Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive420

User MaskedSuperAgent physical threat

MaskedSuperAgent (talk · contribs)

An admin might want to take a look at this users recent editor history, but most importantly at this diff, the reason I've brought this immediately to the noticeboard without getting involved in warnings. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuke 'em, I say. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that WP:TOV be consulted in responding to this. Bstone (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning, and a suggestion to remove the comment. I think it's more a case of lashing out, than an actual threat to the recipient. Kevin (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems more like an edit of someone else's comment to make that someone else appear to be threatening the user. Essentially, a user putting a threat of violence against themselves into someone else's mouth. Unacceptable, yes - but not a Threat of Violence in the sense contemplated by TOV. I probably would have blocked immediately - Still might, if no satisfactory response ensues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

← No it wasn't a threat of violence. It was just a massively inappropriate thing to do. We don't edit other people's comments, and we especially don't do that in order to incriminate others. So I say nuke 'em. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nuke em (as in, indef block). Bstone (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, maybe take a step back when analyzing the threat. Regardless of how he edited the threat, he knows that the person he has been arguing will see it. Maybe that makes it less explicit? I guess, but maybe not. Secondly, even if viewed as purely a trick, attempting to make it appear that another editor told you to kill yourself is basically just as bad an edit as anyone can make on wikipedia. In fact, when I first read the entry, (which is how I even stumbled upon this), I assumed that other editor had in fact threatened MaskedSuperAgent. I think a block is in order, anything about a gun in a mouth on talk should probably result in one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this strays about as far from civility as one can get with text. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Update I issued mask a final warning because this morning he has continued to post harassing messages on talk pages. I'm pretty sure a block would be fine now, but I'd like an admin to keep an eye on any contribs he has from this point on. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Update -This was his most recent reply. He says "I understand you are angry and wish for me to die..." Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally beyond the pale. I've indef blocked User:MaskedSuperAgent. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block. This guy (i.e. MaskedSuperAgent, not SCZenz) seriously needs help. However, Wikipedia is not therapy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why administrator refusal to look at problems in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is hurting wikipedia

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The DanaUllman homeopathy case is coming to an end. Let's look at the time spent on it, and the evidence available at various times. On 1 April, this section was posted, stating that a problem was occurring, and asking admins to look at it. Admins were contacted: Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages It was ignored, so I spent three hours or so documenting the problems. Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Misrepresentation_of_studies_by_User:DanaUllman I asked several admins to look at this, on IRC and here. Noone was willing to act, they said it was too complex, they couldnt' follow it, and so refused to do anything. So I documented it further, spelling everything out, and documenting it. This thread represents about thirty to fifty hours of work. Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies Everyone still refused to act. So I had to go to Arbcom. This section takes the above, and adds an aditional 20-30 hours of work, minimum: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Dana_Ullman It looks like he will now be blocked. So, we have about 100 hours spent just to deal with a clearly disruptive editor. What could have been done instead with that time? Here's a diff showing the time from first save of a new article to when I stopped in the day. It shows I spent maybe 5 hours on this: [1] After another five hours or so, you have this: Creatures of Impulse It is up for GA. So, if I had been able to work on articles, not deal with Dana's nonsense, I could, perhaps, have made 6 to 9 GA articles. Also, Dana was a highly disruptive editor. He brought up the same arguments over and over again, as a look at Talk:Potassium dichromate will show (that also contains the section where he tried to tell User:Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supported him, and that Scientizzle was stonewalling by denying this. The time spent by many editors dealing with DanaUllman's constant disruption while I and others tried to make the community aware of the problem, and the community refused to act is also time lost for working on articles. In short, the admin community's refusal to look at anything related to Alt med wasted DAYS of my life that could have been used in more productive things, yet had to be done because Dana Ullman was so disruptive that it STILL worked out to less time than he was wasting by his tendentious, disruptive behaviour. This is untenable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) This is not an incident report. It doesn't belong here. WP:AN may be an appropriate venue. Hesperian 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) YOU made the choice to spend all that time on this. No one forced you to. YOU decided the issue was that important to you. What did you find out about the behavior of the science editors during this? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Already at WP:AN, please stop forum shopping. Nakon 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Augh! Sorry, all, I think that when Firefox crashed, and I restarted it, it somehow decided to repost a post that had gotten deleted from here, with a request to move it to WP:AN. I did manage to get it to double post the first time I posted it, soo who knows what's going on in the minds of computers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Threat of Violence

I am reporting this possible threat of violence against one of our editors, Gavyn Sykes, in accordance with the suggestions at WP:TOV. While it may be a hoax I highly suggest taking this seriously and reporting it to the appropriate local authorities. WHOIS reports this information. The police possibly could be contacted in order to report this potential Threat of Violence. Bstone (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there reason to believe that this is anything other than a simple, angry vandal? —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the IP that made the threat, they had other disruptive edits mixed in there. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. Although likely a hoax, this is a threat of violence which should be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BStone, knock yourself out if you feel it needs to be reported. These really don't need to be dragged up "OMG-DEATH_THREATZ" style every time they happen, which you've noticed is pretty often. WP:DENY would actually recommend these be handled as quietly as possible. Report the vandal to WP:AIV, then call the cops if you feel like it, but in my experience they tend to be a little skeptical when you tell them you're from Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I use RoadRunner myself, so I just want to leave a note here that Herndon, VA is where RoadRunner is based, and it is not indicative of which RoadRunner system (they are nationwide) they're posting from. Mike H. Fierce! 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mindless vandalism - please don't waste peoples time and report this stuff. It happens every day and is pure vandalism, that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP is in Austin, Texas but truth be told, looking at the other edits, I don't see anything more to do than a block here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just post a notice here if these threats re-occur. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible threat of violence?

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

Resolved

 – Enough! Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit constitute a possible threat of violence? Monobi (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Allstarecho

There are somewhat pornographic pictures on certain sections that do not nee to be there. My 10 year old son saw my neighbor accidentally click on it and he did not need to see some of those pictures. I have emailed wikipedia about the problemAbrmd2007 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This SPA removed the images from Fluffing, Clitoral hood and Erection. I reverted Fluffing and warned. User then removed the images from the next 2 articles. I'd be curious to know if the user would rip out the pages of the encyclopedia's found in libraries all over the world. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so this users 10-year old kid was over the neighbor's house while the neighbor was looking at articles about erections and clitoral hoods? Hmmm. Perhaps they have more to worry about than Wikipedia's articles... Maybe they need to keep their kid away from their neighbor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see that Allstarecho has done anything wrong here, and Abrmd2 doesn't even really allege that he did. Can we mark this resolved and move on? Aleta ^Sing 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not over. The complainant has "emailed wikipedia about the problem." This could start a trend; and remember, this is an election year. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia isn't running for office. --Carnildo (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but opportunistic politicians are. They might decide to target wikipedia as being purveyors of child endangerment, and try to shut it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll deal with that if it happens. Until then, WP:NOTCENSORED --Carnildo (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Fluffing combines the article on the porn-industry occupation (with lead photo) with a disambiguation section that contains numerous _non_-porn-related definitions is a cause for concern, since someone could click a legitimate link for one of those other meanings without intending to go to an article about the porn industry topic. --Random832 (contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say, Fluffing looks like a legitimate dismbiguation page... with a short article at the beginning of it. Random832 beat me to it, obviously. Is there any reason why the existing article couldn't be moved to Fluffing (pornography) and a proper dab page created? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. Enigma ^message 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and furthermore I don't understand why a warning concerning the content of some pages is not required. Even if it's a high school student doing research for biology, they might stumble onto a picture they weren't expecting to find. CH52584 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion there ended with some page moves needed, and no one countering it, so can an admin read that through and make the relevant moves? ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe evading ban

Hi... I reported User:Red4tribe (blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry) for suspected ban evasion [2]. I was told to assume good faith. Well, he has now made the rather silly mistake of editing from an IP address, from which he previously owned up to being his own whilst I was accusing him of using the other IP address

• Red4tribe displays his IP address [3]
• Edits made subsequently made from anon IP [4].

This user has clearly not learned anything at all and should receive a permanent ban. Please don't make me waste any more time having to write detailed "proofs" of his bad faith on this message board. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reset his block to the original time limit it was set at 6 days ago (some weirdly long number of hours by East718) and blocked the IP for the same time limit. If he comes back again before the block expires, please re-report them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and begging from User:Altenhofen

Resolved

Altenhofen (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

User:Altenhofen has been making attack comments on User talk:East718 like this, this, calling East718 an idiot here, this, and nonsense here. From the look at User talk:East718, he was begging for his user page be restored/unprotected. He/she treats wikipedia as a WP:MYSPACE and I think this incident should be brought to attention. Thank you, RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Try looking here. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay than. I didn't see that. Apologies. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User: 90.192.59.194

This user is a sock-puppet of User: 90.196.3.1 and User: 90.196.3.244. He has placed an abusive message at my talk page.[5]Mahaakaal (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the message from your talk page and warned the user about it. If they persist in being incivil, let us know here on WP:ANI, and he can be blocked. You shouldn't have to tolerate that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helpMahaakaal (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IVANDER2

Resolved

 – IVANDER2 indef. blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IVANDER2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting the same exact libelous rant that Baxtereo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for posting on the same article pages. They are obviously the same person. Neither account has been used for anything but vandalism. The reason that this is important is that the vandalism accuses a Peruvian human rights worker who has come under attack in the past of being a terrorist, which is an extremely seriously allegation that can get people killed in the Andean states. --Visitweak (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil user TeePee-20.7

Resolved

- user has been blocked by another admin --Matilda ^talk 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been uncivil and not assuming good faith to other fellow editors including myself. The User also tryed to accuse me of being a socket puppet to Matilda (which I'm not) on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't try to accuse her of being a sock puppet at all and her saying I did is not assuming good faith. This user has been biased against me in her relationship to editor Matilda. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the reference to a sockpuppet in this edit supposed to mean then? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And what's the implication here? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently warned him for using an uncivil edit-summary in blanking material from his talk page here, but he removed my warning and made a comment to my talk page that didn't indicate any comprehension that there was a problem with his way of expressing himself. I am not, however, familiar with the context of his edit-dispute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now who is not assuming good faith FisherQueen, get familiar and assume good faith. BTW why was your user name familiar when I got your message? Why does it sound familiar to me? Have we dealt with each other in the past somewhere in the big world of wikipedia? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor is also exhibiting a serious WP:OWN problem on Chilean Australian, where his editing on both the entry itself and the talk page is close to being totally disruptive. While the rest of the editors there are hashing out a positive solution he simply reverts to his favorite versions (unsupported by anyone else). Meanwhile he clutters the talk page with sometimes uncivil commentary about how no one understands the issue but him, though notably his versions usually disregard basic aspects of WP:RS and WP:V. He needs a serious break from this entry, which as far as I know is the root of all these issue.PelleSmith (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After I warned him that he would be blocked for any further incivility, he left this message for me, which essentially tells me to mind my own business as this conflict does not concern me. In addition, he appears to be continuing to edit-war at Chilean Australian. I am reluctant to block based on the comment he left me as it is addressed to me, but I'd love another admin to review and decide whether it's time for a block, for incivility, edit-warring, or some combination thereof. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The user keeps pushing the point and still not assuming good faith[6] Bidgee (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No I am not and PelleSmith is not assuming good faith in saying I do. My edits have never been disruptive and as soon as improvements are suggested I have incorporated them into the article. We are all trying to come to a concensus on the page and I have always edited accordingly. Up until just recently PelleSmith did not understand a keypoint in the dispute and his opinion was based on limited knowledge of the matter. Now I am doing a test to see if three other users have also managed to understand this keypoint because up until very recently there has been no indication they have. One of the users based on the edit she provided but still containing flaws, may have infact only just realised this as PelleSmith now does and is supporting what I am saying over this keypoint. But you will see from the discussions on the page they based their judgements mostly in part to me the editor providing this, as when I made mention of this specific keypoint numerous times in different means she did not understand, but now that PelleSmith mentioned it a couple of times she has seemed to understood. PelleSmith needs to stop disparaging me and not treat this issue as something to sweep under the rug. He mentioned he wanted to drop this matter and quite clearly seems more interested in removing it from the RfC page listing of disputes then infact reaching a true concensus where all issues are addressed. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you can clearly see from FisherQueen's comments she has taken what I said to heart and the wrong way. I am not essentially telling you to mind your own business, I am aknowledging I was rude in my edit summary saying that if she reverted my removing of her comments once again from my talkpage that she would be in violation of WP:Harassment. And then apologising for doing this. You tell me to assume good faith but you do not do it yourself by putting words in my mouth. Your choice of words "love" show your clear judgement based on me as an editor and this can be taken as a personal attack. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If some admin would take a couple of minutes and have a look at Talk:Chilean Australian they'd get the picture. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User is now being disruptive[7]. Bidgee (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

and is now harassing me [8] Bidgee (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has already been blocked once for these problems. Another block will be coming should he continue to edit war and refuse to abide by reasonable consensus on this issue, or if the incivility continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TeePee-20.7_reported_by_User:Bidgee_.28Result:_.29. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I had warned him quite clearly that I would block him at [9] when I stated I propose to allow others to comment and refine the proposed words if necessary. Then it will go in the article. If I find any further edits from you undoing such an edit in the article - as you have done in the past against talk page consensus - I will block you for disruptive editing. He has done exactly that this morning - he is the only editor who disagreed with the wording that we have worked through to excess - see for example the comments at Talk:Chilean_Australian#As_you_can_clearly_see. I also warned him here [10] . He is quite keen on removing my comments(and those of others. While they are visible in history - it is not acceptable on article talk pages and in my view it is poor form to attempt to disguise discussion on his talk page with edits such as [11] [12] [13] [14] That is just the last few hours.

He claims he has not called me a sock puppet but at User talk Bidgee he stated You know what would be cool, if you and Matilda posted an edit at the exact same time on the exact same day. I will check both of your contributions to see if this has ever been done before. I doubt it though. - sounds like a sock puppet accusation to me!

There is also an issue of 3 reverts within 24 hours see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: ) - yet to be acted on but supported not just by Bidgee but also User:PelleSmith

He has been blocked in the past:

11:28, 15 May 2008 Angusmclellan blocked "TeePee-20.7 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Continuing incivility/attacks after warnings)

02:52, 30 November 2007 WJBscribe blocked "TeePee-20.7 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (homophobic personal attacks after warnings)

The block of 15 May is over the same dispute. I would appreciate if another admin blocked rather than me.--Matilda ^talk 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be ok to accuse someone of being a socket puppet? From my understanding is that it's inbreach with WP:GOODFAITH policy (possibly other policies as well). Bidgee (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• TeePee has furthered his accusation of sock puppetry by lodging Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matilda --Matilda ^talk 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While the request has been declined as a fishing exercise, TeePee is continuing his accusations of bad faith with assertions such as "tag teaming" in this edit summary when referring to the views of other editors who do not agree with Teepee's views at Chilean Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I find it quite distressing that this editor is not being dealt with. He has violated the 3 revert rule. He has lacked civility in his dealings with quite a few other editors. As an involved editor it would no longer be appropriate for me to block him. Above FisherQueen notes she is in the same position but wishes to see him blocked.--Matilda ^talk 07:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

Resolved

 – Not a suicide threat. Hut 8.5 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit constitute a suicide threat? George The Dragon (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. These reports of violence or threats are getting silly now. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not a suicide threat. It's just someone who is upset that their userpage was deleted. Nakon 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for eyes/policy proposal?

I was first wondering if some administrator could have a peek at Webfan29 (talk · contribs). Most of his image uploads (as can be seen on his talk page) have very dubious sources. Recently I was looking at Image:Hawaiian Islands article1.jpg (an "article" he or she claims is public domain). A brief web search shows parts of the text showing up elsewhere around the web. I tried using my buttons to mark as possibly unfree, but they must be broken. It remains untagged. My question is, can someone either go take a peek at his or her uploads and delete any copvios, or at least give Webfan29 a stern warning about uploading unfree images? To my second point, is there a way to disable image uploads to certain repeat offenders (other than blocking them as a whole)? If not, I might start a discussion on the village pump to see if that can be enabled. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While Image:Hawaiian Islands article1.jpg may have a dubious claim (seems to be a scan), the others seem to be legit. Most of the images, such as this, were taken with a Canon PowerShot A560. seicer | talk | contribs 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean that they are undeniably his to release freely? Could he have copied them from a different site, and uploaded them here with the meta-details intact? Also, things like Image:1863031491 736d97196a b.jpg that he or she says are public domain are clearly "All rights reserved" on Flickr: [15]. With the history of uploads that are dubious, I was wondering about specifically blocking image uploads while still allowing article editing. Is this possible? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not all. I only viewed through the top 10 on the list, since I did not have available time to parse through all of his contributions. But the above image is a clear vio, unless he is the account owner. Which I doubt. seicer | talk | contribs 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it's Webfan29 the person who had uploaded various images on wikipedia. The photo images that were taken from the Canon PowerShot A560 is my camera - these images were taken by ME during my visit to Cuba in January 2008. As for the other images, i've either scanned them or found them off the internet. If you look at my contribs, you may notice that i've also created articles on radio stations, etc. that are mostly in Canada. I've also done some editing as well. Sometimes it's hard to find out what or which licence I can use after i've uploaded an image and if they're free or not. I guess next time I should ask a user of the image or a user on wikipedia before uploading an image, etc? I appologize if I did any wrong doing here! ONCE AGAIN: The images taken from my Canon PowerShot A560 are mine! Thank you. Take care. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfan29 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't doubt the validity of the images from your Canon PowerShot, and haven't been able to find any other copyright violations. seicer | talk | contribs 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Webfan. Just a friendly note and reminder though: you can't just find an image on the Internet or scan something and upload it with a different license. We have to be vigilant against copyright infringement, and loading images under a false license is a very bad thing. If you ever have any questions (about licensing, a certain image, or other issues), please do ask someone here on Wikipedia, and we'll gladly help you. Thanks very much. --Ali'i 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Category:Proposed_deletion_as_of_15_May_2008

I've taken care of most everything up to 13:00ish, that being the current time give or take. Looks like PROD has been busy this week. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

August Burns Red

I am involved in a dispute with User:SilverOrion. The genre death metal has been in the infobox for quite some time. He keeps removing it. The genre is cited with multiple sources including MTV, AOL music, windows media, an allmusic review and some others. I don't want to get in trouble for violating 3RR so I am requesting help. Thanks! Landon1980 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

comment: I see no reason for you to remove those citations from the article. You may however wish to explore the idea of "displacing them" into the main article's text which appears to be lacking citations. So long as it's something different then just removing them, since that's what it appears you're doing. However, I'm not an admin and some meat head admin might not be as kind as I in allowing you to make these changes... specially if you appear to be causing conflict and have avoided talking to the user in question. --CyclePat (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not removing anything. Citations being removed is not the issue. He is removing sourced content (death metal) based on his own personal opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that my bad. Per the previous comment... Keep the citations, but in this case put it, preferably, into the main text. Once it's cited several times in the main text you'll only really need one reference (if at all any) in the info box. What is authoritive and important about these sources... you may wish to explore an anoted reference list? Anyways, perhaps there's a conflict in between how one can articulate in a prosic fashion such a dilema of having a mix of genres? If this is relevant at all to the issue? --CyclePat (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please take appropriate steps at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Turn to others for help to reach a new consensus or compromise. Admins do not settle content disputes. It appears you have been edit warring just as much as the other party. If that continues, the article could be locked, or worse either one or both of you blocked. I'd suggest continuing discussing the matter on the talk page, and requesting addition input through WP:3O or WP:RFC, and to stop edit warring yourself. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

jarhed

Hi administrators, I am posting this because I was threatened with a post on this page about my editing behavior, but no such entry was ever made. The threat was merely an attempt at intimidation, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of such intimidting behavior.

I suspect that some regulars threaten non-regular editors, such as myself, just to make them go away. Note that these threats are very successful. Please note the number of editors on this page whose home pages no longer exist.

I have always taken the Wikipedia mission seriously, and I once registered under my real name. I did this because I wanted and was willing to be accountable for the quality and veracity of my posts. Almost immediately I came under attack by certain regulars. I do not want to make judgemental statements, but some individuals, for whatever reasons, consider themselves to be the official guardians of Wikipedia, despite the collaborative nature of this enterprise. Perhaps they deserve this role, given the work that they do to keep Wikipedia clean. However, they also get into a mindset where they attack non-regular editors that are merely trying to contribute. These people scare away a lot of contributors, and in my opinion, they do a lot of harm.

These individuals certainly scare me, and I do not scare easily. Sometimes I expect them to do a reverse IP lookup, google me, and then show up on my doorstep. These people are unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous. At least that is how they come across in their demeanor and statements.

I urge you all to please pull your heads out of the Wikipedia tool that you use to detect vandalism, just once in a while, on occasion, and please make a distinction between real contributors and vandals. Just because we are not regulars does not mean we are vandals. You wiki-whateveryouares, listen: please calm down.

I would direct your attention to your own governing doco, but I know from experience that you don't care about Wiki doco and such references merely piss you off. Just think about the mission of the Wikipedia and do your best to comply. Posting threatening posts on a homepage and then not following through is just--creepy. Grow some intellectual balls to go along with your big mouths.

Having read what I just wrote, I know from experience that the people I am talking about will never heed it. Further, I have no doubt that some idiot will revert my post as a personal attack. My apologies to you, Wiki-whateveryouare. If the shoe fits and all that.Jarhed (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A report was filed on this noticeboard on 20 March 2008, and was later archived with no action taken. The archive may be found here. As can be seen from discussion at Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) and elsewhere, there was some concern that your edits to that article were not backed by Independent, reliable sources, and you took exception to this fact. Wikipedia's policies on the matter are quite clear, and were followed in this instance. Wikipedia also requires that you Assume Good Faith that your fellow editors have the same goal as you - to improve the encyclopedia. Your comments here and elsewhere do not seem to assume good faith, which is problematic. No one intends to intimidate or "scare" you, nor will your personal information be used to track you down, as you claim - but Wikipedia does have certain policies, and they must be adhered to if you wish to continue to contribute to the project. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

StarTopia vs. Startopia, etc

Was going to do a bold redirect here but, don't want to get embroiled to deeply in the drama just yet. Basically, there seem to have been a number of articles where the content is being duplicated from other wikipedia articles in such a fashion that they are getting tagged as copy violation. The StarTopia article is just an example. Can something be done? I tried to speak to the creator but, have had no response to my enquiries that I can see. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the creator thinks the article should be called StarTopia instead of Startopia, and performed a cut-and-paste instead of a normal move. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cut and paste move fixed. Neıl 龱 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Catedral Quelimane

Resolved

 – Fixed — someone removed the reason and nominator at some point Alex Muller 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone have a look over there and sort out what is actually happening. Either there is a boo boo occuring somewhere or I'm even more confused than I thought. Basically, it seems to be nominated for deletion without an actual nominator or reason for nomination. Or I'm misreading it. If that is the case just let me know so I know better next time I come across something like this. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PAiigE likes sexy with steffii

Resolved

 – page deleted, advice left --Rodhullandemu 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/PAiigE_likes_sexy_with_steffii. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FEROZE GANDHI

Resolved

 – Not an ANI issue

Feroze Gandhi, husband of Indira Gandhi is said to be "Gandhy" at birth. This is factually wrong. His father was a Sunni MUSLIM in Allahabad who did marry a Parsi girl but after CONVERTING her to Islam as is the custom among Muslims. Later he became a GANDHI for political reasons since India is a Hindu counry and a Muslim spouse of Nehru's daughter would not have gone well with the electorate. One expects courage and honesy from Wikipedia editors. Please do some research and expose the family of Feroze fully before his marriage to Indira. Record ought to be straight now.

R Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.88 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 May 2008

This would better be discussed on the talkpage of the article. Lradrama 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Worrying vandalism to suicide

Resolved

 – Proper Authorities were notified and proper action is expected to take place

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.

---

User:69.140.152.55 just contacted me and brought to my attention certain vandalism to the suicide page which suggests 80.229.58.53 is considering killing him or herself. It appears that the IP address is from Great Brittan so I will suggest that the user contact Samaritans.

Although the user in question later committed a blatant act of vandalism, I want to strongly suggest that this be taken seriously and the information be passed on to relevant authorities in the UK. (I know something like this is usually done when people threaten violent actions on Wikipedia.) Thanks for acting quickly on this serious issue. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment- The Samaritans (in the UK at least) is not a suicide prevention service. Anyone wanting to report should call a UK police station and provide as much information as possible. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers?

Would be nice if somebody who is an expert in these matters can put this article on their watchlist so as to ensure its factual accuracy and quality, as well as monitor for signs of trouble. I might add though (especially if a lay administrator, rather than an expert, chooses to volunteer for this)– I feel it even more important to assume good faith than usual, and not be too hasty in judging good-faith edits to be "vandalism."

Also, many of you are already familiar with this, but for those who are not, please see this debate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a simple message will help. I am not trained. But I am worried and feel some one in the area should contact the local authorities for a well being check. A couple Bobbies at the door never hurt. Rgoodermote  04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I suggest that an expert be the volunteer. [Another possible policy is simply "e-mail the Foundation, and the Foundation may (will?) take any steps deemed necessary to assist the user in question." But that has to be discussed too.] (By the way, I have not e-mailed the Foundation about this; what I am saying is, right now, intended mainly as an idea for discussion.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to read this here and I would like to strongly support the idea of contacting the local authorities. I'm not sure if I'm permitted to post this, but the IP address seems to originate from Ilford, according to a dns resolver site. Someone please call the bobbies over there ASAP! Caius (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is finding some one in that region. O and that would be public knowledge so you are fine posting the area and at this point the address. Rgoodermote  21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the Wikipedia office. I am really disappointed that this got ignored for so long. I thought it would be taken care of by now. Rgoodermote  21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The police may still be able to do something based on this information. Has anyone actually called the authorities in the area? --S.dedalus (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This individual can do whatever he wishes to do with his own life. If he wishes to end it, than who are we to stop him? Monobi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See suicide intervention. Also note that in some areas suicide is illegal. Regardless, if a person is posting suicide notes on a public internet site they are asking for help. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone who talks suicide is either trying to get attention or wants help. Actual suicides usually just do it. Suicide being illegal can add to their burdens, though. I knew of one guy who committed suicide and is now serving a very long sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually in New York committing suicide can result in a Death Sentence. I am not kidding. But anyways no I do not think any one called the Authorities and I am unsure if the Office is even doing anything as I have not received a response. Rgoodermote  02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a number for the Ilford department? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this it? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent><edit conflict>I just posted the number when we conflicted and I believe that is it. I can not call. Rgoodermote  02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to email them however. Some one needs to call.Rgoodermote  02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I can’t make international calls. Would someone else please call? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great...how do you call the UK? Just dial the number? Rgoodermote  02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried that and it’s asking for my long distance code. I’m trying to find whatever that is. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would call but I myself can not talk with out stuttering. But I found how to. Dial 011, which is the international access code. Dial 44 which is the area code for the United Kingdoms. Rgoodermote  02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also dialing 00 also apparently helps. It is the international operator. Rgoodermote  02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m calling, but so far I’m getting a busy tone. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been running around the site looking from some one from the U.K. but I am having problems finding some one online. Rgoodermote  03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the Bobby gets off the phone I will contact them. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You got in contact? Sorry for my uselessness. But my speech impediment would keep me from explaining anything.Rgoodermote  03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arg! I still am not getting through. It says the call cannot be completed as dialed. Can you try? They won’t care about a stutter. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Give me a bit. Rgoodermote  03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the 24 hour switchboard number btw: 020 7230 1212 --S.dedalus (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but your Time Warner package does not come with International calling features." Rgoodermote  03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite a conundrum isn’t it! Thanks for trying. Isn’t anybody else on this notice board? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you miss this discussion you are blind. Rgoodermote  03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am logging out as it is late. If anything happens some one drop me a note please. Rgoodermote  03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed them, providing as much info as possible... Caius (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They've said they forwarded my e-mail to the Telephone Investigation Unit. Apparently, the e-mail on their homepage is for their Financial Department... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I got the same message. At least it got through. Rgoodermote  14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of User:Super Vegetto

Resolved

 – suggestions made including review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

--Matilda ^talk 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't really say all of his edits are disruptive, but I'm finding that some of it is. Suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you provided difs to the problematic edits he has made. I looked through his last 4-5 and haven't seen anything disruptive. What specific edits have bothered you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified SV of this topic, and will be looking into it shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What bothers me is that he continues to insert data which is not even credible (see history pages of List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, Muten Roshi, and List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball). Can someone help me keep an eye on this editor? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't know much about anime to be able to comment intelligently on his edits to those articles. Could you perhaps provide specific difs, and tell us what is wrong with them? Its hard for me to understand the problem, since his edits don't look all that contentious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to put up the diffs (big watchlist to check). But can you watch this user? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't have time to put up the diffs and several of us (at least User:Jayron32 and myself) have looked at recent diffs and can't see the problem .... My suggestions are, discuss on article talk pages, draw his attention to those discussions on his own talk page and try to work it through. If there is a specific disruptive edit, discuss it clarifying what you find disruptive about it. Until you have discussed on article talk pages and/or with the user, you should not be escalating the issue here. If there are specific violations of civility or edit warring, there are specific pages to escalate such issues to - see the top of this page - blue box suggesting specific noticeboards to escalate issues to - heading Are you in the right place? - specific noticeboards make it easier. It seems to me that Sesshomaru has pasted warnings on User:Super Vegetto's talk page but they don't make a lot of sense as they accuse Super Vegetto of vandalism or adding unsourced material but are merely templates and no discussion. I think much more discussion is required. I think also a review of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be useful. --Matilda ^talk 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, what is your bloody beef with me, Lord Sesshomaru and anyone else who thinks I'm being "disruptive"? I'm just an editor trying to get along with all you guys and edit Dragon Ball/Z stuff. I even delete stuff that is wrong. For example, in the Saiyan Saga, someone put down the power level of a Saibaimen being 1200. Where the hell does it say the power level of a Saibaimen in the manga, hmm? Or for the matter, where is the anime does it say it either I have DBZ manga volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 22, 24, 25 and will soon be getting volume 23. So if anyone agrees with me, please, don't agree with this loser Sesshomaru who thinks I'm being "disruptive"! And if you think I've been "disruptive", please point out the problem, tell me what it is and I'll get along just fine, thanks.Super Vegetto (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I looked through some of your edits and didn't see anything that I would call vandalism or disruption. However, it would be in your best interest to remain civil while discussing this. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential sockfarm

Resolved

 – Socks blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbritt6 (talk · contribs), Martyrokz (talk · contribs), Shawn Curry (talk · contribs) and Jacobkk (talk · contribs) seem to be single purpose abusive socks. They appeared at Sun Tzu after I began the process of improving the article through stripping it down and building it back up with high quality sources.[16] The accounts were created after this point,[17][18][19][20] You may note in their contributions that their sole edits (aside from one silly sandbox edit) were to counter my changes to the article. There's a loud quacking, but since I am obviously involved in a dispute with them, I am requesting that other admins have a look over it and determine if my impressions are correct or incorrect. I have not filed a checkuser, as this falls under more than one criteria of the "[u]nacceptable requests". Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser says Martyrokz is unrelated, but the other three and Yumena are the same. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged & blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoring page

Resolved

 – User page restored, and then re-deleted per user request. No further action necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please restore User:Miranda/header please. Thanks. miranda 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And quickly redeleted per U1 because of the db template - I've restored again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. miranda 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one more. User:Miranda/mentalhealth - it's a userbox w/o personal attacks. miranda 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done For future needs like this one, try contacting a admin, or heading over to WP:AN. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. miranda 12:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's gone again... Is it still supposed to be restored? — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Miranda had what she needed, as she re-tagged the page for a U1 deletion shortly after her comment of 12:19, above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

possible 3RR

Is there any point in reporting a likely 3RR violation by an IP address? Well, here goes. In checkmate, User:209.247.5.43 made a questionable edit, and I reversed it. Then User:209.247.5.61 - likely the same person, according to WhoIs - reverted me. I reerted it again. That user reverted me again, which was reversed by another good editor. That user reverted again, which was again reverted by a good editor. If the two IP editors are the same, and they likely are, then he is in violation of 3RR. Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can report it here instead. -- 41.251.1.44 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I should, because (1) I'm not certain that the two editors are the same, (2) even if they are, what good does it do to put a short block on a dynamic IP address? Can a range be blocked? Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You might cut short the edit war by finding a reference for the term yourself! Take a look at this web site, which may not be a reliable source in its own right, but pulls out proposed etymologies for 'checkmate' from numerous authorities. So far the IP editor has not made more than 3 reverts within any one 24-hour period so there is not yet a 3RR violation, even if you assume the two addresses belong to one editor. If the activity persists you might request semi-protection for the article at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that page is referenced in the article, and I don't see anything about "sheik" in it. And if the two IP similar addresses are the same person, there were four reverts in well under 24 hours. But none since then, so I'm going to wait and see. Three real editors either reverted it or asked for a reference, and none was ever given. Bubba73 (talk), 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More Kauymatty socks

I brought this up a couple weeks ago. Several more Kauymattys have appeared, all created in the same 5 minute window. 2 have been blocked already.

• Kauymatty7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked

Anyone have a free minute to take care of 9-12? --Onorem♠Dil 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all blocked. Woody (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

may not be related, but Kauynutty‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeffed as vandalism only a little while ago. Before starting to (obviously) vandalise, first edits were to project ratings on a couple of article pages, which seems a slightly unlikely thing for a brand new account to do. David Underdown (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kauynutty (talk · contribs) account was created by Dixonsej (talk · contribs), a user who registered in 2006, and I cannot see any vandalism in that user's edits. I'm not sure if it's a compromised account or not; edits of Kauynutty suggest it may be the same user, but it may be a vandal copying the editing style (also Kauymatty2 (talk · contribs) left a message on Dixonsej's talk page). Dixonsej also created two more accounts recently, Schmelly1 (talk · contribs) (already blocked), and Justinbz (talk · contribs).

These accounts were created by Justinbz:

• Deadalive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first of these has vandalised, the other two have not edited yet but are obvious socks. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Blocked all the socks. User:Dixonsej isn't blocked yet, but will be if he creates any more sockpuppets. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

Just a FYI. APK ^{yada yada} 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the report, it's resolved now. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NP, there were 16 reports on the page when I looked at it. The school kids are really bored today. APK ^{yada yada} 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent policy breaches

Could you guys take a look at this guy removing good content and sources and inserting poorly sourced / unsourced material in Taurus (astrology) (dif1, dif2) and Cancer (astrology) (dif1, dif2)? I wouldn't want to edit-war this guy... Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP under a new user now. I'll do a WHOIS. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Resolved

 – fix0red

Someone moved Directors Guild of America to Directors Guild of 420. I moved the main page back over the redirect, but the software won't allow me to move the talk page over the redirect. I suggest the moving editor User:SuperWiki6 be blocked as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by Toddst1, it seems. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 incivility at Talk:Belgrade Offensive

mrg3105 has been incivil throughout an ongoing discussion at Talk:Belgrade Offensive, but this is now escalating [21], with remarks such as "And DIRAKTOR has the temerity to tell me I should compromise with him. I repeat. I do not compromise, particularly when presented with such a clear case of an editor not actually knowing what he is editing".
I'd be grateful if somebody could take a look before it goes much further. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone just explains to DIREKTOR, and AlasdairGreen27 the policy on Wikipedia:Attribution--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just look at the previous complaint!!!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning for Mrg3105. If behaviour does not improve, then I will block. Woody (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the above complaints to be seen in context of a string of insults being made by User:Mrg3105, for example Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations and [talk:WikiProject Military history#break3] & [talk:WikiProject Military history#break4]. This is not one instance of incivility, but literally months of it, and should be seen in that light. Buckshot06(prof) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request Woody or other administrators looking into this to consider a warning block anew. Mrg3105 has just repeated that he sees it as his right to insult people, on the same Belgrade talkpage. Buckshot06(prof) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Flurry of IP Attacks on User:Deli nk

I've blocked 3 ip's harassing Deli nk (talk · contribs)'s user and talk pages today:

• 99.141.233.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.236.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.6.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These IP's are registered to AT&T Internet Services. I've semi-protected both Deli nk's user and talk pages.

• 99.144.180.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now vandalized my talk page which I've also semi-protected.

We need to be aware of this outbreak - I'd like to avoid a rangeblock on such a large ISP. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting some of the vandalism on this page earlier as well. This was a very persistant vandal, and I want to thank Todd for protecting the page, as I was ready to head to WP:RPP to request page protection. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, apparently this same user was involved in harassment last week. Can the ISP can be contacted to report the abuse? The silly insults don't bother me, so maybe it's not worth the trouble.

For the record, other IPs involved include:

• 99.141.239.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.210.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.15.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.221.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.213.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.10.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.214.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.9.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.208.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.1.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Deli nk (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding others involved:

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

Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.0.255 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess we can add him, too? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/99.141.x.x and 99.144.x.x and 99.145.x.x ranges created Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cbsite block review

Asking for review. Following User:Cbsite's ANI complaint about User:Propaniac over the redirect/disambig at The Color of Friendship, there was a discussion at Talk:The Color of Friendship where I finally agreed to redirect, (following User:Pax:Vobiscum and Propaniac). Cbsite decided to continue to revert, responding to my advice and warning and notification about 3RR with the view that I should just "let it go". I blocked her for repeatedly ignoring the discussion and frankly, continuing to revert until the other person backs down is not productive around here. Should I have gone to 3O and the rest of dispute resolution or appropriate to just stop this right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. You don't engage in discussion, then go on and keep edit-warring. He removed your 3RR warning, then removed your block notice ... should we ramp the block up longer? Blueboy96 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did it again ... talk page protected for the duration of his block. He got off lucky ... I almost ramped it up to 48 hours. Blueboy96 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cbsite has made it very clear that he or she will not participate in any discussion or attempt to build consensus if it conflicts with what Cbsite wants to do. There was a clear guideline for this situation, and despite repeated encouragement for Cbsite to post any reason why the page should be an exception to the guideline, Cbsite instead just kept reverting the page. When I finally began warning him or her that I would be posting an ANI complaint if Cbsite continued to revert the page without acknowledging the discussion, Cbsite posted that complaint against me instead (which I didn't see until a day later), claiming that I had "declared an edit war" by undoing his or her edits, the edits that contradicted the guideline and which Cbsite wouldn't or couldn't defend to me or anyone else concerned. Meanwhile, until deciding to go to ANI if Cbsite didn't stop, I had been at quite a loss about how to handle the situation because the "dispute" seemed to boil down to "Should this page follow the guideline, or should it go against the guideline for no reason at all?" That is to say, the biggest problem is that Cbsite wouldn't express any reason behind his or her actions, not that our reasons were in disagreement. From my experience I can't say there's any reason to think Cbsite would participate in dispute resolution now when he or she didn't take the chance to discuss the issue at any other point (once the guideline was invoked; before then, he or she was happy to accuse me and other users of acting out of some kind of personal bias). Propaniac (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The last ANI complaint indicated a potential WP:OWN problem in the future, so this just looks like it comes from that. Anyone remove their own warnings, so the 3RR is not an issue. The block notice should not be removed but calling it "vandalism" is a bit much. I wouldn't extend it but let's see if the conduct improves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Jamesinc14 sock...

...or excuse me, "logged-out user". 65.78.194.114 put the same old unwanted PBS station-ident information back into the article, for the eighty-twelfth time, with the charming edit summary of "(pbs kids bumpers and station ids is back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)" I can't even file it at SSP because I've already lost track of what number case this would be against Jamesinc14--7th, I think? Amyway. Please do whatever can be done. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Check77

This user started an article at New York State Route 21A, and he added the article to the List of New York State Routes. This article has been nominated at AFD, where current consensus looks to be for deletion. Check 77 removed the AFD notice from the article here [22]. In addition, he has engaged in edit-warring over the Interstate 390 article. He added a source to the NY 21A article that was determined at [23] to be outside of the WP:RS policy, quite possibly of his own publication. In addition he has removed warnings from his talk page. Any assistance is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to have limited english skills and the edit war is 3 days old. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Check77's user links, for review purposes:

Check77 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi).

–Anthøny 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SmokeyTheCat

I think this editor may need some help. The personal attacks on my talk are a bit much I think, perhaps some mentoring or gentle guidance is a good idea before things get out of hand. Exxolon (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page- two, actually, one about civility and one about the policy relating to the issue he's upset about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm putting his comments down to frustration rather than malice. Exxolon (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is currently backlogged. All help appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Forneck and Chris Ripple

Attack pages possibly being posted from the school network? Somebody should check the underlying IP and inform the school network administrator if this is the case. Exxolon (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted both pages, but don't see any reason to inform the school unless this is a continueing problem. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do if editor knows how to use different IP addresses?

Hi... I strongly suspect that User:Red4tribe, who has been blocked multiple times for 3RR and sockpuppetry [24], is either using proxy servers to edit from different IP addresses, or is leveraging other people, or perhaps other networks to make edits for him, in order to evade a block and persist in behaviour that he has been reprimanded for before. Evidence is here [25]. It is just far too suspicious that these random IP addresses are engaging in exactly the same kinds of edits that the main account makes (basically, drawing and uploading new versions of maps at empire articles, without any accompanying references for the changes). What does one do in this situation? We've been through it ad infinitum at Dutch Empire and Italian Colonial Empire. I am pretty sure that the checkip is going to come back as unrelated, but anyone with a modicum of lateral thinking can see that it is him behind the edits. These maps are rarely changed, yet suddenly, in the last couple of months, Red4tribe (and these other mysterious editors, whilst he is on a block) are going around and changing them all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can request a checkuser - even if unrelated, they'll be able to look into the IP's used and check if they are proxies. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And what if he is using acquaintances to make edits for him? As if to prove my point, just this minute, another anon IP has readded one of these maps. [26] The only edit made from that IP address. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And now this, just this second - same IP address edits the same image page that User:Red4tribe created [27] Seriously, how much evidence do I have to post that User:Red4tribe is totally flouting the rules, on his fourth temporary ban? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And again. This time from User:189.27.87.157 (though whoever it was seems to have messed it up) [28] If this is not evidence that more than one individual is "doing stuff" related to things Red4tribe is up to, I don't know what is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This could very well be not Red4tribe, but rather "acquaintances". Ask another admin to delete the revisions where that map is added; this is a hallmark of an "acquaintance" attack. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism IP range - Request for review of edits

Following a checkuser investigation, it has become apparent that, over the course of the last couple of months, 195.200.143.18 and also 86.9.128.0/20 (86.9.128.0 - 86.9.143.255) has been used to add subtle vandalism and trolling; see, for example, this edit.

It would be greatly appreciated if some kind souls could go through edits made in this range and look for vandalism/misinformation/trolling and action it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted one of them at Sultan Qaboos Sports Complex‎, but I'm too damn tired to trawl through the whole 86.9.… range. Deor (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe

Florida babe (talk · contribs) - this person keeps uploading images with no copyright status. Her Talk page is full or warnings, and yet she keeps uploading and never responds. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified and warned. Going through the images now and adding a pile of more warnings for her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to her userpage, she is 13 years old, so I'm wondering if she just doesn't understand the warnings. It seems like that she's trying to have her own MySpace through Wikipedia in a way. That was a good warning message you placed on her page by the way Ricky, hopefully she'll respond. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if she doesn't understand. My problem is the lack of interest in correction. I've dealt with younger users (or just inexperienced users) and the main thing you want is that they at least seem to be trying to figure out what they are doing wrong. The people, regardless of age, who simply ignore everything and continue are the headaches. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, hence why I liked the warning you left her. I feel the same way, age isn't an excuse if you are going to ignore everyone. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein, although perhaps more people will be attracted to a thread titled "Florida Babe", please see my question in the section above (#Request for eyes/policy proposal?) regarding blocking uploads from repeat offenders. Is there such a mechanism? Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't some 40-year-old playing a social-engineering game of some kind? Like doing stuff designed to make deletionists go apoplectic, and apparently it's working. Just block he/she/it and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor, my dear Bugs. A block will be forthcoming if there is another upload. So far, it's quiet so let's all AGF and go on our way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only a question of how long you want to fool around with this character. Now ask me why I don't want to be an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We should have a "This is not Myspace" template, or something similar, for situations like this. Lacking that, I used the {{behave}} template. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closest to "This is not Myspace" would probably be {{uw-socialnetwork}}. --Onorem♠Dil 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged all the remaining images, but I didn't bother to leave a notice. There's enough there already. Kevin (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User apparently posing as an admin

At User talk:ItReallyDoes, User:Arrogant & Intransigent has declined an unblock request. Please take a look. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I left the user in question a note, and maybe you should have tried the same thing too before posting here. Tiptoety ^talk 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Denying another user: [29]
• SNOWing an AfD: [30]
• Denying another user (and reverting intervention): [31] [32] [33]
• Another improper AfD closure: [34]

I could go on, as the list continues, but you get the picture. Over zealous? Sure. Blockable? Not yet. seicer | talk | contribs 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring another admins unblock review in a misleading manner here [35]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He has been issued a final warning, any more disruption and I will pull the plug. Tiptoety ^talk 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah to edit conflicts. You just took the words right out of my mouth. --jonny-mt 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't parsed through all of his contribs, but yeah, refactoring other comments and unblocks, and the fact that the account has been most recently used just for this crap, leads me to believe... seicer | talk | contribs 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone had a look at this user's contribs? If not, you ought. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have. That is what we have been discussing above. Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why no one mentioned that the account was only created six hours ago.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Arrogant & Intransigent is almost surely a disruptive sock. Who of, is something I'm not quite up to yet, I'm still working on one sock-ring. I'll look at this in a while.

Thats a tentative finding based on quick work and digging; it's subject to change if later review shows reasons it's mistaken. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Account was created at 1:53 20 Nov. 2007 and not used until today. Any other interesting accounts created around that time? Deor (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's J.P Stephenson (talk · contribs), created three minutes later, who claimed to have "thousands of socks" [36] (deleted edit). Hut 8.5 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Wefewence Fwame (talk · contribs), (blocked for three days and an obvious sock of Theowy of Welativity (talk · contribs)[37]) and the user's IP 194.81.151.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked but anonymous only so the registered accounts can still edit. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This user 2 year investigation (talk · contribs) (now blocked) seems to be doing the same thing and was created at the same time. DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to be the same IP range, and the same IPs used by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Solent123. of course theres no way to know if its the same person, but its the same IP, and not far apart. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

98.210.14.5

This is clearly a permanent IP used by one user whose sole activity is nationalistic edit-warring against consensus and against any kind of rational argument. User has been regularly warned and blocked, but keeps coming back to continue as before. Recently has begun placing offensive edit summaries (written in Ukrainian). Action requested. Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking user talk page

Resolved

--For the moment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hashmi, Usman (talk · contribs) seems to be unwilling to communicate with other editors, which is unfortunate because they are make a lot of, uh, questionable pages. The user blanks their talk page regularly -- which I thought was generally agreed as acknowledgement of warnings and messages -- but other editors seem to be restoring the warnings. Is this the right way to deal with someone who already seems reluctant to engage in discussion? Aren't they allowed to blank their own talk page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, persistent restoring of warnings is frowned upon to say the least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They generally are allowed to blank warnings off of their talk page, but if they flat-out disregard the warnings they've removed, it's regarded as vandalism ex post facto. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If he blanks the warnings, it's treated as if he read them and as such he is now liable for having ignored them. Nevertheless, he doesn't have to be uncivil in his edit summaries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are multiple issues here, which is why I wanted to bring it to ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

His new articles are suspect sometimes. He flatly refuses to fix anything or follow normal Wikipedia decorum and polices. I would like an admin to do an IP check. And, then close this account, and block the IP range for 72 hours. IP4240207xx (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the new articles look like redirects; do you have any specific examples of suspect articles in mind? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Hashmi, Usman's page watchlisted after notifying him about a prod. He's also removing discussions people have started about his editing style that were requesting replies (ranging from assuming good faith to assuming bad faith) which can be seen as not being civil. On at least two occasions has reacted in a hostile manner[38][39]. It is as if he's determined not to communicate or take notice of the messages, and continue adding new content that is not suitable for the encyclopedia. While removing content from one's own talk page is not against policy, it seems that in this case users (including myself back in march[40]) have felt that it is necessary to reiterate that his editing style needs a change. At this point however I don't think messages from other users are going to have much effect. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user's talk page was just un-blanked again... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that every one of this user's edits is being routinely and immediately reverted? The Hashmi has made several redirects today, all of which were blanked and then tagged for CSD as no context (blank pages) by Harry the Dirty Dog (talk · contribs). See also this edit. Problems with Hashmi aside, can we lay off a little? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, user explained their concern to me. No problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I FIND THIS IN POOR TASTE: "The beatings will continue until morale improves..." THANKS FOR REVERTING BACK. IP4240207xx (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

? John Reaves 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could either User:Delicious carbuncle or User:Ultraexactzz say what admin action they think is appropriate? This is not the only editor in WP whose behavior is slightly peculiar. What should we actually do? EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like an admin to do an IP check. And, then close this account, and block the IP range for 72 hours. (Thanks for changing the title of this discussion) IP4240207xx (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

a) users may blank their talk page, and anyone who repeatedly returns warnings to their talk page may instead be blocked themselves. If they blanked it, they got it. b) We don't do checkusers for "fishing". If you have specific reasons to believe this is someone using alternate accounts abusively, produce the names of their other accounts, and the reason you suspect the connection, and then a checkuser can be peformed. But we don't do checkusers just cuz someone is acting weird... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel his continued refusal to correct errors that he has placed in his edits, continued massive non-communication with others who asked nicely, and overall negative attitude, constitute a pattern that will continue of: Wikipedia:Civility. IP4240207xx (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe any administrative action is warranted at this time. The user, while uncommunicative, appears to be making good faith attempts to improve the project, and I do not want to block him over that. He absolutely has the right to blank his page, especially given the large number of CSD and other notices he has received recently (some of which I and others have declined, as they were simple and reasonable redirects). If there's an issue with an edit - copyvio, for example, that the user repeats after a warning, then a block may be in order, but we're not there yet. Are there specific problematic edits that I'm not seeing here? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I add that these diffs were more than two months ago - I can't find any additional such comments from this user since then. If there are other suspect articles or bad faith edits, I'm missing them. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring the issue of page blankings here to confirm my understanding of policy, because multiple editors seemed to be undoing the user's blankings (even after I brought the issue up). If Ultraexactzz (or any other admin) is going to keep an eye on interactions involving this user, I suspect that will solve all issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, who is this supposed admin that is going to monitor this user? IP4240207xx (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this user since I welcomed him. First of all, this user is contributing good work, even if the notability is questionable. To IP4240207xx, this does not warrant a block, or a Checkuser. This user also reserves the right to blank his page if he wishes, after all, it is his Userspace. I will try to deal with this user, and if it has to be reopened, please feel free. If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, this just got a whole lot more complicated. I have a feeling that the IP address of User talk:207.69.139.142 is indeed User:Hashmi, Usman. I think that this has gotten way out of hand, and I'll see if I can help him. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted a kind message on his User talk. Let's see what happens. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think he is arrogant and rude. He made an edit to Elvis Presley and I nicely asked him for a reference, and he just blanks the page and ignores people. I think he adds tripe and if he is not willing to work with other users to make a better Wikipedia, and improve the quality of his edits, then he is a waste of time. I will recuse myself from dealing with him any farther. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is definately over the top. I tried to deal with him kindly, but it did not work. This incident is over my head, and deserves a block or ban. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the issue I wanted to raise here is not the user blanking their own page, but rather other editors undoing that blanking. This has just happened again, twice [41] [42], which makes three times since I raised the issue. No wonder the user is frustrated! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of frustration, this sort of edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hashmi%2C_Usman&diff=prev&oldid=213612645 is uncalled for. I have blocked him for 24 hours for civility problems. SOmeone please review my block, and feel free to unblock if this is inappropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the user twice used an IP to remove the content of his talk page, with big all-caps notes in the edit summary. To anyone not reading this thread, that would look like vandalism to be reverted to me. That edit summary, however, does go a little far, I agree. Is there a way to disable the "new messages" bar when someone edits the talk page? If we can set him up that way, he'd probably be fine. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify - if we can stop this user from being agitated by messages (which causes him to go incivil), then I think his contributions will be fine, and would support an unblock. The usual criteria for an unblock would be that they acknowledge what they did was wrong, apologize, strike the comment, etc., but that seems unlikely here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones that are frustrated are the editors at Redirects for Discussion, who have been cleaning up after the mess of redirects he's leaving behind, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_14 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15. The fact that he doesn't answer to any message and keeps creating the same redirects is what causes those reversals on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoah, he has another redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18 (GTA VI), and another one at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_19. I just nominated a bunch more today, altought those might actually survive RfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page shows that 90 different users have written over 200 messages that have been blanked with no response on 88 occasions. I guess the frustration has made some of us restore blanked messages. BTW it's interesting that a user with a similar name was blocked in October 2006. --Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hum, this user also made lots of articles about not notable persons, has been also warned for not paying attention to warnings given to him, and he also had an interest on GTA, what a lot of interesting coincidences, anyone would say they are the same person ..... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry but I fail to see how this has really been resolved in any way, other than to agree that this incident just proves he is entitled to blank his own talk page. Somehow it should be possible to make this editor interact with other editors in some way. Perhaps it is necessary to escalate this further because the majority of his edits are disruptive and have virtually all been deleted, whether new articles or new categories, causing unnecessary works for other editors, and imho quite out of all proportion to the majority of other disruptive editors that I come across. I have been watching him for a long time and offered some advise at least twice with suggestions to talk to me or to others, but he continues to just ignore everyone and blanks his page of all notifications, which is mostly what have been placed there. He has, as usual, ignored even the notification of this incident, and blanked it too. Where can we go from here, as I don't expect him to change his ways, and remain disruptive? ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SockPuppet

• Usman Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 23 August 2006-18 September 2006

13:15, 5 October 2006 UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) blocked "Usman Hashmi (talk · contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Deliberate privacy violation involving release of personal information regarding another person)

• U. Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 24 July 2007-30 July 2007
• Mr. Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 30 July 2007-31 July 2007
• Hashmi, Usman (talk · contribs) - 31 July 2007-current

The dates certainly make this suspect... are there behavioral or editing overlaps? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very strong editing similarity, he makes the same sort of redirects than User:U. Hashmi, like [43], compare with [44], and compare [45] with [46]. Both account also have created lots of pages on non-notable actors. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial IP List

List is a partial list of the IPs he has edited under:

IP Net Range: (81.154.0.0 - 81.157.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 81.157.97.44 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.0 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.189 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.249 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.136.0.0 - 86.141.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.138.153.211 (talk · contribs)
• 86.138.153.240 (talk · contribs)
• 86.138.158.94 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.88.0 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.88.65 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.28 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.59 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.91 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.124 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.165 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.92.33 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.94.55 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.95.166 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.1.129 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.1.157 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.2.48 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.2.114 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.109 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.210 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.237 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.6.162 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.142.0.0 - 86.144.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.143.139.71 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.139.130 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.140.117 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.164.99 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.164.128 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.165.183 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.43.15 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.43.80 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.35 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.81 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.129 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.154.90.41 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.111 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.183 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.217 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.218 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.235 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.91.102 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.209.202 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.39 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.171 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.184 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.83.186 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.85.36 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.85.170 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.249 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.160.0.0 - 86.171.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.161.58.129 (talk · contribs)
• 86.161.61.99 (talk · contribs)
• 86.161.61.205 (talk · contribs)

User:Doug youvan

User:Doug youvan is a newly registered user who is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Nukeh, a user who was blocked for a pattern of disruption and legal threats, and who also went by the name of Doug Youvan in talkpage discussions. I'd appreciate it if someone here would look into it. Thanks, silly rabbit (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See also this. Daniel (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Good find, Daniel. meta-wiki user Doug youvan admits that he is indef-blocked en-wiki User:Nukeh. This doesn't prove that en-wiki User:Doug youvan is the same user, does it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While there is no overt indication of who he is, his major contribution so far has been to add "http://www.youvan.com Pseudocolor in Pure and Applied Mathematics" into several articles on color. Note the URL correspondence. This may become a problem if he becomes insistant, but it appears to be under control at the moment. He does have one other completely unrelated contribution, and he is being very polite so far. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The completely unrelated contributions are to the Talk:Wind power page, which I note that User:Nukeh also regularly patrolled. In any event, I agree that he is being well-behaved at the moment. If I notice that he starts behaving disruptively, then I will bring it up here again. Still worrisome, though, is that Nukeh claimed to be pursuing legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation. silly rabbit (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed by RFCU

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it confirmed that RIHANNA RELOADED (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). RIHANNA RELOADED is currently blocked for 24 hrs due to edit warring. Could an available admin please indef block him/her when you get a chance.

Thank you!
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Static IP spammer

24.118.173.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 100% link spam. Static IP. Ignored final warning. Non current. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Final warning was issued on April 30, the only edit after that was on May 8. What administrative inervention does this require? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we've made a big deal about taking stale vandalism reports off AIV, so this would be the next port of call. However, 13 days and a total of 3 edits since last edit is too stale (and too small) for here as well. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) again

Fasach Nua has unilaterally began adding tags to every national football team article, violating WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS from the discussion of this issue several weeks ago. He did the same thing regarding club crests in German football club articles a few days ago, and has resumed unilaterally "saving" WP from problems that only he percieves. I would appreciate it if an admin could block him for enough time to prevent an edit war over this issue, as discussion with Fasach Nua has proved impossible in the past. You can see the discussions about this on his talk page and on WT:FOOTY's archives from a few weeks ago. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Box Benefits

Not 100% sure what is happening but as I understand it the issue is around sockpuppetry.

I'd appreciate an admin having a look at the history between "Baseball Guy", I HATE CAPTCHAS, etc. and Libr0 as the userpage of the above user is currently accusing the account of being a sock of Libr0 and may in fact be being used the userpage as a battleground. I can't locate any current SSP case against Libr0 to merit the tag nor can I find the I HATE CAPTCHAS SSP case that existed previously.

A bit of wikidrama perhaps but, one that is relatively easily resolved (my limited experience says) depending on what the outcome of SSP case(s) was/were. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Having had the misfortune to be involved in that, Libro0 accused I HATE CAPTCHAS of being a sock puppet, and got him banned for that. I'm still not completely convinced he was. During the argument between Libro0 and IHC, Baseball Guy appeared and edited some of the same articles. Libro0 immediately accused him of being a sock. I don't recall that being proven. IHC then accused Libro0 of being a sock based on a misinterpreted comment. Box Benefits wandered by and so was also summarily accused of being a sock. In the end I believe everyone had accused everyone else of being socks.

I'd really like to see a checkuser on all of these guys and sort out who (if any) really are socks and who aren't, and put the whole thing to bed. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk · contribs) was blocked as sockpuppeteer, two other socks were blocked (as Spotteddogsdotorg socks) but checkuser would be useful to confirm whether the more recent accounts, which have not been blocked, are sockpuppets. The relevant sockpuppetry cases were Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

At least five users appear to be socks, including Baseball Card Guy, it wouldn't surprise me if more accounts had been created. Probably time for another case to be created at WP:SSP (or maybe take it to WP:RFCU) if it continues. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Liguria

Would appreciate some advice on possible copyvio uploads by Liguria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user is uploading duplicate copies of an image for use on the article Khmer sculpture. The initial upload was stated to have come from an art catalog, but when the copyright status of that was questioned the user began uploading duplicate copies claiming {{PD-self}}. Every time a copy is deleted or the status of a new copy is questioned, the user simply uploads a new copy with a different name. I've tried to communicate with the user but get no response. Kelly ^hi! 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been communicating with the user. It seems like this user is quite overly zealous to get their images on wikipedia. One is currently as "possibly unfree images", and I have told the user to wait for the outcome of that discussion. The other one came from the Italian Wikipedia, and seems fine as {{PD-art}}. I'm going to mark this as resolved, but if other editors want to examine the situation, or monitor for future uploads from the account, please feel free to help!-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is continuing to upload copyright violations despite warnings and discussion. Kelly ^hi! 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I perceive a large amount of anonymous editing -- from IPs that I suspect to be open proxies -- on pages related to Westchester County, New York and on pages edited by users who have edited in Westchester County articles, and I believe that these edits are part of the ongoing campaign of disruption by blocked user and confirmed puppetmaster Jvolkblum. Jvolkblum has earlier been confirmed or suspected of editing from open proxies; similar behavior to what I'm describing led to the blocking of Special:Contributions/203.162.2.137. Here are some specifics:

• Special:Contributions/210.2.128.106 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in Pakistan who has recently developed an intense interest in the affluent suburban enclave Wykagyl, New York and opposing the deletion of a New Rochelle, New York-related article created and tended by sockpuppets of JVolkblum (article edit history).
• Special:Contributions/222.240.212.17 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in China whose interests and esoteric knowledge of New Rochelle closely mirror those of the user above.
• Special:Contributions/189.60.13.41 - Anonymous user of an IP that may be registered in Brazil but appears to be an open proxy, whose editing interests are (1) arguing about issues related to the zip code of Wykagyl, New York, and (2) adding "citation needed" templates (including the format {{CN}} that has been favored by Jvolkblum and his socks) to articles for Tennessee cities and towns that have nothing in common other than appearing on the list of my last 500 or so edits. [Jvolkblum's puppets have recently added many such templates to articles for communities near New Rochelle (for example, this diff), and they have a history of trying to get back at me for pursuing them (for example, this diff).]
• Special:Contributions/203.81.238.4 - Anonymous user of another IP registered in Pakistan whose edit history is exclusively focused on adding citation needed templates to various other Tennessee cities and towns where I have edited recently.
• Special:Contributions/210.212.86.165 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in India whose only edit was to revert an edit by User:BlueAzure in Wykagyl, New York‎.
• Special:Contributions/122.50.167.233 - Anonymous user of another IP registered in India whose edits have focused on documenting that various notable people graduated from New Rochelle High School.

I have trouble accepting that people from distant parts of the world have developed a sudden interest in wealthy suburban enclaves of New York City, with a side fascination with adding improvement templates to articles for Tennessee cities and towns... --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another is Special:Contributions/124.36.28.100, IP in Japan whose only two edits have been to restore content previously added by Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT - You have noted quite a number of edits, none of which appear counterproductive or particularly malicious as you are claiming. Everyone can contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they choose to register. If the edits were vandalous acts, investigation and admonishment of the IPs would be justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.10.229 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — 201.95.10.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I guess it's complete coincidence that the above IP has been editing articles for Tennessee cities and towns (see Special:Contributions/201.95.10.229) as well, and from Brazil no less! Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of coincidences, Special:Contributions/83.43.189.147, apparently in Spain, is another brand-new anonymous contributor who is determined to add a high density of "fact" tags in Tennessee geographic articles (specifically in the Tri-Cities metro area). In response to the comment by that anonymous user from Brazil who says none of those edits appear counterproductive, I note that some of the edits, particularly in Wykagyl, New York, would have been interpreted as edit warring if they had involved a single contributor, instead of multiple IPs. Furthermore, I don't believe that festooning articles with "citation needed" templates is generally regarded as productive activity (and even when only one such template is added to a short article, it can look rather pointless, as in Olympus, Tennessee). I believe these edits are Jvolkblum editing from open proxies with the goal of disrupting Wikipedia and harassing those Wikipedia contributors who took issue with the more damaging forms of vandalism committed by Jvolkblum and puppets. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now an anonymous IP user (Special:Contributions/82.119.123.188), apparently in Slovakia, has started a series of edits to Kingsport, Tennessee, adding one "citation needed" template in each edit. (The article needs more citations, but the choice of places to add these templates is arbitrary, not correlated with the places where sources are particularly needed.) --Orlady (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest filing these IP addresses at WP:OP. We could thus take advantage of Jvolkblum's skill in finding open proxies, and get them added to the list of blocked proxies. Semi-protecting all the articles these IPs have targetted is another idea. For those not up on the Jvolkblum issues, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I filed these addresses at WP:OP, and the bot that performed the checks found them to be clear. I'm puzzled by this result though. Some of the links in the bot reports that I checked (I did not look at all of them) indicate that some of these IPs are blacklisted as spam sources and others are blacklisted as open proxies. Additionally, another user reports that he ran port checks and found some issues. --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot can't detect certain types of proxies, so it is very possible for him to throw out a false-positive. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:65.46.253.42 and User:TheMathPeople

This is a formal written request to block this ip, and this user which are probably the same. They appear to be vandal/bad cop accounts exclusively. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a thread not to long ago about this. Let me see... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#MathPeople... six and half a dozen, I'd say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment needed on User:Pure wines

Resolved

I have no idea if we allow this kind of user pages, comments? The user have also added the same like to a mainspace page, I have reverted and notified the user that this is not allowed. --Stefan ^talk 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the userpage under CSD G11: Pure Advertising. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guessed it should be deleted, thanks! --Stefan ^talk 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"WhatsUpPussycat?"

Resolved

 – AfD Speedy-closed as keep due to bad-faith nom -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WhatsUpPussycat? seems to have created an account only for the purpose of adding an article to AfD. In this edit, that user changed all the keep votes to delete votes, i.e. he or she changed other people's votes. The edit also purported to close the discussion with a delete decision. If I recall correctly, the participants, including the nominator, are supposed to recuse themselves from closing the nomination. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD speedy-closed as keep. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez back? Probably. Attacks? Definitely

Someone see the history of User talk:69.86.53.26. No doubt this is Matt Sanchez evading his Wiki-ban, again. I'll leave that determination to a check user. As for the attacks, this one should be dealt with accordingly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page with the attack and will semi protect it if the attacks continue. —Travis^talk 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peter zhou's Socks, China, and Names of China

reposted to bottom of page: 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
reposted to bottom of page: 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
reposted to bottom of page: 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the past year, Peter zhou or whatever alias he goes by, has been creating a large number of sockpuppets, most of them "sleepers". To this day, I believe that over 150-200 socks have been uncovered (through your neighbourhood-friendly checkuser and through his own choosing - aka his sock edits, usually we find them by the shipload) and blocked. About 6 months ago, I indef protected (expiry date later set at 2008-07-17T04:02:12 (UTC) by User:CBM) both the China and Names of China articles to prevent Peter zhou from using his socks to disrupt the articles. Unfortunately, four months later, my fellow sysops such as User:Doc glasgow (who has now scrambled his password and is assumed to be retired...iunno) and User:Happy-melon decided that the move was "ridiculous", and unprotected the articles (I understand why they did it, so I'm not holding a grudge against them). As soon as they did that, guess who showed up. Thats right: Peter zhou. Clearly the whole WP:RBI simply does not work with this individual. A more permanent solutions needs to be created, as I am the only sysop at this moment (other that User:Alison who is the neighbourhood-friendly checkuser I was talking about and blocks some of the ones she can find and User:SchmuckyTheCat who is very helpful in reverting him - but doesn't have the blocking tool) blocking the sockpuppets of Peter zhou. This is becoming very frustrating as it seems that there is no end to the sockpuppetry. So at this point in time I am asking the community's help and for suggestions on how to deal with this situation. nat.utoronto 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the IP is blocked how can this individual create new accounts? I thought that wasn't possible. Badagnani (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He uses several IP ranges which cannot be ranged block as there will be way too much collateral. nat.utoronto 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems an awfully large hole through which mischievous editors may game our system. How has such a situation been handled in the past? Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually, it seems that such concerns here simply wind up with 'shit happens, keep working hard.' ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above, reply to Badagnani) Usually by semiprotecting the article, then playing whack-a-mole with the socks when they come out of the drawer. Its tedious, but not much else can be done where the rangeblock becomes prohibitively large... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I went and looked, and this entire thing started with a content dispute about whether or not to include a connotation of the Mandarin name of China preferred since the start of Communist China; a period of over 50 years and supported with sources. Why it's impossible to find a compromise is beyond me, but it should've been done then. It looks like most of this fight was between two users. What a stupid waste of everyone's time. Why doesn't someone open Peter's talk page and work something out there? Let him know he's got one opportunity to work this out as a compromise, or else he can move on, but persistent vandalism will eventually result in some of these big ranges being blocked, and that's that. This kid gloves approach is showing itself to be a big pile of horseshit, because it doesn't stop the vandals, and it doesn't allow compromise to be found. It's ridiculous. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read about this user's conduct, I would not support giving him a 151st chance, or whatever number it is by now. Badagnani (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, ThuranX, is that this started way before I got involved in using my sysop tools to block his socks. As well, he's blown his chances already. The problem doesn't quite stem from the fact that he wishes to change the content but his past attitude toward other people, as well as the fact that he has consistantly violated WP:SOCK even after been told not to. This situation has led me to full protect the page a few months ago, although certain people disagree with that move and through me the WP:RBI book at me (which clearly doesn't work on him). And seriously, this is much worse than the time when I had to deal with User:TingMing.

To be clear, what I would prefer is a reinitialization of the full protection until such time that PZ would stop creating hoards of sleeper socks, but then again, I'm sure some people out there would disagree with such an action. nat.utoronto 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we can't perma full articles, you're just gonna have to either whack-a-sock forever, or figure somethign out. That said, this section can be closed, nothing the admins can do here. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, there have been several attempts to communicate with this fellow both before and after. At first he would talk, but then he just became belligerent when called on the lack of quality in his sourcing. His only edit seems to be sourced, but that source is not reliable - particularly compared to what we currently have as sources. The sourcing is to a writer of throwaway travel/language/etiquette guides who also seems to think himself a martial arts expert. Compare that to multiple academic sources and the sourcing doesn't stand up at all.

WP:ANI is not the place to discuss the conflict between the most accurate translation and the most common translation. His edit doesn't do it either. All this guy does, and has been doing for months is come back with throwaway socks and re-make the same edit.

IMHO, we need someone with CU that will take the IPs and access log information and contact someone at the ISP. Not a throwaway ignored email to abuse, but an actual contact. It's either that or someone is going to block a /16. Last time someone did that and blocked every Kinkos, Starbucks, and all of T-mobile. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, those are the available options. Figure out how to work with the guy, whackamole, or block the chain cafes. fine by me, i'm not playing whack-a-mole with the guy. But perhaps instead of obstructing his edit, enable it. Help him find some reliable sources for that. Challenge him to find a different source. It's up to you how, but if you all want it to stop, you're gonna have to work with him in some fashion. Otherwise, reconcile yourself to one of the two other options. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. ISP customer service representative? Yes, hello, I'm from Wikipedia. I'm a CheckUser on Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, you see, and... nono, a Check User. C-H-E-C-- yes, yes. No, haha, I know you don't service the Czech Republic. See, Mr. ISP guy, a CheckUser has been run, and it seems that one of your customers continues to insert incorrect information into our free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. We have access logs for the past six months, and we were wondering if maybe you'd like to comb through them and-- well, yes, I understand sir, you're a very bus-- well, uh, no, sir, no real law has been-- yes, I understand, sir... I was just thinking that maybe-- ah. Uh... well... sorry for wasting your time, sir-- no, I don't need a free trial CD, thanks anyway." --Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nat, please block the entire range. When someone asks why as it causes huge collateral damage, you can point to the non-helpful responses to this ANI thread. This was brought up, maybe several times, several months ago on ANI as well. Months of this is long enough. Playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets for a year when no other admins take an interest is what causes burnout. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sorry, but I don't have the ranges that Peter zhou operates on. That information is limited to the checkusers only. What we need is more sysops watching the articles China and Names of China as well as checkusers that are specifically dedicated to weeding out these socks. nat.utoronto 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am also trying to say is that there is only one sysop and one checkuser (who is also a sysop) to deal with this sockmaster. And we are definitely not "super computer people" and don't have the energy or the time to be constantly monitoring the articles 24/7. nat.utoronto 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I will put the pages in question on my watchlist and will help out with reversion and sock-reporting when I can.

What is up with ThuranX's dismissive attitude? It is clear Nat and Schmucky have already done their homework and have come here in desperation for additional ideas. For the sake of argument, let's even assume that Peter zhou is right, and that his sources are reliable -- this kind of remarkably persistent abuse of sockpuppet accounts is terribly damaging to the project, and even if we could make a compromise with this guy (which seems doubtful based on N & S's descriptions) it would set a bad precedent: "If you get in a content dispute and people won't compromise, all you need to do is keep creating socks and wait out any full protection on the page, and eventually they'll be willing to make a deal."

I don't think full protection is the answer, but Schmucky's idea of trying to contact the ISP is good. It may not work, but it's at least worth a shot, I think... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Zhou's sock's edits are so WP:DUCKy, I don't see why a CU would be necessary for doing the blocks. I wonder if we could get a consensus-agreed page that basically says, "If a user makes this particular edit, they are automatically up for indef banning as a zhou sock, and a report to WP:AIV is sufficient." That way at least, non-admins like me could get the socks quickly and efficiently blocked...? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A CU is not needed to make blocks, but are needed to weed out the ones that are "being saved for later use". nat.utoronto 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay, so if I see this happen, should I report to WP:AIV, or WP:SSP? The latter seems to take a while to get serviced, so I'd rather use AIV. And if so, what should I say? If there's only been one edit -- and not an obvious vandal edit at first glance -- it will be hard to convince an admin to block unless there is a concise page I can point to? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the slowness of SSP and the "not vandalism" single-minded response are both failures of those noticeboards. I suppose using SSP is a good idea, eventually someone will get around to it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

My attitude is based on the fact that Wikipedia policy is currently insufficient to deal with this sort of problem, and most content disputes are resolved through long discussions. Further, the 'even if he's right, he broke a rule so he must be banned and ignored' attitude gets this project far more shit than accolades, and until we get down to the business of facts and figuring out which facts to use, instead of bullshitting the bureaucracy game, we won't get far. I suspect there's a simple compromise solution that Peter Zhou would accept if asked, because socking for months gets tiring. I'd suggest unprotecting his talk, and just asking the guy how the two sides can resolve this. I would, and have, suggested blocking huge ranges, but it's not going to happen. So as I said before, current policy gives you two realistic options. Suffer forever, or keep trying to get him to realize his current source is shitty, and help him find a good one. If no good one exists, then you've got better graounds to keep out his edit, at which point he transistions from 'good intentions, bad style' editor, to outright griefer vandal. At that point, you send him to grawp, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An approach I've used at evolution to deal with Tile join sockpuppets was to create the unprotected Talk:Evolution/draft article and fully-protect the main article. That way anybody can edit the draft, but only admins can transfer these edits to the main article. See a discussion of how this has worked in practice here. This is a temporary solution until flagged revisions arrives, but you could try this with China. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why someone feels it is necessary to keep reposting this section at the bottom of the page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do the reposting, but I assume it's because the person who did wants to actually get this resolved. It's not unusual for unresolved threads to drift up the page and get ignored and finally archived without discussions reaching a logical conclusion. --71.205.224.78 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the bot archives based on time of last post, not on location. Moving to the bottom doesn't change that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Nat (geez, that sounds weird coming from my mouth), I'll watchlist the articles and help out. I remember Peter and how persistent he can be. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Heimstern!...I mean Nat...lmao.... nat.utoronto 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tee hee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution Suggestion 1

• As TimVickers has suggested, we could do the following to deal with PZ's socks:
  1. Full protect China and Names of China
  2. Create Talk:China/draft article and Talk:Names of China/draft article as an unprotected versions which could act as the buffer to which changes could be made to
  3. From there, sysops could transfer changes to the protect article

  This is a temporary solution until Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is implemented on English Wikipedia.

Comments

• Fully protecting such a high profile article as China is probably impractical and sends the wrong message. We don't do draft articles in mainspace either. Come up with something else. Exxolon (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now we have the WP:IPEXEMPT ability we could hardblock the ranges he's using and unblock individual accounts who have shown to be good faith contributors. Exxolon (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• The autoconfirmed level has also just been changed, which could help a great deal. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat by new editor to kill anyone who edits his article.

Resolved

 – Petty threats are still threats. Indef. blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See July 10 1992 (since deleted: only admins can view) and this threat by Cane61 "i will kill any one who touches this page" : [47]. Suggestions? Just warn, or block? Edison (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Block. This is a threat on the order of the cover of National Lampoon one time, showing a dog with a gun at its head: "Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with block. Too much to do, no need for this to be prolonged under some ill-conceived banner of "good faith". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who makes a threat of bodily harm (1) forfeits all "good faith"; and (2) has virtually no likelihood of becoming a useful editor. Kudos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyberanth

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Cyberanth was blocked for sock puppetry [48] but appears to have returned, persisting in making the same edits, in violation of the block, under the usernames User:Daimerej, possibly User:Tucu, and possibly IPs 74.233.86.145 and 64.66.192.62. These identities are making the same edits, have started at roughly the same time, and bear a striking resemblance to Cyberanth. He also basically conceded his identity here [49] Trilemma (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a CU available...I recommend taking a look. Tiptoety ^talk 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Daimerej is undoubtedly CyberAnth. I'll say "probable" to Tucu. I also found Ssewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is also blocked. I haven't blocked Tucu. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot potato on the 3RR noticeboard

Your attention is invited at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: ), which concerns a continuing edit war at Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. (I know you are asking yourself, what could possibly be controversial about a topic like that?)

A previous block of the same editor reported here was commuted to time served, since it was thought to be unfair to sanction only one side of the dispute. This leaves the question still open as to what other sanctions should be imposed. The just-unblocked editor has continued to revert. I suggest that an uninvolved admin might wish to apply full protection to the article. There are some overtones of a dispute between nationalities. Further background can be found at Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. Personally, I believe there is some logic behind the position of User:Boodlesthecat, but he shouldn't continue to revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Update. User:Moreschi has blocked the editor involved, though wisdom may be needed to figure out how to make this article neutral in the long term. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also blocked one of his opponents, who did 4 reverts. Why the hell can people just not go to RFPP and ask for a brief protection to stop the edit-war? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many just don't know about it. Myself, I could hardly believe a user who was just unblocked from a 3RR violation on this article and asked to behave nicely would go all out like this. And once he did, since he is the only editor responsible for destabilization, blocking him is a much better solution than protecting the article: why prevent all editors from working on it of it is only one of many who is ruining it for everyone else? PS. The cabal accusations on his talk page ("concerted gang edit warring that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is leading") are amusing :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Obvioustrollisobvious

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

Does anyone recognize whose sock drawer he crawled out of? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lol wut" is a mark of Grawp (talk · contribs), but I don't see other similarities, so it doesn't prove anything, I have no idea. The warnings of the user were excessively harsh and many times inappropriate. Starting like that is unusual for a new editor, I agree that the user is probably a sock. Cenarium (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

similar to Knickerbockers (talk · contribs) both pretending to revert the same IP vandalism on Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Performance that it is likely they had previously done while logged out (Knickerbockers as 24.127.47.143 on 1 March, and now Obvioustrollisobvious as 212.139.122.11, also the same vandalism was done by Imightjustfail (talk · contribs) whose user page redirects to the penis article. If not Grawp then another vandal who is aware of Grawp, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. It may be a good idea to delete or hide the vandalism to stop articles being reverted to it again. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, I missed the edit, the diffs should be deleted. Cenarium (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Long term edit warring at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Resolved

 – edit warring has stopped and discussion is continuing. MrMurph101 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor, User:Jimintheatl has been repeatedly inserting material into the article that has been against consensus and a possible blp violation. He has been relatively civil on the discussion page and has trying to work with other editors but still keeps putting some version of his inclusion before there has been any acceptence of it. Another user, User:Commodore Sloat has joined this user to keep insisting on this inclusion even though the current consensus is against them. The article has already been locked once due to this edit warring and may need admin intervention. I was hoping to not have to come here but the discussion has been gradually degenerating. Please advise. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the content, but isn't the article title itself a violation of WP:NPOV#Article naming? Ros0709 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to run it through the afd process again. I don't see much encyclopedic content being generated, the article is simply a laundry list of attacks against BOR from the political left in America. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A This is a content dispute and B go ahead and do an afd if you want to do all the other "Criticism of" articles, everything from Criticism of Adobe Flash to Criticism of YouTube. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For most of the editors involved, the content dispute has been resolved. The only reason that content is still changing is that one editor refuses to accept a consensus that he does not agree with. If this is not the proper venue or obtaining help with that issue, could you direct us to where we should be instead? Croctotheface (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Am I hallucinating or does it say in your original post that there are two editors who take User:Jimintheatl's position in this content dispute, he and User:Commodore Sloat? The talk page looks one hell of a lot like a content dispute to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Sloat accepts the consensus. That leaves, as I said, one editor who does not. There was/is disagreement over content, but the editors reached a consensus. Jim refuses to abide by that consensus. If that's a content dispute, OK, but I had always believed that content disputes end when consensus is reached. Can a single editor keep that from happening just because he doesn't agree with the result? Croctotheface (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have said on the Criticism of BOR talk page, Croc is either blatantly distorting the history of this dispute, does not understand what occurred, or does not want to. Other editors involved have offered explanations and apologies.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(in response to go ahead and do an afd if you want to do all the other "Criticism of" articles, everything from Criticism of Adobe Flash to Criticism of YouTube.) Well, those are probably worthy of investigation, but for this specific case I further refer you to WP:WAX and, because this is about a person rather than a 'thing' and extra care is needed, WP:BLP. I reiterate, I have no input regarding the article at all. The title does concern me, though, for the reasons at WP:NPOV#Article naming: it rather assumes a POV. I would suggest "Appraisal of..." instead; I also agree this is probably not the place for this discussion, so I'll make the same point on the talk page. Ros0709 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. I have been trying to de-escalate the edit war on that page and I come here to find myself accused of being a source of it? Please be sure to take notice of the rather arrogant edit-warring approach to this page that was taken by Croctotheface, and do read his comments on the talk page. Over and over he refuses to answer arguments about the content dispute and instead insists that he doesn't need to respond to arguments because he has "consensus" on his side (e.g. a group of editors willing to revert as a block until they tire out their opponents). Nevertheless, some progress had been made on the page about the time this was sent to ANI -- at least a big portion of the content dispute had been settled with a compromise that was apparently found to be reasonable by both sides. I think an RfC or mediation would be a good idea for this page; there is a small clique of editors that appears to have a lock on it at this point. I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this dispute since it is clearly a content dispute, not a BLP issue or an "incident" per se. csloat (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually persons trying to cool down a revert war don't take a side and revert war.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that I stopped participating in the revert war. Please Kyaa stop insulting me. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your last revert against the consensus on the talk page wasn't even 24 hours ago.... I'll stop pointing out where reality doesn't mesh with your story when you start acting in the manner you are attempting to portray yourself, csloat. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the link to the offending diff in your attack on me; can you provide the link to exactly which revert you are talking about? I stopped reverting after my block and worked with Croctotheface and alongside the consensus, and was actually successful in getting a paragraph that we both agreed upon about the controversial material. I suppose you could say this was a partial revert but when Croc reverted me I offered a different wording rather than a revert, and Croc agreed with the new wording as a compromise. It is possible you have me confused with Jim, who did revert a different section of the article (the part that you say was against consensus). But the edits I made in the past 24 hours were neither reverts nor against consensus. Do you agree to stop insulting me and making false statements now? Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true, csloat has stopped edit warring after his block so out of good faith I will withdraw any accusation of edit warring by him. I still feel I did the right thing by reporting the issue here since this has been going on for a couple of months now and feel it needed attention. FTR, I reported this due to the edit warring not the content issue which is still under discussion. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the error and acting in good faith. Hopefully Kyaa will do the same. csloat (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess Kyaa won't. Oh well, the facts speak for themselves. csloat (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this on the "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" talk page and on the 3RR Noticeboard. I won't rehash those comments here. I would like to say that I appreciate Ramsquire's apology for possibly misleading me, even though I do not think he did. The reverts which lead to this report began after Ramsquire removed an edit which I believed we had agreed to weeks ago. I thought he, and then Croctoheface, were exhibiting incredible bad faith, but did not level that accusation. Instead, I explained my position. Ramsquire acknowledged that he could see how I could have felt mislead, and apologized; the other editor leveled a bad faith accusation at me. I asked for and have not received an apology, which I regard as the height of arrogance.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Antifeminism

Resolved

There's trouble in this topic. Someone keeps reverting the content that is substantial even though the sources are holding up and even though they are objective. And instead of adding something she or he is just leaving blank spaces behind creating a joke of an article instead of leaving the previous informative but perhaps not perfect article to be edited instead.

Antifeminism

Sorry I'm new to this :) I think wikipedia is a great project but there's a chance of it becoming 1984's reverting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an incident that requires immediate administrator intervention. You should start a discussion on the talk page first, spelling out why you think those sources are reliable. Kevin (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a content dispute. For what it's worth, I've restored much of the earlier content; at least some of the earlier reverts were small-minded at best, notably this one, but it was two months ago, so no need making too much of a fuss right now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock accounts editing on alternative medicine

Resolved

Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While preparing a this user RfC on User:TheNautilus, another editor pointed out that this editor is a sockpuppet account of User:I'clast, eg diff. Could some uninvolved admins see why this user is using two accounts to edit this controversial set of articles. Looking through their contributions there seems to be little overlap except for the general subject area, but since neither account is linked to a real-life ID I'm suspicious that this might be an attempt to avoid scrutiny, or to operate TheNautilus as a "bad hand" account. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After comparing contribs for the two I'd tag this as "very likely." There's a good deal of overlap in topic areas and strong stylistic commonalities in their edit summaries. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this comment and this comment. These two accounts have the same unique type of writing style. And take a look at the edit summaries of these two comments.[50][51] Both accounts used the abbreviation ps. Take a look at this TheNautilus comment. I'cast replaced TheNautilus signature. This is a potential violation of sock because the editor is splitting up contributions to avoid public scrutiny IMHO. QuackGuru 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What do people think I should do? Should I switch the RfC to the sockmaster account, or wait until this has been resolved and then restart the RfC? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For now, at least one of the accounts should be blocked but which one? QuackGuru 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide more deatil on how he or she is using the accounts disruptively. Are they voting on the same things or commenting on the same pages to make it appear as if they have consensus? Simply having more than one account does not violate the sockpuppet policy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have explained the trolling problems before to other editors"speed bump & fire break for trolls" setup, since September, 2006, including to QG[52], as well as some admins and higher up even longer ago, near the outset. I consider QG's various comments here, [53][54][55] , and before[56], to be without good faith and his actions serial harrassment.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for other people to investigate their reasons for doing this. If it were a simple case of using socks for double-voting or talkpage disruption I'd have blocked them myself. Judgments on if people's use of multiple accounts complies with, or violates our policy need to be made by uninvolved editors. In the meantime, what do people advise I do with this RfC? Is there any point in proceeding with this on a sock account? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see obvious abuse although I haven't spent hours combing through every edit. I'd put a note on the RfC that this appears to be an alternate account of I'Clast. If approached in a non-confrontational way it's possible he'll own up, and maybe even explain the reason for having two accounts. There could be a simple and non-controversial reason as Ali'i implies (maybe one to use from home and another from school, or whatever). Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond, I'd wondered about a work versus home account, but the very lack of overlap in the articles edited makes that unlikely. These two accounts are being kept separate for some reason. Could you talk to him about this? I'd trust your judgement and neutrality. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading I'clast's old talkpage posts I notice this concern has been raised with him before. link. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are alternate accounts of the same editor. I'm not aware of them being used abusively. I don't think there's been any effort to conceal this, though neither has it been advertised. As to the reasons why this editor uses two accounts, you'd have to ask him. I think that if you're proceeding with the RfC, best to note that I'clast/TheNautilus are the same editor and compile diffs etc. accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pure harrassment. My 66.58 IP range is long acknowledged on my User & User:Talk page (see above at the top of the User and Talk pages) and other places by others to reduce stalking, including recurring, especially troublesome trolls, finally banned, and blooming trolls. Some sr admins and Wiki bureaucrats have long been informed of my duality situation, directly.

I re-edited my own signed edit, where the old browser on the machine doesn't always show the current, correct ID / IP state without explicitly logging out, signing back in. Tim, despite whatever his merits on other subjects, is POV pushing some really poor references that have no underlying WP:RS substance despite their publishers imprint, using known, cranky, bigoted authors who were previously publicly rebuked^{prior discussion} in Science (journal) by an officer, later president, of the National Academy of Sciences (wow!), misstating circumstances in edit (e.g. there has long been no concensus over Tim's changes), misstating the nature of the science disputes, and ignoring more detailed, accurate sources. Now we see stooping to an unworthy AN/I over a simple logging error on a Talk edit *already under my own signature*. See also WP:HUSH.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are both his accounts, the I'clast username being devoted to chiropractic. I don't recall any misuse in the sense of voting fraud or such like. I suspect a number of users who usually rub shoulders with him here are aware of this use of two accounts, but for others it is no doubt confusing. The various IPs have also been known by me for some time now. They should have been signed later, but that has far from always been done, which could lead editors to cry misuse of an IP sock. I have recognized the IPs and have therefore done nothing.

Both accounts exhibit similar types of failures to understand policies and frequent attempts to squeeze crystal-ball-synth-OR into articles. The "truth" as understood by him is more important than what the sources say, so contorted crystal-ball-synth-OR occurs to justify inclusion of some sources and deletions of sources he doesn't like. The RfC will no doubt discuss this. -- Fyslee / talk 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'clast handles even more politicized articles, where science is often on vacation and trolls aren't. Actually I do not edit chiropractic and only occasionally vote on related chiro articles that seem have issues that slop over to other areas. Because of the problems with integrating disparate and contradictory mainstream sources, I rely on Jimbo's "source research" and other provisions to reconcile discrepancies to the most current & complete. This has enabled productive collaboration with the more mature and sophisticated researchers. My primary "problems" have been with less mature (recent) students and non-technical editors who can't distinguish scientific misconduct, scientific quackery, bigotry(severe bias) and repeated misrepresentations very well, even when the NIH, Cochrane or PNAS papers confirm them. Some old commentators, abusively name calling personal enemies, imprecisely identified parties or practices in one or two rancid paragraphs in non-peer reviewed blurbss, sometimes without a single external reference or relevant data, is *not* a superior science reference as claimed by Tim. Some of my accusers here appear to selectively ignore WP policies, facts, mainstream science & scientific methodolgy that seriously conflict with their prejudices.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I recommend that any further discussion takes place at the RfC, which is now filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus Tim Vickers (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling user page and talk page moves

Resolved

 – Cleaned up the moves, restored talk page history, gave user a final warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is going on when several user pages are being redirected or moved? I wanted to post a warning on a talk page of user Sheryl De Villa about repeatedly inserting a paragraph on who the subject of Vanessa G. Sotto is dating, per WP:BLP but it is hard to get to the talk page of user Sheryl De Villa. User talk:Sheryl De Villa redirects to Imelda Salvador which in turn redirects to X Lala x. There are several other article moves and redirects in the tangled skein. See [talk:Sheryl De Villa] and[57]. A user talk page gets redirected to an article and then to another article. Edison (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a newbie thing. The userpages have been restored, several redirects and one article have now been speedied, leaving one article for consideration. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The last one has been deleted, I suspect that it was a hoax, the imdb profiles were not related to the subject of the article. It's also consistent with the edits of the user, and the general disruption unusual for a genuine newbie. Cenarium (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chetniks

Resolved

Hi, I've had a mind to start a thorough cleanup of the Chetniks article and I've recently merged a redundant infobox on the page [58] and found my edits promptly reverted by User:Deucaon. I've asked him to explain his revert and discuss the matter on the Discussion page ([59]) and on two occasions on his talkpage ([60],[61]). However, I received little or no response, and no real explanation for his/her actions. Could someone have a look at the matter, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've protected the article and left a note on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And independently I have made a strenous suggestion that the user engage in dialogue [62]. Pedro :  Chat  10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Block user Cricky076 immediately!

Resolved

He's been warned 5 times and his latest contribution was a page called "Fuck Wikipedia" Drewhamilton (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll get a faster response at WP:AIV. --Haemo (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pages created by this user, and the edits introduced by his or her classmates (it would seem) User:Yran01 and the IP address 217.205.107.69, have been deleted and reverted. Templates have been left on the appropriate user pages. If there's further disruption, yup, WP:AIV is the place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Racist conduct

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours

81.132.63.38 (talk · contribs) has been making racist and derogatory comments towards Vietnamese people in Talk:Tibet (diff here), in a clear attempt at disrupting the discussion currently going on there. Is that kind of behaviour allowed in Wikipedia? Shouldn't he be punished for that? Rsazevedo ^msg 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This indeed looks like a personal attack on User:Blnguyen to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think it is Gwen. Having monitored the article a lot myself, it appears to be an editor who nguyen has reverted several times. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard nationalistic bigotry, I would suggest a short block on that IP till the fella gets bored. _{1 != 2} 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard reason for a block, so enacted for 31 hours. Woody (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:CyberAnth and personal info

Resolved

 – blanked - oversight informed Agathoclea (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some anon IP has posted somebody's personal info on the talk page of indef-blocked puppetmaster CyberAnth (talk · contribs) and at least one of the confirmed socks...I have no idea what this is about, but should that info be deleted or oversighted? Kelly ^hi! 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

removed from one talkpage sofar. Agathoclea (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest removed and Oversight informed. Edits too old to warrant block on IP. -- Agathoclea (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

appeal block

Resolved

 – wasn't blocked, but now blocked indef, ongoing vandalism

my block was unfair i was merely trying to improve the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagett (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an improvement. Neither is this, or this, or this, or this. You haven't been blocked yet, but I'm very close to doing it now based on a review of these contributions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why wasn't this user blocked already? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Close to?? Four warnings in the past two days, personal attacks against well-established editors, a comprehensive history of vandalism, and now a bad faith ANI report? What are you waiting for, extensive copyright violations and threats of litigation? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Haphazardly looking at a dozen edits, more than half were snarky vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked indefinitely now. I said "close to" because he hadn't made any more edits since the final warning. On the other hand, someone with that kind of track record isn't going to turn around and produce the entire works of Shakespeare. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Langtry Manor

Resolved

 – deleted version userfied --Rodhullandemu 15:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hoping an admin can help out. The above article was deleted a long time ago (18:46, 9 June 2005 Delirium (Talk | contribs) deleted "Langtry Manor" ‎ (copyright infringement -- listed on VfD/copyvio over a week)). Another article has recently been created with that name but, portrays the subject from what appears to be a strictly advertising standpoint (based on the hotel's appearance on the television last night). I'd like access in someway to the original article so that I can try to put together the beginnings of an appropriate article about the building itself. "The Red House" does appear to be a notable enough subject for a wikipedia article but, I would like access to the original Langtry Manor article so I can maybe salvage some stuff out of there. Any help at all would be appreciated. Especially in the article building process. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will copy it to your userspace. --Rodhullandemu 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page

Resolved

 – FN agreed to voluntarily remove the comments in question from his talk page

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has refused to remove unsupported personal attacks against me from his talk page. This came to be due to a disagreement over the "famous player" sections of national football team articles, which is being discussed at WT:FOOTY. The problem is that Fasach Nua won't even engage in discussion with me, and immediately reverts any edit I make to his talk page, even the many I made yesterday simply trying to start a dialogue. That's fine, if he doesn't want to talk it is frustrating, but whatever, but what I won't stand for is the addition of unsupported personal attacks against me anywhere on WP, even on his talk page, nor do I think I should have to. If someone could intervene I would very much appreciate it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind provide us with some diff's please so that we can have a better idea of what you are talking about. Tiptoety ^talk 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh has filed an identical report at WP:WQA. Glancing over Fasach Nua's talk page, I do not see anything that (yet) requires administrator attention. (Fasach expresses frustration with Grant and criticizes his editing, but I do not see anything that rises to the level of a personal attack) I think this ANI report can be put on hold at least until the WQA process shakes out. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What you're calling personal attacks are complaints about your editing behavior. (If I'm reading the right stuff - I'm mostly talking about User talk:Fasach_Nua#One_more_attempt...) If he thinks you're difficult to work with, he's allowed to say this. It looks like he's even talking about you in the sense of "how can we resolve the dispute?" rather than just pointlessly complaining. So I don't see anything wrong going on here. It looks like The Rambling Man is already trying to help mediate this dispute. Friday (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to get removed. But this, this, this, this (after he placed a 3rr/edit-war warning on my talk page), this, this (where The Rambling Man agreed that the warnings were abusive), this, this, and so on are examples of what was immediately removed from his talk page for no good reason other than to silence me. If he doesn't want to talk, that's fine, but I shouldn't have to have personal attacks in the form of unsupported allegations of trolling and abuse against me anywhere on the WP, even his talk page. I no longer want to engage in a discussion with this user, but I do want the attacks removed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He's more than welcome to say that he's found me difficult to work with, but to say that I'm "trollish" and "abusive" is over the line. This whole issue would have been avoided if Fasach Nua had been willing to engage in a productive discussion with me, or, preferably, abided by the consensus that formed the last time he started mass tagging national football team articles. Since he has shown himself to be unwilling to do either, the very least he can do is refrain from slandering me on his talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The remark wlinked to a project page about trolls was untowards but I don't see the others as personal attacks. Hopefully with a bit of mediation this will settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks for providing the diffs.

Regarding the removal of your comments from his talk page, that is well within his rights. Please see WP:DRC.

Regarding the "trollish" and "abusive" comments, well, those are kinda borderline I guess. It looks like Fasach is already in hot water over his aggressive tagging and reverting without strong consensus to back him up. Are you sure you want to make a federal case out of the "troll" comment? It is likely to just muddy the waters regarding the ongoing controversy over the unreferenced tags on the football clubs. If I were you, I'd just leave it alone and wait for those comments to be archived (after all, heh, it's not like more than two or three people would have read them if you hadn't reported it to ANI). What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying that someone is difficult is 100% his right as a member of the project. To say that I am "trollish" or "abusive" implies that I have violated policy, which I have not, and I would appreciate the offending remarks being removed from WP, regardless of where they are. If FN doesn't want to talk, that makes things more difficult, but not impossible. I shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap, though, which is my right as a member of the project. I don't want him blocked or anything, I just would like my name not to be sullied. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked him if he would voluntarily remove the comments in question, so that we can focus on the more important issue of straightening out the issue of the tags on the football articles. Hopefully this will resolve the problem. If not, I would again urge you not to worry about it. People have said much worse things about me, heheheh, but my position is to let the accuser's credibility stand for itself. If you're not being abusive or trollish, then the comments on FN's talk page just make him look bad, not you. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FN has removed the comments in question from his talk page. Can we consider this resolved then? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and thank you for your intervention. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking User: Ducksofmercy

Resolved

 – Not gonna happen. Ducksofmercy requested unblock four times with this argument, and was denied four times. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this account, although I can't edit using it currently so I am using my IP address. There seems to have been a mistake with my block - it has been stated that I am a sockpuppet of a user called Zippygup, but this is completely untrue. Apparently, my case has been sealed by checkuser, although I notice that on the checkuser page, you state that 'Due to technical factors, results are not always clear'. Therefore, I think that the checkuser that you used to link my account to Zippygup must be wrong. Please re-consider my block, because I would rather not create a new account after I just started editing with this one. 86.145.144.99 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been reviewed several times by several independent administrators. You're not getting unblocked, and continuing to post requests like this may lead to your IP address or range getting hardblocked for block evasion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User creating vandalism accounts

Resolved

The user Dixonsej (talk · contribs) who has not edited for a few days has started to create vandalism accounts. I mentioned a few accounts created on 20 May at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive420#More Kauymatty socks which has now been archived. The user has created another two accounts today, Fredd673 (talk · contribs) and Cheesebob999 (talk · contribs). Dixonsej was registered in 2006 and has no vandalism but is possibly a compromised account. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The other accounts were:

• Kauynutty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Schmelly1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Justinbz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first three have been blocked, the others were created by the Justinbz account and have not been blocked, Deadalive2 and Deadalive3 have no edits. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Borderline link spam from 121.241.8.6

The user at 121.241.8.6 (talk · contribs) has recently added a large number of unnecessary links, all apparently advertising web pages within www.mypopkorn.com. In no case can I find any addition of contextual information explaining the need for the link. I recommend that all recent edits from this IP address be rolled back. Rahul (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Todd apparently gave the IP a final warning. Its blocksville for them if they continue to insert it again within the next 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If it starts from another IP address or an registered user or whatever, suggest Wikipedia:Spam blacklist as the current usage isn't that great anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This guy....

I have a feeling that he is MaskedSuperAgent. MSA is known for changing one of my posts to sound like I attacked him. He is known for assigning hostile motivations to our posts like thisSimonKSK 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure its not this guy. It has the following hallmarks: a) Wrestling fan who b) throws tantrum and c) threatens suicide... He's certainly not a new user, nontheless --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, it's clearly a sockpuppet of someone and more clearly isn't here to contribute. As for whose sockpuppet it is, the poor man's checkuser should find that out soon enough. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John Tracy, User:Graf stefan, User:Mospak, User:204.8.195.146

All of these users, who are undoubtedly the same person, keep posting the same hoax vandalism to Mangup. The hoax vandalism consists of the contents of Count Mospak, which was deleted over a month ago per the following AfD: [63]. I really would like a stop put to this nonsense. The users performing this vandalism should be banned and the Mangup article should be protected in some way. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe semi protect the article for a few days, block users for disruptive sockpuppetry. Cenarium (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Mik Morgan (talk · contribs) to the lot. Cenarium (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack, threat of violence from IP

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

72.75.124.29 has made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Blocked it. Keep us informed if they return under another guise. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, will do. Thanks for the quick action! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Email canvassing

So I have an alternate account, used it to rewrite a copyvio article, and when I wanted to make a comment involving sources on a ethnically tinged AfD (there are charges of 'murdering history' on the debate in question to explain my skittishness). I registered this account to an email set up through my website, rather then my more common and more used gmail address. I mention this because I just got around to logging into it, and there was an email from May 5th canvassing me to vote on a source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (cranky old-timer moment: we have too many damn noticeboards). It was sent to me because I used the source being "voted" on as a reliable source in the AfD mentioned. I didnt !vote in the AfD, just commented on finding sources, although the account that emailed me did at one point change the text in my comment from Comment to Keep before another editor called him on it and he explained it as his newbie mistake. Incidentally, the account emailing me was the same one telling editors with legitimate concerns about notability that they were 'murdering history' and how he had personally witnessed cops killing people. Anyway, it all adds up to a rather unflattering picture of the editor, and id be more then happy to forward the email to any admin who wishes to review it. Just bringing it up, as secret discussions and voting drives seems... kinda evil.

The alternate account is User:Parappathebagel by the way, to save anyone who wants to go digging to find it. -M^ask? 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, emailing for support in discussion isn't acceptable. If any notices are sent out, which can be acceptable, it has to be done in the open. However, if this was back on May 5th, there's little need for administrative action now that it's well past, unless that behavior is continuing. Which account was it sending the emails? They should be notified of this discussion as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular desire to turn this into a public tar and feathering on my own, I'll pass on the email if desired, but im not going to go all 'zomg drama llama!' and spread their name all over AN/I unless thats what others deem necessary. It may turn out that an admin giving them a talking to is adequate. -M^ask? 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference the relevant section from WP:CANVASS is here. I agree with Hersfold here that no particular admin action is necessary at this time. It's up to you Mask, but I'd say it would be fine for you to mention the relevant policy to the person in question on their talk page if you don't want to make a big thing of it here on ANI. If you'd rather have an admin do it, you can send me an e-mail (it's enabled) and I'll drop a note on the user talk page once you tell me who it is. I don't see any problem with you posting a similar note, but like I said it's up to you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

list of people at Đakovica

Agimetepara (talk · contribs) keeps on inserting a massive list of "distinguished people from Đakovica" which is unsourced and largely useless. IT mainly lists non-notable professors and "martyrs" from the Kosovo Liberation Army (largely considered a terrosist group). If you look at the history of the page here (too many diffs to list right now), you'll see admin Ev (talk · contribs) has had to revert this multiple times, and so have I. What can be done? BalkanFever 08:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go talk to him. I don't think this is a big issue; just someone who is confused. --Haemo (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with today's featured article

There is a on-going dispute, some editors think that the article is written like an advertisement, has POV issues or is not sourced enough. Insertions and removals of {{advert}} have led to the full protection of the article. The situation requires external views. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected by Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety ^talk 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the problem, isn't it? I don't think that the removal and reinsertions of tags warranted a full protection, particularly when the article has a lot of discussed issues. Cenarium (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, protection is the solution for dealing with people who disrupt articles the day they are on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption yes, but not legitimate concerns, as the vast consensus says these are. It would be good to hear from an admin who's not directly involved. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

These should not be categorized as "disruptions." On the talk page, it seems that everyone but the two editors who made the article are expressing concerns. Dwr12 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The advert tag has been replaced recently once by lampman (talk · contribs), Lampman should have been warned for 3RR and blocked if necessary, protection was uncalled-for. There is an overwhelming consensus that the article has several problems that need to be addressed. Cenarium (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, block the disruptive editors and let the ones who are discussing continue to edit if consensus finds a need to, but do not lock the article to the whole world just because there are a few users being disruptive. Tiptoety ^talk 16:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my edit was disruptive; it was based on new information clearly presented on the talk page. I did not re-insert it after it was removed, out of fear of starting an edit war (I guess I decided to be the bigger man...) I received no block or warning, probably because my edit was clearly warranted and had wide community support. Instead we got an ill-advised, unilateral decision, that practically everyone disagrees with. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A not-so-small problem is that the editors complaining on the talk page and disrupting the article aren't exactly engaging a full understanding of policy or guidelines in their arguments, or even consulting the sources; they're just generally complaining that THEYDONTLIKEIT. Last time I checked, my query about what makes the article an advert hadn't been answered, nor whether they equally believe we should only run science and history articles on the main page, and never products like books, films, albums, video games, or anything else that they might construe as an advertorial without accurately engaging WP:ADVERT or WP:NN. If this sort of disruption based on partial understanding of policy and guidelines continues, it's a real disencentive for editors to write featured content about anything that could be construed as a company or product, and some of the article detractors have gone so far as to claim that Raul or I have some nefarious interest in using the mainpage for advertising (<sarcasm on> reminder to call my stockbrker </sarcasm off>). Very strange stuff, and certainly not a motivating factor for editors who work hard to bring articles to featured status. There may or may not be a need to block for disruption, but there's clearly a need to protect and give some of these editors time to cool down, and perhaps read and engage Wiki policies and guidelines.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The issues of the article have been made explicit on the talk page Talk:Elderly_Instruments#POV, the sources have been discussed (Bluegrass for example). I have no problem with companies on the Main Page (BAE Systems was fine), nor with films or whatever. SandyGeorgia, you are essentially referring to Talk:Elderly_Instruments#Nice_Advertisement, be aware that the situation has much evolved since. Resorting to veiled attacks on other editors' competence and intentions is not the way to resolve the conflict. As I said, it's the first time I'm involved in a dispute with today's featured article, and I do share concerns that editors expressed on the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, where the worst arguments are used to represent an entire side. Plenty of issues have been raised, concerning POV language, unreliable sources etc. In addition to strictly following policy, there's such a thing as sound judgement, well explained in the essay Wikipedia:Common sense and decision making. Featuring an article about a company, where the only major sources are minor niche journals of unknown reliability, is just not very smart. When everybody else is marching out of time, you might wanna ask yourself if it's you there's something wrong with. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If this company's sales jump due to this article, its authors will have met their goal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of insulting to the creator, Laser brain (talk · contribs), who from a glance at his/her contributions certainly doesn't seem to be working for the company or otherwise involved. Assume good faith, please. It seems that any time a company article appears, it gets lambasted as an advertorial, which cheapens the substantial amount of work the creators and editors do to get them through FAC. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Laser Brain has done a great job. My beef's not with him. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, these accusations are unfounded and nonconstructive. It seems to be a current practice to attack featured articles on companies or remotely commercial subjects, regardless of their merits. Even though this one has real problems, Laser Brain has indicated that he was willing to address them, which gives him further credit. Cenarium (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Commenting only on the protection, I do not think this was necessary or appropriate. I'm not going to unilaterally unprotect, but I do think this would be the best course of action. Repeatedly adding the advert tag was disruptive and anyone who persisted with that should be blocked. However it appears the article was being improved prior to protection. Some real issues (particularly with respect to "peacock terms" and the like) were brought up on the article talk page and it seems like some work was being done to correct those issues. My understanding is that full protection of the Featured Article should be a rare occurrence, and I don't think the circumstances warrant it in this case. No FA is perfect when it hits the main page, and while I don't agree with all of the concerns brought up on the article talk page, some of them had merit. In that situation, protection is a bad idea as there are other means for dealing with editors who are editing the article in a disruptive fashion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the use of wikipedia to sell products. It's against the rules. If the consensus is that there are problems with the article in that regard, the user should focus on fixing those problems, rather than spending time posting messages on user pages alleging personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a simpler solution. We should simply establish a rule that articles about commercial products and existing companies are not eligible to appear as the featured article of the day. The article is well-written and informative, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that allowing commercial-related articles to be the feature article of the day is too much of an incentive for self-promotion. --B (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good rule. It will get muddy very quickly. For instance, Super Smash Bros. Melee was recently on the main page, but I doubt that Nintendo has any reason to embellish the article for their own benefit, when they spend millions of dollars on their own marketing campaigns? And yet, the article is well written which is why it is a Featured Article and it is placed on the main page as a service to readers to highlight some of Wikipedia's best work. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a very nice promotional piece for the company. I would expect it to increase their business. It is amazing that this business has no problems, no criticism, and no negative aspects in its entire history. It reads more like an article about a major advertiser in a publication which relies on advertising revenue, than an encyclopedia article. How exactly is it that articles get picked to be "Featured?" Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article's are picked to be Featured at WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Raul has unprotected per a note I left on his talk page. Advert tagging will be met with blocks though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam is spam, no matter how well written it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a garden-variety content dispute, nothing more. Why are adminstrators revert-waring on this article, and why are those on one side of the dispute being blocked? I was under the impression that tag-warring was not exempt from 3RR. ➪HiDrNick! 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is that they've got egg on their face from having promoted spam to featured article status, and such a tag on a featured article makes wikipedia look stupid. It's only for one day, then it will blow over. But maybe they'll be more careful in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are "they"? It is a long-held convention that we don't put maintenance tags on the featured article of the day while it is on the main page. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. The purpose of a maintenance tag is to alert editors to a problem, but the featured article of the day has so many eyes on it that such an alert is unnecessary - you can just talk it out on the talk page. I almost never agree with Raul, but I fully agree that anyone adding a maintenance tag to the featured article of the day is being disruptive and if they persist should be blocked. --B (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if articles requiring maintence tags were not featured on the main page, this would not be a problem. I don't expect anyone to bat 100% in selecting articles for the main page, but when mistakes are made they should be corrected. Not like this. ➪HiDrNick! 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This is hardly "promoted spam," it's an editor's good-faith work to develop a featured article. I really think you're taking some unnecessary swipes at the editors involved, and would suggest an apology is in order. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand a featured and deeply sourced article on a commercial topic like iPod, Tesco or Swatch but I don't understand how this made it to the front page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as it pains me, I find myself agreeing with both Baseball Bugs and Gwen. No disrespect to the writers, but while this is certainly GA material I don't see how this ever made the main page. — iridescent 20:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For those of us who are lazy, is there a diff to who proposed it and any discussion that took place? I guess it really doesn't matter, though - it isn't going to be changed and the problem will solve itself in 4 hours. The question is what standards we would like to adopt for the future. Complaining after the fact doesn't do anything. --B (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, this certainly is an interesting precedent, although I feel that the article in question is on a different level from the article that some people have mentioned appeared on the main page about the knifemaker, Ernest Emerson, a few months ago. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when I think that a today's featured article should not have been featured, it has no articles, or only a few, in other languages. It's a good indicator I think. I am against a general rule on articles on commercial subjects for inclusion on the MP, but I think that they should be particularly reviewed. I also think that the process should be completely revamped. Cenarium (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to look at it and on a certain level, I agree that it is a useful rule-of-thumb. But, as the people who support this article's placement on the main page have noted, there is no rule that states commercial subjects are not allowed on the main page. I also think that it is fruitless to even try to create a rule like that; a lot of controversy and opposition will no doubt ensue. I think the most logical route, especially on a wiki, should be to go with the simplest solution. In the case of main page articles, the simplest solution is to allow any FA articles to be shown. If we begin to limit any type of article, then it will be difficult to figure out whether certain articles that are on the edge of an unsteady criterion should be shown. Also, it can be argued that if, say, all company articles were not allowed, who's to say that articles such as Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, does not indirectly advertise for Microsoft? Etc., etc. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For what it's worth, I didn't request that this be put on the main page but I'm glad it's there. I've gotten a lot of great feedback and that's what I'll carry away from the day. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A FAR would have given feedback too, and avoid all the drama. Then, an appearance on the Main Page would have been more 'pleasant' for everybody. I think that a recent FAR should be a criteria for appearance on the Main Page. Cenarium (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was promoted only two months ago, and articles that are promoted in such a short period typically do not go to FAR that soon. Gary King (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure would be nice to see more of these names actually participating in the FAC process. Maralia (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Some of the people involved in this have also pointed out that they are not even aware how articles are promoted to FA; no doubt that knowledge would have been useful. Gary King (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to participate in the FA process when I'll have more experience in article writing. In the mean time, I still can give my outside view, for what it's worth. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that you say this, I'll try to participate in some FAC, even though I am not a FA writer, I think that I can give constructive criticism. I'm particularly puzzled by the fact that the FAC has been closed within 10 days, which led to protests. Cenarium (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, misinterpretation; there is no requirement, rhyme or reason that any article must go through GA on the path to FA. That was and remains a misunderstanding, GA status isn't related to FA preparedness, and the discussion you linked had no relevance to FA criteria. GA is not a community process, provides no guarantee of quality as it's only one editor's opinion, and it has nothing to do with FA or FAC. It would be most helpful if the people commenting on community processes would actually engage and understand these processes and Wiki policies and guidelines before disparaging another editor's hard work with the frightful bad faith accusations we've seen in this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I am assuming that you are responding to Iridescent's comment? The placement of your comment made it a bit confusing to follow the discussion. Gary King (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The placement of my comment is right under the comment I was responding to, as it should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The GA process was never mentioned above... Oh, I see, in the linked thread. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, I find comments on the ANI page by editors who are active enough in the policies of Wikipedia, not understanding the process of FAC to be disheartening. I beg for feedback on the articles I write to make sure I resolve as many objections to article content and style as I can before I nominate anything for FAC. As what has been displayed in this thread, all anyone has to do to be able to review FACs is read and have an opinion - anyone who has posted in this thread is qualified to review FACs and have input as to what gets passed. Articles are the lifeblood and the entire purpose of this site; at WP:FAC, WP:GA, and WP:PR all are woefully short of people willing to give their opinions on what they would like to read in an article. Because the same few people do the reviewing, despite how thorough, fair, or tough they are, it bends articles to reflect a limited view of what qualifies as Wikipedia's finest work. Please participate. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that now, I'll try to participate. Cenarium (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(To SandyGeorgia) I just give you a link and you say that I misinterpret ? The third comment of Edibility holds and are backed up by the later discussions in the talk page of the article. 10 days for a FAC is short from what I can see. The alleged frightful bad faith accusations are somewhat misplaced. I don't understand your attitude, the today's featured article has problems, as pointed out by various editors, and it's fair to try to find an explanation for that. Cenarium (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You posted a link to a discussion from a editor stating that articles should be GA before FA, and stating there were "protests": incorrect on both counts. And there have been frightful bad faith accusations: look at the statements from Baseball Bugs (above). No admin has yet issued a warning for that statement, and Laser brain has justifiably left the building after enduring an entire day of bad faith attacks on his work. The various talk page statements that imply that Raul or I are promoting advertising on Wiki are equally bad faith, and not surprisingly, all of these claims are being made by people who haven't participated in the processes of promoting articles to featured status. (I believe the common term for this is armchair quarterbacking?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, there has been a lot of bad faith accusations, it seems to be common for this kind of articles, and I condemn this. But constructive critics has also been given, and you cannot deny that this article has problems, which is unusual for articles on the MP, thanks to thoughtful consideration. Edibility protested, on credible grounds, saying that the FAC has been "rushed". And what happens now validates his concerns, the GA matter is anecdotal. Cenarium (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it would be helpful to engage and understand the processes you are commenting on: first, Edibility did not "protest", whatever that means. Second, Edibility thought GA was a prerequisite for FA, which is incorrect. Third, Edibility thought WP:V required that sources be available online, which is a misunderstanding of our most fundamental policies. You've linked to a page, concluding it was evidence of a problem in the FAC, when it evidenced ... nothing. But I'm glad you're now recognizing the reason another one of our core policies is WP:AGF, because after the insults Laser has endured today, and the astounding assumptions of bad faith all 'round, I'd be surprised if anyone ever wanted to submit a company or product article to FAC again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If "protest" is too strong, then at least, Edibility has emitted concerns on the way this FAC has been handled. I cite "But I'm concerned that Laser brain is trying very hard and quickly to push this article to Featured Status with little time for evaluation. The article is a borderline advertisement for Elderly Instruments with many uncited statements and marketing terms. Laser brain is the only significant contributor to this article.". The events of yesterday tend to agree with most of this assessment. I recognized the AGF breach some times ago by the way, see [64]. It is time to recognize that yesterday's featured article was somehow problematic too. Now it's over. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try again: Edibility has emitted concerns on the way this FAC has been handled. No, he didn't. From many of your statements above, it appears that you're unaware of how articles become featured, in fact, unclear on the difference between WP:FAC and WP:FAR or WP:TFA/R; a review of the instructions on all of these pages might be helpful. You suggested above that articles should be submitted to FAR before appearing on the mainpage; I can't decipher the benefit of reviewing articles twice (at FAC and FAR) before putting them on the mainpage. Here is the misunderstanding of the criteria that Edibility put forward on the FAC: The article was never submitted for good article review. I'm not sure, but I think it needs to go through good article before going for featured article. (Sorry if I'm wrong about this -- just please correct me kindly.) Many of the article's sources are not available online, so I think others who have access to the sources should confirm the article before it gets featured status. Articles do not need to go to GA before appearing at FAC, GA is not a community-wide process (GAs are the opinion of one editor) and GA has no bearing on or relation to the FA process, and sources must not be available online. Edibility was not expressing concerns about the FAC process and he did not "protest"; in fact, he didn't even enter an Oppose on the FAC. Edibility was expressing a lack of knowledge of the FAC process and WP:V policy. If Edibility "protested" the article, Edibility could have entered an Oppose on the article's candidancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the difference between FAR, FAC and TFA/R. I suggested that a recent FAR be a criteria because articles may change in a few months (the FA status may be revoked, we have numerous FFAs), but if the FAC was recent, then it's not necessary of course. Again, the sentence I cited speaks for itself. I suppose that Edibility refrained from commenting because he thought that he was a novice. The GA question is not very important in this. Personally, I would have opposed per 1c and 1d. I have no problem with the FA process in general, but in this particular case, I think that it has been a little speedied. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that if the community chooses TFA, as proposed at [65], a recent FAR becomes unnecessary, since the article will be reviewed and subsequently improved before appearing on the Main Page. Cenarium (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this is another highly questionable FA which should not have been promoted to the main page and bring s Wikipedia into disrepute, in this instance as a purveyor of well-written ad copy. But the real problem here is that editors are not allowed to made editorial evaluation at FAC based on overall article content. That is not an ANI issue, but an FAC issue and the discussion should take place there. Clearly FAC needs a revamp if this is the stuff that makes it through. While we all appreciate the work done by Raul and SandyGeorgia, they should not be forced into the ridiculous position of having to defend in every instance articles that are promoted based on flaws in FAC itself. We put a blatant advertisement on our front page. That suggests that wider policy concerns ought to be at play here. Eusebeus (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? FAC needs a revamp? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you participate in this article's FAC? If not, there is no way you can be justified in saying "the real problem here is that editors are not allowed to made editorial evaluation at FAC based on overall article content". dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? FAC does not allow editors to make editorial evaluation at FAC based on overall article content. Can you please justify that obviously incorrect statement?Balloonman (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Huh, when I spoke of a revamp, I referred to the TFA process, see this discussion. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My incredulity at FAC process needs a revamp by someone not involved with it was accurately expressed by dihydrogen monoxide and Balloonman. The FAC process starts with a ton of research. I suggest anyone who considers the FAC process as faulty or lacking significant procedure should go there right now (here's the link to make it easier WP:FAC), read the nominated articles and acquaint themselves with what currently functions. Then feel free to make suggestions on the talk page. This is my second post at ANI - I can imagine if I participated in a thread about how dysfunctional ANI is, I'd get a monitor-full of how I need to know what I'm talking about before I make a fool of myself. --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, when I spoke of a revamp above, I referred to the TFA process, my opinion is shared by users significantly involved in FAs, see the discussion I linked above. I have no general objection to the FAC process, though I think that this one shouldn't have been promoted to FA status. But this kind of things happen, in any process, and editors have a right to disagree with a promotion. Cenarium (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to give up on this never-ending circle of misunderstanding. Cenarium is now saying that choosing mainpage TFAs by community consensus (even though s/he finds fault with the same community consensus which promotes FAs) will lead to: the article will be reviewed and subsequently improved before appearing on the Main Page. Where on earth did you come up with this notion? There is no evidence that any such thing will happen, and I am aware of exactly one case where it did happen, because of FAR regulars (Monarch of the United Kingdom). Considering that there are only a handful of editors on Wiki who do this sort of work, period, it is astounding that anyone thinks that adding an additional review step will actually result in article improvement prior to mainpage appearance, particularly when one of those editors who did help with this sort of work (always in short supply) has now left the building (hopefully temporarily). Cenarium, please engage and understand processes before opining on them; clearly your understanding of the reviewer shortage that impacts all Wiki content review processes (not just FAC and FAR) is lacking, and these proposals to add more process when we're already lacking reviewers show a clear lack of understanding of the issues and processes. How can the same person who criticizes a consensual and open process that results in articles being featured then advocate for the same sort of process to choose mainpage TFAs, while claiming against all evidence that such a process will result in article improvement before mainpage appearance ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be precisely an occasion to have an increased involvement of the community. I don't criticize FAC process, as I repeated several times. I would have opposed to the FAC of Elderly Instruments, now I'd like that you accept our disagreement on this point, and finally realize that the article, indeed, has problems. If the appearance of a FA on the main page requires a community debate, then it's likely that people supporting the article will improve it in order to diminish the arguments of the opposers. This kind of things happen countless times in AFDs. Maybe we should continue the discussion at WT:TFA/R, where, so surprising that it may be for you, a user shares my view on this (and cites Wikipedia:Article_development#Featured_article). Cenarium (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise to the many above who interpret my comments as a misinformed drive-by by an uninvolved party. I was of course making reference to the recent VP discussion on this topic. The discontent surfaces from time to time; that suggests discussion on recalibration may prove beneficial. That's what I meant and regret being unclear. Eusebeus (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)