Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive395

Vandalism-only account?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of Chetlover (talk · contribs) and deal with this person? There may be more happening here than ordinary vandalism so I came here rather than AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like straight-up vandalism to me, probably a sock, but AIV-worthy nonetheless if you ask me. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:23, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. And... this is kind of disturbing. seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially since that person is up to be a coordinator at the Films project: Four nominees, four positions, so he or she is bound to get one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of disturbing? It's a bit horiffic. Thinking about WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I like the venue you chose to post that question. Good work ;) Equazcion •✗/C • 07:57, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

And join the Creamy Army! I'm too sleepy to deal with the army's members at the moment, but there are 11 total... seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Creamy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the threat, and will look into blocking the rest of his (obvious) "army" socks. The other "Creamy" members haven't really edited in quite a while, or edited only their userpages, so I'm just leaving those alone. seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent deletion of other "cabals" and the fact that my original MfD of the Creamy Army essentially predicted (correctly) that the paths of the members weren't likely to improve, I'd support deleting the Creamy Army page. — Scientizzle 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, truth be told, if their only active "member" is leaving a post like that on talk pages, I find it easy to support deleting the Creamy Army page as disruptive. Here's another of his posts, apparently an "in joke" among Creamy Armyites. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And listed. seicer | talk | contribs 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking

Not sure where to go with this so I'll put it here for the admins to sort out. SPAs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] votestacking for Yllosubmarine. And then vandalizing her userpage. Come on, that's not nice. maclean 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined the unblock request from the attacking account and protected their talk page so they will go away. Blocked the other accounts as obvious sockpuppets created in order to harass (although in an unusual way, by supporting, but harassment all the same). Let's see if we catch anyone in the resulting autoblocks. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I suspect the puppetmaster to be Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs). ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks of banned user User:DWhiskaZ

Can some admin rollback the edits of the latest sock of banned user DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs) and block the IP 99.238.9.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ? It would help if the redirects Mahāmad, Mahamad and Mahāmada were protected after the rollback (since the sockmaster is both prolific and persistent, semi-protection will not be too effective). The editor has also recently been active as IP 99.238.7.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and account Ajmad10 (talk · contribs).

Background details about this editor are available at the multiple checkusers (here and here) which revealed 150+ socks, and at this ANI ban discussion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted; protected for a week; Sock blocked indef; IPs blocked 72 hours ACB/AO. Since he's a community-banned user, please revert on sight: WP:3RR does not apply to reverting banned users. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as usual. I realized that I could keep reverting him, but it got tiresome after a couple of times and I thought block+protection would be more effective. Lets see how long this keeps him away! Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Avraham#Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ? and the history of Talk:Sarah and related articles. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancer medicine ukrain??

I'm posting here as I'm not 100% sure where it goes otherwise but, I was extremely sure that I created a talk page for the above article but, since then a "new" talk page was created. Please see my comment below from this "new" talk page:

"==Title== I'm not sure what is going on but, I created a talk page already for this article (or one extremely similarly named) suggesting a name change. Has the original article been deleted and recreated? I'm crossposting this to other places this time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"

Could someone please check in everyway possible to verify that I did or didn't do this.

Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

you did. It was deleted when the article was deleted. I restored the deleted edit and it seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. I can't see any longer :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • If it helps my original comment on the talk page was something akin to "I'm not sure whether this article is a hoax or someother type of spam/vandalism but, if it is legitimate I would suggest a change of name to Ukrain (cancer medicine)." Thanks in advance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrap my earlier comment about it disappearing forever. It's back in the page history now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yeah I just found the speedy delete notice on the creator's user talk page. It just freaked me out with it disappearing from contribution lists (including the bit on my user profile bit where I clicked on my contributions and it didn't show up. Is that pretty standard stuff? Normally, I wouldn't be that upset but, there is the whole audit trail thing and the fact that I was just trying to help. It just makes me feel "icky" that my contributions can just disappear like that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A deleted page, of any type, disappears from your watchlist (but are still listed on "view and edit watchlist") and all contributions you made disappear from your contributions list. Administrators can still see your deleted contributions (there's a link in your logs for us). Deleted contributions aren't really deleted, they're just hidden for most people. This is because what we delete is often times really nasty stuff - insults, libel, threats etc - and nobody needs to see them (and we don't want people to see the libellous ones!). Having some of your contributions deleted is never held against someone - most people have deleted contributions, some into the thousands. Deleted contributions, provided they're not libellous, of course, can usually be made available to you again temporarily if you need to see them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the info Redvers. As long as they still appear somewhere that administrators can see them I'm happy. I was just worried because if "God forbid" I was to be accused of anything on here I'd want to make sure the audit trail still existed somewhere to exonerate me (or if I had actually done wrong) than the audit trail could be used to illustrate the mistake and help me improve as an editor/user. Thanks to both you and Theresa. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:IL!ke2BAn0nym0us

Sort of a mixed bag here. IL!ke2BAn0nym0us (talk · contribs) is signing edits as ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs), while claiming that the latter has forgotten their password. But it doesn't look like the same sober editor at all -- some minor vandalism, a passel of AFDs, and some pretty intemperate comments on user talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not IL2BA. The intemperate comments sound like him but he fought long and hard for at least one of those articles this person AfD'ed. spryde | talk 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be User:W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 based on the edits and Spanish accent usage. I am going to file a RFCU. spryde | talk 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, more recently, NewAtThis (talk · contribs), with a similar track record on AFD. I suspected as much given xer other sock, IHate2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Recent RFCU amended and bumped to the top. spryde | talk 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another new account, Pla$ticbag (talk · contribs) (created less than a day after NewAtThis was blocked), who's made a couple of hinky-looking AfD noms. Does anyone think that this looks like another sock? Deor (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnfield vandal

Resolved

Earlier today, IP 69.155.178.163 began vandalising the Barnfield article. Several users reverted him, and then 20wiki08 began inserting the same message. The IP then reverted it. I'm no expert on sockpuppetry, but it seems like the IP has created an account to continue adding the same type of message. FusionMix 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a couple of days and 20wiki08 (talk · contribs) shown the door. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How My IP Address Is Hacked?

Resolved

Some one has posted using my IP Address ( which I have used to sign below here ) at a particular subject on 14:53, 20 March 2008. Please explain how this is possible when that IP Address is my home one and not shared with anyone else. I am really worried of any future misuse of my IP Address and hereby notify to protect from this suspicious hacking.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that you have a wireless connection? _(1 == 2)^Until 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not using any sort of wireless connections.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most IPs are dynamic. It is also possible that the IP in question belonged to someone else on March 20 but was reassigned to you in the mean time. This can happen with almost any IP at any time but is most common with dial-up, or with DLS or cable if you unplug or reset the modem or have a power failure. When you reconnect, you usually get a different IP than you had before the connection was dropped. Thatcher 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also be on a shared IP address. Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) give one IP address to many people, sometimes thousands of people on 1 IP address. Infact the entire country of Qatar comes through one IP address so it's very unlikely that you have been hacked for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The details which you have provided are very helpful.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing the IP or where it was posted, I'm only guessing ... but is the IP shown in history, or are you seeing it in a talk page where someone might have manually faked the IP in a signature? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I checkusered it. The IP made a vandal edit and was warned; this person got the warning today. Again, most likely explanation is that this was not your IP on March 20 but is your IP now. Don't worry about it. I hope you find some interesting topics to edit and have fun on the site. Thatcher 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Resolved

NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When reverting vandalism today, I came upon this threat. User:Hihiyo9 threatens to kill all authors of the magazine Log with a chain saw. Though I have serious doubts about whether this user is serious, I don't want to take a chance, and have seen similar reports here before. Can anyone help in some way? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About the most you can do is block the account... and report it if you choose to do so. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. :) Marked as resolved. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Block requested

Resolved

This editor knows better. these personal attacks are not welcome. If need be, I consent to checkuser also (but no revelation of actual IPs/markets please. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary in this case, although the comments are ill-advised as others have told Lawrence already. Avruch ^T 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for talking to him. I think it would be best if I disengage lawerence. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the non-heads up on this thread. My only point was that the MFD nomination itself is disruptive (it is, obviously) and that Nonvocalscream is an obvious reincarnation of some user, and we are unable to judge who--a sockpuppet. That's it. Stating truth is not a personal attack, but I'm done. Lawrence § t/e 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling an assumption of bad faith "truth" does not make it acceptable. Please comment on the merit of the deletion request, instead of making ad hominem comments on the nominator. Dmcdevit·t 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We label actions good faith and bad faith all the time. I've never heard such a thing called a personal attack before, ever. Lawrence § t/e 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith is, in fact, still policy—and, more importantly, good practice. Dmcdevit·t 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Lawrence § t/e 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

63.133.249.1

Resolved

 – blocked

Can we block 63.133.249.1 ? The whole edit history for the address is nothing but vandalism, and right now 63.133.249.1 happens to have turned the hose on the featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccreitz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for a short time. Next time, you can report vandalism here. Black Kite 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Resolved

 – Canvassing occurred, block not warranted at this time

Does this count as canvassing? BoL (Talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:30, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a SPA too. Will let others opinion. BoL (Talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Over 50 invitations by a new account is not what I would call a limited posting. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I left her a warning. Let's see what happens. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:36, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

← On second thought, this seems to be a role account and should be blocked. See User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. This is all the account has been used for, along with the spam invitations on 50 user talk pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:50, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting the page, warning the user and then explaining him how to do it correctly so he can carry on with the project? I wouldn't want to break a research project on wikipedia because of, well, procedure --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The user describes herself on the user page: I'm Katherine Panciera, a Ph.D. student at the University of Minnesota... so I don't think this is blockable as a role account. Don't bite :) She likely didn't have a clue what she was doing would be thought of as untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What would be the correct way? There's no "right way" that I'm aware of, to advertise a research project to Wikipedians, through Wikipedia. User talk pages? Village pump? None of those are supposed to be used for canvassing or advertising an outside project. This is a single-purpose account and needs to go. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:58, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

correct way to canvass, posting on wikiprojects and related topic pages --Enric Naval (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-ec: This user isn't here to improve the encyclopedia at all, but rather to study its participants. That's not proper use of an account. It's the definition of a role account, and should be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:00, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

In the strict definition of the word (see the lede of the article "canvassing"), KP's contributions do qualify as "canvassing". In the spirit of the Wikipedia guideline, however, which I would think is to prevent inappropriately influencing internal discussions by notifying a large number of individuals in a target audience, I do not think that KP's contributions qualify as "canvassing", largely because KP's message is not a solicitation to participate in an internal discussion.

Furthermore, it is not strictly true, as was mentioned on KP's talk page, that, "Users aren't permitted to use Wikipedia as a forum to attain participants in events outside Wikipedia, or even within Wikipedia". Indeed, often messages are left for external events, such as Meetups and Wikimania notifications. Furthermore, it is not strictly true that, "Users' talk pages are generally only to be used for collaboration on the encyclopedia". Indeed, many users chat on talk pages.

I would also hope that Wikipedians would approach this situation with a bit more care. It is a great opportunity to have Ph.D. students interested in researching the social dynamics of Wikipedia, and utilisting the talk pages of interested editors (or potentially interested editors) seems like a sensible and appropriate use of the talk pages. Could we please take this a bit more slowly, and with a bit more discussion? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS has some guidelines and over 50 invitations by a new account is not a limited posting. She can't canvass like this but I'd wait for her reply and at least ask if she would like to keep the account for editing articles first. If she plans on using the account only for her study, I wouldn't think the account should stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that the user should probably be kindly asked to stop, and that is it. There is nothing all that disruptive with it; she is a new user and unaccostomed to the social mores of Wikipedia's community. Heck, if we don't scare her away, her expertise and access to references may be valuable towards actually IMPROVING some Wikipedia articles. Lets not bite every newbie that has good intentions, instead lets work to get more people involved in improving articles, while not scaring away the new users be appearing to be a closed clique! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Perhaps someone can point her to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia? (Maybe they can help her find a better way to conduct her studies). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a single-purpose account. That much seems clear. I don't consider her a newbie per se, as she doesn't seem interested in editing articles. She's just here to do a study. I'd block it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Why are you interested in blocking the account of an academic whose studies and expertise could potentially improve Wikipedia, whether directly (by editing articles) or indirectly (by conducting a study on internal dynamics)? --Iamunknown 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block until I'd asked her if she planned on editing articles too, no need to bite, I don't think she meant to disrupt anything. Gwen Gale (talk)

(E/C) That could be the case, but I don't see a reason that we need to rush to a block without hearing her point of view. (Unless she resumes mass posting, there's no real threat of disruption). There's no real reason to suspect that she couldn't have some valuable contributions to offer. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll let someone else answer that. But I'll also just say in the meantime, in answer to your Wikimania comparison, advertisements of a paid study on Wikipedians and advertisements about a Wikipedia-run meetup are not even in the same ballpark. This run of advertisements was pure spam. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:20, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she spammed (likely inadvertantly), but I'd wait for a reply from her. I wouldn't want to sour someone on getting interested in editing articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bwah! This is a role account. "She" works for a research group. This is not some sympathetic individual we're arguing about. It's a company that needs participants for a study. This is spam. It's a role account. It's not allowed. It needs to be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:28, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Group Lens is an academic research group, not some company sending out spam (although you could reasonably view her earlier actions that way, although I'd be inclined to give her some slack as a newbie not knowing the rules). Now, if she states that she's intending to use this account solely for research, then there might be an issue here. But given that she hasn't had a chance to respond, I can't see what the harm is in waiting before we bite. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Not a company, a research lab at a university. Not a role account, an individual. She likely didn't know what she was doing and will likely not disrupt after the warning she's been given. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes five comments you've made to that effect Equazcion. I disagree that she should be blocked for having done something we have no evidence she knew was wrong, having been warned for it, and having stopped what she was asked to stop. This should really be referred to Jimbo and/or the Office though. --John (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's the sixth. Read the page I linked to that defines role accounts. Just because it's not a company doesn't mean it's not a role account. The account was created for the express purpose of recruiting study subjects. It should, again, be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Offering money in exchange for participation! Certainly no student can offer that. Grsz11 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, academic studies are typically paid. (See this list for some examples). And apologies if I misread sarcasm. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep and they likely got the gift certificates as a contribution from Amazon in some academic deal or something. If she'd already been blocked for spamming it would be no big deal but since she's not carrying on with it, I'd still wait and ask what she thinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see absolutely nothing wrong with what that user is doing. We should welcome and help academics who are interested in our project, not chase them away with arbitrary ruleslawyering. Equzcion, you are being the disruptive element here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive. I'm being discussive. I just love how that "disruptive" word gets thrown around at any vocal minority. See my essay on it. When lots of people disagree with you, you need to respond a lot more than normal. Kindly don't tell me I'm being disruptive unless I'm doing something more than discussing and replying to those who respond to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:09, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd say she was a bit unprofessional in firing off the invitations like that, they should have done a bit of research and contacted the foundation, which might have welcomed what they had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The foundation could've found a way to help and acquire study subjects, if they approved of the study. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:18, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could suggest she do that? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, no one's stopping you. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:21, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that you're not being disruptive. Reasonable people can disagree, after all :) (And the foundation does sound like the best way to go. Good idea Gwen). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That was improperly curt of me. Sorry. I'm a little pissed at a couple comments here still. Yes I think that is a good idea, although I don't know exactly how to contact the foundation, and that info should probably be included in the message to the user. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I think I understood your mood. Meanwhile I left her a message with contact info. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. I've tried to speedy close it, but I don't think it will stick. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She should clearly be directed to a research project here at Wikipedia. We should not be blocking people like this and deleting their research pages, but offering assistance as long as they are not being excessively disruptive, which I think is definitely true in this case.--Filll (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedy closed it, WP:BOLD. The only worry I ever saw here was a flurry of userpage messages from a new user. A look at her talk page will confirm she's going to get whatever help she needs. I see no meaningful risk of disruption to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I've posted to this editor's Talk page inquiring if she has received IRB approval to perform this study. I find it very hard to believe any IRB would approve a study involving human subjects when the method of recruiting participants violates one of our policies. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that leaving messages inquiring if editors want to participate in a study violates no policies... --Iamunknown 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is if it's done excessively. HalfShadow (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about the strict definition of the word "canvassing", yes; if we are talking about the surreal Wikipedia guideline at WP:CANVASS, then no. --Iamunknown 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Restore

Please restore this, to my userspace if need be. I want to view it, it is linked from this discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not much to see, mate. I can email you the last version's source if you like. Incidentally, am I alone in noticing a strong correlation between massively over-elaborate signatures and MySpacery? Guy (Help!) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You're not alone - I remember a brief period in... January? .. when there were actually "signature shops" - at least those are gone now. --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy and Random, I'll take your word for it. I just wanted to see what folks were talking about, redlinks made it difficult. But if its a sig book, I don't need to see it. Thanks and regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a list of "cabal" pages that have since been deleted. Guy's comment was, I expect, based on the fact that the table included the signature (rather than just the name) of the person who created the cabal, and the signatures themselves were in various fonts and colors, and in one case had several boxes around it. Do you still want it? --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious subtitle: "From Britannica, the encyclopaedia ..."

Resolved

 – It's fallout from April 1.

I just saw something really weird (6:52pm GMT). When I accessed Stream of Passion, in the place where it normally reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" it read "From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature...". I alerted a friend of mine via ICQ and he saw it too. Shortly afterwards (7:08pm), the spook had totally disappeared.

This does not seem the only occasion, for a web search brought up this page in the Google cache and 68 more hits. So I really wasn't hallucinating.

April fool's joke? Has Wikipedia been hacked? Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the taglines that ended up being shown on april fools day, but the tagline page hasn't been edited since 12:35 on April 1. I can only assume it was some type of cache issue. --Onorem♠Dil 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet more reasons why dicking around with MediaWiki on April Fool's Day is a very bad idea. Thatcher 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! Now I'm relieved. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more data on this here. The google web crawler picked up several of the fake taglines, and will keep them in its cache until it gets around to rescanning those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note that one of those with the "lavendar passageway" stupidity is a WP:BLP. I sincerely hope this will never happen again. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath

I put this article up for semi-protection earlier today after IP edit warring, and now users Sirblew and Havoc1310, not affected by the semi, are continuing the edit war. Are a couple days of full-protect in order? FusionMix 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe - for the time being, I've just warned User:Sirblew about 3RR, since I think he's on about 5RR today (less kind admins would have blocked, but I prefer not to block for 3RR without warning first). If edit-warring persists, I'd say full protection would be in order. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I thought I already dropped Sirblew a 3RR note, but I may have forgotten to. Anyway, if I see any more edit warring, I'll drop the diff here. FusionMix 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• As one of the other major editors of that article, I would prefer not to see full protection of that article as I am sick and tired of having spent a week adding little constructive to the article and just reverting what I consider vandalism - an unsourced POV section being added in spite of numerous warnings and in total ignorance of several talk page notices about what the problem is. Full protection would prevent anything constructive being done to the article, and I want to start really working on it because let's face it we badly need to - it's in an atrocious state. I don't claim my opinion matters, but are there grounds for limiting this user's capacity to edit the article given that is where the problem is? I also really hope I'm not considered in breach of 3RR for my numerous reversions of the section - I know I've reverted a lot in the last few days and I apologise sincerely if I have breached policy in so doing.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I might also have caused some trouble by leaving the whole Scrin thing when I moved the criticisms to the reception area. I probably shouldn't have left that intact. FusionMix 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That was what caused Havoc's involvement I believe, I didn't actually check the link else I'd have removed it sooner (I certainly removed it enough recently to be sure) but it's gone now and nobody has made any claim to it being a valid link (including SirBlew, who has yet to offer a single edit summary besides "you're working for EA and suppressing negative criticism" (that's a paraphrase). Tonight I will probably add a good dozen references to the reception section, thus making it complete. See the talk page for it in a few minutes for my ideas, but don't worry too much about having left that in a bit too long.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are two editors who are persistently edit warring without discussing anything on the talk pages, while everybody else is working together, then we can certainly deal with those editors rather than protecting the entire article. Let's see what happens now that SirBlew has been warned, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SPA Archfailure harassing Privatemusings

The headline says it all, really - apart from one edit in March, he's been focusing on Privatemusings' contributions - issuing a warning for a vandalism reversion that supposedly "technically" violates PM's probation, making an unhelpful comment on the MFD of PM's podcast... Does anyone really believe this is a new user? Considering that PM's previous ban was for using undisclosed alternate accounts for project/policy areas, it's particularly troubling that someone is using one to go after him. --Random832 (contribs) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Trolling single purpose account, just what we need least. I've blocked it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Rollins

An anonymous IP user 75.75.185.176 has been consistently reverting non-NPOV information back onto the Jimmy Rollins page. It has now been reverted five times and the user has been warned via his talk page. Other incidents from the past few months have also been documented there, including his vandalism of the wiki of a player who plays for a main rival of Rollins' team. Killervogel5 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment to the talk page and removed a ref (the anon had a valid point on that, a "statement of fact" should not be used in a ref tag - a reliable source is needed). But I agree that many of the other edits by the anon were pushing a POV as well as removing some valid wiki-links to related articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey sock?

Resolved

-- Naerii 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this him? HarryPotterWatchDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Lawrence § t/e 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is, someone should delete all the empty subpages. Avruch ^T 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Naerii 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because it really is very unlikely that he's Awbrey, considering the massive difference in writing style and MO. "Wikipedia accuses me of being hate-filled," for example, not something Awbrey would say. I don't doubt that it's a sock of someone though. -- Naerii 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked. -- Naerii 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably some random troll. Like someone said in response to it on the page, the text itself looked like it was automatically generated. --Random832 (contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Scarian

Resolved

 – Lame joke. --barneca (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am lowly among Wikipedia, but I request that an admin would contact or block Scarian indef or any other block type, because he has been blocking people illegitimately and using sockpuppets (for example, this one and many others. If you can, thank you so much for your assistance in this case. RoryReloaded (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rory, I don't know you, so I don't know if:

1. You're in on the joke and continuing it here, or
2. You don't get it that Scarian et al have been stringing you along on an extended April Fool's joke.

If it's (1), then please keep April Fool's jokes confined to April 1st. If it's (2), then your leg is being pulled, Scarian is not PhilKnight, and he didn't block Wiki alf, and a bit of a "tsk tsk" on Scarian for continuing to pull your leg for so long. --barneca (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, per this edit I see it's all a joke. I don't know what time zone you're in, but April 1st ended for the rest of us about 3 days ago. Thank you for wasting 5 minutes of my time; I thought I was helping a newbie. --barneca (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In my time zone, it's April 5. And this is not a joke. Scarian said I should, which means I was fooled! RoryReloaded (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside eyes: user:Smockroker

Can I ask another admin or three to look at Smockroker (talk · contribs)? This is a new account edit-warring on Criticism of the FDA to insert unsourced POV ("black women are the largest growing group of HIV positive individuals in the U.S., and no such ban is placed upon them. This demonstrates that the FDA is afraid of appearing racist, but not homophobic") and YouTube videos, which he misrepresents by claiming that they were retrieved from the Hoover Institution website ([6]). He's also templated me 3 times ([7], [8], [9]) on my talk page, despite being pointed to WP:BLANKING. I should add that I am 99% certain that this account is a sockpuppet of the banned Billy Ego (talk · contribs), whose socks were wont to push this exact Milton Friedman/Gary Becker/The-FDA-has-blood-on-its-hands POV ad nauseum on this particular POV fork. I submitted a checkuser request, having been pretty accurate identifying his socks in the past, but Billy's accounts are stale. I'd have blocked this account as an obvious sock myself had I not made the mistake of bothering to revert his edit and thus "involving" myself. Can I ask for some outside input? MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this guy banned, or just blocked? Because if he's banned then you shouldn't have an issue removing his edits. (Which BTW he's reinserted). --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Ego is most indubitably banned and not just blocked (see User:Billy Ego for a listing of ArbCom case, declined appeals, etc). I suppose I just wanted a sanity check before I handle this, since I have taken issue with his edits in addition to identifying him as a sock of a banned user. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead and block him. You're fully within your rights to revert edits by a banned user without consequence or fear of being "involved". You can't have a content dispute with a persona non grata. --Haemo (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Luckily I found this. I am not a banned user. It appears to me that MastCell has an issue with the content I added so is claiming I am a sockpuppet in order to eliminate the edits. Smockroker (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An WP:SPA, but I don't think they've done anything actionable unless they are a Billy Ego sock, or proxying for him. Per this checkuser request (all nine of them!), it appears you are the Billy Ego expert. Rather than have other admins wade thru Billy Ego's editing style to come to their own conclusion, I wonder if a better question is: can you get consensus here that in spite of the fact that you have reverted this editor a few times, do we trust you to recognize and block a Billy Ego sock when you see it? My ¡vote! is "yes" to that question. Shame on me in advance if this violates the Wikipedia Way, but as long as this is done here in the open, that seems the best question to ask.

Or just ask Guy to just block him (I'm constitutionally incapable of IAR'ing like that). --barneca (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be really unethical. It's clear that he doesn't like the content added to the article. It appears to me that he's making this claim of being banned user in order to own the article. I imagine he would continue to use this claim throughout the future when people add material which he finds objectionable. It's very convienient to claim that it is a banned user using a different name. Smockroker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, that comment about racism was not mine. It was someone else's that I mistakenly put back in when I undid the large removal of my additions. A few other things in Mastcells comments are not quite true, as well. Smockroker (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That part is true: [10], adding to my point that the user hasn't done anything blockable yet unless they are Billy Ego. --barneca (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Entirely pointless sock report

Resolved

 – No harm, no foul. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been this report added to SSP this evening, despite none of the accounts (not the master, nor the alleged puppets) ever having made an edit. [11]. Spooky. Is there an agenda, or an experiment at work here? Who knows. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. People notice multiple accounts being created and report them, even though the accounts haven't been used. I closed the SSP report without action since none of the accounts have been used at all, much less abusively. No harm, no foul. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all good, no harm anywhere. But perhaps given the backlog at SSP discussed here [12] it might be helpful if experienced editors didn't throw unnecessary reports onto the pile. If I may say so as a non-admin. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning behind it, though: a lot of the time, socks around here tend to be used inappropriately, but if they haven't actually done anything, much less anything wrong... HalfShadow (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the userpages, which were tagged with "abusive sockpuppetry" templates. Even with the likelihood that they are the same person, and that this didn't really fall into a CSD, there's no need to label somebody "abusive" when no abuse has occurred. It could simply be somebody trying to get their username right. I'd also suggest blanking the talk pages (they're a bit WP:BITEy if it truly is a new user), but will leave that to somebody else's discretion. - auburnpilot talk 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Killed policeperon articles

Resolved

 – Non-notable HalfShadow (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are articles like Walter Kreps meet WP:BIO. I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In it's current state, I wouldn't think so. The article literally just says 'This guy was a police officer. Oh, and he died.' But, of course, I'm not am admin, so... HalfShadow (talk)

Looks non-notable to me and a good candidate for deletion. Look here for a list of similar non-notable articles created by the same user in the last few days 24 hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Hello, I have a question and I'm not sure where else to post this, but when I got to the computer today, I had three new messages, all which were very personal (diff). I have no clue who this guy is or if he is the same person all three times, but it's sort of freaking me out. I know this doesn't warrant a checkuser, but could you give me advice? In addition, several ip's have edited my userpage today, which is very unusual. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Main thing I would suggest would be to run some anti-virus software on your computer to make sure you don't have any trojans installed - aside from that, you may want to try to cut down the information you've got on your userpage (for example, it's not entirely necessary to have your email publicly listed, especially since Special:Emailuser goes to great lengths to keep email addresses private.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Someone seems to have transcluded your User and User Talk pages in the Sandbox here. The edits to your talk page were by people playing around in the Sandbox at the time. I wouldn't worry about it. Deor (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh that must be it! Thank you Deor and Hersfold for looking in on this, you saved me a lot of stress. -- penubag  (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tor nodes and Krimpbot

Ok, by now it should be common knowledge that there is a Tor node user playing a childish "there are no incidents to report at this time, d'uh!" game on this board, however this ridiculous trend of vandalism exposed a strange tendency by User:KrimpBot. The thing is that the bot has been removing all of the Tor tags in these addresses and is leaving this edit summary "Untagging xx.xx.xxx.xxx as no longer an open Tor node" (see here) when this vandal has made evident that said claim is inaccurate, is there a particular bug in the system or is this just mistake in the bot's code? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes tor nodes go on and off. If they are off when the bot checks the list it apparently unblocks them. Put together a list of examples and post it to the bot's talk page so the operator can adjust the bot's method of determining when nodes are no longer open. Thatcher 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will leave Krimpet a note on his talk page to notify him of this thread, finding examples shouldn't be hard, just today this particular vandal revealed three, the first example and these two. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at CAT:UNBLOCK

Resolved

There is a request which seems malicious at User talk:Froda. Caution, this is NSFW. I think this might have some spyware or something of the like. Anyone want to handle it? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Just excessive HTML coding. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is happening occasionally. I've just deleted and protected quite a few. These people are just doing it to be disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I jumped the gun a bit, but better safe than sorry when dealing with something like this. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:AzaToth

I've blocked User:AzaToth for 24 hours for vandalizing two pages in the MediaWiki namespace. He changed the 'Go' and 'Search' buttons (in the sidebar) to read 'Wacky Search' and 'I'm Feeling lucky', respectively. This is simply unacceptable behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. Check your calendar, it's April Fools' Day. You blocked him without any warning. Maxim_(talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit sad that admins need to be warned not to vandalise the MediaWiki space. -- Naerii

• Something per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that an unblock before 24h is probably warranted, but I don't think that we need to explictly warn anyone not to make the Search button say "I'm feeling lucky". Also see the section above on Mediawiki:Tagline for a similar situation earlier. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. A simple "please don't do it again" would suffice, as I see no indication AzaToth would have continued if asked to stop. - auburnpilot talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, it's April Fools'. Lighten up. Did fiddling with the search box cause real harm? I don't think so. What MZMcBride should have done is to tell AzaToth to stop and he'll stop, he's sensible enough to be chosen an admin, I don't see why he wouldn't stop. Maxim_(talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd be okay if it actually was funny, but these crap attempts at being humorous are making my head hurt. And of course they go against the tradition of April Fool's anyway, where the point is to trick people into believing something false - not to go around endlessly crapspamming gibberish and memes from ten years ago (which seems to be the Wikipedian approach to humour). -- Naerii 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, admins shouldn't need warning about vandalizing MediaWiki space. This needs to stop. RxS (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that this is an actual block and not a joke. Please unblock. Lawrence § t/e 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for April Fools not going into mediawiki space, but c'mon... a block? - Philippe 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are these edits in his contributions? I'm not seeing them.[13] Lawrence § t/e 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're in his deleted contributions. —Animum (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply originally intended for my talk page) While I have little tolerance for those who joke around in the MediaWiki: namespace (I learned my lesson in mid-September), I agree with the people who commented before me:

• 1) Blocks are preventative, not punitive; I can't imagine that he would continue to joke after being asked to stop.
• 2) It was one edit.

—Animum (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They were deleted, Lawrence. Is it smart to delete MediaWiki: pages? I really don't think so... Maxim_(talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, overkill? Why weren't they just rv'd? Lawrence § t/e 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They get filled in automatically by the software if they don't exist, and these ones are currently set to the defaults anyway. The edits are here and here, for the curious. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Blocking admins in good standing for a couple of April Fools' jokes is unnecessary and just plain over the top. While editing MediaWiki namespace for fun is both (1) stupid and (2) dangerous, I don't think blocking is warranted unless somebody goes on a spree and ignores a succession of polite messages, friendly nudges, and stern warnings. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked; I don't expect Aza is going to pull that stunt again. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock is probably fine, but when will admins realize that Wikipedia isn't their private playground?. RxS (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unblocking, a friendly note on his talkpage would have been far more appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think screwing around with mediawiki space is lame. Jokes, yes, fine, but screwing with the interface is going to confuse people. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I don't think anyone could accuse me of lacking a sense of humour, but we have over 1,000 admins - if every one decides to perpetrate some joke in the interface then the whole thing will break. Next year, I suggest some firm guidance up front as to the kind of things not to do, and if people then do stuff beans up their noses then we should take a very dim view of it. In all seriousness, it really isn't a good idea at all. Warning? Pah. we shouldn't have to warn people not to screw around with the interface. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved, no need for any wiki-drama to un-fold. Now back to editing. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the unblock, he shouldn't be feeling "lucky" anymore... - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone delete all those April Fools' pages now that it's over? I moved the rupture in spacetime to is not exist because is not exist. SOmeone help delete these and close that Blocking policy deletion as speedy keep? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Ok thanks. Now what is WP:NQS supposed to mean. Did you mean WP:NAS and if so for what reason? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks of Scientizzle and Random832

By the same virtue of the unblock of AzaToth (talk · contribs), I have unblocked Scientizzle and Random832 (who were blocked well after they each made one joke edit). I believe that brings the total to 7 admins who have been blocked today over April Fools jokes, so I hope we've learned our lesson. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kwsn (talk · contribs) also got blocked... Maxim_(talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the April Fools Seven are User:Random832, User:Scientizzle, User:Viridae, User:RyanGerbil10, User:Kwsn, User:AzaToth, and User:Omegatron. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To the stocks with the lot of 'em. Second offense for User:Scientizzle. Ronnotel (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I always knew those seven were bad news... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:55, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians always find ways to create strife when there is none. MZMcBride, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Sean William @ 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that comment excessively harsh. The seven blocks were made by three different admins, not only MZMcBride. Quite a few other admins have expressed what seems to be agreement with the spirit of the blocks, which is that edits to MediaWiki: pages cross the line of acceptable humor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think dividing it up by namespace is productive. Someone put a new messages notice on the top of this noticeboard, does that mean that "edits to Wikipedia: pages cross the line of acceptable humor."? What if Viridae's edit to Mediawiki:Watchdetails had instead been made to Template:Watchlist-notice? And on the other hand, the text of the delete tab is not visible to ordinary readers at all, and the effects of my own edit to Mediawiki:Ipboptions is only visible to non-admins on block logs - which aren't really something ordinary readers are going to spend time looking at. --Random832 (contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ii seems that Sean is the one creating drama here. I think that blocks prevented some other admins from doing similar things, so they were preventative, and I also think that admins don't need to be warned not to do such things. —AlexSm 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were to block an edit warrior far after he had committed the offense, would the block still be preventative because other edit warriors would be dissuaded? Any block of such kind would be swiftly shot down by the community for being punitive. Why wasn't the same action done in this case? In addition, when it comes to tinkering with the MediaWiki namespace, there is no precedent whatsoever, especially during April Fools' Day. (I recall that Cyde was blocked in 2006 by Essjay for a long string of MediaWiki incidents, but the difference here was that he was warned by a lot of people.) One of the people who blocked administrators yesterday himself took part in some AFD madness a while back, and nobody seemed to care. [14] Sean William @ 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How unfortunate that this has caused so much strife. As one of the April Fools Seven, I won't pretend I didn't do anything worth criticism (though I feel my single, self-reverted-in-under-a-minute, non-offensive edit was hardly worth a block). Some of the April Fools shenanigans were certainly of questionable taste, but the vast majority of the stuff I witnessed (and participated) was simply not meant to be disruptive in a damaging sense. Of course, not everyone celebrates the nonsensical pseudo-holiday, humor often does not translate well online, and one's "sense of humor" is a wildly variable and context-dependent construct in which two distinct individuals may never share a laugh...but I've seen a few good users, on both sides of this dispute, get very upset (some to the point of leaving) over this sequence of events.

I ask that those who may be branded as troublemakers (like me, I guess), please recognize that your joking around may have legitimately annoyed or offended your fellow editors whom you would not normally actively wish to antagonize. Branding these antagonized editors as killjoys almost certainly does not help. (Who gains a sense of humor when told that they're lacking one?) I apologize to anyone who found my contributions disruptive enough to affect their willingness or desire to work on this project; such was not my intent.

I also ask that those on the other side please be somewhat lenient: this is a volunteer project in which a dose of levity can have a profoundly positive impact in the willingness of editors to donate their time and efforts. There is a long (sometimes ignoble) history of April 1 fun, here and across the internet. Rather than think of April 1 as a day on which people disruptively think the rules don't or shouldn't apply (as some have expressed, with irritation), the day can serve as a release valve for curiosity, build collegiality, and provide an ingredient to the enjoyment of many editors. That it is centralized on one day in particular has the built-in advantage of possibly leaving 364 other days untouched by some mischief and a greater likelihood of such mischief being more readily accepted by readers worldwide than on any other day.

In conclusion, some of what was done should not have occurred. Some of the responses probably made things worse. I think April Fools nonsense has some benefits, but more judicious application of any such frivolity would benefit all. I hope that those soured from recent events can overcome this and be welcomed by everyone. — Scientizzle 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The April Fools' Nine?

The following edits to the Mediawiki space on April Fools Day did not earn blocks:

• by Krimpet to Ipbreason-dropdown
• By Nihiltres to Blockip

The edit by Nihiltres is of particular interest because it was in approximately the same timeframe (ten minutes apart), and was of similar nature (edit to 'button' text seen only by admins) to Kwsn's edit to Mediawiki:Delete. --Random832 (contribs) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet if blocks and/or desysoppings were applied to all nine of these individuals, April Fools' Day 2009 would be comparatively calm, perhaps approaching the kind of atmosphere that is appropriate for an encyclopedia project. Everyking (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the rules changed? I thought blocking was meant to be preventative, not punitive. Am I in the right place? This is Wikipedia, right? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally its fools day, really it should be the likes of we non admins like SPUI, Everyking, Anticipated lover, The and myself who should rule, but staying serious, the best practical jokes are always serious, such as the vote for Jimboship. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Come one Everyking, even respected media organisations like BBC new and New Scientist have April fools pranks. Its a reflection on the nature of wikipedia that people are so intolerant of harmless wording cchanges for one very obvious day of the year. Viridae^Talk 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Replying to the "preventative not punishment" comment, I will point out that the only practical way to prevent AF vandalism next year is to deal with it severely this year. That is prevention. Likewise, blocking every admin who mucks around with Mediawiki without warning with an expiry of the end of the day is also preventative, in that it prevents other admins from getting from doing the same thing. Warn once, warn twice, warn three times then block the fourth time isn't really appropriate under these particular circumstances as that would entitle every admin feeling prankish to three pranks before blocking, and would encourage every admin who didn't prank this year because they were afraid of retaliation to try at least one or two tricks next year. (Mind you, I'm not endorsing desysopping, but I think AF pranks should be kept to project space and out of main space.) And Viridae, BBC and NewScientist can get away with AF pranks because no doubts their accuracy the other 364 days. We're in a different position. Thatcher 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be used in the sense of prevention that you are describing. We block vandal A for vandalism to prevent further disruption to the project, not to dissuade vandal B from considering further vandalism. These are not like mandatory jail sentences or the death penalty, which supposedly dissuade others from committing similar crimes (and receiving similar punishments). If there is no reason to believe somebody will continue a certain behavior if asked to stop, a block is meaningless and against policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks prevent the users in question from continuing their spree; if they agree to stop then lifting the block early is appropriate. It isn't necessary to warn admins not to muck around with MediaWiki pages, and immediate blocks for such edits are perfectly within policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is another interesting example of our weird bias against established editors and admins. A newbie can vandalize articles numerous times with no consequences whatsoever. A newbie can engage in racist and antisemitic rants and have nothing happen except people trying to nurture and protect them, and help them understand NPOV which they seem to steadfastly ignore in spite of all efforts to the contrary. A SPA can have legions of editors and admins defending their worthless edits, and dozens of established editors tied into knots because of their spewing of nonsense and tendentious arguments. A troll or POV warrior can have hordes of productive contributors stop all useful efforts to engage in increasingly byzantine and wasteful proceedings to deal with their intransigence.

But let one or two productive and experienced editors or admins, type a slur or a profanity in frustration, or engage in some lighthearted April Fool's Day fun, then we must call out our heaviest armaments. We must have test cases. We must desysop and make examples of them. Beheading is too good for them! We must publicly shame them and parade them around to show we mean business!

Frankly, these arguments are a load of nonsense. And I say, frankly, the Emperor is not wearing any clothes here. So someone tell Jimbo.--Filll (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

endorse this summary. --Random832 (contribs) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented on this issue a couple of days ago here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note the thread below that the April Fools' MediaWiki text is still (3 days later) showing up for some readers due to cache issues, and has been captured in google's cached versions of some articles. Yet another good reason to keep AF pranks out of main space. Now tell me; only admins can edit MediaWiki. How exactly should AF pranks be dealt with? Thatcher 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding my two cents: regardless of what day it is, instantaneously blocking an administrator over one questionable edit without warning shouldn't be done at all, regardless of what day it is. Remember that Wikipedia is run on the foundations of discussion and consensus. Also remember that the administrators named are valued and trusted contributors at what they do. Bearing this in mind, a simple note on their user talk pages should suffice. Valtoras (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello all. I recently denied User:RyRy5's request for rollback, located here. I'd like some review of this. My major concern is that it was removed only 3 days ago, which doesn't seem like enough time to show that he's learned from his mistakes. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you (or RyRy5 or Friday) have the link to the reversion that sparked the rollback being taken away? Metros (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/April_2008#RyRy5 is where it was rejected. I see nothing wrong with this, especially considering the removal. Reason for removal is here, Metros. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the reason, but is there a diff for the revert he used rollback on? Metros (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on User_talk:RyRy5#Rollback, I'm guessing it was this one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin opinion - I see nothing wrong with Keilana's decision here, I would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I agree with Jossi that he needs to wait several months before re-applying, but no big deal - Tan | 39 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's not adminship. I'd say 30 days of problem free editing as a rough guide. It seems like overenthusiasm rather than malintent created the circumstances for removal. I'd also agree with DHMO below. Orderinchaos 10:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked a bit further at the edit he reverted, it was sad to see no apology, not even a note, to the user he reverted. I would suggest that apologising for his mistake would be the first (but not the last) step that RyRy5 should take. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have apologized. The edit I reverted here was an accident. I reverted the wrong page of an article that had an almost exact same name as the article I was supposed to revert. I would like a second chance for using rollback and I promise I will watch what I revert , but I would first like other comments. Thank you.--RyRy5 talk 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite unconviced that re-granting rollback to users who have previously misused it is a good idea, when they have "secret pages", a "friends book", an "autograph book" and a userbox that reads "I will try to become an admin ... when I have 5000+ edits". I thought we only granted rollback to those who we felt had good judgement and were not looking to deliberately up their edit count for their own benefits? Daniel (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I always revert vandalism, but that edit was just a mistake. I am trying to increase my edit count on reverting vandalism and improving articles. I don't focus on stuff like guestbooks, secret pages, ect. They are just used so others have something else to do instaed of causing vandalism, they were also created when I was a rookie at wikipedia.RyRy5 talk 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am trying to increase my edit count on reverting vandalism" — that's a bad goal to set. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what I can do to get rollback back. Maybe things like how long I should wait, how many edits I should get, type of edits I should get and how many, ect. If this is answered, I think this discussion should be closed. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got an accepted apology.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to granting this editor rollback for at least another month, maybe two, of unblemished patrolling. The above discussion does not inspire confidence about the motives of this editor. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor RyRy; he's taking quite a pounding lately, but I have to agree with Daniel. RyRy, I hope you understand that this isn't personal - none of it - admins are volunteers trying our best to do judge priorities for the wiki. I really do wish you'd spend some time just working on articles that interest you for a while. - Philippe 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, I believe you that it was a mistake. The reason there is some selectivity in granting rollback is the worry it won't be used responsibly, which also means taking heed when using it: It's not only a question of your good faith, but what you in truth do with the button. The effect of accidently using rollback on a good faith editor can be daunting to their willingness to edit articles. My take on this is if you wait a month or two and put care into your edit summaries, you'll have rollback again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. I would also like to thank you for volunteering to become a possible administrator someday. But remember that, while edit count and experience are often looked at when people review RfA candidates, they are not the most important qualities that editors look for in potential administrators - they also look for trust, civility, and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. This is also true for rollback, though not as much so. You have demonstrated all of this, and I think you can become a truly valued member of our community someday. I would also like to note that being an administrator is 1) A big and sometimes stressful responsibility, and 2) no big deal - adminship doesn't necessarily equate to respect and authority, but is in fact a janitorial position held by trusted members of the community. Just remember that, while we very much appreciate your willingness to become an administrator and I porbably wouldn't oppose your RfA when the time comes and you understand policy clearly enough, you don't have to be an administrator to be a respected and valued contributor to the project. Anything from fighting vandalism to contributing to articles is equally helpful. We're glad to have you here and welcome to Wikipedia, RyRy5. Valtoras (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange message by anon

When going through recent changes I noticed ([15], [16], and [17]). User seems to be currently inactive, ATM so blocking may not be be helpful? The claims however were quite serious , so I thought to report here. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 08:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact oversight. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Heath Ledger by apparent sock puppets?

Please investigate several recent redirects of this article with foul language and offensive comments appearing in the editing summaries to pages created with that language, linked in this editing history (scroll through): Editing history; latest Diffs. (scroll for earlier similar ones). There is no way to control this if the same person or persons are inventing new Wikipedia log-in identities solely for the purpose of this vandalism. Is it possible for an administrator to remove the editing history offensive red-linked words, as leaving them there appears to be part of this vandal's or vandals' plan? Also, please leave strong cautions and warnings against such vandalism on these vandals' talk pages. Blocks appear to be necessary. If the same IP (user) is originating these childish and disruptive edits, please review and consider an indefinite block if possible. Thank you. (This has already been reported for individual log-in identities at AIV before today.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sock puppets connected to each other have already been detected and banned from editing Wikipedia: See Editing history of one's talk page and User:Grawp; but the misinformation, foul language, and offensive comments remain visible in the editing history of the article and they still need to be eliminated (in my view). Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The page linked to needs to be entirely deleted from Wikipedia as well. (See the previous "redirects" and "over redirects" in the revert messages about this by admin. That page should not be visible at all. --NYScholar (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my own user talk page about this matter. I am posting it here so that it can be dealt with by administrators. I will be away. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this user really should be blocked as a vandalism only account. My mistake, already done. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

anonymous abuse by User:Lysdexia

Lysdexia has been blocked indefinitely for incivility & evading the block. He's now editing with a new anon. IP (User:68.123.4.199). Since he's attacking me now,[18][19] I don't feel it's appropriate to block him myself. Or are such accounts to be blocked regardless? Despite his attitude, he's making what appear to be good faith edits to clean up wikipedia formatting and grammar (though his grammar and spelling aren't very good,[20] so he may be doing more harm than good), and perhaps adding or correcting some useful information in chemistry.[21] Could someone advise/take a look? kwami (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Lysdexia is female (aka Autymn DC elsewhere on the web). Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 72 hours.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, when someone edits with an anonymous IP because their account is blocked, should I automatically block the anon. IP as well, or do I allow them to edit as long as they behave? kwami (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If the identity is unambiguous you can block the IP on sight and revert all the edits it has made. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's always best to ask someone else to do it though when you are the target of an attack by the blockee, as you did here, as it avoids even the appearance of bias.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, along with if the IP (or sock) is making edits to an article in which you're involved as an editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

More taunting on the IP's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll?

N-Mopa (talk · contribs)

• Created account at 09:41.
• Makes a nomal edit to List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball at 09:47.
• Vandalises User:3bulletproof16 for no reason at 09:48.

It's either a possible sock of someone, or a patent troll. Weird for someone to vandalise a userpage in their second edit. In any event, I've gave him a {{uw-vandal2}} warning. If it's a troll, it will probably need blocking. D.M.N. (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He just made another edit.[22] By the looks of it, the userpage thing was likely just one rather questionable contribution and he appears to be a good-faith editor. If any future problems arise, they are easily dealt with. For now, the situation has been handled effectively. Valtoras (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and block evasion

• Mayday2010 (talk · contribs)
• 70.114.38.167 (talk · contribs) aka LPRABCMP (talk · contribs)

User:70.114.38.167 was blocked on 23:27, March 12, 2008 for harassment (this included, among other things, creating a myspace profile using another user's name, and then trying to 'discuss' it with them on their talk page). On 06:07, April 5, 2008, I find User:Mayday2010 doing exactly the same thing. (While less problematic, the user's attempted edits to circumcision are also identical to those made by the IP - there seems little doubt that this is the same user.) Jakew (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have extended AGF as far as possible and left a level4im warning on Mayday2010's talkpage regarding both the article and your talkpage edits. They are now warned, and any further infraction should be reported to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summaries

Would someone take a look at the edit summary of this page - Gooddays was blocked by Guy for 48 hours for trolling over a decision which he didn't like. I closed a WP:SSP case, blocked the socks, but decided not to block the main account after consultation with the reporting admin - instead I placed a suitable warning on the users talk page. They then blanked that with the summary "removed trolling". I picked them up on it, which they then removed with "removed contentious vandalism'. A subsequent warning was removed with the summary "removed whining".

I'm involved so couldn't block if one were merited. Does anyone think a block is merited in this instance? Or am I being a little over-sensitive? _GB^T/C 11:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's clearly entitled to blank his page, but since he's already blocked I wouldn't add a further one for incivility. Perhaps a WP:CIVIL warning, so he's on notice. He'll blank that, of course, but at least there is some leverage if he chooses to ignore it. This is just my opinion, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Gooddays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48h for persistent incivility. This is indicative of a longer-term issue. If the user has been warned about such actions in the past, and for other infractions, and then turns around and lobs every comment as trolling or whining, then they have not learned their original lesson. Perhaps an extended block will reform their poor behavior. seicer | talk | contribs 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Suits me, in fact he has blanked the block notice with the edit summary "remove spam" which is itself uncivil. Accordingly I have locked his talk page for the duration of the block and invited him to email an Admin or the ArbCom instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember suggesting at the previous block that it be longer. But his only editing since then has been this group of edits to his user page,so maybe he won't return and continue in the same pattern. DGG (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:YasirSaklaneAli

I know this board is usually not used to attend copyright and newbie issues, but a quick look at this user's contributions made evident that he is in need of a mentor ASAP. I had never seen so many deleted contributions by a single user, nor so many bizarre edits, the user seems to be using Wikipedia as some sort of public hosting website for articles he finds in other websites, particulary IGN, I left him a friendly message on his talk page pointing out several of the policies violated by this pattern, but without mentorship he is probably doomed to repeat them and will end up blocked, unfortunately my life in the real world has been a pain and my mentor seems to be also busy, thus the only real choice is to inform the community of the situation so that someone can save a potentially good contributor from eventually being blocked due to persistent misundertandings. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks & edit warring by User:Kobra85

To my knowledge, I have never had any past dealings with that user before. Starting with a -- what I had initially perceived as a -- somewhat comical (though crude and a bit uncivil), commend here, it came to my attention this sudden spree of eliminating (IMO a perfectly pertinent) template. User:Kobra85 deleted ({ template: {{macedonianmusic}} ) from at least *40* relevant articles in the past 2 days (for example here, here, here … and here).

I've re-inserted the template in some of the articles and did some other edits too, trying to explain that the template is of relevance thus of navigational value for our readers. This resulted in quick reverts, edit-warring from his part, using deeply contagious language as "you don't know the first thing about editing Wikipedia" or "the template is irrelevant, get that through your thick head". Even in the face of this attitude I have approached this user in his talk page and tried, politely, to make clear that he is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:No Personal Attacks as seen here. All I've got in return was more incivility and aggressiveness (i.e. " coming from you, it means nothing to me") and more personal attacks ("... stop your stupid accusations").

For clarity, this is the brief showdown of our discussion:

• No personal attacks
• Edit warring - template

I would kindly ask your opinion on this attitude and the situation in general. Thank you. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hatto

I request that an administrator please contact Hatto (talk · contribs) about a long history of marking all of his edits as minor and refusing to provide edit summaries. Some of his edits that he has marked as minor include adding or deleting paragraphs, sections, and categories. He has been asked five times over the past five months to please change his editing habits. He has made no response to the requests and continues the same pattern. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs please? -- Naerii 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Some recent edits marked minor: [23] [24] [25]. Regarding no edit summaries, look at his most recent 250 edits. Except for automatic edit summaries (i.e., reverts), there are only one or two edit summaries. He's been doing this for years. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A review of his last 500 edits shows the problem. Over 99% of his contributions are marked 'Minor'. The edits themselves are fine for the most part. I don't see that any administrators have written to him about the minor edits yet; that might be worthwhile. In early March he was blocked by Ryulong for move warring over the case of the letters in the title of Abingdon Boys School and for performing cut-and-paste moves against advice. Since he removes most warnings from his Talk page and does no archiving there could be other examples. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on what should be done here, I note that Ward's last 3 sorry, it was two. warnings to Hatto HAVE BEEN IN ALL CAPS, AND BOLDED TOO. This is unlikely to engender a desire to do what you want him to do. --barneca (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this point here (and I'll be happy to discuss on anyone's talk page). But let me make a correction. I did not bold the first three requests for each issue (minor edits and no edit summaries being separate issues). I only bolded the last request by me, and another editor made the fifth request. I think after several requests with no response and no change in edit pattern, he deserves bold to get his attention. If I bolded the first three requests I might agree with you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) -- 3 sorry, it was two.: No, it was one per issue. Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- I've toned down one of these,it seemed a little excessive. This may be a case for preventative blocking until this editor shows that he understands the issues. S/He seems to have no problem with English normally, but has seen the notices, even though not the notification of this thread. I propose we wait to see if this produces any repsonse. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a user preference in Special:preferences on the "Editing" tab "Mark all edits minor by default". He probably has this checked and doesn't realize it. I've seen that a number of times. If someone walks him through turning it off, that will probably solve the problem. --B (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Despite all the notices, he is still doing it. Sadly, and reluctantly, I've blocked him indefinitely (although not forever) until he will talk to someone, and left detailed reasons on his talk page. This editor seems to have a reasonable command of English, so I doubt that's the issue. Also, to change one's editing preferences requires attention, and the "all edits are minor" is by default set to off, so if it hasn't been changed accidentally (although he is, of course, aware of this by now), it must have been changed deliberately. He needs to talk to someone, which is why I have blocked for the time being. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for block of User:Discospinster

User:Discospinster has been deleting pages without much reasoning. Most of the pages he deletes he claims are "Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance". Other users are complaining to him on his talk page too, because he is deleting articles that he shouldn't. ie: SSAI Board of Directors this article was under construction and the purpose of it was to give the history of a Not-For-Profit organization's Board of Directors.

Help?! Tgreve (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So he must be blocked because he deleted a article that you wrote? give me a break, the article did seem to meet CSD A7, "giving the history of a Not-For-Profit organization's Board" doesn't make a topic notable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When even the parent article is pretty much borderline A7, it's fairly obvious a detail of it will be. Though I did appreciate learning that they had a new kitchen installed in 1969. Black Kite 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he/she shouldn't be blocked (obviously) but the deletion of pages has to stop, so an admin (I'm not one) obviously has to intervene. There's way too much "he/she should be blocked!!!" these days. So I tell you what. As a nothing non-blocker I'll go to the talk page, post a message, get back to you here. Don't go away. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. The deletion of that particular article was clearly within deletion of articles that do not assert notability, and was quite correct. Black Kite 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The report complains about "Most of the pages he deletes" not a page, complaints at talk page from "users", not a user. So while I roundly boo blocking calls, I'd at least ask for the case to be heard, please. Thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Users tend to complain when their articles are deleted; it's only natural. Admins who patrol CAT:CSD and other deletion categories are used to it. Sometimes we can explain to the users what they've done wrong; sometimes they don't want to listen. Thus it has always been. For what it's worth, I looked through some of User:Discospinster's deletions and didn't see anything wrong. Black Kite 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just having a lot of complaints is not a reason to block. Any administrator who works with speedy deletion will soon amass a ton of "why did you delete it?! it was so notable!!!" notes on their talk pages. If you think that any of the deletions were inappropriate take the article to WP:DRV. Metros (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Metros, BK, I entirely agree, but would only spotlight that the submitter of the report spoke clearly in the plural. He/She should be asked for diffs, to support his report. (Otherwise the report sadly sucks......) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don;t see anything much wrong in the last half-dozen or so in the log. To appeal a particular one WP:Deletion review is the place to go. DGG (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in Discospinster's actions, and anyway, we don't block for admin misconduct. If you disagree with deletions, take them to DRV. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I always respond to users who post on my talk page and request a reason for my deletion of their article. I also don't delete articles unless they are obviously about a non-notable subject. There was nothing in the articles Tgreve wrote that indicated the subject met any of the criteria of WP:N. If there are any complaints about my actions I would prefer that the affected party contact me on my talk page and allow me to respond before asking that I be blocked. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User account may have been vandalized

Resolved

Hi guys. I'm using my dopler account or second account to write this message. That's because my primary account user:CyclePat appears to be compromised by something. This started yesterday and now when I log in I get a pop-up with "Replaced by addPortletlink()". Could something have changed in my command lines for my account? I forget the name of that page? It's the page where you put all those special codes such as peer-review, or other handy stuff. --CyclePat2 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disabled the line in User:CyclePat/monobook.js. Ctrl-Refresh once you're logged in. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! :) Thanks you very much guys. Greatly appreciated. I'll test it out and check back in just a moment to make sure it works. Best regards. --CyclePat2 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(all smiles)... It works great. Thank you for the tun-up... As a car mecanic might say... nothing better than a little squirt of oil... In this case nothing better the squirm for "ctrl-f5" and help from some peers! Thanks for the tune-up! --CyclePat (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a MediaWiki dependency changed, borking the peerreviewer user script. The coder has been notified. The only solution is to disable (comment out) or uninstall peerreviewer, for now. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the only solution. See WP:VPT#Strange_error_-_.22Replaced_by_addPortletLink.28.29.22, where this was all explained. The code change was reversed, so all should be well after a cache WP:BYPASS. Furthermore, even without the code reversal, for most scripts that don't load addlink themselves, having the addlink function in your own monobook would work. It would probably be better to reduce script dependencies from other users' spaces anyway. Gimmetrow 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. I had already uninstalled the script so didn't see any change, but it's good to know for now that things are back the way they were. --Dhartung | Talk 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:meyerj and Leo J. Meyer

meyerj is an SPA who created an article memorialising his father, Leo J. Meyer. The subject is of borderline notability, the article is original research and most of it is unsourced. COI concerns abound.

The article went to AfD in January and the result was delete. Subsequently, this was overturned at a deletion review. The closing admin recommended the article be stubbed. Since then, the main article remains intact and meyerj has also installed a copy of it as his user page.

I've left a gentle note but it's probably time that this lot was disentangled, preferably by an uninvolved admin. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for support, I've also left my own comment regarding the presence of such a page per WP:UP. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an issue here requiring admin attention. Working on an article in userspace, even if a similar or identical article exists in articlespace, isn't against policy as far as I remember. The DRV was pretty decisive, if I remember, so I definitely don't think the article needs to be deleted - and stubbing would seem to be unnecessarily drastic as well. Trimming out some of the unreferenced stuff is possible, but again... I'm not sure I see the need unless there is a question of veracity. Avruch ^T 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus at DRV, which I don't remember as being as that decisive, local consensus doesn't override policy about verification. I agree that the mainspace article shouldn't be deleted but it should be cut to what is verifiable and that is probably no more than a couple or three sentences. Incidentally, I remain neutral on this but having just seen the Milhist B-class drive demote 1400 articles from B-class to Start-class, mostly because of poor sourcing, it seems inappropriate that the Leo J. Meyer article should remain as it is. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is bored on a Saturday morning and wants to read even more opinion on this matter, you can read a conversation between myself, Balloonman, and Keeper76 here. Tan | 39 16:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the article deals with non-notable content. What remains is truly in the suburbs of notability. I would suggest trimming the article way down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done, but I think it's still too long. I also think there are WP:COI worries stretching back to how this article was created. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good purging/trimming to eliminate non-notable/unverifiable content. I'm not commenting on the notability per the AfD at the moment. So, the only remaining issue/s seems to this and the WP:COI, which will be dealt with in said AfD. If the user is simply using a carbon copy on his user page for editorial purposes, it can stay. If they are doing it circumvent deletion, since at one point it was deleted, I'd suggest WP:MFD if this AfD results in expunging the main article. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after reviewing all, I have re-nominated the article for deletion in the hope running it through the whole AfD process will yield an unambiguous outcome this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Attack" Userbox

I came across an Anti-Gay userbox while on RC patrol diff. I'm not exactly sure but I understood that "anti" userboxes were classed as attacks. Any help so that I know what to do in future? -- BpEps - t@lk 13:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I started by asking nicely if he would remove it. Seemed like the appropriate first step. There are others... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it just seconds before FQ made her friendly request ... hope I wasn't too fast with the trigger. Blueboy96 13:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope - no argument that it needed to go. Black Kite 13:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't need to ask nicely to remove bigotry from userpages. I think we should be rather strict in disallowing things like using Wikipedia to declare yourself "anti-gay". _(1 == 2)^Until 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as well; there's never a reasonable need for such nonsense. Lawrence § t/e 14:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep - stuff like that does nothing to improve the project. Tiptoety ^talk 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that an anon has been blanking Safc1's Talk page and has now been reverted twice. It may be Safc1 not logged in, but he should log in in order to blank his page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Alex Makedon

Difficult communication with impolite User:Alex Makedon. He keeps adding that -irrelevant to the article- offending entry "Too sad Wikipedia is full of Hell Ass Neonazi wishing bloodshearing, wars and ruin just on etnic-national basis to its neighbouring country. Too bad that tis is a reality for many young greeks" here and it's more than obvious that he is making a word play with Hellas (Greece) and “Hell Ass”. I politely revert him a few times but he returns it. Will someone explain to him? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. He has been blocked before for sockpuppetry and abusive behavior, so he should know better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note, this is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Remedies arbitration case, and further instances should be blocked accordingly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Herunar

Herunar removed an image from Madonna (entertainer) saying it has "terrible quality."[26] I don't agree with blanking an image for personal disliking of its appearance. I feel it is a continuous disruption of Wikipedia for personal reasons.

I warned him not to do so.[27] He blanked it.[28]Instead, he sent me two warnings.[29] These were followed by more.[30] Then he also sent a personal attack warning.[31] But I have never commented on him. in any of my edits yesterday He continued removing the image saying it "simply sucks."[32]

So a question has haunted me overnight: Who is right is sending the warnings, me or him? And is this kind of blanking justified? Ultra! 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't like the photo, he can remove it. If you dislike it, you can revert him. At that point, instead of dropping a vandalism template on him, you could have invited him to discuss it. Instead of responding to your vandalism template with various templates of his own, he could have started discussion. And instead of removing his messages from your talkpage with edit summaries saying "spam", you could have actually discussed the photo.

What happens now? Go to Talk:Madonna, discuss what his objections are to the photo - which I admit I view as perfectly OK - and, if you fail to agree, get a third opinion. And stop templating each other! --Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize with my heart for responding to his ignorance of Wikipedia policies with more unseemly behavior. He was the second person in the day who responded hysterically to a minor, justified edit I made and I, frankly, was extremely pissed at the time. The image, as anyone can see, is simply terrible. I could not find a word to describe it, and in no way should it be on Wikipedia. But anyway I will attempt to resonate with this user. This should be the end of the case, thanks. Herunar (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is in fact a copyvio, I've tagged it for deletion. Bazzargh (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I should have caught that. It's on the first page of results for a Google Image search of Madonna+Blonde+Ambition. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Race of ancient Egyptians article, currently on probation

I have absolutely no experience in dealing with such matters, which is why I am posting this here. However, a fairly new user, and to this date apparently single-purpose account, User:Kan13st, created a long, rather odd statement on his user talk page, moved it to his user page, and has since added it to the Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians article, even preserving the really miserable formatting. Such in fact includes all of the account's activity to date. Does making this unsourced, accusatory, and, well, irrational and contrary to known facts (editor alleges the Macedonian descended Cleopatra was black, for instance), qualify as disruptive editing as per the article probation guidelines or not? John Carter (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed per WP:SOAP & WP:TALK. Not a discussion of how to improve the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to treat all line-pushing edits on that page, which is clearly under article probation and one of the nastiest and most vitriolic articles on Wikipedia, with a big stick. Editors should be on notice via the article probation that if they want to edit that article they must be very very careful to keep those edits above reproach. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a <comment> moderated from the above should be placed at the start of the article? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barresi

We have a nasty WP:BLP issue at Paul Barresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article was under WP:OFFICE protection for a while, but has been subject again to defamatory edits, and Nick deleted and stubbed it. This pissed off both Barresi (who was not happy to start with) and Jokestress, who wrote a decent version some time ago that got nuked along the way.

I have taken some slightly unusual and bold steps here after discussing it with Jimbo via email. This is all my own responsibility, though, this is not an Office or Jimbo thing.

What I have done:

• Restored the known good versions by Jokestress and Jimbo
• Left all other revisions deleted, as there are numerous defamatory edits there
• Blocked Fuzzyred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who inspired particular complaints form Barresi for taunting him on the talk page
• Told Fuzzyred that if he undertakes to leave Barresi alone (unlikely: it's essentially a WP:SPA) then he may be able to persuade an admin to unblock him
• Protected the article while we think about it, to stop the history getting any more screwed up.

I invite review of the above. VRTS ticket # 2008032010015328 for those with access. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The current article doesn't seem to be in particularly great shape, for example the redlinked images (could you remove those?) and ref #6 doesn't appear to work, at first glance. I hope it will not be protected for too long, the article could do with updating and cleaning up. However it's better than having a stub and if the article has been subject to persistent vandalism then maybe long term semi protection is the way to go and significant edits can be discussed on the talk page.-- Naerii 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the dead images, thanks for the reminder. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page-move problem

Resolved

Neillty (talk · contribs) has been moving an article that he created all over the place, leaving behind a string of nonsensical and inappropriate redirects. Can an admin sort this out, to get rid of the redirects and perhaps to wise the user up? (I've left a page-move warning on his talk page.) Deor (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what on earth's that all about! Have tidied up as best I can - a clear case of page-move-diarrhea, methinks. _GB^T/C 18:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

IP harassment

Resolved

 – IP out of action for 31 hours. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:142.162.68.105 left this comment on my talk page for no apparent reason. This vandalism was removed by User:21655. I left a WP:NPA message on the user's talk page which he then blanked. He then left this lovely nugget of civility on my talk page. I tried to handle this like an adult, but now I think it is time to call the WikiCops. Thanks. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the incivility and left a {{uw-vandalism4im}} on his talk page. He does this again, and he's looking at an enforced vacation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31h. We're done here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bwmoll3

Back in February, I had a dispute with Bwmoll3 (talk · contribs) regarding some pages that he had created on various Patty Loveless songs (translation: all of her singles). This dispute began when I listed several songs at AfD (see discussion here). Despite several pages' worth of discussion in the AfD, my talk page, and the user's talk page, this user refused to believe that the songs weren't notable just because they didn't chart. In the end, they were finally redirected without further dispute to their respective albums.

Just a few minutes ago, I redirected Send a Message to My Heart to If There Was a Way -- in part because the song was not credited to Patty Loveless, and in part because it appeared to be a permanent stub (it peaked at #47 on the country charts in 1992, what else can you say about it?) Just then, the same user insulted me on my talk page. I then offered what I thought was an acceptable compromise -- keeping my cool, I suggested that the entire content of the less-notable songs (i.e. ones that missed Top 40) be merged into the articles on the respective albums (diff). This resulted in further incivility from this user, who is clearly VERY insistent on having their way and their way only.

I've pointed out politely to this user that I'm following what's highlighted in WP:MUSIC (permanent stubs should be merged to album pages), but to no avail. In addition, said user has accused me (falsely) of vandalism at least twice, and has just been outright rude. I have no idea what to do here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are involved in a content dispute with Bwmoll3, who admittedly went just a little too far, but who has been warned to try and keep his/her cool in future while discussing this content dispute with you. [33] Wouldn't it better to try dealing with with this issue, say at RfC, instead of wasting time here? Who knows, once you've sorted out your dispute over a few song articles you might even end up being the best of mates. Worth a try anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that "best of mates" thing, if the response on my talk page] is any indication. Having said that, I'm on it, and will try and move it towards the proper location for this kind of discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber: WP policies and guidelines do not have to be followed

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

---

Enough. Nothing to see here --Haemo (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the correct place to start this thread, but the matter does not seem to properly fall into any of the specified ANI subcategories.

At the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch, one of the participants, User:Kmweber, is claiming that WP policies and guidelines do not have to be followed: "No, we don't. We are not bound by precedent at all. We are expected to judge each case on its merits. There are no hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia. The "policies" merely reflect what has been done in the past; they are not rules to dictate what happens in the future. This is where you change consensus, and when that happens, the "policy" pages are updated to reflect that". Apart from this general claim, he also claims that specifically the existing notability guidelines do not have to be followed either. I am not sure what to do here. The user is not being uncivil or impolite but his position is so radical that I don't really know how to proceed. Perhaps some admin can try to talk to this user and explain the ground rules of Wikipedia to him. Thanks Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

• He's entitled to his opinion (and I agree with him at that). I don't think any admin intervention is needed here. -- Naerii 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Kurt is well known for having what some would consider extreme views on notability and as far as I know he's never been sanctioned for it (although people do love to complain). The best course of action is to ignore it if you think it's ridiculous. Kurt's been around for long enough and put up with enough abuse that he doesn't need a reminder from an admin about Wikipedia's "ground rules". -- Naerii 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not just about notability. He claims that none of the WP policies and guidelines are binding and should be followed. He may be entitled to this view but it is certainly an incorrect one and is not compatible with reality and could be very disruptive. Every WP policy says in its header: "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow". If every user just did what they liked and invoked IAR each time, we would have anarchy and wild west here. Why do we have blocks, dispute resolution, ArbCom, administrators, etc, then? Yes, he is entitled to his views, but if a person is not willing to abide by Wikipedia's ground rules that person should not be editing Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually broken any rules or are you just conjecturing about what could happen? Kurt hasn't invoked IAR, he isn't doing what he likes, he's just giving his opinion about whether an article should be kept or not - something which he quite explicitly is allowed to do whether you agree with his stance or not. Since Kurt has been here since 2004 and hasn't caused anarchy, I think we're going to be OK. And whilst we're on the topic of Wikipedia standards, you haven't notified him of this thread and neither have you discussed this with him on his talk page. Please see the header at the top of this page. -- Naerii 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the notification. I have not been involved in ANI before, so I missed it and I am sorry about this. Even though I see that he has already participated in this thread, I'll put a notification on his talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Kmweber is quite correct per WP:IAR which is a policy established at the highest level. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kurts views are certainly not an applicable use of IAR. That said, he is of course entitled to his opinion and his views should be respected, even when others disagree. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Like stated above WP:IAR is one thing that Kurt uses quite often, and has never really disrupted the project because of it. He is entitled to his opinion no matter how flawed someone may think it is. Tiptoety ^talk 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nsk92, especially the part about "...but if a person is not willing to abide by Wikipedia's ground rules that person should not be editing Wikipedia" And if Nsk92 doesn't have the common decency to notify Kmweber that Nsk92 has started a discussion at AN/I, then Nsk92 should back bags and start hiking. 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.41.245 (talk)

• If you disagree, then just ignore him. Admins aren't here to block people for trying to ignore all rules. Radical positions on policies and guidelines which do not have consensus will not be given very much weight in a final decision. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who have been around for awhile know that I am substantially correct. What are called "policies" on Wikipedia are really anything but. They're just there to let people know what has typically happened in the past; they are not prescriptive or normative at all. Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucratic masturbation; it's a project to actually get something useful done. Ultimately, we are expected to judge each individual situation on its own merits, and if it turns out that what's best for the encyclopedia and what the "rules" say to do are at odds, then the rules lose. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To add to that: if you disagree with what I think what's best for the encyclopedia, that's fine, so long as you understand that that is in fact the primary issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, I view your opinions of notability as prima facie evidence of power hunger. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have to duel now? Name your second! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Crazy idea here. Kurt has strong opinions that we may agree or disagree with. Maybe we could read his opinions. Think about them. And see if the consensus is to support his view or to oppose his view. And then move on without moving to ANI, RFC. or RFARB.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, this place gets more like a children's playground every day. Now just expressing an unpopular point of view results in this kind of nonsense? How soon before we're all obliged to use WikiNewspeak? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Stalking type behavior from an IP

I seem to have picked up somebody from a Chicago university editing under the IP (see User talk:147.126.95.165) of their institution who has been going around reverting changes I have made, at first restoring their own edits that I had removed myself, then seeking out pages from my own contributions and reverting my edits there. He (I very much doubt it would be a she...) isn't using edit summaries, or when he does they are deceptive. Gadfium has already banned the IP for a couple of days but as soon as the block came off they reverted all the changes again, and may do so once again in the next day or two. Richard001 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a pretty stable ip I have executed a one month block - serious contributors can create accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Centrum99

Could somebody warn this user (or whatever action is appropriate)? He's been warned already often enough, but this edit is only the latest in a long string of very uncivil and rather abusive rants. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this user to AIV instead of issuing a warning since there are numerous other infractions for similar behavior.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are very old, with the exception of today's. I gave notice, but that's really all that can be done at the time. seicer | talk | contribs 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the best we can do at this time that's fine, but I'm going to keep an eye on this to make sure it doesn't escalate like it did back in December.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, I don't think this editor has bad intentions and the edit history is a good one. I just think that this editor has issues with civility and needs to keep his/her personal feelings in check better.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-pp

Some of the recent nonsense IP posts come from TOR, some do not. For the time being, we have more important stuff to address, so I've semi-pp'd this board. Feel free to undo when the kiddies go to sleep. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually sort of convenient to find out the IPs that keep posting, "There are no incidents right now." It's an easy way of finding TOR exit nodes and blocking them. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple hoax articles

User Michael2008 has created many hoax articles related to beauty pageants. They have all been proded, however, an admin may see fit to delete these articles before the usual prod period expires. They are all listed here commencing with "Miss". Disciplinary action against the editor may also be appopriate. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• All deleted per WP:CSD#G1 and WP:IAR. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured article protection

Due to an extremely high level of vandalism, well beyond the normal level for the TFA, I've semi-protected Tomb of Antipope John XXIII. Please keep an eye on it, and reduce semi-protection to merely "move=sysop" after a short while. I'll likely be logging off soon. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just tried unprotecting it. It was vandalized within minutes, so I re-protected it. I'll try again a little later, unless someone else wants to unprotect it sooner. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not resolve my complaint concerning Hu12. concerning wikistalking

I filed a complaint concerning the Wikistalking by Hu12, and his unwarranted removal of my editing privileges. I also noted that he had purged his talk page (and my comments withouut my consent) as part of a larger cover up. This all seems to have simply faded off into the sunset.

Also, there was the important issue concerning unilateral declarations by wiki admins which find that certain worthwhile links are spam. That too has disappeared.

I did try to get some answers (and even work out a resolution) to this matter. Here is the link:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHu12&diff=203061872&oldid=203061030

Hu12 deleted my attempt to communicate as "unwelcome harassment." He did this without my consent.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

I don't know all the specifics of this situation, but I noticed that this use of the rollback tool at List of museums in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is rather troubling. There might be some debate about which museums are notable enough to list there, and there might be some debate about which links are relevant. Still, these issues should be discussed on article talk or user talk pages. I'd advise Hu12 to only use the rollback tool for clear vandalism, and 7&6=13 to not get overheated in discussions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion for any interested. The harassment comment may not have been appropriate, but Hu12 doesn't need your consent to remove messages from their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to talk to you, he doesn't have to. Nor does he require your 'consent' to do anything to his talk page. HalfShadow (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Linkspamming is vandalism and disruptive. Past discussion is located here. 7&6=thirteen violated WP:WPSPAM, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a link repository (Arbitration policy/Past decisions) 7&6=thirteen has Falsley and improperly accused myself and Barek of wikistalking and sock puppetry.

Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment

→"Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing suspected sockpuppet and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."

Accusing someone without justification of wikistalking and sock pupetry is also a form of personal attack. --Hu12 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think you should have discussed the linkspamming issue first. I reviewed 7&6=13's edits a little more, and while he may have added an excessive number of links and references to those articles, there really should have been more discussion on his talk page and some attempt to reach common ground, instead of putting the external link warning template there. Maybe some frustration could have been averted with more discussion. It doesn't excuse 7&6's angry words, of course, but a lot of arguments can be avoided if people discussed stuff instead of immediately getting frustrated. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

135+ to the same url target, which resulted it him being reported to WikiProject Spam, after sufficient warnings by others (which went dismissed and ignored). --Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it particularly concerning that 7&6=thirteen has been quite active on wikipedia during the full time period the other discussion was taking place, oddley within hours of it moving into the archive.. this is posted..*cough*..WP:POINT?--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, mostly encyclopedic edits to lighthouses. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and not according to this post "Before I go back to the Wikipedia administrators complaint page ...you should know that I have not forgotten what you did"

History clearly points to WP:POINT, lets review;

• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. "
• "Wikistalkers, I'm being wikistalked by Barek and HU12."
• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune"
• "Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanction"
• "I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars."
• "...will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies..."
• "This was WIKISTALKING "
• "he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up."
• "I want these peoples' administrative privileges removed "
• " have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek"
• "It is the very definition of Wikistalking"
• "When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind"
• "goons"

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and now WP:POINT. hmmm, appears to be tendentiously continuing in pursuit of a certain point..--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• How about we "resolve" it by blocking 7&6=thirteen for being a dick. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that "resolution"..--Hu12 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a block would be punitive, not preventative. I'll also note that 7&6=13 has been talking amicably with Barek at User talk:Barek, and they're talking constructively about editing articles. I also left 7&6=13 some pointers on my talk page regarding how to clean up source citations and how to keep links out of external links sections when they're already used as a reference. I don't think there's any reason for any sort of block unless Mr. 13 gets out of line again, and I doubt that will happen again. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, I may (or may not) agree with your assessment of User:7&6=thirteen but, a newbie like me shouldn't have to remind you or other long standing users of the civility issues. BTW I've corrected the typo in your comment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't be patronising. m:DICK is a very long-standing guideline, and 7&6=thirteen is violating it by repeatedly coming back to make the same complaint that has been dismissed every time. When everybody tells you that yo are wrong, it's wise to at least allow for the possibility that it's because you are wrong, something that 7&6 does not yet seem to have taken on board. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • User:7&6=thirteen I think the issue was pretty much resolved with the last conversation and above. Perhaps, you could review your own behaviour before lashing out at people. You should also take note of the civility issues and appropriateness of some of your statements regarding "cover-ups". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems like the responses of everyone are blowing this out of proportion: the only difference is that admins ought to know better than trying to fight fire with fire... Coldmachine^Talk 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41

User:Hoponpop69 has recently decided to remove all genres from the infobox of Sum 41 that were not sourced. When I provided a source, he stated that it was not a reliable source. I argued, but I eventually attempted to make him happy and removed all the sourced subgenres from the infobox and replaced them with more general genres and a "disputed genre" link to the musical styles section of the page, according to Template:Infobox Musical artist. He reverted my edit several times without explanation and gave me a level 1 content removal warning. I had attempted to discuss the matter with him earlier, to no avail. After he gave me the warning, I reverted his edit and replied. He then responded by giving me another warning, this time for introducing unsourced content into the article. I really don't know what to do now, and I don't want to start an all-out edit war with him and I see in his block log that he has had problems in the past with civility and such, so I would really like this resolved as soon as possible. Timmeh! 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message saying that content disputes are not vandalism. Disputes like this should be discussed on the article talk page, not via vandalism warnings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm endorsing the user's motives, but from what I can see, they didn't offer any vandalism warnings, just the removal of sourced info, which just serves to inflame the situation since Timmeh is an established user Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a spillover from the Flyleaf dispute to be honest, although I could be wrong. Orderinchaos 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:WilliamMThompson suicide post

In the interests of never taking such things lightly and per the suggestions at WP:VIOLENCE, I have blocked User:WilliamMThompson and fully protected User talk:WilliamMThompson due to this edit. Please review and let me know if I handled this correctly and whether any notifications are necessary. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misspelling is common, especially in Australia" ?? Seems most likely to not be serious, a suspected sock thwarted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't sound serious, but I didn't want to take any chances with such things.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and agree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this kind of threat, even if it is not meant seriously, should always be taken seriously, as ou cannot always be 100% certain whether or not it is a plea for attention. Remember that there are always better options than taking your own life, always. I don't mean to encourage drama in this already overdramadic noticeboard, but we have to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken. Valtoras (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to error on the side of caution here. Not knowing who to notify in this particular case might be a problem, unless we have access to the subject's IP address. But the person whom I believe this party is a suspected sock of, as well as his other suspected socks, has displayed a number of behaviors which lead me to think that the possibility is a real one. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think blocking was the right thing to do, and in any case he would've been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Tom.mevlie. At this point there is nothing more to do. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering we don't know the location of the editor in question, or even necessarily his real name, I've sent an e-mail to the Foundation advising them of the situation. They're probably the ones who can most easily determine which authorities to contact, and what name, if any, to report. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And, once again, Soccermeko, now at 4.154.5.153

I already rolled back all the edits by the latest sock. Will someone with a mop consider blocking the IP?Kww (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blueboy96 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Back this morning: Back again at User:4.129.68.118.Kww (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone else please look at this editor

A short while ago, I encountered Iambus (talk · contribs), who's only been around for a week or so, making a "joke" edit to Peaches Geldof, which just happens to be on my watchlist. I reverted, left a level-1 warning, and said I would be checking his/her other contributions. Most were okay, some vandalism reverts, some minor improvements in content. The only other one that troubled me was an edit to Wikia to insert a reference to a blog, which I reverted; now Iambus has re-inserted it. Throughout this, we have exchanged messages on my talk page; however, I'm tired and cranky and probably not the best person to try to reason with anyone on why a Wikipedia Review blog is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Could someone else please look into this? Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page about reliable sources and why we need them. If the editor continues to make disruptive edits I think you can give a harsher warning followed by an AIV, based on recent behavior, but it's difficult to see bad faith in this particular situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And I learn that using add new section won't edit conflict with someone adding the exact same material. Mine's a tad wordier, so he has his choice of versions. MBisanz ^talk 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific is good too. :) --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My he's touchy about it for a new editor who in theory has had nothing to do with WP or WR in the past. I'm thinking a {{Uw-pinfo}} might be needed. MBisanz ^talk 08:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty troubling response from a "new editor" who's "just making mistakes". I think {{Uw-pinfo}} is a good call if he continues to do things like he did to Gator, but he responded on his talk page that he's not going to use those sources again.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found this page on the "what links here" part on the side of this site on User:Iambus. I just read the beginning of the "external harassment" link page, just enough to understand what it is. After that, I stated my opinion of it. I will no longer harass editors, as I did with Gator, after such a troubling thing happened to him. On my user page, I've made a recent edit saying no more fooling around for me.

I also just read the uw-pinfos thing, and it looks very serious. As I said above, I will not harass anyone anymore. --User:Iambus (speak | proposal) 08:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, I'm glad you appreciate the seriousness of some of your past actions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, after 5 hours of copy editing an article on Indian literature I was pretty sure I was too testy to handle this well. I guess someone can stick one of those nice little "resolved" boxes up there. Just an idea though...those things add quite a bit to the page load time, so their use might benefit from a rethink. Risker (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New section, since my previous report of Soccermeko's daily resurrection went unnoticed

He's back at 4.154.56.1. I've requested semi-protection of all of his targets, but the response time at WP:RFPP is taking forever (and all my semi-requests were ignored yesterday). Please block. Someone please do the semiprotections.Kww (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs he used today ... note to other admins, this guy is using computers on Level 3's network. This is a major backbone Internet provider, so I'd advise softblocking any IPs in this range if he pops up on them again. Blueboy96 16:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

sockpupeteer makes a sock after unblock

I have just been told that the sockpupeeteer accused on this case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon has created a sock called Radiospeed barely 18 hours after being unblocked, and has used it to edit the same articles he was told not to edit, and has violated naming policies like he was told not to do. See the sock contributions, and obvious similarity with user page of other socks.

I request inmediate indef block of User:Radiospeed for obvious sock, and inmediate reblock of User:Pinoybandwagon for using sockpuppetry and breaking again naming policies again, and lying to get unblocked. No warning, since this user has received lots of requests and harsh warnings to stop this behaviour, and has broken his promise when requesting unblock of "I will never make usernames under me". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... looking at his edits, this guy clearly isn't a new user. First edit was to create a userpage with userboxes, and then he redirects a page. Probably gonna file a checkuser. Blueboy96 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very similar to one of the sock pages User:Coolmacmac and User:Radiosmasher (the last one was changed by an IP that appears to be the user some 5 minutes before Radiospeed was created, and I restored it, and to the ones from socks on a related User:Coolmac and User:False_man --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.D.: This user appears to be engaged on a smear campaign against GMA in favor of Pinoy TV. He added a link to a website smearing GMA [34], and he apparently used a IP sock for similar things, as seen on his answer to and editor that reverted his edits [35], he signs as "ray, a concerned GMA PINOY TV subscriber.". Notice that he proclaims to say the truth just like the sockpupeteer. Notice how User:Pinoybandwagon claims to be "incumbent Chairman of Pinoy Banwagon", and the IP talks about Pinoy TV. I'm sure that I have seen some other reference to a company called Pinoy on one of the socks, but I don't remember when. I am not sure of how this relates to all his screwing up all the naming organization of philippine radio stations.

Another sock User:Bad_false has a userbox saying "This user watches GMA Network programs and is "proud to be a Kapuso."." --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpage is quite similar to that of a confirmed Pinoybandwagon sock, Radiosmasher (talk · contribs). That clinches it ... case filed. Only reason I didn't block them both myself was because of the outside chance they're different users. Blueboy96 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was me who assumed his good faith and unblocked him, I believe it is my duty to correct this mistake. Both sock and its master are indef-blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri edit warring... again

The article Egyptians could use some eyes. User:Funkynusayri was edit warring with a new user on its talk page yet again despite getting a recent warning for an edit war on another article, and several past blocks for similar behavior. The last edit war seems to have been a spill over from a dispute on the article Arab because some editors with the help of a self-admitted sockpuppet of a previously banned user were trying to include contested images of people. This is despite an over-flooded talk page with months of disputing over the same issue, which seemed to have been resolved when the article had a more neutral image. By the way, the sockpuppet's identity is revealed on the picture he created in case anyone is wondering; not something he is trying to hide (and is violating his most recent evasion block again [36]). I also just realized that Funkynusayri is fresh off a 7RR violation for which he only received a warning (not sure why given past disruptive history).

He is now notifying of me of an "arbitration" request he filed. Don't know how to begin with that. Not only have I not had the misfortunate of interacting with him for months, the is supposed to be about a "content dispute", but I use the term very loosely because he's never actually addressed the contents of the article once in his round of tendentious/trollish comments on the the article's talk page. His "argument" basically consists of the premise that the article shouldn't exist (i.e., "I don't like it") because it more or less offends his Arab-nationalist sensibilities. I stopped responding to this nonsense long ago after seeing the same tendentious comments on the article's talk page posted over and over again. Two of his cohorts already failed to get the article deleted. I don't even know if I should respond to the arbitration request, but I'm gong to at least post a link to this report. — Zerida ☥ 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Luksuh massively adding {{Unreferenced}}

I've got several articles in my watchlist with this user's last edit adding {{Unreferenced}} with an edit summary of {{references}}. He added this template to hundreds of articles when it is obviously not necessary. For example, there's no need to add this template in a music album article. Please refer to the user's contribs for evidence Should we revert all his edits? Maybe ask him about this? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see why it's unjustified in an album article such as this or this. I see no reason to revert these, as they appear to be in good faith and accurate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Are music albums exempt form WP:V and WP:RS, then? Guy (Help!) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• What admin action is needed here? Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that if an album article has some information about how many units were sold or in what charts the album peaked, the template should be placed. But like the first example you have (Noble Justice) there's no need to add this template.

I also understand these edits are made in good faith, but that does not mean they are correct. That's why I asked it here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Justice is Young Noble's debut studio solo album, released in 2002.{{fact}} --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem. All articles require references. That is all. ➪HiDrNick! 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would of course agree usually, but most album articles have so little content, amounting to ' x is an album by y' and a picture of the album cover, they are IMHO only worth redirecting to the artist anyway. We typically don't need refs in the lead sentence, so if there's only one sentence, a listed ref might be longer than the article. But if people want a source for 'x is the third album by y' or, rarely, a list of the songs on the album, all of which is often in the article about the artist anyway, I suppose we could have it. Sorry- rant over lol.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yours is an excelent arguement against the strange practice of alblums inheriting notability from their artist. But that's neither here nor there.  :) ➪HiDrNick! 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how a release date should be cited with a source. Let's all add this template to every single article that does not have at least one source cited. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• WP:V. any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. "Noble Justice is Young Noble's debut studio solo album, released in 2002." is not a statement that is likely to be challenged. Obviously the article has no references; we can see that. We don't need a massive boilerplate to tell us that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I suppose editors will likely have different perspectives on what information is "challengeable" or "likely to be challenged". With that said, the templates were added (I'm going to presume) in good faith. Those tags can be burdensome to look at, a little obtrusive, but all articles should have reliable sources. Just because something has little to no content is not a reason for exemption. In fact, if there aren't any because of that reason, one might have to question whether there should be an article on it period - an album/song for instance. Merging is always an option. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm truly very, very sorry for any controversy I may have caused, but it is my understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability that all articles require verifiable sources. As is said on the policy page: "...readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I interpret this to mean that all articles need references. If I am wrong in assuming this, could somebody please explain the actual policy regarding references to me? Luksuh 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Luksuh, if you say that all articles require verifiable sources, how you'll verify the existance, let's say for example, of God? Not every single article in Wikipedia needs references. On a side note, at what point the community had a consensus on this? Is it really necessary to "verify and cite" a release date and track listing? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it's not, and broad WP:ALBUMS discussion has agreed on this. Luksuh, please remove the references tag on articles where there is nothing to cite (ie. it was place correctly in some cases, with reviews etc., and there it should stay) and please be more careful in future when dealing with the award center. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)Signed retrospectively at 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm also willing to remove the tag where there's no content to cite with references. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • how you'll verify the existance, let's say for example, of God? Simple: You won't. That's for Conservapedia, not an encyclopedia. You can, however, verify the existence of the concept of a God by citing verifiable, reliable sources that state "I/we/they/these particular people believe in a magical pixie-man on a cloud who is called God" or words to that effect. I'm not altogether comfortable with the {{ref}} tags being removed. They help establish notability, and give examples of the notable coverage an album has received. I wouldn't imagine WP:ALBUMS would "override" WP:V. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • how you'll verify the existance (sic), let's say for example, of God? See: God#Notes. Luksuh 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not going to the God topic because it's unrelated to this and it was just an example. This tag confuses a lot of users who read Wikipedia. Let's say a user is reading the artile used as example in this discussion (Noble Justice) and spot the tag, what they possible could think about that? "This album was not released in that date" "This artist did not make that album"? This massive tagging is just wrong. I'll be removing the tag like I said above, if somebody have any questions ask here or my talk page. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Sethie

User Sethie has not stopped from disrupting the article [37] I am trying to write in my user-space,[38] . Even though I have made repeated request to him to stay out from disruptively editing the article, he has already voted for deletion of the article in MfD discussion,[39] and does not wish to see an article about the subject on wikipedia, initially i assumed his good faith but his edits are more then disruptive, he is claiming that a supreme court docket is not a notable source and has removed the link form the article.[40], Any attempt that i am making in working on the article he is simply reverting it from my user-space [41],[42] , [43], same page has been tagged for speedy deletion twice by his group on wikipedia [44],[45],and was rejected both times, then again it was tagged for MfD [46], by Renee, but they continued to disruptively edit the article and have not allowed me to work on the article so that I can finish it, get community feedback by filing RfC concerning all wikipedia guidelines and then publish it. I have also brought the matter in notice of ArbComm here. My request is, Sethie, Renee and their other wikipedia group members should not be allowed to disruptively edit the article I am trying to write. Help needed in this regard. --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sethie has also removed my comments from MfD discussion stating that my comments about the discussion is blogging [47]. He is not allowing me to write anywhere, be it my user-space or my input to MfD discussion. --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the blogging was not removed, but moved to the talk page of the MFD, as clearly noted in the edit summary here.

Also, please note that this user persists in posting libelous information putting Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit (see this as an example, and this for explanation). Two courts in India have found that allegations of sexual abuse are prima facie libelous and defamatory with absolutely no basis in truth, and despite multiple reversions, this user persists in re-posting such libelous info. Sethie has been reverting the libel because the page it is getting Google hits.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia has zero tolerance for this sort of thing. Thankyou. Renee (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. BTW, this and this were the responses Cult Free World got when he "brought the matter in notice of ArbComm."

this is his user space, where he is mainly starting an article, those allegations mentioned from ex-members were subjects he thought should be discussed in the article, if we assume good faith. He may develop them from a neutral point of view, if not, other less-involved editors can help him, without blanking. For instance, to say "X has been alleged by ex-members, however Y has not been convicted of anything in a court of law." or something. I doubt Cult Free World will accept your input however, as you seem to have an ongoing disagreement. You would be best not to edit his userspace if he has made it clear that he doesn't wish you to do so- simply because it won't help. If you have concerns about anything he's written on a prospective article which he admits is not in a finished state, in his own user space, you can contact admins or others to take a look. But it should be bourne in mind that you may have a conflict of interest about this subject. Have you discussed your concerns about this article with him recently on his own user page? Or have you just blanked or altered parts of his user space, without further in-depth comment? special, random, Merkinsmum 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Merkinsmum, I don't know if your note is to me or Sethie. First, I have reviewed the COI policy and can confirm I do not have a COI. This is one of the user's tactics, to say one is a paid member of a group (which is absolutely a lie) and he was blocked for making such personal attacks here. Knowledge about a topic does not equal COI; editing in a biased manner to safeguard some way of life or belief does. This is why this user has a serious conflict of interest -- he runs a blog on this group which makes it difficult for him to edit in any other way than in line with his POV user name.

And yes, most importantly, I and many of the other editors have tried to work with him (in this and his other incarnations (see this, this, this, and this), but all he does is attack, insist his sources are reliable and valid despite others not on the article pointing they aren't (see this, and [this and continue to commit libel. The policy on libel is clear -- it cannot appear in any Wiki space -- user, talk, project, main. I think the issue here is abuse of user space with libel, and Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy on that. Anyways, that's some background. Renee (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee anyone reading your comments on this discussion here will clearly understand your COI, this has been confirmed by another admin, whom you approached to get me blocked so that the article cannot be published [48] . Your attempt to manipulate users on wikipedia also confirms your COI regarding this topic. This is the only reason as why i had requested you to stay out of development process. You have already tagged the page numerous times for deletion but every time it has been rejected by community. Your comments at this page, when this notice was for Sethie and not you also confirms your COI regarding this subject. This is the sole reason as why i have requested you many times to let me finish the work, so that i can get community feedback. and once again i am requesting you to stay outside the building process, so that i can finish the work soon. Once again kindly let me finish the work do not interrupt as you have done here [49] The MfD discussion itself indicates that you do not want the court cases to come out in public domain, (your first edit was to remove all the court dockets) kindly understand wikipedia works on verifiable truth, do not attempt to hide information i have replied you here also. Now let me finish the work and let me get wikipedia standard confirmed by community and not by you. --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

None of what you post above reflects a COI of any sorts and no admin has ever confirmed such a thing; you only assert this, which again is a personal attack, please stop. The only thing the posts above show is a real effort to get us to abide by Wikipedia policies, i.e., WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:R. I have not touched the article save for once since filing the MFD (and this was filed only because you refused to discuss and chose to go down the same attack strategy as you did under your other user names); and, the only thing I did was make the changes suggested by 4d-Don about the correct translation. Please understand, I have no vested interest if court cases come out in the public domain, as you say. What I object to is that they are primary documents, as administrators have noted (e.g., [50]), and that your labeling of them was inaccurate and POV, which is why we need secondary sources that review the documents (otherwise it is OR because it is the selective choosing of testimony to support a POV).

Now, having said all this, I was pleasantly surprised to see your recent post on the talk page where you ask which source is not up to WP standards, so I'll take this there in the hope that we can discuss things intelligently and from a NPOV. Renee (talk)

Let me copy paste the statement made by the admin you approached to get me blocked, link i have already given, but since I have experience that you always try and manipulate user's on wikipedia, as you have attempted here, as such i am forced to demonstrate your contradiction, on this page itself, first your statement:-

• None of what you post above reflects a COI of any sorts and no admin has ever confirmed such a thing.

And now what other admin whom you approached to get me blocked had stated.

• I am starting to realize this matter isn't just about personal attacks anymore but some conflicts of interest on both sides. Just to let you know, I'm going to leave a message on Reneeholle's talk page so she is aware of what I have stated here.

I know you will never accept your COI regarding this subject, but unfortunately you have not been able to maintain the wikipedia standard regarding this subject, this is evident from the fact that you nominated the page for speedy deletion [51] immediately after it was rejected for the same [52]. Even after two successive refusal from community you nominated the page for MfD [53], This by no means indicates your good faith attempt for building the article, but only show's your COI. Kindly allow me to work on this, You cannot prevent anyone from writing an article you don't like, just that the article should be as per wikipedia standard, and it will be confirmed by the community, not by YOU. The process for taking community feedback is by filing for RfC about the article, and not opinion of user's who are directly involved with the subject. My experience with you is, it is close to impossible to work with you given your extremely inflexible view point,[54] and your personal interpretation of court order's.[55]. As such it will be in benefit of article and wikipedia in general if you stay out of this article, as you COI is evident. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note view of two more user's about Sethie and your disruptive edits [56] and [57]. And also note even after my request to follow neutral admins advice [58], Sethie has added tags to the PRAPOSED article, in my user-space [59], this article is still not over, and any attempt that I am making in writing the article is simply reverted by Sethie. This behavior is astonishing !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note the MFD was filed on advice from this ANI board here. Thanks. Renee (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another revert by Sethie [60] citing no reason at all. This is pure vandalism, any speedy help will be highly appreciated. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World/talk-to-me, if I had to bet I would bet that it's because you continue to post material declared libelous by two courts of law. And, you continue to post previously deleted content with no new secondary sources (which, btw, is the reason for the MFD and the speedily delete tags, see this, not some wish to stop information as you allege). An article is more than welcome under Wikipedia's guidelines which are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. With only primary sources there is a lot of OR, which is why this content was deleted previously.

The Wikipedia model is consensus, otherwise, this page just becomes a mirror of your and 4d-don's blogs, violating WP:NOT. So, why don't you provide a reliable secondary source and we can build it together from there. I've searched my university website and cannot find any otherwise I would provide the first. Renee (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee, your imaginary incarnation will not conceal your COI, noted by more then one admin. It is wikipedia only which has a policy for COI, kindly refer to the link provided above by the neutral observer. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cabal" policy discussion

Hi. This is a cross-posted courtesy notice to ask for opinions regarding User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy. This is in response to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate and the discussion at WP:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your input would be appreciated to come to a consensus in a reasonably efficient manner. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Cabal (TINC) does not wish there to be any policy on cabals. That is all. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih Personal Attacks Continued

If this were the first event I'd be on wikiquette alerts, but there are several warnings in-place already. User:Thamarih has engaged in an long-standing series of personal attacks, sockpuppetry accusations, incivil conduct, and ad hominem reasoning in every article he's edited. This diff contains personal attacks of sockpuppetry and personal attacks. I can confirm personally that his accusations of of-campus collusion on article content are unfounded. He has no way of knowing such a thing in the first place, so the accusation is particularly vile. MARussellPESE (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics of the comment I reviewed Thamarih's contributions and note that they have previously been warned and blocked for making comments regarding yourself. As such I issued an level4 npa warning. If they transgress the npa policy again with particular regard to you, and sectarian commentary generally, I would support a block in excess of a week - and a rapid escalation of tariffs for repeat npa violations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Need an admintrator's intervention

The User talk:Udonknome has been deleting content from the article Eros Ramazzotti[61]. He/she first claimed on my talk page that he's the one who has created the article [62],therefore, he feels as though he's endowed by the right to delete anything he/she wants from the page. The user replaced the original discography section with something that not only does not serve the purpose the former did but also it is now located in the middle of the article which I cannot revert or correct because an admin. has protected the page due to ongoing disputes between I and the other user.--Harout72 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a vandal just for disagreeing with you, and we don't normally use template warnings for regular users, only for newbies. What you two have is a content dispute; there are good suggestions at WP:DISPUTE for strategies to come to consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying he's a vandal for disagreeing with me, however, he should be treated like one for removing whole chunk of informative content from pages without discussing them as well as making the pages look as he has done to Eros Ramazzotti with the discography section in the middle of the article as well as replacing the word Forward with Foward, that's not having a difference of an opinion but it's rather destroying the page. --Harout72 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We only use template warnings for newbies? *cough* You dont think that smacks of elitism and poor reasoning? If you think the templates are bite-y and harsh, they're that way for everyone and no one should get the things. And if new users somehow deserve less consideration, thats just flat out incompatible with our communal norms. Everyone deserves a unique warning if you think they've gone out of line, we aren't less courteous to new users. -M^ask? 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read through Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars - the reasoning behind it is that template messages are designed to educate users about the relevant policy or guideline, which we can generally assume the experienced editor would already be aware of. That's not to say experienced editors are above being warned: rather, they should be warned with a more personal message that encourages further discussion. Such would also work for newbies as well, it goes both ways; it's just that for them, it's best to give them the link, have them read it, then discuss any questions they may have. It doesn't do much good to discuss things when one party doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Read that page many moons ago :) It's the other way around from what you've said, i've found. The big scary icons and lack of good faith on the templates is much more damaging to newcomers then regulars. A link to a policy and washing your hands of it is likely the wrong approach to take with someone unaware of the labyrinthine network of policy, and the 'ZOMG STOP!' visual nature is likely to chase off what would be productive editors were it not for the bite-y aspects. The wording on most of these templates was extremely soft originally, going by memory on when they become prominent a few years ago, but has gotten harsh enough now that a hand written message is superior in, well, almost all cases. -M^ask?

Not disputing that at all - several of the warning templates, the lower-level ones mainly, definitely need some work done. But then that's a discussion for another place and time. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My Own Edits

Resolved

Hello! I would like to remove the title of "vandal" for this IP: 67.171.175.42 Unfortunately, I was logged off when editing my own page (I'm not sure how), and someone else reverted it and gave the IP a warning. I'm sorry for the trouble - I just wish to take any "black marks" off of my IP. Sorry about the trouble, I'm removing the warning. Thank you! BlackPearl14^{Bella Swan} 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rad. Do what thou wilt with your talk page. the_undertow ^talk 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott A. Brown: W.T.F.? Suicide threat or hoax?

Resolved

See [63] Edison (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See [64]. Edison (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Just delete. -- Naerii 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See also [65] Edison (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I removed the messages he's been placing on article talk pages. He's probably pissed cause CFIF deleted an article of his or something. -- Naerii 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither threat nor hoax, just a random rant/trolling so its now deleted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the account. If anyone has the slightest impression that this is anything other than a troll, feel free to report to the appropriate authorities, whoever they are. --Yamla (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a notice, I found some other disruptive users a couple days ago attacking CFIF, such as User:NO MORE CFIF. These might be sockpuppets. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and SVGs

(Moved to AN/B --Random832 (contribs))

Timestamp --Random832 (contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy deleted talk page

User:Meowy deleted talk page documents and edits on Talk:Armenian Genocide. this is not first. i want to NPOV article. i have documents. some peoples blocks and delete this documents from article also from Talk Page. someone hide facts.--Qwl (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The overall diff for reference. Grandmasterka 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The removed talk-page material was clearly off-topic and would not have led to any improvement to the article. In the past the talk page for Armenian Genocide has been particularly badly affected by off-topic clutter that often pushes out legitimate and constructive contributions. I should also point out that the article and talk page has recently become a magnet for those seeking only arguments due to an email that has been sent to http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/092492.html a wikipedia mailing list, and that has also been mentioned in Turkish and Armenian websites, news reports, and forums. Meowy 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

if there is magnet you think somethink is wrong. rules are clear. deniers documents and references are clear. but Armenian Genocide full biased. and someone still try to block article and also talk page. Where is Free encyclopedia NPOV rules? and where is Admins? trolling!POV FORK--Qwl (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that email sent to Wikipedia originated from "The Turkish Association for Fighting Against Unfounded Genocide Allegations", based in Erzurum's Ataturk University, an institution renowned for churning out genocide-denialist propaganda. They are curently running an email campaign against Wikipedia. Quote, from their chairman, "When you browse the English version of Wikipedia which publishes its content in various languages, one notices an issue in complete contrast with the Wikipedia principles. In the english website while the article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915 contain all the thesis of the Armenian diaspora, the Turkish thesis are excluded. The web site allows users to make editions in all subjects, but it does not allow edition of the article on Armenian allegations. The site only provides the theses of the Armenian diaspora. This is a great injustice against the Turkish Nation". Meowy 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what do you want to do? do you try to legalize hiding of documents and deletion with a reference of deniers organisation email.?

not Only Turkey. six countries refuse the genocide! here:genocide deniers Turkey , Azerbaijan , UK , Israel , Denmark , Bulgaria. this article series are full biased--Qwl (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Having difficulty with User:Helixweb

Order of affairs:

• User:Iamwisesun adds a category
• I revert that change.
• I make another content edit: remove a piping that misrepresents the source. Perfectly ordinary content edits so far.
• Here's where User:Helixweb comes along: and reverts me, calling my edits vandalism when they are clearly anything but.
• I post a note on User talk:Helixweb reminding them of WP:AFG and neutrality. In a terse tone, I admit. But you can read for yourself what I wrote.
• User:Helixweb:
  • removes the note
  • Posts a rude accusation and another
  • reverts my content edit seemingly without even reading it.
• I:
  • revert the change, adding a fact tag
  • fix up some references on the page concerned
  • remove the rude messages since User:Helixweb is clearly not in a mood to discuss.
• User:Helixweb:
  • wholesale reverts, this time clearly without reading my edits.
  • and here's the bit that pissed me off, restores the rude messages which I had removed from my own talk page.

It's not the first time I've run into editors like this on this page (Gedhun Choekyi Nyima) - and I've hardly ever run into anything like this in other pages. I don't know whether this page is jinxed or whether there's a band of "like-minded" editors watching it. In any case, User:Helixweb is clearly not going to let me edit this article, even edits fixing up errors in the footnotes! - and is not even going to let me control my own talk page. Please can someone do something about it. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have notified User:Helixweb: [66]. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Helixweb is now Wikistalking me across my contribution history: [67]

• On Edamame (yes, the soy beans)
• On Olympic Dream for Darfur
• On Two Chinas (reverting edits that have stood for weeks)

This is getting ridiculous. Can someone please do something about it! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've offered informal mediation between these editors and asked User:Helixweb for some clarification on the cited reverts. Maybe if you both take a cool down break this won't have to escalate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As of this instant User:PalaceGuard008 has agreed to take a cool down period and I have relayed that information to User:Helixweb with the suggestion that he avoids PalaceGuard for a while. I noted that if he believes PalaceGuard to be a vandal there are several other editors on recent changes patrol that can revert disruptive edits. I have not heard back from Helix, but he has not made an edit since I posted to his talk page, so I am assuming he too has taken some time to cool off.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A cooldown is of course a good idea. However, my sense is that Helixweb could also benefit from some mentoring, as he is rather new and gets carried away with the vandal-fighting spirit. Quick on the revert button and tends to escalate confrontation. This is based on my experience as collateral damage of one of his conflicts. He is clearly a well-intentioned user, however. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone wants to "smash my face"

Now I know people often treat each other like dirt on Wikipedia, but this one's gone too far. I've had the beginning of a revert war — something I don't much like, and usually wind up abandoning (I mean who cares what silliness people want to do?) with some shifting anonymous, over something pretty minor, and in fact in this case it's actually reasonable on both sides, or should be; and I may have started the ball rolling by saying that their edits might be vandalism. I was maybe not as civil as it could have been, but no harsh words, ad hominem remarks or calling people liars or anything of that kind.

But apparently this anonymous user wants to "smash my face"; topping off a barrage of excessively violent reaction.

Now I intensely dislike hostility, so I'm outta here for a few weeks; but someone should keep an eye on this person, probably.

I used to be a hard-working editor at Wikipedia, as can be seen from my edit history (I'm also on Wikipedia's white list) but I've got less and less involved: and this is one of the reasons why. Bill (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered reporting it per WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 24, there's no excuse for that. RxS (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:TOV beneficial/usable while it's still being constructed? User was right to bring it here though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this was the place to bring this up, with or without WP:TOV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV says to report it here but also gives you ideas and information as how to go about dealing with the threat, including contacting the police. Bstone (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the IP adding the threat is not the IP whose Talk page it is. Just pointing out that this might not be a trivially simple case. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies as editing by proxy?

Resolved

 – Thanks for the replies, and the attention to the article. --Onorem♠Dil 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the banned user is supposed to be, but an IP editor who is supposedly banned is being reverted for removing material from the Seal (musician) article citing WP:BLP. While I think that their removal is probably more extensive than it needs to be, there does appear to clearly be material that should be sourced if it's going to remain. I'm on my way out for a bit, and I don't have the time to go through and just remove certain parts...but I'd prefer not to just revert back to a banned users version. Does anyone have time to give a couple minutes attention to this article? --Onorem♠Dil 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• OTRS volunteers edit by proxy all the time, the key in my view is that (a) the editor identifies and is prepared to stand by the material on their own and (b) the edits should not be furthering the disruptive activity that got whoever it was banned. So, for example, when JB196 was banned for dicking about with wrestling articles, people who dicked about with wrestling articles aided and abetted by JB196 ended up in deep trouble. On the other hand, ColScott is banned from editing, but if he were to email OTRS or an editor he trusts with a necessary fix per WP:BLP then there would be no problem. That's how I interpret it, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear. Consider an edit by a blocked user as a suggestion from someone. Could be anyone, except that if the user is blocked, you might be extra careful. You can implement that suggestion. Since the edit is in history, it might be pretty simple. But, remember, you are responsible for that edit if you bring it back. Whether or not you do bring it back, you can comment on it in Talk, should you need help. Let a regular editor of the article make the decision.--Abd (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'd say. If you personally think the edit is a good idea, then make the edit. The fact that someone else suggested it doesn't really matter. Proxy editing is usually a problem away from the article space - in the article space, edits stand on their own merits. Elsewhere, who makes them can be significant. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Meatpuppet. If someone has been recruited to open an account only for the purpose of helping someone evade a black/ban, the new account and the blocked account are treated as one and the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the answers here mostly echoed my interpretation. Thanks for the replies. --Onorem♠Dil 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages of banned users

I wandered onto Editor Review and noted the backlog, where I noted:

Wikipedia:Editor_review/Solumeiras Wikipedia:Editor review/Littleteddy

should they be filed somewhere or just deleted? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably recommend just leaving them. We don't necessarily need to expunge all existence of departed users (even the forcefully departed), and I suppose there's a small chance they might be useful for some reason, later. But that's not a particularly strong opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking against Romanian editors

Nowadays, there are many signs against harassment and stalking against Romanian editors. I have to complain since I've been one of the witness of such campaign. See for example template:Romanian diaspora; Central Europe; Bălţi and Moldovans articles. I urge the stalkers to stop their continuous edit war and their campaign against Romanian editors.Marc KJH (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list of Romanian editors that have been the victim of stalking and harassment:

• User:Olahus
• User:Rezistenta
• User:Marc KJH —Preceding comment was added at 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the harassers are:

• User:JdeJ
• User:NeroN BG
• User:Buffer_v2 (he was blocked for using socks, but only for a week, now he's again edit warring) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc KJH (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a result, I had to open RfC against the first user:JdeJ. - Marc KJH (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to state this as forthright as I can, and I mean no offence: no-one will give a damn. They'll see it as more ethnic bickering, and it's so commonplace these days... Sceptre ^(talk) 11:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment. The above user, Marc KJH, is far from a witness nor a victim. He's the one who has just returned from a one week block because of harassing editors who don't share his opinions and, like many others before him, now wants to report those who reported him. Fine, I would then expect him to provide diffs of our harassment. I'm the first to agree that I have warned some of the users above. They are repeatedly deleting fact tags and other tags from the article Central Europe and never bother to provide any sources. I won't go into that discussion here as it is already very long on the relevant talk page. I do wan't to point out that comments about consistent deletion of tags is hardly harassment. As for Olahus and Rezistenta, I disagree with both users at times but outside our differences of opinions, I have no problems with either of them. Marc KJH is another matter, as he has returned almost immedediately to harassing me after his previous block for the same offense ended. This remark out of the blue is a case in point [71]. JdeJ (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The proof is that you have never edited Romanian articles only after you started to harass Olahus and me. You can't deny this fact. I have never invited you, nor will do it since you prove to be a stalker and harasser. You followed the articles that we edit. So, you're a stalker. Marc KJH (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had several European Geography articles on my watchlist for months, you came to most of them after I did. As far as I can remember, I have only made one or two edits ever to articles dealing specifically with Romania. JdeJ (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't appologize for your stalking and harassment. I want to see it from you as a good sign. What's important is to get along. If you want it.Marc KJH (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't apologised for the fall of the Roman Empire either. As long as I haven't harassed anybody, and not even a diff of such an action has been provided, it's rather hard to apologised for something nobody but you thinks has happened. JdeJ (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to inquire why a user such as Marc KJH is editing articles on English Wikipedia in the first place, given that his command of English appears to be poor. I have some rudimentary French, but I wouldn't think of going to edit the French Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. A newish user engaging in Romania-related edit wars, complaining about edits to Balti, and filing querulous RfC's? Who just happened to install Lupin popups in his monobook three minutes after his first edit? I know a checkuser or two might be interested to take a quick look at this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...began with some unrelated articles, moved to Romania-related articles in a rather characteristic fashion, complained in a rather typical way on ANI a few hours after his first edit, engaged in clandestine redirecting of same old, harassed other users and actually been identified as a sockpuppet account! Future, you're losing your touch (or rather, Rouge-ness)! ;-) --Illythr (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar sock

Resolved

 – Blocked for being sockpuppet of Hkelkar

Possible Hkelkar sock. Special:Contributions/Hansel_gretel_toothdecay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Model (person)

Resolved

Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure if protection, blocking, wrist-splapping, or what is in order. Over at Model (person), there has been a slow, continuous edit war over the "correct" image of Gisele Bundchen to use. Of course, not a single entry on the talk page.

• User:Opinoso sets it to one
• User:FireOcean sets it to the other
• User:Opinoso sets it to one
• User:Mywikipedista sets it to the other
• User:Opinoso sets it to the one

This goes on, well, nearly forever in edit-warring timelines. On March 9th, the article was protected to put a stop to this. It worked until March 29th, when Opinoso starts it up again. Kww (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have applied a simple solution - I have removed the image entirely and replaced it with another model image from further down the article. The next person to put either of the darn Gisele Bundchen images back in (neither of which is particularly great, anyway) gets blocked. WP:LAME is the appropriate spot for this edit war. Neıl ☎ 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Bones Show

Resolved

 – Article protected by Rodhullandemu. GlassCobra 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A gaggle of IPs seem to be using Bobby Bones Show as a chat-room. Perhaps it should be semi-protected to give a chance to clean it up. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed?

Resolved

 – Edit hidden, e-mail sent. Lesson learned by me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just vandalized European windstorm and inserted the name and supposed phone number of someone. Does this require oversight? Sorry if my question is stupid but I'd rather ask and look like a fool than ignore it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, and in the future questions like this (and this one specifically) could be more usefully directed to oversight-l (AT) lists.wikimedia.org. Avruch ^T 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The revision was deleted - the edit can still be oversighted, its at the discretion of the oversighter (and the policy) so an e-mail to them might still be useful. Avruch ^T 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

hay Avruch, you might want to use AT instead of @ in emails. that way spam crawlers dont pick it up. β^{_{command 2}} 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do and I'll remember to contact them directly next time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Grawp mass talk page protection

I've already announced this on IRC, but I have just pre-emptively locked all user talk pages of any suspected or confirmed account of User:Grawp. Anyone who has any experience with this user will know why I've done this - for those who don't, Grawp is a page move vandal with over 200 known sock accounts and more appearing by the minute. Since most of his accounts are now blocked, he's recently taken to (I assume with the help of a bot) adding an unblock template to each of his talk pages, along with a 2MB image that will cause even the fastest connection to lock up. This of course attracts the attention of unsuspecting admins, who immediately start cursing their computers when they hang up. To avoid this, all known accounts have had their talk pages indefinitely protected - this does include IP's, which I am about to go back through and review, but I'm afraid even those we can't really afford to unprotect for long, if at all. He immediately picks up on any page he is able to edit. Admins should delete (G3) and immediately salt any of these talk pages they encounter. For a while, at least, it may be a good idea to use popups to view page histories before viewing the actual page at CAT:RFU, because more accounts are constantly surfacing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed this one My mistake, it's been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify; they are about 1900KB, or nearly 2 million bytes in size. So yeah, they're pretty big, and will probably lock your browser, unless you load the history, like Hersfold said. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, the pages are 12 copies each of two absolutely-positioned objects: a large table-background-color image of Goatse, and a smaller pure ascii-art "LOL WUT" avocado. --Random832 (contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The link included in the edit summaries takes you to the same thing. Some way to snip the edit summaries so unsuspecting newbies don't get lured in? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the page works for that. --Random832 (contribs) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That, and recently, the edit summaries have not included links. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)