Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

3RR report ignored and violator rewarded

I want to protest against the action of some adminstrators: I filed a 3RR-report against an editor who had clearly violated the rule by reverting six times (and behaved like the article's OWNer to two other editors, me included).

What do adminstrators do? First an admin protects the page, safeguarding the violator's version against any further changes. The same admin then recuses himself. Then, after seventeen hour of inactivity, another admin declares that no further action would be taken as "the edit war has been stopped". Sure it has been stopped since the violator's version is endorsed via protection and discussion is getting nowhere anyway because of the violator's OWN attitude, now interspersed with personal attacks.

This is a either travesty of justice or a sick joke. Revert warriors and violators of rules get rewarded, their POV pushing gets supported in the process. I know I am supposed to AGF but I can't help myself of detecting favoritism in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content of your complaint, but I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: Phillipe stated "...I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue", however, he did not state that he was recusing himself from discussing the case or protecting the article. nat.utoronto 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it means endorsing the version when the page is protected (which nobody asked for) while ignoring the actual complaint. The perpetrator of the violation must feel that his actions are approved of as he has his way.

I can think of no justification for recusing as it was as a clear violation if there ever was one. I also can think of no justification for this taking 17 hours. Also, I don't know how someone can recuse himself from the requested (and required) action while meddling in favour of the culprit. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your humble opinion is in direct opposition to wikipedia policy, and obviously is based on you being upset the edit war has degenerated to the point where an admin has to lock down the page. I'd suggest you read m:The Wrong Version. As for this taking 17 hours to fix, perhaps if the admins didn't have to put up with a constant barrage of pointless whining and groundless accusations of bias, they could actually get to sorting through the article. Relax, this'll be settled eventually. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, Snowfire, the last thing I need is to be told about "The wrong version" for the umpteenth time. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you still haven't read it and understood it. When you edit war to the point of getting an admin to shut things down, there's roughly a 50% chance it'll be on m:The Wrong Version, as far as you're concerned. Those are the breaks. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As Aecis already stated "I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version." nat.utoronto 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. The problem is the combination of this with the unwillingness to even acknowledge the wrongdoing on Benji's part, either by himself or - more importantly - by the admins. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would have been nice if someone had notified me of this thread. As Nat pointed out, I recused from blocks because I had previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party. I wanted to avoid a charge of impropriety. I also thought it critical to stabilize a high-traffic article, so I protected the page on the version that was there when I got there, in keeping with policy. Str's complaint - which I've now heard over and over - seems to be that I protected the wrong version (which he's been told about several times) or that I should have acted and blocked the other user. I felt that inappropriate. I stand by all my actions. While I appreciated that Str came to my talk page to ask about it, I am disheartened that he came here - without notifying me - when he didn't like the response that I gave to him and another person (presumably arguing on his behest).

To summarize, I stand by all my actions, and invite review. By the way - this is now the second time that I've been accused of either favoritism or advancing my own agenda on that page, which I find puzzling because - to the best of my recollection - I've never edited that page. I think by "favoritism", Str means "not deciding in my favor". - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not informing you but things were pretty heated down here. And originally I came here to protest the whole situation.

Again, let me state that the other editor approached you without my doing, I only heard about this now. But of course, since he was concerned about the same issue it is natural that he or she would ask as well.

The problem is that you did not stay away from the case entirely if you thought yourself unfit to take care of it. The problem is not the "wrong version" (indeed I have been told that cliche way too often) but you protected it and went away and another admin, after 17 hours, thought: "well, this looks sorted out so no more is needed" - well nothing was sorted out.

By "favouritism" I meant that the reason that kept you from seeing this 3RR report through, your "previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party", could be the reason why you protected the page. This was merely a gut feeling expressed and I AGF enough not to make any further claims about this as it would be speculation. You would have avoided it by either remaining aloof completely or seeing the case through. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe I've explained my actions sufficiently, and I'm going to walk away at this point, unless anyone has any new issues to raise. As before, I welcome review of my actions from uninvolved administrators. - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please address this comment. I'm tired of being publicly accused of lying, slandering, called a "violator" (from above), "perpetrator", a "culprit", a "mudslinger" and numerous claims of personal attacking editors and attacking their religion. I feel any NPA and civility warnings I give will have very little effect but the comments do need responding to. Thank you. Benjiboi 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The insults are tedious, tiresome, and frankly, ridiculous. I slogged through a ton of the diffs and edits, and Benjiboi keeps preserving actual quotes from Rosie O'Donell, subject of the article in question, while Str1977 objects to Rosie's characterization of some Catholic priests as 'pedophiles', preferring, apparently, to use 'ephebophile', a far more obscure term which offers all sorts of opportunity to make it seem not so bad. Instead of arguing this material on the scandal's article (he may be, I didn't check), instead, Str1977 has chosen to push his POV whitewashing onto the O'Donell article by redacting and/or removing her actual spoken quotes to forms more in line with his view of the situation. This, of course, is not in keeping with any number of our policies. I also find it interesting that when STR is in dagner of hitting 3RR, Mamajulo shows up to carry on the fight. Clearly this was coordinated. Further, I note that as STR and Mamajulo kept hammering at this, they began to revert out other edits Benjiboi had made to the page, no doubt intentionally escalating the situation by attacking all of Benjiboi's efforts to improve the page. I note that benjiboi did in fact invite talk page discussion, which str1977 did not initiate till much later.

TO sum it up: I think Str1977 and Mamajulo coordinated an escalating set of reverts designed to piss off Benjiboi, make him less rational about the issue, and guarantee he'd revert over the 3 limit. Their intent was to remove him from the page long enough to establish their version on the page; a version which redacted actual verbatim statements by RO'D to fit their POV, which is highly PRO-Catholicism, and anyone who speaks agaisnt the catholic church is a troublemaker. Their behavior is reprehensible, and for such a level of baiting, any blocks given to Benjiboi should be equally handed out to the other two. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't see this as a coordinated effort as Mamalujo regularly removes material seen as anti-Catholic and regularly adds equally slanted material against those they see as anti-Catholic on many articles. I also don't think we can infer intent except that it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section, I still disagree as O'Donnell is quite outspoken about this issue and the material is well sourced. I've even found more while responding to Str1977 circular arguments on the talk page of the article. Also it was Mamalujo only ,as far as I could see, who was citing 'ephebophile'. Regardless I would like someone else to address this comment as it is yet another in a string of civility violations and I doubt anything I write would be taken to heart by Str1977. Benjiboi 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The comment is just the latest and most-public one not the worst. Benjiboi 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(in edit conflict:)

And I am quite sick and tired of all the bad faith assumed towards me while Benjiboi - who has violated the 3RR after all, even if he denies it and admins are doing nothing to stop him - can post all the insulting nonsense (* see the asterisk below) he wants.

I have no contact whatsoever with the other editor. I didn't even know he existed before he showed up on Rosie O'Donnel. I guess this bad faith accusation is a way out for those who wish to hide the fact that Benjiboi reverted six times or who want to somehow justified that no action has been taken.

The accusation is even more laughable given the fact that Benji in one of his earlier reverts in effect deleted a section-tag I placed. I informed him of that, that it was against the rules and that I assumed good faith that it was an accident (as he reverted the other editor who removed the tag along with the reason for - Benji reverted to the disputed version but without the tag). My good faith was confirmed at least in this case as he has never touched this tag again. The point is: if I wanted to set up Benji why would I assume good faith.

As for the "quotes": I never said that Benjiboi's version was not something one could legitimately advocate. In other words: one may well quote the actual word Rosie used (and about whether to include the 2nd quote there is actually no dispute, only about the introduction.) HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal"). And it is not illegitimate to inform the reader that Rosie's take that Ratzinger was in charge in 80s is inaccurate - without laying the blame on either Rosie or the filmmakers or anyone else.

NOW, we have to legitimate versions and three editors disagreeing about that. And yes, this led to an editwar. Happens thousands of times each day on WP. However, why does one editor get a pass for violating the 3RR big time?

As for inviting discussion. Benji did nothing of the sort. All he did was blanket revert with edit summaries along the line of "Don't change quotes". First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no). Second of all, it was I, already bothered by his repeated lack of discussion, that first initiated the discussion on the talk page. Finally, Benji seems to be of the impression that he has to approve of changes and those that fail in this must make their case on talk. That's only half-true: he has to make his case on talk just as well. We are all just editors. And we must all stick to the rules. Benji violated them and gets away with it, even gets rewarded by the page protection.

Benji complained about being called a "slanderer" and "liar" - actually I didn't call him that (only a violator - of the 3RR). I said he propagates slander by endorsing Rosie's comments. I said he issues false statements (not necessarily lies, I cannot know whether he actually knows about the falsehood) about my "changing of quotes" when I did nothing of the sort.

And around the time I reported him he started making an issue of mine and the other editor's religion (*), which is is no way to behave. I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either. And he makes questionable sugestions like "I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests.", as if anyone denied that some priests were involved in pedophilia (though it would be more accurate to call it ephebophilia) and if such a countering source would be needed to write the article in balanced, NPOV fashion. Less nonsensical but still not acceptable is his call for a source that Ratzinger was not in charge (thus validating the caveat on Rosie's comment) - as if there weren't already a source included that references along with Rosie's comments exactly this.

Finally, I do apologizes for filling up all this space here. The content dispute should be at the article's talk page and not here. However, since Benji now wants to turn me into the culprit I was forced to tell the whole story. As everyone can see, there is a legitimate dispute between him and me. I don't see how he is allowed to break the rules for that.

What I criticized here is not so much Benji's behaviour (nothing unusual on WP, expect maybe for his resilience in POV pushing and OWNership) but the behaviour of the admins that either did nothing or even rewarded the violation of the rules.

Thanks for your patience, Str1977 ^(talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, in fact, everything wrong about altering a quotation to fit your POV. You admit to doing it, you continue to feel that changing history to suit you is acceptable, and it simply is NOT acceptable. You cannot change Rosie's spoken words to fit your POV.

I quote you from above: "HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal")" and then you say "First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no)". There's a massive contradiction within your own statements. Finally, the diffs at the 3rr clearly show that you WERE changing her words. Here's just one diff where you changed her directly quoted words. a 'no-no' by your own words. As for the level of coordination, it's true I cant' prove that there was active collusion, but the timing is certainly suspect. It is possible that Mamajulo just decided it would be a good idea to continue Str1977's efforts, but even so, that's a bad faith act, not thoroughly dissimilar to meatpuppetry. ThuranX (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A final note: "I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either" except when you do. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, stop levelling unwarranted accusations against me:

1) I did not alter a quotation - in the first I did change the text from a one word quote to more indirect rendering, in the second I changed an introduction. I did in no way change a quote. It has nothing to do with POV. The diffs cannot show what I have not done so drop this issue. Everyone can see that I did not lay words into ROD's mouth.

2) "The timing is suspect." Stop the bad faith. I have nothing to do with the other editor.

3) I did not make Benji's homosexuality an issue and I will not make it an issue. It is telling that here you cannot even provide a diff where I supposedly made it an issue. In any case, he has certainly no business in making my religion an isuse.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But you DID change her words. In the diff I referenced above, and repost here, you did change her statement: "O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" into "she falsely stated "that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" (relevant emphasis added). That's the problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benji but you are still on the same bad faith road as Thuran above (though I do appreciate it that you don't go as far as him with the accusations). I obviously can't say anything in regard to other editor. As for my intentions: "it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section" - this is ridiculous. Pedophilia is a sexual act or desire oriented at prepubertal boys or girls. Ephebophilia is the same oriented as those in puberty. In everyday's language, the terms are usually blurred, with pedophilia being used (and that's why I do not blame Rosie for using the term - the issue is: do we need to copy her exact word.) Child abuse is the sexual abuse of children given into someone's care. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. The obvious problem is that priests unfortunately abused children, no matter what the underlying psychological condition may be. I cannot see how replacing "pedophilia" with "child abuse" can be interpreted as wanting to obscure pedophilia. I will address the comment Benji criticized in a minute. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, since Benji brought this up:

I made the comment in the heat of the debate when he brought up what I believe are irrational demands.

The dispute comment by ROD is the claim that Ratzinger was in charge throughout the 80s and 90s. Fact is, he was put in charge as the whole abuse scandal errupted, in 2002. He was put in charge exactly because of the failure of the bishops. These are undisputable facts. Benji however - against his protestations that he doesn't want to endorse ROD's view - keeps on posting things intented to prove her right. (And note: the point was never that ROD herself produced the false information - she may have done that or she may just have parroted the film.) Also a factor in my comment were Benji's repeated, IMHO nonsensical demand that I prove that there's no pedophilia among priests, something I never claimed or would claim.

That's my explanation for why I wrote that and I uphold these reasons. However, I know that these comments - made in the heat of the discussion and my frustration with the admin's failure to act - were unhelpful to the discussion. For which I am sorry. I hope that Benji may also acknowledge his errors and assume a more cooperative approach. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New problematic user

I had earlier posted on this page about a new editor who first edited in Decemeber who has been particularly belligerent and has recently gone so far as to explicitly stated that he does not care about wikipedia's policies or guidelines. This user is User:GabrielVelasquez. I regret to say that I have come to the conclusion that this editor is not so much interested in helping wikipedia achieve his goals, but rather in using wikipedia as a platform on which he can make unsupported statements. I have at this point lost all patience for this individual. In my previous thread here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks, etc. I was advised that this individual should be blocked for a week. Given his newness, I chose not to do so. However, since then he has continued in the same vein of attacks on me and others, refusing to provide verification of his own statements, and even making a comment on my user talk page that he didn't care about what I and my "admin buddies" say. I am at this point washing my hands of this individual altogether. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you did well to step back--the involvement was becoming over-personal. As for what to do about him, I suggest a final warning from someone else not to engage in further disputation. DGG (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this user creating Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References and stating at the top of the page "THIS IS NOT A TALK PAGE, They are all quotes. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE."? I was going to speedy/prod/MfD this page, but saw all of the drama on his talk page with John. For the life of me, I can't figure out what to do with this page now. Any suggestions? --12 Noon ^2¢ 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is that he is, as he says, a non-adherent of the Jehovah's Witnesses who has repeatedly stated that he believes that his nontrinitarian beliefs are being underrepresented by a cabal of trinitarians, basically including every Christian who adheres to trinitarian beliefs, or about 95% of them, I think. He has repeatedly indicated that he sees himself as being a fighter against systematic bias, and has even contacted Jimbo to complain that his beliefs are not being presented in the way he wishes. He has indicated that he believes that that page is a way to counteract the bias he perceives by the Christian cabal. I have repeatedly suggested that he move it to userspace, as it is eligible for speedy deletion, only to receive demands of what policies the page violates, seemingly believing that everybody is inherently obligated to answer each question he poses. I have come to conclusions regarding this person which I will not state here. My best guess would be to see if the page is still there tomorrow, and if it is nominate it for regular deletion. He has regularly expressed disregard for policy regarding his own conduct. I think it might be a good idea to indicate to him that policy applies to him as well, as would be demonstrated in the deletion discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just stepping in to note that this same user was, at least as of yesterday, fighting on Gliese 581 c and Talk:Gliese 581 c to try to keep inserting an unsourced and completely speculative paragraph making claims that the exoplanet's existance can't be "proven" until at least 2018 due to the speed of light (or, at least, that's the most sense I could make of it); when his claim there was refuted, he proceeded to continue trying to maintain the paragraph while denigrating the claims of possible habitability on the discussion page. I also note User:Dr Henry Draper, which was registered as a new account during the dispute, and has an edit history consisting of setting his user page and user talk page, and then diving into the Gliese discussion feet-first and not having edited any other articles. Just thought it might be relevant. Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP address 142.132.6.8 has recently left a comment on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page and my own user talk page. The edits are in the same linguistic style as Gabriel's own, although the IP tries to indicate it is from a different person. I believe that this probably qualifies as abusive sockpuppetry. The IP has also specifically called me an "asshole" on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page, by the way, and has displayed so far as I can determine only an interest in articles Gabriel Velasquez previously edited. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vandalizing by blanking out article talk page

Resolved

 – no action needed. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be corrupt and let an administrator commit a wikicrime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=187779679&oldid=187776706

I reported it to AIV and someone blanked that request. Corruption? Fairchoice (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just like the message I just left on your talk page says. WP:AIV is not for supposed complex abuse, which you are claiming this is. It looks like a content dispute to me. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you noticed, but in this next edit that the administrator made, he reinserted your comment at the bottom of the talk page, where it should have been inserted all along. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Er It appears the user simply moved your comment to the foot of the talk page and then replied to it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And plus David Sousa also responded on your own talk page. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. souza blanked out my comments. He didn't move it to the bottom until after AIV and after about 7 minutes. Cut and paste doesn't take that long but ok, lets drop this in (over) AGF. Fairchoice (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste and reply may, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your legal threats Fairchoice, perhaps an admin would care to block? Accusing another editor of committing a crime is clearly a legal threat and thus why should we listen to a word you say. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What legal threat? If you say that complaining about administrator misconduct is a legal threat then all complaints to AIV are legal threats and all complainers to AIV should be blocked indefinitely. Let's not try to intimidate non-admin by accusing people of legal threats. I am not a zealot like others here on wikipedia. I neither want to smear intelligent design nor promote it. There are too many zealots trying to promote it and too many zealots trying to smear it. Some of them have made threatening comments to me. Fairchoice (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He means this. We don't commit crimes here, we commit wikicrimes as much :-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Call the wikipolice :) Orderinchaos 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Advice is requested on how to handle this edit, which invites the reader to kill a named person at a specific address: [1] It appears to be schoolchild vandalism. Kablammo (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Send a request to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org to have it removed. A block would be warranted as well. ^Avruchtalk 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Block is already done, just send e-mail to the list if you haven't already. ^Avruchtalk 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) - I have blocked them for 72 hours as a stop gap measure. Other admins are welcome to adjust the block. I have also notified the ISP's abuse address. - Philippe | Talk 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact the police department in the local down and inform them there has been an explicit death threat at that residence on wikipedia. Bstone (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit looks oversighted. The IP was 24.184.241.191 (talk · contribs) for anyone considering contacting the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it being an explicit or implicit threat. It was basically "Here is X's address, go kill them". John Reaves 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bstone , Jimbo always said to contact the authorities if there are threats like that. People should learn not to be idoits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a public place. --Rio de oro (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual text, with name and street address redacted, was:

make sure you kill [name] first then, come to her house at [address] levittown Ny and kill her because if you dont then her teacher will kill her because her teacher gave her a book report to do in ONE week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. remember to kill her

Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN

• TTN (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

User has been continuing to mass remove pages (redirectification) and revert war (such as the one on Bulbasaur) despite objections and disagreements. His actions are not based on consensus and are WP:POINTy at best. Admin intervention is necessary as wikipedia is not a battleground.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you want us to block all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft and then war with TTN's efforts to prune it down to manageable (and cited and policy-compliant) proportions? Good plan, but they will howl bloody blue murder, just as they do every time a massive uncited article on an item of fictional trivia is removed. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Revert waring is disruptive. TTN revert wars among other things. -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe an injunction made by ArbCom to restrict these actions would be beneficial, in the meantime, I do not see precisely what admin intervention could be used? Please feel free to suggest something in particular, GDonato (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• White Cat, wait for the arbitration case to end. This is outside of the purview of this board as he is currently the subject of a new ArbCom case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  TTN is continuing to mass blank articles and continuing to revert war. That is disruptive. The presence of an RfAr is NOT a license allowing further disruption. It supposed to be the contrary. The RfAr may last for weeks or months. Tell me one reason why I should not mass revert TTNs reckless mass blankings (as per Wikipedia:Be bold#… but don't be reckless.). -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because they aren't 'blanking', they're redirecting, leaving all content available to editors who want to improve a page, and because until the ArbCom plays out, any such actions, esp. in light of your un-archiving this section, which cautions you to let ArbCom settle out, will be seen by many as tendentious, pointy editing. You are not some neophyte, but an editor well aware of how Wikipedia works. You know that provoking others with POINTy reversions will only serve to draw out the ArbCom, by spurring on more and more commentaries, many of which will speak about your actions here. It is often said that patience is a virtue. I recommend you take that to heart. Since you asked for counsel before acting, it's no longer likely to be seen as BOLD. that's a few reasons not to do what you're considering. I hope you think about hem in depth before pursuing your plan. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It is blanking. All content s removed. If a person redirects by removing all content on a random article (Say redirecting Canada to United States) we revert it. That person will most likely be treated like a vandal. Please do not insult my intelligence any more like that.
  Yes I know how wikipedia supposed to work. That is with consensus not through brute forcing ones own will. TTN is not acting based on consensus.
  If TTN's edits are perfectly fine as if it were a copy edit - something completely non-controversial, why is it a WP:POINT violation if I commit similar edits?If TTN's edits are not perfectly acceptable and even disruptive, I am quite baffled why the community refuses to act on it.
  -- Cat ^chi? 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  see User:SirFozzie/Get It Right for my feelings on it. An article merged for a couple days or even weeks is not cause for despair, anger, and yet another edit war that has already taken too much time of the community's patience and time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, 1 article is manageable but hundereds more is just problematic. Had TTN ceased mass blanking pages at least for temporarily there wouldn't be anything for me or someone else to revert. I am not trying to escalate the matter and on the contrary I am seeking to prevent further escalations by TTN. It isn't like I am in the business of mass revert waring on multiple pages. My comments were intended to be a figure of speech. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because the community tried, and failed. That is why it went to ArbCom the first time. Now it's back at ArbCom, again. Something gets decided there, and the community works with it. If that doesn't work, it goes back to ArbCom (sadly). There's no action to be done that won't be stepping on the toes of the committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, at least now I have something to refer to arbcom that may or may not compel them to a temporarily injunction. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom needs to do something about TTN—a temporarily injunction against continuing his redirect campaign while the case is ongoing would be tremendously helpful. If the ArbCom will not do this, we need an admin to step in and block him for disruption if he continues. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom could give him a medal. And do you really think that an Admin blocking over ArbCom's decision would help the situation, or blow open a can of big fat worms? most, if not all of ArbCom IS admins, so you'd be looking at some sort of wheel war mess. Why can't the peopel spending so much energy on fighting this just go and find assertions of notability in the real world for the shows they want to keep as articles? I'm helping a guy right now fix up an I Love Lucy article. If episodes from 50 years ago can still have supporting evidence, then so can far more recent shows. If you really want to improve them, head down to the library, hit the various periodicals catalogs there, many index all the topics going back years if not decades. Since most of the shows being defended most vociferously are recent shows being defended by editors who grew up with them, those shows are most like to be the ones whose articles were indexed as they came out, and should be easily located in the library's archives. Photocopy the half dozen pages, note the publication info in the margin for citation, come home and include it. Heck, sign on AT the library and do it all from there. This is not rocket science, and I'm really sick and tired of the blanking accusation being trotted out every time TTN is accused, when we all know how redirects work in the history. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See, this culture of people (same people) going out of their way in defending TTNs behavior while making every attempt to prevent any kind of review of TTNs behavior is adding to the disruption. Also the state and quality of the said articles is not the issue here. People are not given medals for revert waring. Arbcoms rulings are rather absolute. I presume you are new to the inner workings of wikipedia and what arbcom is. Per the rationale behind WP:POINT:

If you spot an article lacking proper secondary sources citation

• do attempt to find a source and/or bring the issue to the attention of the general community
• don't remove all content on all articles laking secondary source citation without even bothering to skim through the pages

-- Cat ^chi? 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't agree with you, I must be new? ArbCom didn't issue a cease and desist, or even a loud 'knock it off' to TTN, or that would be that. He's got policies and guidelines on his side, wide support for his actions, and at least some Wikiprojects and editors are listening, accepting redirects, and then working to edit towards better articles. That's all ideal results for using policy. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to send him an e-mail or something. Some of these situations are no big deal, but some of them are concerns that need to be looked at. At the very least, we need TTN to not appear as aggressive. Appearances are half the battle on Wikipedia, and his actions don't just effect him, but people's views on the guidelines being cited. That's not to say he needs to put up some fake smiles or anything like that. I understand TTN's frustration. I should have followed up on this more before we got to the point of needing even the first arbcom case. There's a lot of things.. timing and the way things are said.. that could be easily improved and allow things to go much smoother. And yes, on several of these he does need to just stop and discuss, but on several he's also citing legitimate discussions that back up his actions. It's.. a complicated headache. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

side comment.. "X are/is half the battle" is meant only as a phrase. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which rather invites the question why so many people fight so hard to keep material that abjectly fails policy and content guidelines. You seem to be missing all the battling going on on one side of this dispute. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree that it "abjectly fails policy and content guidelines". And honestly, it seems like people opposing TTN do very little of anything that could be described as fighting. The response has actually been, for the most part, pitifully meek. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just TTN, but it's the other side harrassing the living hell out of him. Just stop this bs and let's edit the wikipedia. As for characters and espisotes, I agree with TTN there, but this is too much reverting, and little discussion. Secret ^account 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why edit if the material could potentially be gone within a few years with just a simple button press? It's far easier to remove information than it is to add information on Wikipedia. TTN has shown me the light, and many others. With deletionists running the show and Guy berating 'fancruft' contributors with his always civil wit, adding to the any part of the mainspace is a waste of time. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Weather you agree with TTN or not, to put it mildly, is none of my concern. A lack of discussion is exactly the problem. TTNs edits are not based on consensus even if they may be the best thing since sliced bread. TTN isn't prone to discussion and instead to revert warring. There are many articles in violation of many and sometimes contradicting guidelines. Should we mass remove all articles that violates some random guideline? How about doing so while avoiding or makingan effort to avoid all discussion? -- Cat ^chi? 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lumberjake

Lumberjake (talk · contribs) is on a prod removal spree, using nonsense edit summaries and not even completely removing the entire subst'd prod template. I left a message asking for valid edit summaries, and was ignored. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. This might encourage some communication. John Reaves 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation, but I would ask that you retract your allegation that the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are "nonsense". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, just FYI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure "removing valid prods" counts as disruptive since prods are, in some sense, there to be removed. I'd suggest that he be unblocked if he commits to using proper edit summaries when removing them in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby retract the allegation that the lyrics are nonsense (I love Bohemian Rhapsody), and caveat by saying that they're nonsense in this context.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder why he duped the page Rabbit bites to User talk:Lumberjake? Looks a bit like he's trolling is talk--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have agreed for the prod to be restored, as it was seriously disputive removing every remaining prod from the category with idiotic edit summarries. Secret ^account 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by administrator, blanking out comments.

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=187822197&oldid=187822026

Steel359 blanked out my comments from another user's page, not his own page. Isn't this vandalism?

Avruch did the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=187811916&oldid=187811568

Why do vandals get blocked but administrators who do the same thing do not? Fairchoice (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about you or your editing or your disputes, but Guy has asked that the front part of his talk page be kept for the time being for expressions of condolence for the death of his father. There is no reason for you not to respect that, and since I assumed good faith on your part I moved the comments to the section he has indicated be set aside for such things. ^Avruchtalk 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, didnt we pretty much just discuss this? [2]. Take a chill pill. Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x Firefox) Dude, nobody is against you. You posted a comment at JzG talk page, and Avruch moved it according to JzG wishes (check User talk:JzG#Kidness, he says I thank everyone here for their kindness. I would ask that any Wikipedia-related stuff goes at /wp-stuff for now., as you can see here. Why you assume the worst out of everybody? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's the question worth exploring. – Steel 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question worth exploring is how a brand-new editor does a REDIRECT as their very first edit, then bluelinks their talk page with a trivial message as their second edit, uses proper template syntax on their fourth edit, etc. This extraordinarily rapid ascent of our learning curve is most admirable, and it would be helpful for other editors to know how such intimate familiarity with Wiki procedures can be learned so quickly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's already asked that [3]. Hut 8.5 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I've just discovered that Amaltheus has edited a comment of mine on his talk page to give the appearance that I was involved in a fictitious attack dialogue.

I left a message on his talk page here on 21 Jan.

I see today, at User talk:Amaltheus that it has become part of some fictitious dialogue under the sub-heading 'Harassment'. I never participated in this conversation.

This is a serious violation of the Talk page guideline. Under Behavior that is unacceptable, the guideline says:

Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.

and

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Note that Behavior that is unacceptable ... are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.

Could another admin please look at this? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the edit in question? Nakon 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume the worst. Snalwibma removed all the comments, and Amaltheus restored them. He just forgot to restore the title section. I see a lot of quarreling in his page, so I would give him the benefit of doubt that he just forgot to restore the title of that section. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming 'good faith' here because I see personal attack. Apparently, Snalwibma (talk · contribs) here on 09:27 22 Jan did remove comments directed at Snalwibma that built up under the sub-heading that I added 'Please'.

Then, on 3:25 24 Jan (two days) later, Amaltheus refactored my comment into an attack dialogue. See here where Amaltheus uses the edit summary of 'Restoring stuff. I think enjoying speculating about my having a mental illness doesn't make one the best judge of "appropriateness." My comments had nothing to do with this. Amaltheus has created a fictitious argument with me in the middle. This is seriously the worst I can imagine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong, but the only difference between what you posted and what he restored is the section title? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And, what comes before and after my comment. Amaltheus has changed the context of my comment to make it appear as if I am attacking him. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he was rather exalted, however I think his summary (somewhat offensive, yes) was directed towards Snalwibma, not you, since he was the one who removed the comments. My point is that he wrote a reply to Snalwibma, who removed it including your comment, and then Amaltheus restored it (although not in the original position). Refactoring the page to put the comments in order could be possible, do you want that? I am not sure if a block would be right, but that is because of my own event interpretation (which differs with yours). However, another admin can disagree with me and take different measures. Did you warn him that the talk was restored in a different position taking it out of context? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I have no desire to communicate with Amaltheus on the talk page if he is deleting and constantly refactoring the page. Just look through the talk page edits; that alone goes against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines where it says "Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it." Amaltheus deletes pieces here and there. To me, Amaltheus is playing games and manufacturing discussions to suit himself. I think an outside admin should delete the ficititious dialogue including my comment, and warn Amaltheus. I actually think a block is warranted in this case but I'll let a cooler headed admin decide. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is reviewing this, please just note that the "edited highlights" restored by Amaltheus to his talk page represent a gross misrepresentation of what actually went on, omitting (for a start) all the provocation from Amaltheus himself that led to the comments he has preserved for posterity! Also, he did not by any means simply restore what had been deleted - he edited it and inserted comments of his own, and (as Wassupwestcoast says) left a piece of Wassup's unrelated text in a misleading place. Throughout, Amaltheus has deleted swathes of comments from his talk page, including the polite and friendly ones. I suggest that the whole sorry and misleading mess should be deleted from his talk page (perhaps in such a way that it cannot be restored), and he should be told to behave with at least a modicum of civility towards others. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Map overwriting Megistias from Thispoems

Megistias (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Thispoems (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

User Megistias talk is overwritting my maps.[4]They are reliable sources and appropriate to the claims made and references.The map is not based only on these sources but even by Arthur Evans,which also worked passionately in the history and archaeology of Albania and Greece.It was not self-made but I did got help with his sketch maps. plus from writters and historians like,Thucydides,Plutarch, and Appianus etc.I worked hard for that map by reading and researching so many books.I do respect his references and I don't go and delete his maps nor I overwritte them.Please some Administrators, stop this abuse,it's not nice at all.Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did upload a new map with my sources and you can find it here [5].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a pretty map, needs better focus. Would this be considered a content dispute and thus not really for AN/I? Where is the map coming from? Creating your own map and putting it on an article would constitute original research, no? ^Avruchtalk 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - The difference is that Thispoems map includes Macedonia, and Megistias map does not. ^Avruchtalk 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Avruch, and thank you for your time.The map is coming from my readings and research in Balkan history.Can someone overwritte my map if it has the reliable sources and appropriate to the claims made and references? The reason, I am here is because Megistias talk attitude,(more like a bullie) was rude.He din't even let me talk to the discussion page,is that fair? If I am wrong please do forgive me, for posting this incident in here.Thank you--Thispoems (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on Thispoems.I explained in the talk page and your sources are truly wrong and you also used Original research.Megistias (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you use Original research and wrong at even that.You mention Plutarch in example but he writes that Epirus and Macedon is Greece.He wrote the lives of Greeks and Romans and Pyrhhus with Alexander are Greeks.And other than the fact that Evans is outdated the sketches he made dont include

epirus or macedon [6] [7] .So what exactly are you doing?Your secondary sources dont agree with what you quote.Megistias (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't conduct your content disputes here on ANI, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that this dispute is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia and that Megistas has been placed under supervised editing as per the remedies of this case. I'll put Thispoems on notice of the remedies. MER-C 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C, can I request that "warnings" with {{uw-balkans}} should only be done if a claim of actual disruptive behaviour is being made? That's our usual approach to administrative warnings, we don't give them to editors just in case they might do something disruptive in the future. We warn editors when they have in fact done something disruptive. Warnings are for letting people know they will be sanctioned if they continue doing what they have been doing, otherwise it's quite confusing both to them and to onlookers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Morgan Wright

User:Morgan Wright has engaged in continued personal attacks despite warnings. Examples include calling another editor "a loathsome individual" and an "ass". But the latest offense severely crosses the line in which he tells a fellow editor to "take out a 45 magnum and drain your Circle of Willis". I think this latter attack is particularly egregious and warrants a permanent block. He has been blocked several times already in the past. --MPerel 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are serious civility issues here, including allegations of others being socks, insults, borderline vulgarity, not assuming good faith, etc. I think a cooling off period is in order. Bstone (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Morgan Wright for one week for the above talk comments. I did this prior to seeing this discussion. If anyone disagrees with my action or feels an indef is in order, I won't object. Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I am not a neutral party in the matter, I think that essentially telling another user to go kill himself is hostile enough to merit an indefinite block. After all, that would be the case should he have made a direct threat.--Veritas (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a neutral party, and a read through of User:Morgan Wright's recent interactions leads me to support an indefblock as well. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a long-term block, will not oppose indef. Editor seems to completely disregard WP:CIVIL. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just blocked ip 70.18.13.53 as obvious sock, see User talk:70.18.13.53 - editor was continuing his accusations/harassment there. Vsmith (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just reblocked w/ indef per above comments and ip sock abuse. Vsmith (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note he is editing again under the ip 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs). --Veritas (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mole a-whacked by Black Kite. -- llywrch (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Free Republic

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

Resolved

 – Article Full protected for 1 week and ArbCom asked for guidance SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, an individual who has a serious (and unanswered) WP:COI problem (see here) is starting an edit war again after being blocked 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation for edits to this article, and within a few hours after a one-week protection of the article has expired. [8] These edits have not been supported by consensus, they have not been discussed on the Talk page, they give too much WP:WEIGHT to criticisms of the Free Republic forum, the article is under ArbCom probation, and to make a long story short, Eschoir is literally begging to be blocked. Please stop him before the edit war that Lawrence Cohen has openly declared here becomes a fact. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's an arbcom violation, report to WP:AE — Rlevse • Talk • 03:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A community-based solution would be best in the short term. Eschoir is relentlessly trolling on the article Talk page now. Take a look at the most recent section. I've asked him three times to stop chopping my posts into an incomprehensible mess with his responses, and he takes joy in continuing to do it because he knows it annoys me. This time a lengthy cooling-off period is in order, to protect the project from his incessant trolling. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything without consulting ArbCom first, considering there's lots of evidence in a current ArbCom case that both accounts (Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter)are possible/probable socks of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine, who has a long running dispute with Eschoir, even though I would ask Eschoir to back off on that article, as there are WP:COI concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably something that should go to WP:AE, especially since a bunch of the involved users are participating in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding. But if anyone is moved to take action on this complaint, bear in mind that it takes two (at least) to edit war. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is seemingly dying down (no reverted reverts) thanks to vassayana and crotalus horridus who can't be accused of bias. Consensus may be emerging, all sides may be standing down, and Samurai Commuter can go back to his vacation.

'

I'm leaving on a red-eye flight for a long anticipated vacation with my family in the morning, to a warm foreign country with no Internet access. I have been caught by complete surprise by this dastardly subterfuge, and will have no time to even start preparing my defense until I return on February 18. This underhanded ambush can wait until then. Both Free Republic and Waterboarding are fully protected, so no harm would be done by the delay. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)'

Eschoir (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged into this when I haven't even edited that article in main space weeks? Because I said I would remove material once if it was added on behalf of a banned user? Related evidence to the complaint above is here. Samurai Commuter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a disruptive SPA who does nothing but push a matching agenda as BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), right down to the legalistic stalking and harassment of Eschoir (talk · contribs). Lawrence § t/e 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious. Neutral Good, who has never edited FR article, wants me blocked to stop you from beginning an edit war there, because Samurai Commuter has TalkPage concerns with me. Got it?Eschoir (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry navel gazing reminds me of the classic dilemma of what am I looking at now? Obviously, I'm looking at now. Is this when I'm supposed to begin edit warring? Lawrence § t/e 06:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's review your usual crop of distortions and half-truths, Lawrence. Every sockpuppet accusation you've made against me resulted in an official finding of  Unrelated. You got away with a 2RR and an instant full protection after you got it the way you wanted it, which seems to be your signature. You did this eight days ago, not "weeks" ago. And it's been full protected for seven days, so you couldn't edit it even if you wanted to. Neutral Good (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think there's officially nothing else we can do. Seeing that Samurai Commuter has yet again gone on to Free Republic and significantly edited it, I have full protected the page on the so-called M:The Wrong Version for one week, and placed a request on the ArbCom Waterboarding proposed decision talk page for their consideration regarding the past ArbCom case, whether the conduct of all involved on this article should be considered in that case. With that, I think we're done here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Janos Kurko removing info from articles and silently edit-warring

For weeks now, Janos Kurko (talk · contribs) silently removes alternative names from articles on Romanian localities (including Focşani, Moldova Nouă, Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Sviniţa etc.). This is the large majority of his contributions so far, with the exception of adding Romanian names to articles on localities in other countries (further proof that he is pushing a POV) and a long edit war on the article Palinka, where he edits against consensus for days on end, and does not use the talk page. I have so far left him three vandalism warnings on his talk page for removing info, and a 3RR warning - I think a temporary block is in order, because he has not stopped so far. Dahn (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24h and warned of possible topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot malfunctioning again

Resolved

 – Thank you for enlightening us, Mr. Cobi. —Glacier Wolf 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot reverted the edit to Johhnyjacobson (talk · contribs), as seen here. However, ClueBot never warned the user, as seen by his/her talk page history. I can see that this was happening earlier. Can someone get into contact with the person operating this bot? Glacier Wolf 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For it to miss one once in a while is not uncommon. There are several reasons that ClueBot will revert, but run into an error while warning and just give up. Mainly server load. If the database lag is more than 10 seconds, ClueBot will forget about warning users so as not to run the db lag up any more. If the WMF servers returned an error, ClueBot will give up. If there is an edit conflict of sorts, ClueBot will give up. Earlier it was missing it because the servers were returning errors (well not exactly, someone changed the MW software that made it and ClueBot incompatible until I fixed it, essentially the servers were telling ClueBot that it wasn't logged in, even though it was). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment needed please

Resolved

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has redirected his talk page to his user page, but continues to be an active editor. I have explained to him that the talk page is not his to control in that manner, and it is for the use of the community as much as it is for his own use but he refuses to remove the redirect. Opinions on action please? As it stands he is impossible to contact on wiki without removing the redirect, and although he apparently has email enabled, that doesnt change the fact that the redirect should not be on a talk page as it restricts communication. Viridae^Talk 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ling.nut has most likely done this as he really needs to work on his dissertation; if it's a big issue, I'll be glad to e-mail him and discuss other options. What is the preferred method when a break notice doesn't work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think something in your post caused his FA/GA stars to appear at the top of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I put a copy of his talk page here instead of the links I meant to. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just put the break notice, and log out. There should never be a redirected talk page for this situation. Viridae^Talk 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That fixed it; it was quite strange to see that ANI had three featured articles :-) I will email Ling.nut. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed his redirect and adviced him that is social engineering and malware to redirect talk page to user page but he came to my talk page saying that he does not believe me Igor Berger (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed him some options for how to deal with the situation; can it not become a federal case while I'm waiting to hear from him? He really needs to work on his dissertation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. I undid Igor's actions before seeing this discussion, but stand by my revert. This should be worked out quietly with Ling.nut - I know first hand how Wiki can interfere with Diss writing very easily. --Veritas (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, no one is clamoring to talk to Ling.nut right this instant, he isn't in the midst of any conflicts, this doesn't have to be resolved right this instant; let me try to work this out in a way that won't cause undue stress to an exceptional editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Veritas no problem with your revert as long as the issue is being dealt with. This is the guidelines of Wikipedia:User page Igor Berger (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting a talk page to user page is a violation of WP:refactor Igor Berger (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise to stay on top of this and keep ANI posted as soon as I hear something, if not tonight, first thing tomorrow (almost bedtime here). I understand the issue, but please think of the person and give me time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, what on earth are you on about? "Redirecting your talk page to your user page is Social engineering (security) which is Malware" is, umm, not true, not to mention needlessly inflammatory. How is this a violation of WP:REFACTOR, either? Please don't exacerbate a relatively minor situation with nonsense. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that Ling.Nut did this as a social engineering technique, but some vandals may do it as such. Looks like Ling.Nut just wants free time for {{wikibreak}} Igor Berger (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was already established above, before your bizarre warning to him, that he was probably doing it for a wikibreak. Throwing social engineering and malware links at him was an enormous (and extremely tenuous) leap of bad faith away from the situation as presented. Maralia (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edits to his page I did not acuse him of anything but tried to fix the redirect with an advise. As he reverted I gave a stronger warning, but walked away when User:Veritas reverted me. So please WP:AGF on my part. And I am sorry if I seemed like I came out too hard. Igor Berger (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You most decidedly did accuse him of something: "Redirecting your talk page to your user page is Social engineering (security) which is Malware" is not 'an advise' but rather a blatant attribution of devious motives. If that truly wasn't your intent, you need to do a much better job of communicating. Maralia (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If I did accuse him, I apologize for it. I tried to help without knowing the whole story, as it seems for all of us trying to help each other under stress and vandalism. User Ling.Nut my apology to you if I made you feel bad, but I was just trying to help everyone involved. Igor Berger (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Use some discretion, friends! please. First of all, the def of a redir on yout talkpage as malware is... unusually creative and entertaining. Second of all, if you're looking for ways to nail down vandals/trolls/ etc., the redir talk page thing should be the bottom of your list.. not even on it. Like giving an overdue library fine to John Gotti. By the way, I think this is instruction creep and bureacracy at its most egregious... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not instruction creep, it is simple logic. The user talk page is for people to communicate with you, people wiolll want to leave you messages regardless of wether you are busy or not. Viridae^Talk 06:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut that is how we got Al Capone, on technicality..:) Now I understand why you want to redirect your talk page, so you can write your dissertation. You are to popular and you like wiki too much. It is an addiction! Igor Berger (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he could "retire" and have his pages locked down, which has been done. But that seems pointless and a waste of time when he could just redirect his page until he comes back. If he doesn't want messages on a page he can't resist checking, there are ways for him to go about it. It just seems easier to leave him be. Ling, I can block you for a while, hun... that will keep you away. Just give me cause. ;) Lara❤Love 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lara! can I insult your heritage, or your birthplace, or current location, or simply your punctuation foibles? Any one of those might do the trick. Seriously, whatever... I dunno what to make of all this. Tempest in a teacup, though I've been guilty of making those on occasion. I dunno. If there's a rule somewhere about not redirecting your talk page, I'll probably get around to following it some day or other. Seems a waste of editors' time to chase after such things, though. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lara, prescribed vacation? Is that what blocks are about? Take two aspirins and see me in the morning..:) Lin, you can just call her a Troll, that should get you blocked for a while... Igor Berger (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK I un-redirected my talk. Nothing to se here. Move along. :-) Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Johntex lying once again

A while ago, I made some edits that Johntex didn't like, and so instead of trying to resolve it on the article discussion page, he posted a wildly dishonest complaint in which he resorted to outright lying about me to get me blocked from editing the page for a month (his initial goal being to get me completely banned). I continued to be outraged at his behavior and the fact that he remains completely unpunished for his behavior, and posted complaints on his talk page. Once again, rather than trying to resolve it, he went here to lie about me in his continued belief that anyone who annoys him should be banned. And yet again, he posted numerous lies:

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As explained above, the claim that there was no provocation whatsoever is an outright lie.

I have never posted lies about him. Another lie.

I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so. Another lie. I pointed out that I had provided him with the diffs over and OVER again, and each time he simply lied and said that they don't say what he said they clearly said.

Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack. Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page. I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it. I discussed the charge on my talk page. And Johntes's recounting is dishonest, as it implies that my reposting the attack happened after Wizardman's warning, when in fact it happened before.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. Mischief? Insisting that liars be punished is "miscief"? What kind of world do we live in?

He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation. Yes, on the basis of the very lies that are the issue here.

I don't think I have any any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. Abandoned after several weeks went by without any mediator stepping forward (and after Johntex engaged in behavior in blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF).

His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. After several years, with me not deleting anything, there are now several instances of people disagreeing with me. And...?

I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? I ask whether this is not a clear threat and an instance of Johntex's bullying.

To top it off, another admin came along and blocked me only a few hours after Johtex's request, meaning that I had no opportunity to address the charges.Heqwm (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The total lack of evidence (permanent links) in this heatedly-worded (to use an understatement) notice renders it rather unintelligible to me. El_C 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After a cursory look at the situation, it seems to me that your behavior on his talk page was pretty clearly unacceptable, and that a lot of your editing could be classified as tendentious. My advice to you would be to stop using edit summaries like "dishonesty", "perjury", and "Please don't post lies in edit summaries.", to try to engage in discussion on articles' talk pages before making changes that could be seen as POV by outside observers, and to stop poking this particular anthill with Johntex. If you don't do these things, you could very easily wind up with that indef block you're apparently worried about. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm is coming off a two-day block for making personal attacks. Specifically, he was accusing me of lying. I find it incredible that he resorts to the same behavior. Here is the post I made to WP:ANI that led to Heqwm being blocked for 2 days:

I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him.[9] I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations.[10] He declined to do so.[11] Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.[12] Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.[13] I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.[14]

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago.[15] He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.[16] I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? ( 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC) )

I request that Heqwm again be blocked for posting unsubstantiated personal attacks where he accuses me of lying. Johntex\^talk 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sanity check on a related issue: Is this edit a violation of Gp75motorsports's topic ban (as detailed here)? Kind of seems that way to me... he's basically asking Heqwm to act as his proxy on ANI, which is one of the pages he's not allowed to edit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, and I have reverted it, and gave an only warning to Gp75motorsports on the issue of proxying. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought re JohnSmith's apparent conflict seeking, and wikistalking

John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself have a long history of bitter conflict, edit warring, and we seem to disagree with each other about just about everything. This ongoing conflict eventually escalated into an Arbcom case where we were both put on a revert probation. There was wikistalking as an issue then. My concern is that JohnSmith’s appears to be back to wikistalking me, seeking to continue the old pattern of provoking conflict and drama, that is objectively disruptive to the articles where this occurs between us. I advise for him to follow the first suggestion of dispute resolution and avoid me--not go out of his way to clash with me. So I’m here to ask for guidance and bring it to attention of admins who might be able to help before things continue and get worse.

My positive good-faith comment to JohnSmith, "...I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)"

But JohnSmith's replies this way:“As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”[17] Why he comes to the one article I mainly edit to engage in conflict with me, is my main question.

Same thing with other articles: John Smiths appeared for the first time right after my edit and request on the talk page. See my request on talk here: [18] I restored a section taking out by User:Raggz, and provide a citation for support. I left a leave a message on the talk page asking editors to please hold off on making any more deletions as I am working to provide references to support the rest of the claims, of which I am familiar with.This is respected by editors, but guess who shows up? John Smith’s, for the very first time to this article. And what are his very first action to the article? To to ignore my request and delete a section: [19] I then respond to him on the talk page with this question but he ignores it:[20]

I’m disturbed by this pattern of engaging with me in endless arguments. I think someone should tell him Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that out of the over 2 million articles, why must he choose the main articles that I am working on, esp. given the very predictable negative result is that we end up in endless and asinine bickering?

Even if his intentions are good, it’s just a bad idea given our history, and it appears to other editors that he is doing this just to fight with me. I’ve asked that he disengage and avoid arguing with me, but he seems addicted to argumentation--with me. I’ve raised this point several times and asked him but he responds back by making personal attacks and assuming bad faith: “As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”

I bring it here because I can see it getting worse again, and resulting in general disruption to actual editing work on improving articles, which is the purpose I edit on WP. If nothing is done, at least I want to be on record here of trying to do something about it before it gets out of hand, and continues on into another arbcom case.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your achilles heel is your longwindedness. El_C 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a Wikibreak go edit something else, forget your WP:POINT, leave the man alone and he will leave you alone. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, thanks! El_C 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I think he was referring to Giovanni. I don't think anyone could accuse you of WP:POINT and needing a wikibreak after a single sentence. ;) John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, the message you posted in italics was not good faith. If you had been truly meaning to say something pleasant you would have said something like "I hope that we will be able to put our unfortunate past behind us and work together on this page". What you did was to bring up the arbitration case (which put the same controls on each of us) and past allegations of wikistalking when there was clearly no need to.

Need I remind you that the only editor not involved in the page and who has no history with either myself or you who commented on my peer review request said that the didn't agree with Bernard's allegations against me being on the page because of you and suggested he strike them.

You are implying that if you edit a page I am not allowed to get involved with it. That is nonsense. I can take an interest in something with you not being an issue. Indeed your prescence on the Allegations article was not an issue until you made it one. I was talking things over quite happily with Stonesky and others. I have also been aware of it for a long time, but only recently felt I could move off the articles I've frequented in the past (e.g. Jung Chang) because you appear to have moved on from them and stopped edit-warring there.

You frequently complain I do not assume good faith but you do not show it yourself. If you want to avoid conflict, don't talk to me. If someone Bernard makes a snide comment as he did either don't respond or say that you think he's being hasty. Don't jump on the bandwagon because you think it's fun to have a swipe at me.

As for not responding on the other article, I was hardly going to stay up past midnight (my time) in the anticipation of you leaving a message. Or do you regularly stay up past 1am and expect others to do the same? And why was I on the page? Maybe because it's related to the allegations page? You are also misrepresenting what happened. You posted a message there well over 12 hours before I removed the text in question. How is a gap of 12 hours "right afterwards"?

If there's any drama it has been created by you. Take Igor's advice - wikibreak and then just leave me alone. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. While JohnSmith has largely been civil on that page, i must also agree with Giovannni's representation of the affair. The page is a magnet for Wikipedia activists who would like to see it deleted and -- in light of Giovanni and JohnSmith's past experiences -- JohnSmith has made some suggestions that bring up contentious issues from a very long time back. He has, unfortunately, also approached the page primarily from the perspective of someone who would like to see it or much of its content deleted. While we may be still working out these points of contention in a civil manner, i see nothing in his behavior or attitude that suggests exemplary mention for tolerance, cooperation, or contribution. Meanwhile, Giovanni's comments were direct, to-the-point, and based upon what must be a very sensitive subject for the both of them. Giovanni pointed out only that there were disagreements between the two of them that had resulted in disciplinary action and an agreement by each to try and avoid the other one. When Giovanni pointed this out, JohnSmith's declared that he had somehow been "personally attacked". His reaction seemed to me quite exaggerated and dramatic; moreover, Giovanni has been a more-or-less continuous presence on this page for a couple of years, whereas this is the first time i have seen the username JohnSmith's appear. Thus, it would seem to me that if JohnSmith's were truly seeking to avoid Giovanni then "Allegations...U.S." would be one of the very few places he would avoid like the plague.

Having said all of that, JohnSmith's has done nothing to personally attack me. His suggestions for the page have been met with our usual appeal to Wikipedia protocol and guidelines. Yet even so, if it is the case that he has agreed to avoid Giovanni then it would seem that he is now reneging upon that agreement in an egregious fashion. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was never an agreement to avoid editing/commenting on pages the other has worked on. I would not decide to go somewhere because Giovanni was there, but his prescence on a page has never really been something I have thought about - if I am interested I will take a look at something and maybe edit. Generally speaking I do not seek to interact with him, preferring to discuss matters with other users if possible.

If he so wishes to have an "official" agreement that we stay away from each other, one that can be enforced by administrators, he should propose it in whatever place would be appropriate so that it can be discussed. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for banned user

Resolved

I don't normally report this kind of thing but: User:Ghanadar galpa, a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppeteer Hkelkar made several problematic edits over the month plus he was around. I spent some time reverting a fraction of them yesterday. Today a brand new account leaves a message on the talkpage of User:B Nambiar who proceeds to revert all those changes with an identical message. Sometime during this I told Nambiar that under WP:BAN banned editors aren't permitted to edit WP, and if he wishes to reinstate a series of edits he shouldn't do so wholesale but should discuss each on the talkpage. He hasn't done that, pasting a boilerplate message on talkpages. Advice please. Relata refero (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocked, warning left on reverting account's page. Will keep an eye out. BLACKKITE 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

30 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents.

As an aside, I actually have a subpage, if anyone is willing and inclined to run thru a couple of hundred IP addresses in one run, please leave a message on my talk. I do apprecriate the help. Regards, Mercury (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done All unblocked, and talk pages cleared of {{tor}} tags. Feel free to dump the rest at User talk:Neil/TOR and I'll run through them all. Neıl ☎ 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting references / original research, leading to revert war

I'm exasperated and angry, so perhaps an Admin could explain the BLP policy better than I can. Should be self explanatory - User_talk:Trident13#Vicki_Butler-Henderson. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your exasperation and frustration. However User:Trident13 hasn't edited since the samll hours of last night (WP time) and therefore will not have seen the reply you have posted to his talk page. This is not an unwillingness to do anything at present, but it seems better to follow the process of explaining WP:BLP and trusting that Trident13 will now follow it. It might be better to wait until he responds to your detailed analysis before any intervention is required. If it is, then your first stop might be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard before ANI. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note, but the previous analysis of the BLP concerns seems to be quite thorough. We need a source that actually says "engaged", and blogs are a no-go. Now, if they can find a source that works, they can absolutely re-add that material, and there is evidence (blogs) that suggest the fact itself may be accurate (in re: the engagement). Didn't catch the timestamps until you pointed them out, Pedro - but, if there's conflict between Trident and Daytona2, maybe an uninvolved opinion will calm things a bit, maybe? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It might do, but it might exasperateexacerbate it is my only concern. User:Daytona2 seems to be managing to stay clam in a situation he's clearly exasparated with, so hopefully Trident will read the note, see this thread, learn about WP:BLP and all will be good. I don't think Tridents actions have been bad faith, just against policy. (I'm chock full of WP:AGF today !!) Pedro :  Chat  13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exacerbate it, you mean? :p Neıl ☎ 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Zigacally! :) Pedro :  Chat  13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rapid fire vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Alexf

Looks like User:David A's pal is back, this time as JohnnyJonzz4.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I know, I know, this should go to AIV, but this user has one goal, to revert anything David has done, and s/he moves fast. Pairadox (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Alexf blocked it. Pairadox (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nestor Aparicio

Please could someone semiprotect Nestor Aparicio. It is currently receiving incredible amounts of vandalism! Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sent a request to WP:RFPP, which requests like this need to go. I've been busy this mroning and haven't had a chance to help clean the vandalism, as this is on my watchlist. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Something else I've learnt. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the IP vandals are moving to WNST now as well, sent a request for that page to be protected. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Both pages have temporary full protection. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected both pages for a week. I live in Dallas-Ft. Worth and a local sports talk radio station (KTCK) intimated that listeners should vandalize the page. Both stations have representatives at the Super Bowl and a dispute between on-air personalities arose which caused the recent spate of vandalism. It's likely that the calls for vandalism will continue until Friday, and likely into the early part of next week. Already three accounts have bypassed the semi-protection between the two pages. Full protection would avoid any additional sleeper accounts from hitting the pages, as well as new accounts that get autoverified between now and the expiration of the protection. Let me know if you need any additional info on this. Caknuck (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

22 yr old male seeks 9 yr old female friend on Ref Desk

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

An anonymous editor using a Swedish ISP is (probably) trolling the Reference Desks. Check out

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

In a nutshell, the user claims to be a friendless 22 year old who's given up on finding a girlfriend, but who wants to "befriend little girl[s] (age 5-12 or so)"; he says he "find[s] them extremely adorable and this appeals greatly" to him. He claims to already be in webcam contact with a 9 year old who is "unfortunately" in another part of the country. (Original post: [21]; reposting: [22], [23].)

Given his other contributions, I'm inclined to assume that he's a particularly obnoxious troll, rather than a genuine pedophile. (Racist trolling: [24], [25], Vandalism tantrum: [26], [27], General abuse: [28], [29].)

Beyond block the IP fir a bit and removing the posts, is there anything else that can/needs be done? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We could contact the police department for an investigation, just like when we contact them when someone claims he is going to bomb some place, but who knows how to contact them in Sweeden? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly seems necessary for what is likely just a bit of trolling. John Reaves 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dentren seems to be an active editor who is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden. S/he also self-identifies as Category:Wikipedians in Sweden. It may be a bit of an imposition to just contact some random Swedish user and ask if s/he'd be willing to call the police (or thinks there'd be any reason; I don't know how Swedish law enforcement handle such situations). Asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden might be pointless, as that project seems a bit quiet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anyone in imminent danger here. I'm not sure this situation calls for further involvement beyond what has been done. Ronnotel (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is trolling, but if police or even my ISP finds me asking in a forum how to get contact with little girls, they will want to have a chat with me. Scaring a troll may make him realize Internet is not for that kind of things. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notify abuse@bredband.com and let them decide if the users should burn in hell or not. _→AzaToth 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to look at:

• 85.225.50.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.225.48.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (innocuous on its own, but perhaps not in the context of the above IP's contribs?)
• 85.225.51.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (ditto)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a troll then. But it has been two days in a row asking the same question. If he does so a third day, he is an idiot who should get a scare. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, he came back, didn't wait for a third day. The question has once again been deleted from the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 85.225.51.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)} now, but I'm considering a rangeblock of 85.225.48.*-85.225.51.* (or thereabouts) to deal with the floating IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty wide range for a vandal. I will contact the WikiProject Sweeden to see if anyone is able to contact the police (or at least give us some insight about how to report this kind of stuff). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we inform the police or something. This guy could be a perv or something. You guys dont want some Dateline thing from happening. You guys must stop this pedo-sicko from "hurting" innocent kids. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already said that if it is a mistake, he will get a good scare. I have told him this was not the right place to ask that kind of thing, yet he continued. I say call the authorities and leave them handle this idiot (anyone insisting on having that asked is nothing more than an idiot). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The usual plan is to drop a note to User:Mike Godwin (WP legal counsel) ideally via e-mail and not on his talk page, advising him of this thread and the various IP's. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message at WikiProject Sweden to get someone from there give us insight of how to report this kind of stuff (maybe they have something like tips.fbi.gov). We can contact Mike for this as well, although we don't need legal counsel right now (we need to know if this user is breaking the TOS of the ISP he is using, or how to contact the police to request more information about how this is handled). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your message, but I think it's a bit overkill to contact the authorities for what looks like a troll. --Krm500 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just sent a mail to Mike as well. We are used to contact the police when someone leaves bomb notes at articles about school. I believe it is, at least, a breach of the terms of service. We should at least contact the ISP and let him know this, leaving up to them whether they should contact the user or the police. But what if he continues because the ISP does nothing about that? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The likeliest explanation may be misappropriated account info, e.g., the user's kid brother getting revenge for something. Clues would be when a blatant confession of any kind of noxious or humiliating behaviour is inconsistent with prior prose style, e.g. "...may be misappropriated.." followed the next day by "...my winki is tini!!!!!!!!!" although in that example the parallelism of the two mispellings is too witty. Pete St.John (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Morgan...again

Morgan Wright (talk · contribs) is currently blocked indefinitely for telling another editor to kill himself. However, he is currently still editing under an IP, likely from work rather than his home computer, 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs).--Veritas (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not useful, as it's a ComCast dynamic IP. It's obviously the same editor, so I've blocked it for a short time, but that is unlikely to be a permanent solution. BLACKKITE 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban of Profg

Profg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Goo2you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Checkuser Raul654 blocked Goo2you with the note that Goo2you is a sock of Profg. As Goo2you has edited in ways to violate the terms of Profg's probation and, for that matter, Goo2you has edited while Profg has been blocked, I have reversed my own action of giving Profg a second chance and reimposed an indefinite block. As in all cases, if no admin is willing to overturn that block, it is a community ban. --B (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• How unfortunate. I agree with your actions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. I had much higher hopes for profg. Darn :( --Filll (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I and B have known since early December that Profg has alternative accounts. Unfortunately, I don't know what the alternative accounts are. I don't really see a viable alternative at this time, nor any way to identify the other accounts. GRBerry 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His claim (obviously false) was that he was abiding by the terms of his probation and only using his alternate account(s) for unrelated issues. Our overly protective checkuser policy being what it is, simply knowing he was using alternate account(s) was not sufficient cause for a checkuser to run a check. Presumably, if there are other alternate accounts, Raul would have found them? One of the things that really irks me about our checkuser process is that you have to ask exactly the right question or you don't get an answer. I ask if U₀ and U₁ are socks and the answer is no, but the checkuser doesn't feel it worth mentioning that U₀ is really a sockpuppet of banned user U₂. Even now, we obviously have cause to believe there is another sock out there, but if we ask for a checkuser, we'll get the cute little fishing icon. (Rant off.) --B (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Might be Fairchoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I just blocked for tendentious editing and failing to take note of numerous attempts to steer him away form being a disruptive influence. Or it might not. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, Fairchoice has been unblocked unilaterally by Archtransit. There's a shocker. — Satori Son 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to take on the task of watching the editor's future behaviour then fine. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not - or at least not all. "known since early December", and probably accounts contributing well before then. GRBerry 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please send this to Request for checkuser if there is evidence that they may be the same. Goo2you has edited recently, and Profg was editing within the last month. I do not know why Archtransit did that unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg. --B (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • FYI, Fairchoice came back  Unlikely to be Profg. --B (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Facts are friends. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not sure what you mean ... I'm just posting the results of the checkuser. I'm assuming (though obviously don't know) that they got "unlikely" as opposed to "unrelated" because they are from the same geographic region but different ISPs. That definitely doesn't disprove him being a sock, but considering that his registration was right after Profg's call for meatpuppets, it's just as likely that he's a meat puppet, not a sockpuppet. There's no way to completely disprove it - anonymous closed proxies are easy to come by if someone were so inclined. --B (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The facts: Profg and Fairchoice don't use the same IP address; Fairchoice was already indeffed once, and still would be but for out-of-process unblocking; if Fairchoice returns to old editing pattern, they will be blocked again, and if they behave better they continue editing; Profg remains banned. It seems like no further action is possible here at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about admin editing a protected page

Resolved

Is it just me or did admin Adam Cuerden use his administrative abilities to get around the full protection, edit the article and then admin Ryan Postlethwaite, who set the full protection, reverted his edits? It certainly seems that way from the diffs and history. I am incredibly disturbed by this. Is a report to AN/I the appropriate place or right to ArbCom? Bstone (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidential edits to articles that are protected by adminstrators are commonplace. I will assume you are ignorant of this, rather than assuming bad faith on your part, but I would note that you did not asked Adam why this happened, and did not review his talk page where he stated he was unaware of the protection when he made his one edit. Please be more through in your future evaluations, instead of hastily jumping to report users you are in conflict with. You may wish to ask users why they took actions before reporting them in the future. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PutponOnToast, you've already Talk:Homeopathy#Adam_Cuerden questioned me of acting in bad faith so I wonder why you're reneging on it now. Notice the huge number of question marks and interrogatives. I didn't come here going "ZOMG Adam is a rouge admin and is break page protection" but rather calmly came wondering how the situation is. There is no formalized procedure for this so I am sorry I did not consult with you before hand, but since you've already accused me of bad faith I don't see much of a reason in further discussing this. Good day. Bstone (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I've questioned if you are acting in good faith. What led me to doubt your good faith was:

1. You asked on the article talk page and then promptly reported it at ANI (you did not wait 3 minutes for a response at the first location you sought input from)
2. You did not review the talk page of the user in question
3. You did not ask the user in question for an explanation
4. There is a history of "oh so concerned" users asking for such sanction in bad-faith (cf Profg)

So, let me ask you - do you have an ulterior motive for filing this complaint? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your questions have been asked and answered. Good day. Bstone (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask Adam why he made the edit? Why didn't you wait for a response at the first location you complained at? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He probably just hadn't noticed yet. It doesn't say "STOP THIS ARTICLE IS PROTECTED, ARE YOU SURE?" it just works. ^Avruchtalk 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It says in normal size text at the very top in red, "WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please ensure that you are following the protection policy." However, it's easy to miss, as it's in the general header block. Orderinchaos 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be incredibly surprised if Adam did this on purpose. Adam is doing his best to help us resolve this difficult situation and certainly is not interested in making things worse.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear Adam just made a mistake. Not being an admin (and not wanting to be one) I don't know what their screen looks like when they go to edit a fully protected article. Thanks so much to those who responded to my concern in good faith, without deciding to shoot the messenger or question why I was bringing it here. Bstone (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the individual admin's setup, the screen looks something along the lines of Image:Adminprotwarning.jpg. You can see the warning at the top of the page, but I've overlooked it once or twice. - auburnpilot talk 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have overlooked that from time to time. This is an honest mistake, not abuse. Nothing to see here folks, move along. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Back when I had AWB on my main admin account I more than once inadvertently edited protected articles. When I switched over to having a second account which has no admin access for AWB edits (User:Orderinchaos 2), I stopped getting complaints :P This seems to fall into the same category. Orderinchaos 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I changed the section title to be less strident given that nothing bad actually happened here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ChampagneSocialist

Resolved

User:ChampagneSocialist is showing signs of being more or less a single-purpose account, or possibly sockpuppet, to repeatedly remove mention of fascism from the lead of Right-wing politics‎. Apparently no willingness to discuss, just reverting over and over.

Since I'm engaged in the article myself, it would probably be inappropriate for me to be involved in the matter as an admin. Could someone else please keep an eye on this? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. It appears to be slow or low-grade edit-warring, but I added a strong suggestion to go to the talk page and work it out. If the editor continues to remove material without discussion, then I'll see what needs to be done. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Block page broken

Resolved

I softblocked a school IP just now ([30]), and when I tried to click on the block log option, instead of going to the correct block log, it went to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:%241

What's making that happen? Neıl ☎ 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bug. _→AzaToth 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See m:Migration to the new preprocessor _→AzaToth 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks AzaToth. Neıl ☎ 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal

Unrealroyal.com was blacklisted as spam (which it is not) by User:Hu12 who seems to be partisan on the subject as is clear from User_talk:Hu12#unrealroyal.com. The subject was looked at rather perfunctorily at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal in which User:Lazydown participated. He is a sockpuppet of User:Kingofmann who is David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Would an independent admin please have a look. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As to whether it is spamming, I have no idea. But I see no reason to think it would qualify as a reliable source (it appears to be a personal site, even if a well-researched and well-written one), so the point seems to be moot. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The first point is that it is not a spam site. Which is the purpose of that list. WP:RS is not the issue. The second point is that it is not for User:Hu12 to determine the issue as he has been involved throughout. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Heiss spam

I deleted a lot of inappropriate spamming about Martin Heiss and tried to mark the article itself for speedy deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person with questionable claims. Does anyone know anything about Martin Heiss? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have a blog at http://redredstate.blogspot.com/2008/01/reading-lenin.html, but any other Google hits seem to be in German. Corvus cornix_talk 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive vandalism on Beth Ostrosky

Resolved

I've come spontaneously to this article three times in the last hour. There's obviously a massive effort by multiple IPs and sock puppets to mess around big-time.

Please, someone who has the ability to do this (unlike me): semi-protect the page, and burn all the sockpuppets. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is sprotected. I'm watching for any more vandalism. Nakon 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Entry for Millard Fillmore currently being vandalised

Millard Fillmore entry vandalism in progress now.

Edits include:

'Millard Fillmore is a fag'

'Millard Fillmore has no penis'

'Buttmuncher'

etc. etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.232 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... as if it's not enough to have been associated with something called the Know Nothing Party, or to have been the inspiration for tired political hackery in a duck suit... is there no end to the indignities to which President Fillmore is subjected? MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know; on the other hand, has two of the most famous rock venues in the world named after him, so that's some compensation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He's also the only president who arguably came to power because of too many cold cherries. Take that, Lincoln!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Ottava Rima

An editor I reported here for 3RR violation is evading his block (scheduled to expire at 02:55) under one of the IPs he used to violate the 3RR yesterday, 136.242.32.174 (talk · contribs). The other, which he had been using at the time of the violation, was blocked for 24 hours along with the main account. He hasn't returned to the page he was blocked over yet (that was semi-protected) but has picked up a dispute on another article. Could an uninvolved admin take a look? -- Vary | Talk 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to If (MSI album)

Resolved

 – Protected

This needs looking at by someone with more experience than I – the vandalism is going crazy, and I don't have any knowledge of the subject to remove it. Cheers — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP'ing would be appreciated — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected for a month --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to subsequent recurrence of vandalism, fully protected for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the false album covers uplodated by the vandalizing user and possible sockpuppet account up for speedy deletion. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Large numbers of complex IP sock vandalism associated with the Elspeth Monro, Homer Slips., and Rastishka accounts

I don't really know how to present this, because it's pretty weird. But someone keeps vandalizing user pages and user talk pages under a series of IPs. Have a look through these links. This persons modus operandi is to add "suspected sockpuppet" tags to various user pages, or things like "The Proof!" (with links), and then include their signature as well.

[31] [32] [33] [34]

I would say, based on editing patterns alone, the following people are all the same person: The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs) Granola_lips (talk · contribs) 86.25.52.177 (talk · contribs) 86.29.240.170 (talk · contribs) (a huge number of other IPs in the same general range of 86.2x.xxx.xxx) Yardskins (talk · contribs)

The list goes on and on and on as you dig deeper and deeper. Hopefully someone has the time and patience to sort this all out. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On first inspection this was all from mid-December. Why is this a current problem? Those accounts on first glance are harmless... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand how obvious unblocked puppets and longterm IP sock abuse is harmless. I've only just started to notice this stuff. Why must a blatant vandal sock be reported instantly after the vandalism? It often takes a long period of time to notice the extent to which someone has vandalized. What's more, the The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs) account edited just a few days ago. However, if everyone would just like to let this person keep gaming the system and making a mess of talk pages, go ahead. I think I'm done trying to help this project by reporting socks. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They did a bunch of bizarre stuff there, yes. But all the edits by the lemmick account since Jan 1 are good edits (a lot got cleaned up or redirected later, but appear to be good faith and good content efforts). The evidence you've presented so far is one incident of multi-user, multi-IP sillyness (perhaps low grade vandalism, but nothing obvious that I spotted) - preceded and followed by good edits, as far as I can tell.

While the incident of sillyness / low grade vandalism is sort of a red flag, it's a small one. Yeah, it's a good idea to keep an eye on them. But with a history of good edits, we don't go stomping on people for a little sillyness here and there.

If there's more evidence somewhere in the edit histories, feel free to let us know. It's appropriate to look at all that and say "huh?" about it. But it's not the sort of stuff we typically act on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for action in an Afd

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have further discovered these statements [35] and [36] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

personal attack by anon

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=188077260 <-- Read the edit summary Quack Guru 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing really requiring admin attention just yet, I've warned the IP for making personal attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This does appear to be a static IP and a repeat offender - it looks like I blocked it a while back for "outing" an editor on chiropractic articles - so I think if the Ryan's warning doesn't get the message across we should do something. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert

FYI, Money blues3 (talk · contribs) just blanked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Walker High School (Atlanta, Georgia). Also, the user blanked the talk page of Moneyblues (talk · contribs). - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

*tap tap* Is this thing on? :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. --jonny-mt 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[WikiEN-l] mailing list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know how it is appropriate for editors to make defamatory comments about other editors on Wikipedia mailing lists with an expectation that the editor being defamed will most likely not see it. For example, User:Ansell found it necessary to refer to myself and User:Pedro as "irresponsible" parents for posting images of our children. Not as if magazines, TV ads, billboards, books, websites, etc don't have images of children. But somehow, in posting an image of each of my children in bathrobes makes me an irresponsible mother to the point that someone that doesn't know me from Eve feels vindicated in telling it to a group of my peers behind my back. I'd like to know if this sort of behavior is endorsed by the community. Lara❤Love 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was the first one to post on his talk page. I was just flabbergasted by the lack of regard for other people's feelings as well as the quick jump for moral superiority. In fact, if it wasn't for someone telling Lara that the post was made about her, she wouldn't have known. I find that very shady. It wouldn't be acceptable if he told her to her face that she was a bad mother; why would it be acceptable on the mailing list? Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. And, I've told him so. That sorta thing doesn't really have a place here. SQL^{Query me!} 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Given that many of us have already commented at his talk page, I’d like to hear a response from him first – although I agree he was way out of line. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not LaraLove, but I definitely don't want to hear justifications or him trying to defend his words, because they're totally indefensible. Mike H. Fierce! 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I kind of want to know what makes him think that these images make me an irresponsible mother. And what makes him think it's acceptable to voice that belief on a mailing list of my peers knowing that not only am I not there to respond, but no one was notified from the BRC that we were even the topic of discussion. They just started editing my subpage before someone else contacted us. Lara❤Love 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In case my edit is the one being complained about here, I apologize for editing first and commenting on the talk page second. All I did was remove the title override and I didn't think that'd be a major issue, it didn't occur to me until afterward that you and the others who worked on the page might not know about the mailing list thread and some of the other stuff being talked about in it. Sorry about that. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• LaraLove, I agree that (at the very minimum) you should have been informed of the thread at wiki-en-L, preferably by the person who started it; and I too find that bald statement to be inappropriate. In fact, it never occurred to me that you hadn't been made aware, otherwise I might well have contacted you myself on reading it. I'm sure you're a fine mother. However, I am not sure if you are aware that a photo of Boy Scouts, hosted here and uploaded by a respectable editor, was recently found to have been used by another "adult oriented" wiki in a manner in which many people (myself included) found unacceptable. Indeed, it is my understanding that there were multiple complaints about the content in this wiki (there were other images of children involved) to the point that it has been at least temporarily removed from public access. The use of this photograph by the other wiki was perfectly legal; because of the licensing requirements of Wikimedia, anyone can use any of our photos in any way that they wish. While no doubt most people using Wikimedia or Wikipedia images does so in perfectly reasonable ways, there are sadly some people whose uses of these images would make your hair curl. From that perspective, and assuming the photos are indeed hosted here, you might wish to reconsider. That isn't a comment about your parenting, as I really think Wikipedia and Wikimedia could be a lot more forthcoming on the fact that once uploaded, the "owner" of the photo essentially gives up all control as to how it is used. Risker (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lara, the kiddie porn industry *loves* new pics of kids, and they often take kids' heads and put them on to naked bodies to create more porn pics. Just an FYI, besides that it was inappropriate for someone to talk about you behind your back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lara, suggest you read this regarding the wikia Risker mentioned. To be honest I was horrified and I don't even have kids. Viridae^Talk 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see this has nicely been packaged into a revision of the 'if she wasn't wearing that outfit...' scenario. It's not about a sodomizing pedophile with access to Photoshop, it's about public domain and other free-licenses. the_undertow ^talk 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, all I know is that the few people I have approached to provide photographs have asked me if I was out of my tree when I explained the GFDL license. I would certainly never post photos of children under the terms of that license. Then again, one of my friends is a cybercrime police officer. Risker (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't control what people do with any of my images. I upload them knowing that they can be used by anyone. However, I can't imagine my kid's images being photoshopped into kiddie porn legally, considering kiddie porn is illegal. The issue, regardless, is that I am not an irresponsible parent, nor is Pedro, for posting images of our children. Lara❤Love 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I wasnt trying to say you were. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to you. Merely refocusing the point of the thread. Lara❤Love 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say. I stand by my comment that it is dangerous to put childrens pictures on the internet. Honestly didn't see that as causing a fuss, particularly as it was said two days ago on the mailing list and noone said anything there. Ansell 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• You in essence passed moral judgment and called LaraLove and Pedro bad parents. Who are you to pass judgment on another person's parenting skills? And the fact that you defend your words, that's just so utterly contemptible. It makes me sick. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• And might I add, you said it on the mailing list and not to LaraLove or Pedro directly, which just reeks of cattiness. If you're going to go for the jugular, why try to keep it from them? They clearly weren't aware, and the fact that you more or less don't care that they're offended by your statement says a lot about you as a person. That's my moral judgment. Don't like it? Don't dish it out. Mike H. Fierce! 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• This photo re-use stuff is scary. Anyway, one should not comment on the parenting skills of another. The person(s) making such comments should apologize. TableManners^C·U·T 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Right, the comment on "parenting skills" is completely out of place. There is another reason for not posting kids pictures online (especially not if their names are easily googled and/or Mummy or Daddy's pages have a high page-rank. The kids grow up, they turn into rotten teenagers and are (rightly so) horrified when their peers find these pictures that they feel are inappropriate. Trying to remove them from Google's cache is extremely difficult. But who thinks of this when uploading pictures? Better to put a picture of a tree or a stone on you page :) --WiseWoman (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the comments seem to be coming from people in countries where the faces of children in public are covered. Well, it is winter in Canada right now, so maybe they're seasonal comments. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ansell, when it was said is irrelevant. I was notified on this night. Perhaps no one caught it amongst the whiney mess regarding the BRC and the "css hack" that displayed a harmless redirect to a joke subpage which was advertised no where outside of Wikipedia and it's IRC channels. Your comment was inappropriate and defamatory. And WiseWoman, I seriously fail to see that as a realistic situation. Lara❤Love 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why everyone is putting up a big fuss. If I was someone who was prone to taking offense to general comments I might be offended by people saying that because I don't say things to people face I am "catty" and a bad person. I still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants, provided somewhere they provide a link back. Absolutely no protection means any change is legal from a copyright perspective, even if it is illegal under child porn laws. GFDL'd childrens pictures are dangerous, full stop! That was the essential message to established editors who can be presumed to be aware of freedom of reuse and modification as the complete basis of wikipedia/GFDL.

As far as commenting to their face, I would have if I was made aware by anyone at all on the list that the comment could be taken in a bad way personally attacking the particular parents, instead of just expressing a humble, if objectionable, opinion (ie, humble as demonstrated by the way I finished the comment off in an abrupt fashion, that has been mistakenly taken for non-chalance to them as people, here). Personally it is quite distressing to have people attack you randomly two days after you make a one-sentence off-topic statement on the mailing list. Please don't jump to conclusions so much.

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list. Ansell 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list.

That is such a "bitchslap" apology if I've ever heard one. "Sorry, but, you know, I don't feel bad." If you don't feel bad, then don't fake it. But be prepared for people to not like your opinion. Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read it that way, but it sounds to me that Ansell is making perfect sense. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give everyone who doesn't comment on this now pointless section a barnstar. John Reaves 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that helpful? Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, an attempt to quell this pointless cat fight. John Reaves 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions regarding the personal traits of others are always screened and I'm amazed that this one wasn't. I imagine it's because you were smart enough to bury it deep in your message and the mods overlooked it. I'm shocked and horrified, not merely by your initial comment, but by the fact that you don't regard it to be out of line. The issue is not what Lara or Pedro are doing. The issue is you daring to call out people you don't know about a fundamentally sensitive subject such as how they parent their children. You would be censured for accusing people about their sexuality, gender or nationality, and I can't see how this is any better.

That said - I don't see this can be solved here, and mailing list mods should be contacted. That place is a cesspool anyway and things like this just make it worse. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr, what ever happened to people not being so freaking sensitive? Was it kind of rude? yeah. It's something where LoraLove should tell Peter "hey, that's not cool". Making a post on ANI about it... dude, get over it. If Peter wants to apologies, he will. If he doesn't, get over it. Move on, it's not that bad. Somebody called you a bad parent behind your back? Quick, somebody call the waaaamubance! (see, that's uncivil. What Peter did was harsh, but not necessarily uncivil). -- Ned Scott 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove has been called a bad mother on Wikipedia in the past. Considering her past experiences, I don't think it's "sensitive" of her, and honestly, your comments don't help and just piss people off more. Was that your goal? Mike H. Fierce! 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, damn, Ned. Who knew that someone could be bitchier here than Mike. Well played. Now go back to obviously not being a parent and let the adults talk. Lara❤Love 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(to Mike) Past experiences? I am unaware of what you seem to be hinting at. Peter said that he believes that anyone who posts pictures of their underage kids on Wikipedia is being irresponsible. He did so in the middle of a discussion where LaraLove's pictures were being talked about. I'm just going to take a guess here and say... the comment wasn't unique to her, but just something that Peter felt in general. And you know what, that's not such a crazy opinion to have (I don't agree with it, but it's not "out there").

Some people think that stuff, it's not the end of the world. I'm religious, and some people think that religious people are stupid for believing such things. I flip them off in my mind and move on. My best friend is one of these people. Hey, what are ya gonna do.

(to Lara): You want to pretend to know about my family life, go ahead. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the past experience of already having to hear that a Wikipedia editor thought she was a bad mother, seemingly for no concrete reason at all. And honestly, I don't believe that he mentioned that "as a coincidence." He knew who was in discussion, and he made the comment. Whether you think it or not, it's absolutely rude, tacky, tasteless, nasty, catty, bitchy, etc. to actually voice it at someone. Plus, unless you're willing to have someone scrutinize how you raise your kids, they should just step the hell off. Mike H. Fierce! 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as inherently counterproductive to resort so directly and abrasively to ad hominem attacks when complaining about a vague comment that's already been apologized for. Getting cliquey is not going to solve this. Throwing around more insults is not going to solve this, much less so the same sorts of unfortunate comments about family life that got this whole thing started. Why don't we all calm down just a notch? Yes, bad things happened; no, we don't need to make that any worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry this is so distressing for you. First of all, you people are so concerned with the BRC but not concerned enough to mention anything to anyone who actually participates in it? Throwing around speculation and concern over a joke page that doesn't affect you, not bothering to get any details from anyone who actually knows anything about it. Then you have this genuine concern for the well-being of my kids and Pedro's, but no inclination to actually inform either of us of this important concern? You "still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants", I am "the person". Hai, I'm Lara. I already stated I am aware. Still so concerned, yet no desire to ask me. That doesn't make sense. Lara❤Love 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Re-focussing this thread back to Lara's original complaint. Had we been libeled as "poofters", "niggers", "religious nutters" or any other disgusting attack we'd probably be seeing a lot more direct input here.... However, I take great exception to being called a bad parent, and I take even further exception to the way it was done, where I could never have seen it and have a chance to reply (not that I'm going to even bother defending my parenting skills). I am appaled that this editor was too cowardly to address either Lara or I directly on our talk pages about his "concerns". Nevertheless, I think on reading the above the community agrees that it was an ill-considered comment and I would prefer to move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not having the conversation in a better place, that, and not being alerted to the fact by others who potentially saw something hurtful in the statement, make for a very confusing discussion of this issue. One, I don't like the fact that this was not taken up with me personally before it was brought here. (Leaving posts on my page and then coming here anyway before I respond doesn't impress me. Please don't take offense to that, I just prefer to discuss things in less public places, at least at first, as it doesn't create large amounts of confusion). I apologised on the mailing list and here. What more do you want? People were telling you about the dangers of this, as demonstrated by the wikipedia review link, before I got a chance to reply, but you are still asking what the dangers are. GFDL=Freedom=Loss of control=Children's pictures anywhere anytime without any explicit permission=Reflection on image poster. Thats what I was really trying to get at by my short off-topic comment which was not pursued by any of the participants, and I doubt even moderators, seeing as other participants left it alone, would have felt the need to sanction me for it, as they would have asked for a retraction/apology immediately if they saw fit to. I am not one who enjoys firestorm reactions to short comments. Cheers, Ansell 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, and briefly as I can, as this is going off topic again. I don't care about a perceived issue with someone photoshopping a picture of my boy's head onto a naked child for the sexual gratification of peadophiles. I've often thought there's money to be made in flogging my parents entire collection of me in the nude at ages 1-5 to the sickos, as frankly I don't give a toss if they get their rocks of over it. The point is simple - if you were that concerned about "the dangers" why did you not approach Lara and I directly? Basically, you weren't, you made a throw away comment and you are now trying to defend it through a spurious argument that you are doing the best thing to protect our children - which is actually coming over as ever more offensive than the original comment. I said it above - you've made a mistake or error of judgment as it were, you seem to accept that it was a poor choice of words and that's it. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi just surfing in with another view. I didn't read Ansell's post on wiki-en, and whether he really did call people 'bad parents' in those terms. Some people are more guarded than others on the internet, and they can be shocked at what others willingly disclose. So I can see that he might have concerns about it, and the parents concerned might not- that's not either side's 'fault' or wrong perception though- just that people have different degrees of relaxation about what they disclose on the internet (for instance I would never share my legal name on my user page etc, but some people do so happily.) Anyway my point is, I can't form an opinion unless I have seen the post concerned by Ansell, and the language he used, whether he said 'bad parents' or instead 'I can't understand a parent doing that' or something. If you ask his opinion I'm sure he would let someone quote the relevant bit of his post here- as people are being asked to make a judgement/opinion on ANI, without knowing the wording (in context) of that on which they are commenting. If you are discussing it here it should be written out here or people who aren't on wiki-en list can't form an opinion, and no I don't want to join wiki-en, though I'm sure it's lovely, I'm on enough lists.:) As to it being Ansell going behind Lara and Pedro's backs- that's obviously a bit rude- on the other hand it could be that he wanted to discuss general issues rather than them specifically, which I imagine is a good use of wiki-en. But if he just wanted to use what they did as an example in discussion, he could have been more tactful and not named names. You see we really can't tell without having read his post. Merkinsmum 09:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're looking for? Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here. "

And just to point it out for many people here, note how he specifically comments on the photo issue. He does not say that anyone is a bad parent over all, or makes any judgment for anything other than uploading pictures of them under a free-license. It's a very specific comment, and one that has been incorrectly translated as "bad mother". Doesn't make it ok, doesn't make it whatever, I'm just saying that the comment is being read into far more than it should be. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to lack the ability to read sentences placed between other sentences. It's okay, I'll pull it out for you; "It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that." I said "irresponsible parent". Regardless, you appear to be completely oblivious to the point. If you're not offended, good for you. Step off, because of the two editors specifically referred to (the thread is about the BRC page, which includes three images of children; my two kids and "Son of Pedro"), both are offended. And both happen not to appreciate the "apology". kthxbye, Lara❤Love 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any admin action required here? Otherwise take it to the mailing list. Relata refero (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the picture issue itself... can you spell "moral panic"? The GFDL (and any other license someone might place a picture uploaded here under) is a copyright license, it does not constitute a waiver of other rights [such as personality rights] nor does it allow people to do things that are illegal with the picture. Moreover, if bad people are inclined to do illegal things with pictures, copyright isn't going to be something that will stop them from doing so. —Random832 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Egasa

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. Lara❤Love 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

This edit ([42]) is example of a violation of WP:STALK. Yahel Guhan has never edited the article before, nor has he/she posted anything on the article's talk page. The user's first edit is simply a revert of mine. I notified the user on his/her talk page, but he/she simply removed my comments.[43]

Please note that recently, User:Blnguyen blocked me for 72-hours for reverting another user on an article I had never edited (even though I ahd not been warned, nor had I ever followed the user before). Another admin thought that such actions justify a 72-hour block.Bless sins (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a long history of stalking me before[44][45][46], editing articles right after me, reverting me on articles you never edited before until I did so, editing right after me[47], starting edit wars over material that there is consensus for right after I start editing a page [48] I have warned this user three times about this before, asking him to stop.[49][50][51] I made a report yesterday on this page, Bless sins is the first to respond [52] It is obvious that bless sins is wikistalking me. On this RFA, Bless sins opposed after I voted "support" [53] Bless sins first edit to Islamophobia in months is a revert of me [54] Yahel Guhan 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hold on. Wait a minute. You mentioned three edits of mine, and I'll respond to them. In the first one, the fact is that I gave warning to a user([55]) who made personal attacks against Yahel Guhan, and Yahel calls it "stalking"? Not to mention the fact that WP:ANI is on my watchlist, perhaps I should stop defending you against uncivil editors. Also, the other edit you mention([56]), there I improved the article (no one can deny that) by making a minor edit. Admins please check it out for yourself. I came to the article since you nominated it for "good articles" and I happen to watch these articles (and review them as well). Finally , regarding this edit, it wasn't a stalk: I had edited the same article just 10 days before ([57]).Bless sins (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding other edits, Yahel can hardly accuse me of taking in interest in the placement of "Islam and antisemitism" category. If an admin reviews my edits, he/she will find that my number one contribution to wikipedia has been "Islam and antisemitism". In some case, it is worth noting that Yahel stalked me: for example Yahel's first edit here was a direct revert of my edit).Bless sins (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you made it perfectly clear why you warned the user in your comment: "As a fellow wikipedian, who would like to see you stay on wikipedia and make a positive contribution, I advise you to keep your comments in accordance with WP:NPA [58] This user was in conflict with me, sou you automaticly support him/her. Second, I highly doubt Black Hebrew Israelites is not in your watchlist. It isn't like you ever edit African American or Judaism articles, as I do (except to revert something I add that is slightly against your worldview). But when you see I nominate it for a GA, you suddenly start editing there. You really can't review that article anyway, since you are obviously bias against me. As for Black supremacy, you edited it 10 days before, because I edited it one day before that:[59], so you looked for something to start an edit war over after I started editing there. I hardly doubt you were just editing Islam and antisemitism category stuff, because you left some of the stuff other editors added alone, not objecting until months later when you finally notived it. Yahel Guhan 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. This is a mess, could both of you present your cases calmly and without sniping at each other? It'll make sorting this out a whole lot easier. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the original article that lead to this, frst of all, I am not stalking you. I am making legitimite edits. Second, I do edit islam articles(which is clear from my contribs history), as is the topic of this particular article, and I didn't revert until I read the duscussion, and took a side in the dispute. Yahel Guhan 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you appear to have removed ([60]) sourced content - content sourced to the Oxford University Press. Furthermore, you had not joined the talk page before (or even after) reverting my edits.Bless sins (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not joined yet. I was about to, then noticed you made this report, and assumed this was more important. Yahel Guhan 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining is actually beside the point. When I was blocked, I was actually discussing the issue on talk. If you really acknowledge your mistake (and I acknowledge I haven't been entirely fair in the past either), you'd self-revert, and let us both move on.Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Observation and idea. Having observed both parties and tried working with them some at Islam and antisemitism, I'm not sure this is a typical wikistalking case. They both seem knowledgeable, pretty familiar with WP policies, and earnest. But, and I hope they don't mind my saying this, I wonder if both of them are deriving more benefit from arguing rather than resolving issues. They have a pretty long history together, sorta like an odd couple. They might in some ways enjoy this, but it's not so healthy for the encyclopedia. Regardless of whether a block is applied due to stalking, another kind of sanction might be useful to shift them into a more constructive working relationship (or none at all). For instance, what if they were given 1-2 articles (such as Islam and antisemitism) in which they're quite invested, and given 1 week to demonstrate serious progress in resolving their editorial differences. Meanwhile, they would be required not to confront each other on any other article during that week. (This could be applied first come, first serve, or else do a "draft" of their various shared articles.) Maybe they'll find somebody to help facilitate their effort that week, maybe not. In any case, an uninvolved admin should decide whether they've actually made significant progress. (E.g., have they reached consensus on specific article sections, to the point where they don't need to rehash that section?) After one week, either they get another week on that article (if progress is made) or else the admin should ban one or both from that article for a substantial period of time. Yes, this may be an unusual response, but these editors have been at it for a long time, and over quite a range of articles. While it may seem tough to expect progress in a week, I'm hoping they would appreciate the difficulty posed from this situation. Alternatively, let them divvy up Wikipedia (up to 1M articles each) and take a 2 month break from each other. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins was blocked for stalking just recently so I dont feel his report of stalking could be authentic. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he mentions that above. Its part of his argument actually. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has just reverted much of my work from December and January, of converting external map service links to the more general geographical coordinates, improving existing coordinate tags, reviewing the quality of the results, and then removing the links from articles. She abused administrative and other tools by blindly reverting 220 edits, restoring all the removed links, and in many cases making the reusable coordinate information unavailable for now. Her tendentious and disruptive reversion spree was a result of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services, where she wasn't capable of thinking the situation in a wider perspective and her personal viewpoint of "any map link in all articles" wasn't supported by other participants, as opposed to clicking on the coordinates and choosing a link from the first page, though the same procedure had already been done with book sources and ISBNs. She was pointed out the Wikipedia policies against the inclusion of such links, but she decided to ignore those fundamental principles and go by her personal preferences. During the heated debate the last couple of days I had stopped all article editing related to this issue until more people voice in, but BrownHairedGirl lost her cool regardless and decided to go solo.

For background on this: My original edits were part of WP:GEO goals to "have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles" by consolidating and standardising coordinate and map link use on Wikipedia. This goal is based on Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia information should be reusable, that external links to general map services are not information about the articles' topics when there exists dozens of other similar services usable with the same geographical coordinates, and that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and it doesn't offer to readers or support any single external advertising supported map service over all the others, but readers will have to choose themselves. More details on these at Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services - summary.

What can be done with administrators who disregard Wikipedia policies and revert other editors in a tendentious manner with nothing but their personal opinion behind their actions? Arbitration is probably too drastic as the damage she has done is only temporary and the information is easily recoverable, but there must be something to discourage such admin behaviour? --Para (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has the same right to edit as any other user, but mass-reverting good-faith edits doesn't seem to me to fit the intended purpose of admin tools, and puts Para at a severe disadvantage. Can we agree to stop these high-speed admin-tool-powered reverts now, and then work something out at WP:GEO, please? -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On review: yes, Para has a point -- this is very much like the links-to-Amazon issue for books. Sure, the ISBN link system is clunkier than a simple link to Amazon, but it gives the reader more choice, and avoids any suspicion of commercial promotion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall

(cross-posted from WP:AN) Hello. This is to notify you of a formal request for recall concerning my use of admin tools, specifically, protection. I hate to stir up drama so soon after the most recent request, but I have decided to honor User talk:100%freehuman's request. You may view the process here; if the threshold for requests for me to step down is not met within 24 hours of the complaint, the process will proceed; comments are welcome on the talk page, litigants may post on the formal page, I only request notification on my talk. Thank you all. Regretfully, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has just registered today. Revert it. And, ignore it. Seriously, Wikipedia's community has enough drama. miranda 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there is a chance that this is either a user you blocked or a common troll trying to create drama, right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 100%freehuman's edits to date do not look like those of a newbie, and I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that this may well be trolling. -- The Anome (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoah here, hold the phone. How about users opposing recall? Keilana is one of our better admins, if it were up to me, she stays. This sitch looks more and more like a troll with an axe to grind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy was editing under an IP and has a problem with a protection I made. I'm calling it valid and good-faith, if I really screwed up it'd succeed, no? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With due respect (and I think you're an awesome admin!), I seriously think you may need to tighten your recall criteria. This one is largely vexatious, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, I'll look over things. I actually significantly tightened them recently. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If this can happen then the recall criteria is seriously flawed. It takes less than 10 minutes of going through your admin actions to see that this recall request is frivolous. Don't assume too much good faith. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So he created a SPA for the single purpouse of having you desysoped? that should be enough to dismiss the recall request and try to discuss drectly. I really respect your honor code but the least we need are 'suicidal' admins, in this case a single protection doesn't justify a desysoping, everybody does mistakes and this certainly wasn't one, the user was trying to push potentially libelous material into the article, [61] protecting a page if there are BLP issues is common practice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That editor appears to be posting comments everywhere. Just other people's to other pages.[62][63] To be honest, I can't make out quite what (s)he's trying to achieve here - Alison ^❤ 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are most likely the registered account of an IP that tried to insert this into the article of a Hillary Clinton associate. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the IP that I begged people for over an hour to block on two noticeboards yesterday? And then had to go on IRC to try and get done? Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw AGF. Why not just block this obvious troll account (100%freehuman)? I mean, just look at its bizarre edit history. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a permablock on 100%freehuman (talk · contribs) for trolling. I also support Keilana significantly tightening up her recall criteria to prevent every Troll, Dick and Harry from creating drama every few days. The words "editors in good standing" added somewhere to the recall criteria would do it. Or just totally get rid of the drama-magnet that is recall. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert the recall request, it's an obvious troll. The user's account should be reblocked indef. --Coredesat 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually after seeing that the user is also impersonating the one that he is asking to recall [64], I support a indef for disruptive trolling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; if all the above requests were actually sarcasm, and I failed to pick that up, then feel free to unblock. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe that was an attempt to impersonate. It was more likely just a poorly executed quote. The comment that was added with Keilana's sig was actually part of a comment left by Keilana here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I know Im new anddont no much or really near anything about everything I am doing the best I can since contributing to an article I have been wrongly blocked and band by Dreadstar and Keilana its all gone really crazy not at all how i thought adding to wikkipedia would be I dont know what iformation i should and should not put so Ill wait till im asked i guess. Thanks Kate 100%freehuman (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why recall is not a good process includes this type of action. Mercury (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you were so willing to be recalled Keilana shows that you clearly don't need to be--Jac16888 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 100%freehuman is requesting unblock. I strongly oppose unblocking- see this attempted forgery of comments. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a similar situation to what I noted above. Keilana left that comment on User talk:AndonicO. It's a poor attempt at quoting, not impersonation. --Onorem♠Dil 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that all the evidence supports that 100%freehuman is a SPA for trolling and the additional evidence collected by Nwwaew supports a permanent block. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Clarify that even if it a poor attempt at quoting it still looks like trolling. Jeepday (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I could do a little clarifying myself. I'm not supporting an unblock. I just want to make sure that impersonation isn't used as the main justification for people supporting the block. --Onorem♠Dil 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Koalorka

Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has called me a racist three times today, twice before a warning[65][66], and then in response to a warning about WP:NPA, this user responded by saying "I'm well aware of that policy thank you. You should however consider toning down your racist rhetoric."[67] Yahel Guhan 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left the user a comment.[68] Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question clearly holds a racist attitude and manifests it through his/her postings, I believe racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia and has no place in the 21st century. Koalorka (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment speaks for yourself. You continue to make attacks in spite of a warning and a report against you. Yahel Guhan 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And it does about you too, not once have you denied it. Koalorka (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Koalorka has been blocked for 24-hours, having continued the attacks. El_C 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am back and my ban was almost grotesquely humorous. Turns out I was blocked by an admin with a glamorized image of a murderous socialist thug on his userpage and one that views indigenous Europeans as unevolved and illiterate, ripe for exploitation. How can someone with such racialist, cynical views even be considered for the position of admin?! Either way, I will notify and consult the broader administration staff about this incident. This type of uncontrolled and arbitrary harassment cannot be accepted. Koalorka (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling another user a "prejudiced, anti-white bigot," "Semitic persuasion...Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry," etc., is a sure way to get yourself blocked around here. Calling the blocking admin "racialist" does not inspire confidence. El_C 09:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanticizing a genocidal communist brute and professing Jewish supremacy [69] does not inspire confidence either. Especially coming from an admin..... Koalorka (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pretty serious accusations you're throwing around; I'd appreciate it if you could back them up with evidence, such as diffs. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, this has already been archived. Why did you bring it back? Are you in that much of a hurry to be blocked again? JuJube (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was moi.^[70][71] The Stormfront Talk page is poisonous enough, so I moved it here; plus, I get to save him the trip. El_C 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see... well, the last question (directed to Koalorka) still stands. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry again for the confusion.El_C 10:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which question would that be? Why was I blocked in the first place and under whose authority? Koalorka (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were you blocked? Anyone can tell that, for attempting to harass other users. Seriously, try toning down the language a little, it goes a long way... — alex.muller (talk • edits) 10:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I should have taken it to that particular users talk page, questioning his motivation, rather than slugging it out on a article talk page. The reaction was still unwarranted and would certainly espouse the belief of a leftist "cabal" running Wikipedia. That's why I found the ban humorous and grotesque. As soon as I hit the banning admin's user page BAM a huge portrait of Lenin and Che, which left me laughing for a good few minutes. Koalorka (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why in situations like this, people's own personal agendas tends to supercede common sense and good manners. The reason for the block is pretty obvious given your attitude and lack of repentance. JuJube (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps I'm missing something, but the block's expired now. If Koalorka stops the unconstructive editing they've been doing recently, and nobody else has any other major concerns, can't this section just drift into history? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 11:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't appreciate the ongoing insinuation of racism or Jewish Supremacy, which are of course false, on the part of Koalorka. Does he have a license to employ these comments which border on hate speech? El_C 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's a major concern, Alex.muller. Maybe if you too were on the receiving end of such epithets, you'd also view it as such. El_C 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These are merely my observations. It could all be coincidental but certainly does not help with impartiality. Not that I particularly care or wish to inflame the matter further. Koalorka (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are not observations, they are provocations. El_C 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User Koalor you talking Flame and Provocation, but the only one I see doing it is you. So take a Chill and stay WP:COOL Igor Berger (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very cool, thank you for the concern. But if you haven't noticed, I'm the only one that was blocked in a punitive way for challenging some controversial views. Koalorka (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So what! I've been blocked unfairly as well. Life goes on. Time to move on! Igor Berger (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not an unfair block. User was warned not call Yahel Guhan a racist, but responded to the warning by repeating the insult against her. A 24 hour block for this conduct is mild. El_C 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That of course is your opinion. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Any further observations of "anti-white bigotry," "semitic persuasion," "Jewish supremacy." etc., and you'll be blocked without warning. El_C 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"These are merely my observations... Not that I particularly care or wish to inflame the matter further." - if that's the case, I strongly suggest that you keep such "observations" to yourself. WP:NPA is clear - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Wikipedia is a collaboration, and that means we welcome users from all walks of life and with all sorts of political views. You were blocked for making a personal attack and any other administrator would have done the same; El_C's political views are irrelevant. Waggers (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. I just hope it weren't the admins political views that brought upon such a quick and severe reponse in my case. Koalorka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was far from severe considering the gravity of the offense. El_C 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Comment on content not on commentator! Igor Berger (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Too me it was considering I've never been blocked. Anyway, we're about done here. Lessons learned, no Jewish conspiracies etc, let's all get back to editing our areas of expertise. Koalorka (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That dosen't matter, you were warned and you deliberately kept going. 24 hours is a standard duration. El_C 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

24 hours is quite usual for a first block, and you were warned in advance. Given the highly insulting and inflammatory nature of your comments, you were quite lucky a) not to have been blocked immediately and without warning, and b) not to receive a longer block after ignoring that warning. Any further nasty comments or speculation about another editor's race, religion, or motivations will draw much longer blocks without further warnings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1px image DoS vandal is back

• Ffddd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages that need deleting:

• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]

This is a deliberate attempt to DoS Wikipedia through the massive use of 1 pixel images (sample. I'm still trying to find the original thread where this cropped up before, it wasn't that long ago. Thanks. MER-C 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and blocked the culprit. I don't understand the situation fully, but trust MER-C's judgement on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I get it now - I just couldn't see the images at first! It's quite sneaky it's got to be said. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mp3tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

Another one, from a couple of days ago (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359#User:Mp3tt - not the thread I'm looking for). These pages are safe, but you'll see the characteristic pattern in the history. I'll see if checkuser can refresh my memory. MER-C 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda surprised the user wasn't blocked - done now. Pages deleted, just in case people get jumped looking through page histories. Doubt we need that sort of charming individual hanging about. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account involved in edit wars and racism accusations

• Donchev (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Please take a look at this one. This is clear a SPA that accused accused me and other editors of racism. The only purpose of this account is edit warring census numbers and add wrong numbers on Romanians page. If you can't outright ban this kind of persons at least they need a slap on the wrist. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I bring source from important American journal that say that up to 2 million Roma declare Romanians and he not accept it. However he put Moldovanians as Romanian, even when Moldovanians didn't say Romanian in census. This is double standard, and can be explained only of racist to Roma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donchev (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Indefblocked. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Donchev, the article Romanians is about the Romanians, not the Roma people. Cocerning the Roma people, see this article with cenus data and estimations. If you say that some Roma from Romania declade themselves Romanians, than I can say the same thing about the Roma from Bulgaria who declare "Bulgarians", the Roma from Hungary who declare "Hungarians", the Roma from Russia who declar "Russians" , the Roma from Slovakia who declare "Slovakians"etc. Would you dare to modify those articles too? Besides, I already explaned in your talk page that some Roma from Romania also declare "Hungarians" (in Transylvania) and "Turks"(in Dobroudja). --Olahus (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

31 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents. Thank you for your help. Mercury (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

#37 still identifying as a TOR node Dureo (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:74.208.46.15 is still a TOR proxy and should remain blocked. However, the first 36 should be unblocked. — Save_Us † 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tazlk pages need clearing (just delete them if there's nothing but a {{tor}} tag). I would but I've got my own list to plough through! Neıl ☎ 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lara❤Love 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)