discussion. The editor seems to be a continuation of prior IP. Edit summaries are generally not being used.

Ricky81682 is an administrator, and doesn't seem to have a long-term involvement with the article. Is there any reason why Ricky81682 can't handle this? He's already somewhat familiar with what is going on. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find the discussions I mentioned because he signed up just days ago, but before that he edited as an anonymous user for months, showing exactly the same kind of disruptive behaviour. I did try then, as Ricky is trying now, to discuss the question, but when someone doesn't even bother to answer you back it's hard to assume good faith.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page about it and told him basically that if he doesn't respond, it's going to be vandalism. I even blocked him shortly but the issue became my involvement (since I disagree with him on content), so someone else should be involved. Since then, he's move onto a page move "to save time" and a fork at Indian Satellite Television Channels that he's vehement about. I've even asked at the relevant Wikiproject but no response. Can an outside admin warn him or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of data and citation

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation and data on Wikipedia on several occasions.

Case 1

Article: Coloman_of_Hungary; The article describes the reign of King Coloman of Hungary from 1095-1116.

Edit:[87]

Sentence manipulated: Coloman I the Book-lover, also spelled Koloman (c. 1070 – 3 February 1116), King of Hungary (1095-1116)<ref1><ref2><ref3> and king of Croatia.<ref4><ref5> (1102-1116)

Citations used to support statement: <ref4> = Kingdom of Croatia (910-1091), <ref5> = Karacsonyi, Janos: The historical right of the Hungarian nation

Quotes from the sources:

<ref4> "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

<ref5> "It is untrue furthermore that Coloman has been crowned Croatian king in Tenger-Belgrad in 1102."

Case 2

Article: Croats; The article describes the Croatian people in the world.

Edit: [88]

Data and citations manipulated:

Croats in the world

Country	User writes	Source used
Bosnia and Herzegovina	982,643	656, 414
Germany	836,600	source on Argentina (400,000)
Chile	380,000 - 500,000	380,000
Australia	376,000	118,046
Canada	297,050-310,880	110,880
Argentina	275,000	250,000
Serbia	170,602	70,602
France	150,000	30,000
Switzerland	90,848	40,484
Slovenia	75,642	35,642
Sweden	64,900	6,063
Hungary	55,730	25,730
Italy	41,360	21,360
South Africa	30,000	8,000
Montenegro	9,811	6,811
Romania	8,786	6,786

Note: Two users attempted to correct part of the false information but both of them got reverted by user Rjecina. [89] [90] --Bizso (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After Bizso informed me, I demanded an explanation here but following the last chaos, I wonder if we've reached enough. Falsification of sources, especially in this area, should not be a joking matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina's edits, at least in the population statistics case, seem to have been reverts to an earlier version. They probably fall into the pattern of his tendency for reflex blanket reverts of new users he suspects of being sockpuppets (often rightly, independently of the actual quality of the edits). Judging the issue of falsification would require investigating who actually introduced the faulty state in the first place. Do we have information on this?

The other question is why Bizso is bringing this up now, at the "incidents" noticeboard, when most of the edits in question were weeks or even months ago. Didn't we tell both of these guys they are not to bring further complaints against each other to the noticeboards? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if something happened 3 weeks ago, we don't even remember it now... it has been blissfully forgotten. Man, I wish the world would function this way.--Bizso (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Perf. I asked Rjecina about it and suggest we want until explanation. Close this as inappropriate at this point, and we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly not a revert. I asked Ricky81682 about this. Please check all the sources and edits.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself manually checked everything, I didn't include the current numbers for the sources column, but the numbers cited by the sources used by Rjecina at the time.--Bizso (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a revert, it's from these edits which were correcting some numbers, but breaking the total population number that Rijcena calculated himself on the talk page here (checked as correct by myself). Rijcena was blindly reverting to the wrong version thinking that it was correct. The numbers were originally falsified by an annoying IP that has been changing Balcan numbers for months, seeUser_talk:78.157.9.88#1_month_block. Rijcena has in the past tried to correct the numbers[91]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this be a revert? He introduced brand new numbers.

Enric Naval, please explicitly show me which edit was reverted by user:Rjecina.

Also, that IP only made circa 2 edits on that article and all were trying to reduce the inflated numbers, which Rjecina reverted each time.--Bizso (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this edit from User:Rococoko, Rijcena even reverted the sources that the new numbers had. Rijcena left the countries in a different order so it's a bit difficult to see what numbers were changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further verification has indicated that it was this edit by User:Toroko at Coloman of Hungary that introduced the false information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How was that edit? He removed the king of Croatia title, not added it with false references? He didn't even use the sources used by Rjecina?!--Bizso (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And edits by Mrubcic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introducted the false information in the Croats article. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Coloman edit (back in December, by the way) was reinstating a passage of text ("... and king of Croatia") that was previously removed by somebody else [92]. The addition of unsuitable footnotes is of course a sign of very sloppy editing; I wouldn't necessarily impute it to malice. The population statistics edit was an exact blanket revert to an earlier version [93]. The falsified figures were inserted previously by a different user, in an act of vandalism that apparently slipped through unnoticed by all the regular editors on that page [94]. Other parts of the incrimiated figures were inserted by yet somebody else, for instance the Chile figures here [95]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the references the Rjecina added to King of Croatia? Was that also a revert to some other vandal's edit? Also, could please give me link to Wikipedia's policy on sloppy edits? I couldn't find one under WP:Sloppy--Bizso (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read, I commented on that in my previous post. Now, will you stop stirring the shit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Will am I stop stirring the shit? Is that an answer from an admin? really?--Bizso (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that 12 edit reversion at the Croat article. But the Coloman article is still unexplained. The reference that was given by user:Toroko refers to King of Hungary. The other two references inserted by Rjecina were not there. I find it unacceptable that Future Perfect Sunrise refer to this thread as "stirring the shit". I do not accept this kind of presonal attack against me. If you have a problem with me, then block me, it's in your power.--Bizso (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"?

Next, why was Rjecina reverting "vandalism" when false data was, in fact, being corrected by the "vandals"[96][97]? Why did he cite two sources for the King of Croatia, when both references cited the exact opposite of what he was saying? Or is this sloppy editing of an "unexperienced new user", too?
For the croat article how could he say this ("I really do not agree with this data (inflated ?), but they are confirmed by sources)" ? Apparently, he knew that the data was inflated, but stated that the sources confirmed them.--Bizso (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edit has 3 sources, Rejcina kept one of the sources and replaced the oher two (Britannica and nationmaster) with other source that looks like found searching at google. It looks like sloppy work, he searched "king of croatia" and found that source without reading.... I don't know this them well, is there some nationalistic reason for Rejcina to falsify that information deliberately? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The original edit had 3 sources for king of hungary and Rjecina added another 2 for king of coratia. Please see the thread above. There was an ongoing dispute whether Coloman was crowned separately as king of Croatia in 1102. In addition, he knew the content of the sources as they had been talked about in other articles before in which he had participated. Furthermore, why was he not reverting the edits at the Croat article that were unreasonably promoting the falsified data, and why did he revert those that attempted to correct it?--Bizso (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute here, but we should avoid using Nationmaster as a source - they use Wikipedia as a source, and that circular referencing can cause problems with actually verifying information. Most of their other sources are acceptable in and of themselves and can be referenced directly. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but Nationmaster was used in an earlier edit. That's not the disputed edit here.--Bizso (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People, please only make a new post here if you have a better explanation for said user's falsification of sources and data than "sloppy editing" and "he thought he was reverting to the good numbers".--Bizso (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, you know what. You were warned specifically about this a few days ago. Either you stop this right now or I'm blocking you. Rjecina was not the one falsifying information and that's clear now. Copying over falsified information is sloppy and lazy editing, but not disruptive. However, if you refuse to accept that, you are not going to be welcome here any longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. You've make your point. Others however do not feel that sloppy editing from months ago is relevant. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me?

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.

Fourth, I wonder why the admins are defending the user concerned, and not the user himself comes here and explain his edits.--Bizso (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I have a tendency of defending Rjecina: because he's been the victim of a relentless harassment campaign from a multiple-sockpuppeting banned user. And you, with your decision to revert-war extensively for the reinsertion of that banned user's edits as well as other activities of yours, have created at least some basis for the impression that you may be part of the same pattern. Now, I don't deny for a moment that Rjecina's edits are often quite problematic. I wish banned harassers in such cases had the sense of realising that through their continued hounding they are actually protecting their victims. After having seen a million complaints against Rjecina, and finding that 95% of them originate from banned socks, admins just stop responding. No matter how seriously problematic his activity may be, we will just react with the reflex of "oh, it's the socks again". If the banned user in question really has the aim of getting his nemesis banned, then if he had any sense at all, he would realise that the best and only way of achieving his goal would be to finally leave this project alone and do absolutely nothing. Once the user in question could edit without the interference of the banned socks for a while, we would easily see what in his editing actually is disruptive and what isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You totally lack an objective viewpoint. This sux. I instead laugh at this. You should not have posted this utter nonsense at all. --Bizso (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bizso block

Probably the worst admin to do it but I've given Bizso a 48 hour block. The amount of disruption here at ANI (what 5 sections in a week), continued arguing here, plain ignoring everyone else, and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjecina_(1st) was enough for me. Both of them are getting equally bad but I think Rjecina has at least learned to assume some good faith with others. Asking for review and hoping for some sanity when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Forum-shopping is certainly unacceptable behaviour. I saw this at ANI yesterday and the fact that it's continued over and over is simply disruptive; repeatedly filing frivolous complaints will not be tolerated. This combined with the general conduct issues found in the above sections (and other related discussions) is problematic enough to warrant a block. However, unlike what may be implied from the block message, roux's proposal was not enacted by the community - there was no obligation to comply with it at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Concur I find Rjecina a very prickly customer to deal with (not that I have any real dealings), who advocates a POV that is not neutral and has a tendency to revert other POV's as the edits of a banned sockpuppeteer without adequate review of the legitimacy of the cited content... However, Biszo has conducted themselves with less good faith and more bias than they accuse Rjecina of - anyone who does not agree that Rjecina should be blocked is immediately cast as being an apologist or collaborator or pro/anti whichever POV is applicable. Biszo needs to understand that there are ways of arriving at NPOV articles/subjects and holding other editors to the proper standards, and that antagonising the sysop community (and others) who patrol the noticeboards is exactly the wrong way of going about it. I would suggest that, should this sanction not be effective, there may need to be a discussion on the topic banning of Bizso, simply to lessen the disruption like that which has occurred over the last week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Good call. I trust Ricky is aware he needs to step carefully in this field, since he has also taken part in content debates on the same articles, but I am satisfied he has acted with utmost impartiality in this episode. – Note that Bizso has announced retirement in response to the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Bizso needs to learn to be civil. He should stop running around noticeboards if his wishes are not listened to and ask himself why does it happen. However, this is hardly the right way. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• The biggest problem of Wikiedia are just its administrators - the above is yet another proof that Wikipedia is ruled by their how-do-you-dare-to-contradict-to-me. A huge cleanup is necessary just here. Reviewing Rjecina's and comp. (she + administrators shielding her) 'contributions' - the sock-puppets are everywhere . Thanks to it - a huge number of contributors is chased away, Ustashe are a revolutionary organization who fought for Croatian independence, medieval history of Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Hungary is actually Croatian history, etc. --138.88.212.182 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal but I don't tend to take advice from people who's best arguments consist of "my American lawyer friend's theory of copyright law". If you would like to discuss something, try doing it once without an insult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on PJHaseldine

Resolved

 – Per the WP:COIN discussion, the restriction has been enacted and listed at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction and WP:Editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:COIN#Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine there is a discussion of banning this editor from any articles related to the Lockerbie disaster. This is a long-running issue regarding Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and until recently, there was a sort of voluntary agreement in place by which Patrick would refrain from editing articles that referred to his own real-life activities. The voluntary agreement seems to be no longer working, so I have proposed a formal restriction, which would be added to the list at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Please comment in the COIN thread if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a further edit to this saga. It relates to THF, who is an avid supporter of the topic ban that EdJohnston has proposed against me, and has made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of the COI discussion nugatory.

Earlier today, I received the following email from a Wikipedia editor: "Can I tell you something privately? I am not too happy with THF. He has nominated ten articles I started for deletion yesterday, and it gives the appearance of an act of retaliation. Privately, I will share my doubts that THF is really committed to all the wikipedia's policies. THF really didn't seem to take the trouble to actually read the articles. I am saying this privately because, strategically, I think it is best to continue to give the outward appearance that one is still capable of assuming good faith -- even when one's good faith is exhausted -- because assuming good faith is the policy. Sometimes your correspondent loses their cool, and you 'win' because you kept yours. Sometimes, by continuing to give the appearance you still assume good faith you can force bad faith correspondents to also act in good faith, and you can reach an acceptable compromise. I don't know if I need to say this, but the other people are correct, the redirection from user space to wikipedia space was counter policy. I am sure that was an innocent lapse. I think we we will be able to get the Yvonne Bradley article restored. But I can't work on it until these ten {afd} have run to completion. Cheers!"---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's "retaliatory" is attempting to distract attention from your wrongdoing by bringing a frivolous complaint against a third party--likely in response to my deleting the self-promotional violation of WP:OR you added to two articles. For those that are interested, the eleven nominations are all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law: one has already resulted in a speedy delete, and it appears that at least eight of the others will succeed, and possibly all ten, so it's hard to argue that these are bad-faith nominations. I have for weeks complained about the creation of dozens of non-notable Guantanamo-related articles, so it is hardly a surprise that I am now acting on that complaint after my first foray into a deletion nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley, was judged by consensus to be correct. THF (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need I say more?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First you quote a private email, now you Plaxico yourself. What next? Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm doing a speedy nonadmin closure of several AfD nominations made by Troyster87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now indef'd sock account of Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Qrc2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc. Please no policy drama, this falls under IAR. Boomgaylove's particular mode of trolling involved nominating articles, mostly notable, for deletion. Any help undoing Troyster87's damage and finding any other sock accounts is most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

Resolved

 – Appears to be doing prep work for our translators. –xeno (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser Noticeboard?

Resolved

 – Deleted. –xeno (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing around Wikipedia and I found this noticeboard only for Checkusers but its empty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser_noticeboard AltecLansing12 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just incase this is a planned noticeboard, I added something to start it off. AltecLansing12 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:An#BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... It appears that this noticeboard was created by a sockpuppet of User:Pickbothmanlol, and that AltecLansing12 is just the latest member of the farm to come along and engage in silly tricks, and has been duly blocked as such. The fake noticeboard is up for G3 if any admin would care to oblige. Mayalld (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup it's Pickbothmanlol. No sleepers around this time. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyi on per-article edit notices

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Fyi on per-article edit notices. This is not an administrator issue. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUS weirdness - rendered content not matching source

Resolved

Something really weird is going on in the Thomas J. Olmsted. In the article source, the second reference is a {{cite}} to http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bolmsted.html but when rendered, the link is to http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/content/article_4057.shtml (which appears nowhere in the source of the article). I have no particular clue, but suspect either a hack of some shared javascript or of the backend. Studerby (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another editor hit this first, it's not just me, and I've tried minor edits to force a re-rendering... I'm using Monobook, if it matters. Studerby (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a typo - {{Cite new}} instead of the intended {{Cite news}}. Maralia (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh that's evil!!! Studerby (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's cleaned up; {{Cite new}} is now a redirect to {{Cite news}} and references to "new" are fixed appropriately. Studerby (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the previous content was obviously either a test edit or misunderstanding of the citation templates - which are certainly easy enough to misunderstand. Meanwhile, it's a now a redirect to a high visibility template that is itself permanently protected, so it could use protection itself (I haven't got the bits). — Gavia immer (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The "cite new" form ought never to be used, and the redirect is only there to guard against typos, but it's not impossible that somebody might want to create an actual "cite new" template at some point. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: our ongoing Universe Daily spam problem

For several years, there's been an ongoing problem with a prolific Australian spammer. Among other things, this is the same guy that notoriously set up the fake Bindi Irwin web site within hours of her father's death. To date, he's used approximately 100 IPs and sockpuppet accounts to add hundreds of links to 105 domains across this and several dozen other Wikimedia projects (other Wikipedias in other languages, Wikiquote, Commons, etc.)

90+% of his links are added to Australia-related topics, especially politics and celebrities. Frequently this takes the form of "official sites" such as kevinmichaelrudd.com -- it was listed as the Prime Minister's personal site in our Prime Minister of Australia article since it was added by The other 10% have included fake sites such as jimbowales.net and jimbowales.org as well as sites relating to space travel, nuclear power and Dr. Who.

His other patterns and quirks are listed at:

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily#Modus operandi

He supposedly has dozens more domains registered that we don't know of and there will be plenty more links added. Please keep an eye out for new problems and report them as you think you see them at:

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily

Thanks,
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What has prompted this reminder; is he unusually active at the moment, or something along those lines? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I was looking at users with recent level 4 spam warnings to see which had domains that might have needed blacklisting. Once I started investigating Wikiwarriorwayne's contributions this month, I saw the Universe Daily connection. As I started doing a detailed spam analysis, I just kept finding more accounts and more domains involved. In a nutshell, he'd been much more active over the last 18 months in spamming us than we had been in watching out for him. One of his fake sites, kevinmichaelrudd.com, was listed for nine months as the Prime Minister's personal website in our high profile Prime Minister of Australia article. It wasn't just us -- kevinmichaelrudd.com also even used in a couple of other Wikipedia's featured articles, no less.

Besides all the spam we got, I also saw there had been a ton of cross-wiki spam, even to our Welsh, Latin and Volapük Wikipedias. I'm not sure editors looked for cross-wiki spam in the past; we have much better tools for that than we did a year or two ago.

After about 8 hours of digging,^[99][100] our list of known Universe Daily domains had doubled from 50 to 100 domains, and known IPs had gone from 14 to 38. (There were only a handful of new sockpuppets -- perhaps he's shifting to more anonymous editing.) Also, I got a lot of links cleaned up on other projects.

The Universe Daily spammer's just been slipping these new sites in one at a time here and there and seldom getting caught. So this wasn't a sudden crisis -- just the detection of an ongoing problem.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you gotten his hate mail yet? You will.

Thank you for your work on this. It's an unpleasant task but very worthwhile. Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs vandalizing with similar edit summaries

Resolved

Special:Contributions/80.199.63.18. Just recently there were other IPs doing similar vandalism (exact same edit summary). Can anyone help me locate this? Is there a way to search for edit summary strings? Enigma^msg 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also we currently have a backlog at AIV as well as an edit war there (3-4 reversions by both parties). Enigma^msg 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And can someone skilled in range blocks see if one can be safely applied in this case? I would help Enigmaman, but am poor with the ranges. I'll zip over to AIV in the meantime. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the /24 there is only that one. I'm looking at the /16 range now, and I'll see if it can be more localized. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the entire /16 range, the IP listed above is the only one with those edit summaries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=80.199.0.0%2F16&namespace=&year=&month=-1. What was the other IP? -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the /24 range for a month. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys. :) Enigma^msg 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I will check further to see if I can find the other examples. I have it somewhere. Enigma^msg 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem closure, additional opinions sought

There's a copyright problem ripe for admin closure for which I'd be grateful for feedback. I placed my question at Wikipedia talk:C#Charts, Creativity, Sweat of the Brow, Feist on March 9th, but so far it's crickets there. :) Please, if you can offer input, do. It's the only open ticket for today, and resolution of the question is holding up an AfD. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been updated following this request for clarification

ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification. SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirkwood

Resolved

 – A Man In Black restored the last good version. hmwithτ 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just marked this article for CSD since it only contained the word 'shit.' But then something seemed off, and I searched around. Turns out there was a whole article on the page which seems to have disappeared. It seems the article was moved by vandals, but it was never restored. Can someone go back and dig up the old article and replace it with what's there? I suppose I could copy over the text from the Google cache, but.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was accidentally deleted when cleaning up some move vandalism. Fix't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting wider block for block evading sock puppet

• EmilEikS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A report was entered here regarding the outcome of the sock case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS/Archive. A rangeblock was placed as a result. Today, other versions from the same IP range returned to protest the issue, using the same arguments and rationales as was entered o the AN/I page above, on Talk:Mae West here. Durova removed the posting and requested semi-protection for the page. The IP then returned again, reverting it to this, which included an accusation of slander against Durova. Could the rangeblock be further extended, please, to pick up the other incarnations of this IP, and also to block User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be the sockmaster. I thought that account was blocked in December, but the only account blocked then was User:Fiandonca as a result of a check done during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the request. Unless anyone here thinks it constitutes slander to call someone a disruptive sockpuppeteer after two separate positive checkuser results, months apart, plus a conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The last rangeblock was 217.209.96.0/25, and did not hit the high end of the range, from which the latest edits are coming. It could be upgraded to a /24. It would inconvenience possibly a dozen bona-fide IP users who are working in that range. The other option is to do a semi-protect on all the articles and Talk pages that this guy has been messing with, for the same amount of time. Which is worse: shut down good-faith IP editors in the whole range from doing anything, or semi-protect two articles and article Talks for the same length of time? This guy is editing freely on the Swedish Wikipedia. Does anyone want to create a report on him at WP:Long term abuse, and post a link to it at the Swedish version of AN? The probable sockmaster User:EmilEikS has not edited here since December, and well-trained admins hate to block an account which is not doing anything. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This goes back to before I took an interest in the matter, but what actually happened was that the disruptive editor was already socking last fall, and when CU caught him and conduct RFC opened he abandoned the main account for a roving range of IP socks and a couple of new accounts. Basically kept right on going. Wouldn't have been a problem if the edits were neutral, but the individual had a definite agenda: diminish any professional accomplishment by Mae West, overtag the article with demands for additional sourcing, and try to get rid of any positive statement that wasn't individually referenced. When I stumbled upon this in the course of normal watchlist patrol, the whole article was tagged for lack of sources even though it had over 100 inline citations.

So yesterday I requested semiprotection, which seemed like the least intrusive way to deal with the problem and perhaps discourage the disruption. Overnight Wildhartlivie also decided to post here and I don't really object. For now let's leave this be and mark it resolved. If the disruption and block evasion resume yet again I'll request another formal checkuser to confirm matters, then follow up with a request to either article ban or siteban this person. Heaven knows why someone from Sweden would zero in on an American movie star who's been dead for 20 years, but we've seen stranger things--haven't we? Best, Durova^Charge! 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the reluctance on the IP range. I'm not positive I believe that any of the IPs that fall into the 217.209.96.* range aren't from that particular location, but that's beside the point. I used to know how to run a search for edits from a wider range, but seem to have forgotten how to do that. However, not every edit that EmilEikS and his incarnations made were disruptive, although it was the large amount of disruptiveness and socking that led to the RfC/U and the confirmation of the sock activity that led to the blocking of the registered User:Fiandonca sock account and Emil's hasty departure to avoid scrutiny. The repetition of subtle and not-so-subtle attacks that have been recently made on Talk:Mae West, accusations of cabalism (like Durova and I have had much of any contact prior to this) and the repeated assertions that whatever IP of the day makes that "everything has been read and reviewed" in order to bolster a comment made by another version of the IP confirms to me that they are all the same person. My good faith regarding this person has long been exhausted and I will state for the record that he'll be back when the IP rangeblock expires. I really would urge you to reconsider blocking the User:EmilEikS account, however, since it has been determined to be the sock master account tied to the IPs. It makes it a bit more difficult to assemble data for AN reports and requests while having to say "well, no, the sock master was never blocked." That account would surely have been blocked after the confirmation of the sock User:Fiandonca account had the RfC/U not been active at the time. Since he refused to participate and quit using the account shouldn't take away from the fact that it should have been blocked then and has been actively editing without using the account. The checkuser does confirm he's active, even if he didn't log in to do it. He's interested in Mae West because his friend/business associate/entertainment boss (Lars Jacob) was an ardent Mae West fan and did a minor cabaret show using her as one of the characters. Apparently that became proprietary and the drive to coatrack him into the West article became a goal. That's my take on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to check for good-faith IP editors working in the range, go into the Gadgets tab of Special:Preferences and turn on the CIDR gadget. An indef block of User:EmilEikS might be justified if you are willing to open up a new WP:SPI request. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd turned that off, thanks. However, I'm not sure why a new WP:SPI would be needed. We have the checkuser results first listed as part of WP:Requests for comment/EmilEikS, wherein the first sock used by EmilEikS was blocked, but the main account wasn't because as Jehochman clearly said "I would normally block the main account for one to two weeks, but have decided not to this time so they can participate here" - which he chose not to do. Then there was this WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS/Archive, which checked the IPs being discussed with the same User:EmilEikS account. It was just done on March 3. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems fair to give this sockpuppeteer one more chance before contemplating any ban. The disruption the other day was minor, and this is the first lengthy block this person has gotten. He or she was successful for several months at sidestepping policy and getting benefit of the doubt from lenient administrators. That shouldn't earn a disruptive person a license to inflict more disruption, yet it's also fair to give this block a chance to succeed. Let's hope this person recognizes that there are limits to acceptable behavior, and settles down to become more constructive. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like EmilEikS has been playing us for fools. Their block is now going to be upgraded to indefinite. They previously earned a one to two week block, which I suspended so that they could participate in an RFC against them. I already gave them a second chance, and they blew it. They shouldn't get another second chance. If they show up to disrupt using IPs, contact a checkuser for help. If the person wants to edit again, they can request unblock and make a case for rehabilitation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You've watched this for longer than I have, Jehochman. No objection to that solution. I won't be watchlisting EmilEikS's user talk, but my email is enabled. If this person wants another chance and approaches me politely, I'd be glad to support a trial unblock. Thank you for your assistance. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverse an overly bold page move, please

Resolved

 – Fabrictramp performed the move. hmwithτ 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to help a new user rescue an article from a contentious AfD that was moving inevitably towards deletion, I moved Kriss Perras Running Waters to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters to userfy for her. In discussion with #wikipedia, I was told to put it back until after the AfD was concluded. I do not have the tools necessary to do this properly. Please assist. DarkAudit (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice please re: Suleman octuplets

Resolved

 – I have opened a discussion at BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember the "Octomom"? Well Suleman octuplets has each baby's name and gender and I think this might violate BLP about printing minors' information. I want to ensure I'm on target with that, and if so I wonder if one of those handy messages that pop-up above the editing window might make sense "don't print the babies' names it's evil, etc." as it would seem this information would be routinely re-added. -- Banjeboi 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• The information is reprinted in 3 different sources so I think it can be considered public information. Also, printing something like the home address of a minor could pose a security risk. Mere biographical information about their names (when they're already notable) wouldn't pose any such risk and is therefore safe (at least in my own opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names suggests that we should err on removing them as it really adds nothing to the article and their only notability is being one of eight. -- Banjeboi 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I have to note that similar information is also present in Chukwu octuplets, McCaughey septuplets and Dionne quintuplets. This seems to be standard for such articles, and any decisions made that result in the removal of this information here should be consistently applied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So should we just ignore it and move on or ? -- Banjeboi 14:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • We should seek consensus on whether or not it violates BLP. :) You don't indicate if there's a discussion about it at BLPN; if there's not, you might want to launch one. If there is, and there's insufficient or unclear response, an RFC may be appropriate. I am reminded of the RFC on the real name of another marginal (and presumably unwilling) celebrity, here. My point is that any consideration of this should consider policy itself and usage in other articles, rather than specifically this one. While the Suleman octuplets are much bigger news than the Chukwu octuplets, privacy issues seem similar. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I have to head out for a while but will look to doing this later, if anyone wants to start it up feel free and I'll join in. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
            • So opened. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks of Klaksonn?

Resolved

 – Quack! Blocked. --Rodhullandemu 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins might like to keep an eye on User:Sinrecon and User:Nutekara. Allegedly new accounts, but went straight to editing user talk pages for Klaksonn socks. WWGB (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Paid editor?

Special:Contributions/Anna_Lost_Hers - Seems like a paid editor. Is there a procedure when you notice something like this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with paying someone to edit Wikipedia - unless it creates a conflict of interest. If you sense that there is a conflict of interest, you should present the editor with a {{subst:uw-coi}} notice, or something like that in your own words. Kingturtle (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course there is Wikipedia:Paid editing. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very likely related to User:Esprit Segue. "Segue Esprit" just happens to be the name of the company that publishes Divorce Magazine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Side question: what do you suppose Anna lost? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Herself. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonsaysabc123

• Simonsaysabc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Simonsaysabc123 seems to be making questionable ethnicity related edits. These are pretty extensive in Chaldean Christians [101] and similarly on Family name in relation to Maltese surnames. Nothing is ever sourced, always sweeping, always pushing the same pov (the user has made other, similar, contribs). If this isn't the place to raise this type of issue, I have no idea where else to take it. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD Closures

Requesting clarification on AFD closures and the timeframe. I was under the assumption that articles must undergo discussion for a minimum of five days, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, barring any extreme situations. I recall closing a discussion early at 4.5 days, and having much ruckus come as a result; but does this board sanction closure after just two hours? seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone nominated today's FA for AfD, 2 minutes might be enough, do you think? dougweller (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea when Wikipedia:Deletion policy was made so specific. Five days is a typical time, but let's not pretend there's something magical about that exact amount of time. AFDs should be closed whenever the right answer is apparent. Friday (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it meets any of the CSD criteria, there's no need to wait 5 days, to illustrate the other side of this. --Tone 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What AfD is being discussed? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect seicer is referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magnus_Aarbakke Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is more of a broad question. It was brought up when I closed an AFD after 4.5 days, which caused a big ruckus. I claimed that Deletion policy mandates a five day minimum, whereas another guideline states that it can be around five days. There wasn't a real clear consensus on how long an AFD needs to be kept active, but after the incident, I curbed my closures to a minimum of five days out of courtesy and respect. I'd like to request clarification and possible amendment of the policy and/or guidelines to require that all AFD's, with the exception of extreme cases, be open for five days. seicer | talk | contribs 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AfDs should generally run for 5 days, but I see nothing wrong with WP:SNOW closures if there's a clear consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've just speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eero Aarnio. My arguments are there. --Tone 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of AfD if one person's opinion can close it in 2 hours? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When an AfD is brought maliciously or with a clear misunderstanding of the policy/guidelines applicable, there is no reason or need to keep it open 5 days and the AfD template on the article might be seen as misleading. dougweller (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I often object to SNOW closes after maybe 2 hours and 4 KEEP or DELETE ≠votes, since this disenfranchises those Wikipedia editors in time zones where it is the middle of the night. I have sometimes found reliable sources or had arguments which might have led to the opposite outcome if I had been given the opportunity to present them. It is very rare that an article should be SPEEDIED in less than 24 hours, unless there is a flood of KEEP votes for a clearly notable and well verified subject with a pointy nomination, or the subject meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If there are policy and guideline based good-faith arguments on both sides of the question, I see no reason to stop the process before 5 days. Edison (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, am I correct to assume that I can now go through AFD, close out deletions for keep/delete in a matter of hours, and not let the process run through per policy? seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that you can go through and speedy keep close any other national supreme court justices you find have been nominated.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're asking if you should disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnus Aarbakke looks awfully pointy too. Why would you do such a thing? Friday (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

After doing a quick peek through AFD, and noting that administrators were once again closing discussions (prior to mine) within hours with no ranting or foaming at the mouth from other editors and administrators, I felt that the attention focused on the lack of coherent policies and guidelines needed to be brought back up. If I had editors foaming at the mouth for closing an AFD 4.5 days into it, or for foaming at the mouth for my snowball closures, and those editors were endorsed, then why is it that this situation still occurs?

After the last incident, several administrators asked for clarification on the policies and guidelines, but that went nowhere. As usual. Either we have a set time limit, that is duplicated across the board, or we selectively enforce what we do have. seicer | talk | contribs 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer seems to be on a campaign to make a point. Over the past hour, he closed three AfDs, two of them within 4 hours of being nominated. Two as "delete" (not "speedy delete", neither qualifies under CSD: #1, #2), and one as a "speedy no consensus"--a new one for me. This is getting very disruptive. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You could just parse through ANI to find WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein. I'm sorry you don't endorse the closure of a BLP cluster@#$^. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Two hours. And with consensus at DRV leaning towards the statement that the AFD was closed far too early (although endorsing the keep rationale). seicer | talk | contribs 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of those three mentioned, one was a copyvio (of this), one was clearly a hoax, and the other was a major BLP issue. Don't see any problems there. Black Kite 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the copyvio nor the hoax were deleted as such. The copyvio was speedy deleted as OR and SYNTH. Hoax is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, and has never been such; see WP:HOAX: "Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be speedy deleted as vandalism." Since my last comment, Seicer has speedy deleted 15 more articles, all as a hoax. Does this sound like a "thorough investigation" to you? Owen× ☎ 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, will you be stalking my edits? Check my talk page for the discussion about the hoaxes that were just removed. Your haunts is verging on bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made your intentions clear on your Talk page: "as I found out today, there is apparently no set standard on deletion policies or guidelines, so administrators are free to delete/keep whenever and whatever (...) If they can do that, so can I (and it's a bit pointy, but I don't really care that much anymore.". You are out to make a point by closing as delete anything you can lay your hands on, preferably as soon as they are nominated. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is now a deletionist versus inclusionist thread? seicer | talk | contribs 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked to see if this is happening, but a hypothetical question one might want to ask, is whether admins of a particular frame of mind or general view on a topic are seeking to forestall those of another frame of mind or general view on a topic by trying to monopolize the closing of afds by doing them just a little early. If so, this sort of process leads to continued regression to a situation where people close after 2 or 3 days, which does not give people a chance to participate. There might therefore be a reason to main a strict rule for everything that is not explicitly a SNOW or speedy. Even if all admins were absolutely fairminded and never injected their own views of whether or not an article should be kept into a closing, and never closed articles in their own special topics, there would still be unconscious biasses of this sort. So there might be a good reason to enforce the rule. But it is not a good idea to call attention to a potential problem by carrying it to being absurd lengths--that's the very definition of POINT. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that Seicer stop immediately. He certainly appears to be on a point making campaign. There are cases where early closure is a viable option, but "speedy no consensus" seems to be stretching the bounds of good faith here. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and early closures should be possible in some cases, but rapidly clearing through all AFDs and closing them early nearly randomly is quite disruptive. Please stop and take a tea break and just let it go. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped already. His only closure in the last few hours was a good one. If he starts again, something will need to be done, but for now I suggest we assume he has come to his senses and we all move on. --Tango (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped, only working now to amend the guidelines to conform to our policies. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Speedy no-consensus" seems possibly pointy, as well as disruptive and inappropriate, and calls for warnings and appropriate disciplinary steps if the user persists. As I said above, editors in all time zones deserve a whack at an AFD, so generally 24 hours would be a minimum. Edison (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some points I'd like to make.

On "Speedy no consensus". Can be done inadvertently when closing using Mr Zman's script. Check the "speedy" box and then push the "no consensus" button and you get the odd looking "speedy no consensus". I remember closing one AFD as "speedy nomination withdrawn". Now whether or not an AFD should be closed as "no consensus" without running the full 5 days (or pretty damn close) is another issue.

If it's the 13th, administrators (and NACers) should be free to evaluate AFDs on the log for the 8th for closure without worrying about being yelled at or dragged to DRV over a few hours. This is especially true if no new comments have been posted to the discussion for more then a day. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ron Ritzman. Arguing over a matter of hours is nonsensical. However, some of seicer's recent closes have been pointy. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree and he should be LARTed for being pointy. I do see the point however. There seems to be a recent trend to hammer on AFD closers with procedural wikilawyering for closes one doesn't like (the Idle RPG DRV is the poster child for this, 20 minutes early? "YGBSM") and even for relists (or non-relists) that lead to outcomes one doesn't like. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible free image for Megatokyo FA

See here - it's possible that it is the copyright owner who posted there offering a free licensed piece of the article. Somebody may want to follow this, as I will be off to sleep soon. If anybody can give him more info on WP:OTRS or what he needs to do to verify he is who he is that would be great; keep in mind that the sooner we solve this the better - this the current FA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

Might have better luck at WP:MCQ. Skomorokh 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on a User RfC

I have not done an RfC and am developing one at User:Marc Kupper/sandbox#RfC Granpuff.

Is this the right thing to do at all in this situation?

• If it is the right thing then I'll notify the user about the pending RfC but also would want to know if what I'm writing up is the correct/good format for an RfC.
• If RfC is not right then I'll delete this one from the sandbox and follow what you advise. I see #User RFCs above but there's no real hurry in dealing with the user.

You can reply here and I'll watchlist. Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has made three moves in the last six months, two of which were immediately self-reverted within 1 minute, according to the log on the RFC. Is there something I'm not seeing here? – iridescent 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right - I thought he was doing 3-way moves. I'll contact him and mention there's better ways to add a #REDIRECT. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question (and a chance for me to try out my new signature :P) are non-admins allowed to have their input here? C.U.T.K.D | T | C 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I started to write up a note to Granpuff on how to add redirects but then see that he is moving articles on top of redirects and then moving them back. I need to do more testing on this later as it seems this is also deleting the edit history of the article that had the redirect. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, in that case the history will continue to travel with the content. Only admins are capable of deleting history. Chick Bowen 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that this editor has a very long history of marking major edits (such as page moves) as minor. Several other editors repeatedly asked him to stop (it's on his talk page). He finally made some improvement, but now in his recent return to editing he has started this problem editing again. I am unsure if he is doing this maliciously, or he just doesn't want to be bothered with the requests/warnings, or he simply doesn't understand what's going on. For this problem, as well as the page moves, I think it may take some escalating intervention by admins before we can get his attention. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Karen Alexander Article History

Resolved

The Karen Alexander log shows that the page was previously deleted twice. Can someone check the deleted articles and confirm it is the same Karen Alexander to confirm the talk page article history that I have included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally different person. The one deleted at the AfD was a British genre writer. Chick Bowen 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the one that was recently CSDed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be about a different person (president of a company), but it was a very blatant G10 attack page anyway, so a necessary speedy deletion even if it had been about the same person. Fram (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the deletions from the article history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FA anon vandalism

Resolved

 – Semi'ed until it fell off the mainpage. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm wondering: is the current level of anon vandalism typical for a featured article? I'm currently toying with semiprotecting it for the rest of the day given that 100% of anon edits that I can see have been vandalism, much even needing oversight. It gets reverted fast, but it seems a bit much. — Coren ^(talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and semiprotected until midnight UTC; this is not an ArbCom action, feel free to overturn me if consensus that it should be unprotected is reach or for good cause. Given the number of rather vicious personal attacks towards the author of the topic, I preferred being a bit conservative here. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd paragraph Pablo Picasso lifted from Encyclopedia Britannica

see discussion, thanks. (m.suskind (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Fixed. See Talk:Pablo Picasso. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)