As I understand it, images licensed under a {{GFDL}} must identify the author to conform with the license. Around two months ago this image was uploaded here, the uploader listed it as GFDL but didn't provide the author's identity. The site it comes from does not either.

• A 2/4/2008 thread at possibly unfree images determined it could indeed possibly be unfree but since we don't know should therefore be "kept".
  
• A new thread was opened 2/29/2008 at Images and media for deletion, and still awaits resolution. Would somebody please close the discussion either:
   • keeping the image and explaining why so I don't repeat the same mistake.
  or
   • deleting it, and if I'm wrong about the copyright reason explaining why so I don't repeat the same mistake.

Anynobody 08:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope this does not need saying, but we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, all images are inherently copyright unless explicitly released by the rights owner. It would need a fair use rationale, and the onus is on those seeking to include the image, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. But it should undoubtedly be removed from Commons, as there is absolutely no credible evidence to back the assertion that it is free. Commons is not for unfree images. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• commons vapourised it some days ago. I suggest en do likewise.Geni 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#I4, or maybe WP:CSD#I3. Either way, I agree. It only seems to be proposed as a way of supporting a certain POV anyway, from what I can see. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this as sarcasm, but thank you so much, really, for saying we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, it's exactly what I've been saying to those trying to keep said image and now coming from someone uninvolved maybe they'll finally listen. Anynobody 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been saying the same thing too! Guilty until proven innocent. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as the uploading person , I did my best to show that the information was included in Persian . WP:CSD#I4:"A-Images with unknown source","B-Images with unknown copyright status", or "C-Images with no copyright tag" plus WP:CSD#I3:"for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission". The source is known: that is the official governmental website that Iranian government has made for remembrance of the war's victims. Many images of Wikipedia are from US governmental sites but the same possibility is not considered for an Iranian site. As it is not routine to delete a US governmental free picture with the claim of US governmental site being unreliable, I believed that is also true about the Iranian government. Anyway, I can understand there maybe a public mistrust against the claims of Iranian government, but still I thought that opposing to Iranian governmental image should be done by including the opposition in the article and not by deleting it as a whole.I mean there should be difference between governments and personal sources.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an example , I want to mention some of this images(some among many!): Russian State Archive (from Unknown Author),The NANJING Memorial site from this site : [1] (without caption) and so on ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [2].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, nudity <> pornography, but [3] is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks guy. -- Naerii 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination), some issues are cropping up regarding some SPAs (some registered, some IP) who are jumping into this deletion debate pretty hastily. They're all making some pretty far-fetched accusations about self-promotion, and are generally being pretty tendentious and assume hardly any good-faith on the part of those who created this article. The nom reads more like a rant than an AfD nom, but if you want a real rant, check the AfD's talk page (and I had to move it there from the AfD page). It even appears that some participants in the counterpart AfD in the Russian Wikipedia vowed to come to the English Wikipedia to delete the article here. I'm concerned that these users, particularly the one who posted the giant rant as well as the influx of one-!vote throw-away accounts, are either acting in collision (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or some other puppetry) or are at least disrupting the AfD in a way that requires administrator attention. Could anyone uninvolved in the AfD lend a hand? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The most disruptive user of the bunch, mentioned above, is continuing to re-insert his rant / personal attack spree into the AfD discussion quite tendentiously. I'm not sure why he considers it the appropriate place to stick an essay titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" but I'd appreciate a hand (particularly one with a mop in it) to help sort this out, sooner rather than later. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post for intervention here myself so glad it's been started. The AfD seems to be corrupted at this point so guidance on how to sort it all out and the related issue of cross wiki gaming seems too special for words. Benjiboi 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you will find sockpuppets, though there is definitely something suspicious going on here. I hope I am not infringing on AGF here, but there is a possibility of COI on the side of the deletionists too. They seem to use university accounts, and came only to support the deletion proposer who does not seem to have many edits outside this subject either. They may a bunch of guys working on these equations themselves, and may want to get the Wikipedia article deleted (thinking this would rid the world of the name "Myrzakulov equations") before Myrzakulov's faculty gets visited by American specialists in the field. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned through the AFD, and though it does have more participation than expected, it seems like an experienced person will be able to close it.

We are at a point where we know what to do with articles on completely unpublished theories (delete them) and articles on theories that appear in every textbook (keep them). But there is no overarching standard for articles on a theory that has been the subject of papers by a very small group of researchers. It will often be true that professional researchers in the same field haven't heard of them, for various reasons. We have to consider them on a case-by-case basis.

By the way, this is a physics article... — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the "good" version of the AfD you saw was after I cleaned it up, and before R physicist disruptively reinserted (and rereinserted, ad nauseam) his polemical "wikipedia or wackopedia" essay and the half dozen other irrelevant things that belong, if anywhere, on the AfD's talkpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to section below (WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption).

Dear ANI,

This page is a fourth attempt to post a duplication of the following deleted pages. (Please notice that in the following deletions (the last three), attempts were made to circumvent the Wiki deletion review process by posting on talk pages.) User:Cult Free World is attempting to circumvent the deletion review process again with the posting of this page.

(Previous deletions listed below):

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Chennai%29
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Sri_Ram_Chandra_Consciousness
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_of_Shahjahanpur
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Parthasarathy_Rajagopal_Chari
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sahaj_Marg_India
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr/x

The condition for re-posting an article on Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission was the availability of reliable and verfiable secondary sources.

Despite repeated requests by multiple editors here, User:Cult Free World has failed to produce any secondary sources that would justify a posting of an article.

As in earlier incarnations of this article, there are only primary sources, foreign language sources, and/or mis-represented court cases. The consensus on these now-deleted talk pages was that the sources were either unreliable, unverifiable, or completely mis-represented.

I have no objection to an article on the topic being published, but would ask that the proper procedure for deletion review be followed and that secondary sources be provided first.Renee (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Free World's claims border on the ludicrous and are not wiki-worthy material at all. What's more, this user doesn't seem to be getting the message from earlier admins on what constitutes wiki standards for any articles on this site. The only way this repeated mis-use of Wiki is going to stop here is for User:Cult Free World to be banned and the topics of Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission protected. This is ridiculous and a complete waste of everyone's time for this user to keep regurgitating the same article, the same arguments in the hope of wearing down the wiki mechanisms of checks and balances and getting past the rules eventually. Please put a stop to this abuse. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified him about this discussion. Can you please clarify with a shorter discussion what's going on? It's very confusing and frankly no one else will read long discussions like that. It looks like you are saying that he is repeating the same article all over the place. If that's it, any admin can just go through his deleted edits and see what's going on. If he's creating a userfied version to hold onto until he gets the sources, that's fine. If you want the user version deleted, go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if he has confirmed socks, file a checkuser request and just get rid of them (if that's possible). Again, this is why concise summaries are helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ricky, Thanks. Sorry about the length. Yes, this is a virtually identical repeat posting of the deleted pages below:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sahaj_Marg_India
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr

Here is where we've asked repeatedly for secondary sources with no reponse. And here is where an admin confirms to someone else that court cases won't cut it alone; secondary sources are needed.

Most of us would prefer that he provide the secondary sources first so we know that we have something real to work with. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time because we keep re-hashing exactly the same issues that caused the deletion the first three times. (And these would be needed anyone to survive a deletion review.)

Hope this answers your questions more concisely! Advice welcome. Renee (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way to go is revert all edits which violate wiki policy, and add warning from WP:WARN when appropriate. Maybe you could tag the proposed article? Sethie (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un-dent) FYI, an earlier AN/I thread on this topic is here. Enjoy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tldr, tnx SheffieldSteel, i was about to do exactly the same, there is no point in repeating same thing again and again, As i have said previously, I seriously doubt that Renee IS a paid member of the group, and her aggressive approach to hide any information about this particular group (giving warnings after warnings/ again and again taking the matter here and repeating the same thing), substantiates this doubt, When there is already a wiki page in french, what harm can an english translation of the same topic cause ? till it is not something to do with the sexual abuse cases and other court cases coming out in public domain!!! wikipedia is an encyclopedia which gives information about any concern topic, why hide... if motives are clear, i have repeated again and again, that Renee's approach is to hide information, whereas wikipedia is to give information, preventing any article from getting published when there are sufficient sources available to start a page, speaks everything about the motive. This particular thread is also (yet) another attempt by members of the group to push their agenda and either hide all information or present filtered information, is that the concept as why wikipedia was conceptualized at the first place ? I don't think so, whatever is present in french version that has sufficient sources, I will add all the reference in that temp page before publishing it. For Renee given her extreme biased view about this particular group, and given her involvement in all the previously deleted pages, clearly shows something fishy, as in case of user:jossi, which is eventually exposed. Hence i my request to Renee is to do same as what user:jossi has done, limit edits to talk page about this particular group.--talk-to-me! (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Least I miss, note this [4] Renee's first edit on the temp page, is to remove links of all the pending court cases against this group. Why remove court cases link ? that too when cases and reports are about ownership and sexual abuse in/by this spiritual group. !! This removal from the temp page clearly shows that Renee is trying to prevent these informations from getting into public domain, and in turn this indicates her involvement with this group, and this in turn explains her aggressive one point agenda to prevent information from getting into public domain. No-one is/was interpreting any court case, simply a link is present about the dispute between the various factions of this cult, why remove such sources and then claim there are no sources and bring matter here ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple case where several editors seek to abide by Wiki standards of reliability and verifiability. The article has been deleted three previous times by the Wiki community and Cult Free keeps trying to re-post it with mis-represented primary sources across a variety of pages (regular pages, talk pages, now his user space), hence, the community has stated that secondary sources are needed before this article can survive a deletion review. For example, see this.

Please provide secondary sources -- if there are none then delete this and wait until sources that meet Wiki standards appear. Renee (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased editing by Renee is evident here also[5], kindly note, i just finished translation of the page from wikipedia's french twin. [6], and then Renee changed all information and added texts and requested citation for texts added by her only [7] given such type of disruptive edits only on a temp page, gives indication of whats coming when article is actually published, hence once again i request Renee to limit edits to talk pages and allow other user's to add references in temp page, to sections written by them, onus to provide sources is with the user who writes the lines, not with anyone else. --talk-to-me! (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested admin action - warn User:Cult free world not to recreate the deleted article Sahaj Marg (by whatever name) without first making substantial changes to address the reason for its deletion (the lack of secondary sources). I think the warning needs to be loud and clear, otherwise he simply isn't going to get it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why are we starting this again. Last September we went through a lot of edits on Sahaj Marg pages. First it was a complete mess, a blog of a sort, then one wise admin came and separated the pages into two pages one for Shahjahanpur group and another for Chennai group and a lot of mess was cleared up. It began to take clean shape but again there started blogging in the discussion pages (particularly by 2 users) and at that point an AfD was launched and finally consensus was reached to delete those pages. All of these took months. While I am all for having information about Sahaj Marg posted in Wikipedia, but only the correct information and the biggest problem was it was very difficult to identify what is the correct information as it looked like users with strong contrast opinions were trying to modify the pages. On these grounds those pages were deleted, now this new User:Cult free world wants to recreate the page, solely on the ground that French version has it. I am sorry, but I am in not in favor of going through the same exercise again that we went through last sept. I read the ANI report and the admin suggests a "miscellany for deletion." I would like to pursue that as soon as possible. Duty2love (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just now translated the page, and now am in process of providing references, but the moment i attempt to add any reference complete page is changed. I would request member's of the concerned group not to edit the page, placed in my local user space for translation and providing references. I am unable to understand as why such hue and cry for something as simple as attempting to translate an already existing wikipedia page from a different language!! that too in user-space, I have just started, with step-2. What is the rush ? when wikipedia can have an article like this why not an article which was there for 2 year and then removed by the group itself with sole intention of hiding information ? I don't see any harm in writing an article which CAN be properly sourced. it will take time thats all. I am in no hurry, wherezz the problem ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from WP:AN and merged from above. Black Kite 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a history of being uncivil and disruptive in the past [8]) is persistantly disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies‎, the AFD of a controversial article he created. Fair enough he wants the article kept, but he is getting out of hand, making ridiclous long arguments/disrupting the page/Assuming bad faith and generally being uncivil to anyone who "votes" delete and calling them liars, aswell as personal attacks against Americans. It is extremely disruptive and he cannot accept the general concensus of the dicussion, see his contributions [9]. AndreNatas (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is disruptive, and I have left a note to this user regarding this. I am also watching his talk page and the AfD for further disruption and will escalate the tone of my warning to indicate a pending block for disruption if it continues. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basicaly, admin Black Kite has raised an Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies, on the basis that the disruption to the article is so bad it warrants deletion. (I believe currently the disruption is due to only one user, the notorious sock puppeteer User:Molag Bal). BK provides comparisons of Liancourt Rocks to claim this list (no Afd until now, no deletion comment ever) is on a par to this disruptive article of 18 Afds. His other concerns regard dissallowing 153 verified sources as a case for deleting the article, even though he accepts the majority are ok in his opinion. I would like some impartial admin advice and input on this issue, wrt deletion precedence, per deletion of an article for disruption/disagreement only. I would appreciate only non-invlolved admins give their time, and take heed on the regionalistic nature of the content. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, forum shopping? Tan | 39 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure when you believe an admin has incorrectly filed an Afd case? MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually just posted to Mick's talkpage to suggest that here was not the correct forum for his concerns. Basically, Mick has ownership problems with the article, and whilst there are undoubtedly problems with another user employing socks to revert, the basic problem behind the article is that its content can never be anything but original research, as outlined in my nomination. On the AfD so far, Mick has been uncivil a number of times, calling the nomination a "joke" ([10], with the edit summary "unbelievable") and myself a liar ([11], with the edit summary "lie"), together with comments of "rubbish", "outrageous", "contrived" and "ridiculous". His latest addition accuses an editor of commenting on the AfD when he doesn't know anything about the subject ([12]). This forum shopping doesn't help him at all, and I have removed the link to here from the AfD. I suggest an uninvolved admin closes this as resolved. Black Kite 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent)I will freely and fairly admit to the only ownership issues I have ( verifiable by the history), that of creating this list article out of the main artice (stupidly now it seems, to protect it from vandalism), and converting the list to a sortable table to actualy help the ignorant to decide the argument for themselves, i.e. not for wp to decide it for them, and reverting obvious sock puppets. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to be judged on any standards here, my point is, you have raised a deletion based on comparison with completely non comparable cases. You have completely over stated this case, to get perfectly verifiable information deleted. I will happily concede if an admin shows a case for deletion that even remotely resembles the articles that have been deleted for unreconsilable disruption before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, I raised the nomination based on completely different concerns. The Liancourt Rocks issue only came up when you said to me "this is never a reason for deletion, and if it has been, I would ask you to provide an example of such a case where it was." - so I provided examples. Black Kite 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, I am asking the admins if this nomination even comes close to any article previously deleted because it is a lost cause. It is my assertion this article is no more divisive than any other controversial article on WP, hence the tags I placed a while ago. Following your digging in at Afd nom, I am asking the community of admins, if this low level article dispute is actually worthy of deletion, and if so, then where next for Afd? MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for you to take off the Spider-Man suit and come down form the Reichstag. Your comments are well out of line, and you are taking this way too personally. If you can't bring yourself to allow the debate to proceed in an orderly manner, you will probably have to suffer the indignity of being blocked until it is over. Please don't make me do that. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I don't think it is anywhere near a spider violation to reasonably ask neutral admins if a precedent being claimed at an Afd by a deleting admin is a true precedent or not. I would like to point out, the disruption title is meant to reflect the subject, i.e. a request for an assessment as to whether the article under Afd comes close to the level of disruption of any of the articles held up as examples in the Afd of sucessfully deleted articles due to disruption. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't see a whole lot that's reasonable about your behavior. Tan | 39 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Delete the whole thing, because that is obviously what you think the standard is, the original editor, not the content or the reasons for deltion. Ignore the original request, it is obviously of no concequence. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd !vote for delete even if you were the model of civility, able to be reasoned with, and respected Wikipedia processes. As you are uncivil, unreasonable and disrespectful, you just manage to sink your own ship even faster. The AfD is a massive landslide on the delete side, so much that WP:SNOW is knocking at the door. Tan | 39 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- is doing nothing but disrupting the dicussion. He is questioning every delete, being extremely uncivil towards it, and generally assuming bad faith towards everyone who has a different POV to him, this has gone on all day, plus the user has been blocked for incivility and disruption in the past. AndreNatas (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this edit [13] from the AfD. I've now been accused by McNee of posting a "joke" and "pointed" AfD, of being a liar, of not knowing what I'm talking about, and now of doing the job (proxying, effectively) for a banned user. If I wasn't involved myself I would've blocked him for disruption, NPA and CIVIL long ago. Black Kite 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him for 72 hours for repeated disruption and incivility. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block him for incivility, sure, but "disruption"? The only disruption that should matter is the one related to the civility issues. His actions outside of that should not be seen as "disruption", and that certainly shouldn't be a reason to block him. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser shows that MickMacNee is on the same ISP as another significant editor to List of Geordies, Gregs the baker (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker. They're probably different people, but I would not be surprised to discover that they know each other. (At one point Gregs complains on MickMacNee's talk page about Molag bal, which seems like an unusual act for an account with only 116 edits.) I think there is something funny going on here. Thatcher 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined his unblock request because I think it is a valid block. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible that MickMacNee and Gregs the baker know each other in real life - maybe sharing the same ISP in a dorm or a company. Greggs the baker - with three g's - is a well-known UK chain; see http://www.greggs.co.uk/ . The account name might therefore raise some issues with Wikipedia:Username policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, but he continued his incivility at his talk page and that has been protected as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't agree with his rationales, but Mick's concerns here are honest, and a lot of you are having problems distinguishing between "disruptive" and "disagreeing". -- Ned Scott 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that Don Murphy is soliciting vandalism of his article (for what purpose, I have no idea - it seems self-defeating to me): "Insert nonsense in it- Don Murphy is secretly the king of the rat people etc. If you get banned another stooge will take up the charge." Obviously vandalism of any sort, pro- or anti-Murphy, is a bad idea. The article is semi-protected, but I've just blocked what appears to have been a sleeper SPA that's been (re)activated to vandalise the article (JesterJJZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I expect other sleeper SPAs will emerge. Could a checkuser please do a check on them as they appear, starting with JesterJJZ? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already took care of that first one, which turns out to have a prior block on the IP, too. Dmcdevit·t 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are clearly getting really weird when it becomes no longer possible to tell with any certainty which of that article's vandals are doing it out of pro- or anti-Murphy motivations. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's weird, but it doesn't make any difference to us. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His tactic seems clear to me, encourage the article to be vandalized then claim it should be deleted because it is vandalized. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's either that, or just pure spite. But, as I say, it makes no difference. We'll take appropriate action to clean up and prevent vandalism as we always do. Vandalism isn't going to change consensus on deletion, so if that is his plan, he's wasting his (and our) time. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wants it permanently semi-protected. He will achieve his objective. The only question is how much hand-wringing admins are gonna do before they permanently semi-protect it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already semi-protected. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was semi-protected as soon as it was undeleted - a necessary step considering the level of controversy. I don't see it being unprotected any time soon, if at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far we've had three SPAs, all registered on the same day (19 November 2007) within a few hours of each other:

• JesterJJZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SAJse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Albert Qaeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I should note that SAJse was initially blocked then unblocked, but I've reblocked him after reviewing the logs and finding that all three SPAs were created on the same day. It seems highly likely that all three SPAs were created by the same user. A checkuser run would be appreciated to see if the underlying IPs have registered any more accounts. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is one of the eleventy-three dozen things I've been ignored about on the mailing list, but I'm really beginning to think we should have a level of semi-protection that isn't so easy to circumvent by booking four days in advance just like it says on the tin. — CharlotteWebb 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standard should be 1000 non-deletion edits to article space before being allowed to edit a semi-protected page. Then anyone who wishes to disrupt a semi-protected page is forced to show their hand as a worthless editor on other articles or else actually help build the encyclopedia. The rule must be that the cost of playing the game is to help build the encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well get rid of semi-protection and just fully protect everything if you're going to require 1000 mainspace edits - you'll be pretty much ready to go through RfA by time you're auto-confirmed. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually passing is vastly different story. — CharlotteWebb 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I propose a simpler alternative? Create a new level of protection as an half-way step between semi- and full - call it demi-protection - which would restrict editing access along the lines of what WAS suggests. That way you would have three levels of protection:

• Semi-protection - four-day waiting period, for use in dealing with trivial intermittent episodes of vandalism (e.g. articles that routinely get hit by schoolkids);
• Demi-protection - editing restricted to established editors, for use in dealing with serious ongoing episodes of vandalism by persistent vandals (such as this case);
• Full protection - editing restricted to admins, to deal with full-scale edit wars.

Going a step further, this would give us another option for dealing with articles that experience a high level of vandalism, edit warring and POV-pushing by newbies, particularly BLPs of contentious people or issues. Semi-protection is arguably too low a bar for dealing with really controversial subjects, where (as Charlotte points out) all a would-be vandal needs to do is wait four days. I would think the implementation of this would be fairly easy (hopefully). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we need another access level, just an "auto-confirmed" threshold that requires non-trivial effort on the user's part, and isn't widely advertised. Rather than simple formulas like "at least X days" or "at least Y edits" we could try "at least X calendar days (UTC) on which the user made Y or more edits". So-called "sleepers" would earn no credit, and a single-day editing binge would earn very little. Now the final and most controversial step is not to make the value or significance of X and Y widely known, and even throw in a bit of randomness to ensure that one shoe does not every sock, or foot, or whatever. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes. Today I even feel like one. — CharlotteWebb 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Any idea if it's (easily) feasible? Meanwhile, upping the threshold on the number of edits (currently 0) and days (which you all know) before an accounts gets autoconfirmed might be a good start. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathtaker, indefinitely blocked last November for edit-warring and for sock puppetry, is using an IP range - based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range (87.122.0.0 - 87.122.255.255) registered to Versatel Deutschland - to continue his edit-warring on articles relating to the Goth subculture and to vandalize the user and talk pages of any and all editors who take issue with his activities. Several of the IPs have been blocked for periods of 48 hours to one month. Clearly, this has not been enough, because the vandalism has continued. An IP range block would seem to be in order. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively blocked the range for 24 hours. Looking only at anonymous contributions it does not seem like there are many other people using the range. I'd like input from a checkuser about possible collateral damage before doing any longer blocks. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning your examination of the evidence, Mr.Z, but my examination of the IPs found no other users but Breathtaker. Have you found anything that directly contradicts that? I certainly do not want to see collateral damage from a block, or innocent anons blocked needlessly, but this does not seem likely judging by the evidence I have seen. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh... should have done so earlier, but posting this will help. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sticking to softblock/ACB, I don't foresee any collateral damage from a rangeblock. That range has been producing almost entirely vandalism and edit warring for the last two weeks, from at least the anonymous users [14]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have recently been a handful of good edits to unrelated topics. See [15], [16], and [17]. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was just a registered user who didn't log in. I actually have a fair idea who it was, but I won't type that in anywhere...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really matter, the reason a checkuser could help is because they can see how many accounts are on that range. A lot of active accounts means a high likelihood that other people would want to register an account and would be blocked from doing so. They could still request an account, but inconveniencing many people due to 1 annoying person is less than ideal. Mr.Z-man 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do checkusers even have the ability to scan an entire range? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I recently semiprotected Neoclassical (Dark Wave) per a request at WP:RPP by User:MBK004 and User:Dr who1975, who argued that it was being attacked by Breathtaker socks, after expiry of the previous week-long 87.122 range block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My actions may be taken out of context. I did not request protection of the page, I actually declined it because there was not overwhelming (to my view regarding the protection policy) amounts of current vandalism to warrant page protection. I do not remember who requested the page protection, and am uninvolved in this matter except for declining the RFPP request to protect. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with this guy for about 6months now. The vandalism is persistent. He's on line right now--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• HELP he's being insulting again--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not going to quit... the one week block on the 87.122 node did not work... I suggest a one month block.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now he's jumped to 87.122.9.127... this will not end without intervention.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the original IP for incivility, but it looks like a rangeblock may be needed after all. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter... he;s jumped to 87.122.6.215.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now he's hitting other pages under 87.122.1.177.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 87.122.4.101--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

It's clear that this is not going to go away and I have soft blocked 87.122.0.0/16 for a week. If any other admin would like to check this, that's fine. It seems from above that collateral damage would be minimal but I am wary of cutting off 65K users without a second pair of eyes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I have also delt with this /16 IP range as well. If you see All the sockpuppets of breathtaker, you'll notice that virtually all the IP's are in the 87.122.*.* range. To be honest, I endorse a rangeblock since it seems no one else but him is using this range. Momusufan (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is an earlier account of Editor5435's
• Fractal compression‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor5435 started editing 18 Feb and is a WP:SPA editing articles related to fractal compression. He's shown a persistent inability to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK in general. He's recently been reverting nearly all attempts to address problems in Fractal compression, having reverted eight such edits in the past 24 hours [18]. See also [[19]]. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz' persistent vandalism is destroying the article on fractal compression even while an active discussion is taking place of how to improve it. Many hours of hard work has already gone into improvements. It is quite evident Ronz lacks the necessary understanding of fractal compression to make valuable contribution and in fact, his tampering is only spoiling the integrity and usefulness of the article.--Editor5435 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Ronz is simply tagging what should be tagged (e.g. unsourced information) and removing what should be removed (e.g. linkspam). I wouldn't call that "destroying". --clpo13_(talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, from looking at Talk:Fractal compression, you have been extremely uncivil and possess apparently no assumption of good faith. Regardless of the merits of yours or other editors edits, you are expected to act in at least a remotely respectful manner. Continuing to accuse Ronz of vandalism and butchering every time he raises an issue is only going to get you blocked, so I'd suggest you find a polite way to disagree with him, and perhaps take a look at dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ban Editor5435 again, ideally for longer than last time. He is an unrepentant and repeat violator of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV,WP:NPA, and WP:V. Spot (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot, you should be reminded of your excessive NPOV and COI violations involving your own article Scott Draves and your shameless self promotion in the article about the English word Spot.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated Scott Draves for deletion. The result was to keep the page, and when it was all over another editor concluded: "There's absolutely nothing here that could be construed as POV and notability is established by WP:RSes, of which there are several. Notability is established and WP:NPOV is being adhered to." After a WP:THIRD was brought into adjudicate your repeated reverts of Ronz's edits, they concluded "Editor5435: you're now the only one in opposition". Spot (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair "you're now the only one in opposition" wasn't so much a conclusion as it was a summation. Even after I said that, I continued to talk to Editor5435 to change his mind but maybe I shouldn't have bothered. It seems that Editor5435 is violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by rehashing the same arguments about User:Spot and Scott Draves despite the community's disagreement. I also notice that, whenever challenged on his civility, Editor5435 makes a tu quoque red herring about his belief in Spot's COI and NPOV problems. Problems that he doesn't feel worthy of reporting and that have been addressed already anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}

You are right, alas it was not the conclusion of the thread, just a turning point. Note that I am not proposing banning Editor5435 for his behavior on Spot and Scott Draves, I was just responding to his attack here. My real beef is his behavior on Fractal Compression and it's talk page where he has a larger range of ad hominems and much more persistent violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (thanks for the pointer, I'll use it). Spot (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported Wikipedia:Third opinion, one article WebCT has already been locked once. Spellmanloves67 has also engaged in constant personal and hostile attacks regarding an apparent obsession about an lawsuit filed against Capella University and is continually posting irrelevant information about it on other Wikipedia artices (i.e., WebCT and University of California, Irvine). Sxbrown (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post some specific diffs so that we can see what the specific problem is? It is hard to weed through someone's whole contribs history trying to find something... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He called you a dick; once, as far as I can tell. I'm not going to provide diffs. You should learn about dispute resolution, if you haven't already. And for what it's worth, I sort of agree with you, anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Other Wikipedia editors have now stepped in. Here are some examples of Spellmanloves67 's previous warnings

March 21, 2008 Warning [[20]]

Concerning Edits[[21]]

March 16, 2008 Warning[[22]]

December 24, 2007 Warning[[23]]

Hopefully, things will settle down.Sxbrown (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

For the last few days a number of IPs have been having fun vandalising Villa Park High School, specifically changing the relative demographics to improbable values. I reverted one again an hour or two ago, and now noticed this new user has been even more creative than usual. Please check out his contributions and particularly the comment on his first contribution. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked, vandalism-only account. If this keeps up, please report at WP:AIV or WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• 24.230.86.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This person is continuously vandalizing the article for Edina, Minnesota Dennis Fernkes (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked already. For future reference, reporting simple vandalism at WP:AIV will get faster results. Sandstein (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect 121.90.255.23 (talk · contribs) is being used by Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) to evade his own block and UP protection in order to place yet another unblock request on his own page (diff). The other unblock requests by this IP immediately after this detailed one appear to be random and with no reason, which might be an attempt to cover his tracks? I suggest the IP blocked, and perhaps even additional sanction against User:Chuck Marean. (I've been involved, so don't want to take any action myself). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that based on the IP's contributions this looks like Chuck Marean evading his block. However, notice this vandalism to my user page yesterday, also from a Vodafone New Zealand IP address which was followed by this to Bongwarrior's user page. This was then followed by yet another Vodafone NZ IP with this vandalism and this. Given that there is reason to believe that Chuck Marean edits from the US, not New Zealand, I wonder if 121.90.255.23 (talk · contribs) is in fact a different blocked vandal, probably Joe5545 (talk · contribs) who was responsible for this vandalism to my talk page, also yesterday? I did mention to CambridgeBayWeather that I thought the Vodafone NZ IP might be Chuck Marean, here, so I wonder if Joe5545 is just trying to sew a little mayhem? Joe5545's contributions don't fit the Chuck Marean pattern and it appears he simply copied Chuck Marean's last unblock request and placed it on Marean's user page. Gwernol 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll remove the warning I left at Chuck's page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another Vodafone NZ IP with the same pattern of vandalism: User talk:121.90.92.36 (talk · contribs). Already blocked. Gwernol 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the whole 121.90.*.* range? The list of IP addresses sure does look it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an abuse report to Vodafone earlier. The email given on the whois is incorrect. Should anyone else wish to report it the correct email is nik dot kitson at vodafone dot com. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to Whois, this is a shared range (121.90.0.0/16), a bunch of them were blocked last night as well. Momusufan (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked HydeDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a disruptive SPA and likely sockpuppet, based on recent edits. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very likely sockpuppet judging by his editing behavior. Seems like a good block to me.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this one. But then again, Guy is a solid sysop, and I probably give too many chances anyway. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help educate me? I don't see SPA; I don't see disruptive; I don't see sockpuppet; and I don't see any warnings on the user talk page. (I do see that the user removed a reference that he thought did not verify the statement, he self-reverted because he removed too much, then he removed the reference without removing the second /ref.) I'm always willing to admit I am wrong, but when I am wrong I like to learn from my mistakes so I hope someone will help me see the evidence. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there was a need to block the account at this point. The account's earlier comments in the DRV were helpful. However, it appears that almost all of its edits are pushing Murphy's POV, whitewashing Murphy related material, etc. Given edits like this one I don't think we're missing all that much without it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not benefit from people who come here with only one goal and one POV. There is a real abundance of sleeper accounts waking up to mess with the Murphy article(apparently some by Don's request), and this seems to be one. Good eye. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think he's done anything block worthy either. The sleeper accounts that Until speaks of are meant to be vandalising Wikipedia; all I see this account doing is cleaning stuff up. -- Naerii 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some forms of trickery are far more subtle than simple vandalism. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but can you explain what you mean with references to this particular user's actions? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the last edits to the Murphy article. Frankly, what we really need least of all right now, is single purpose accounts editing the Murphy article. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Single-purpose accounts, and that article was less contentious than this one. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, the involvement at Don Murphy may have influenced my evaluation in this case, so maybe I would have been more lenient on this editor with these edits in another context. As Guy notes, though - there is already plenty of drama here to go around, we need no more. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the last edits. I don't see the disruption. Yesterday he had one minor edit of no significance. Today he made one small edit (three consecutive edits with the second a self-revert and the third doing what he meant to do the first time) which removed a reference that he thought did not match the text. AGF it was a reasonable edit in line with policy. Another editor misconstrued the edit and left a note on his talk page, but later apologized for an incorrect warning.

Looking at the contribution history, I also don't see the SPA. And I don't see the evidence of sockpuppetry.

If I'm not seeing something that I should be able to see, I'd appreciate any pointers so that I can learn to see better. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support an unblock. We can explain why the edits were wrong. And then go from there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Me too. I don't see blockable offenses at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is possible that this is not what it appears to be. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock too. There is no evidence of bad faith in his edits and it's not a SPA. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: BonnetonTop (talk · contribs) is on the same IP, although it is registered to a large company and has been alleged to be shared. Thatcher 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering the topic overlap, this being the same IP seems a little indicative of our concerns about it being a SPA sock being founded. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I changed my mind in the light of this new evidence. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this bit makes me uneasy, these BLPs are sensitive enough. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Guy. This is probably as good a reason as any to change the software so that accounts that haven't edited for some time have to wait a few days before editing semi-protected articles. Blueboy96 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happier if such blocks were done based on (or in addition to) checkuser evidence, instead of solely on "gut feelings". Guy was right this time round, but he is not always right. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has an admitted conflict-of-interest on the page hydrino theory. He was previously banned from editing the article on Randell Mills, which has since been merged into the page. In a discussion at WP:COIN, User:Mastcell limited Stolper to 1RR on hydrino theory. Technically, this was 1RR per 24 h, and Stolper hasn't violated it, but he certainly hasn't respected the spirit of the ban, and continues to push his POV, fringe ideas, and pseudoscience onto the page.

Stolper seems to be checking the hydrino theory article every couple of days. He then finds that another editor (frequently me, because I've been watching the page) has removed his version in favor of a version that respects NPOV, FRINGE, and the scientific consensus. He removes this version, and replaces it with a copy of his favored version, which includes, among other things, a flat statement that quantum mechanics is wrong.

Given Stolper's unwillingness to cooperate, and his lack of any substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm afraid the only way to resolve this will be a complete block. Could one of the Admins please take a look at the situation? Michaelbusch (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Starfire777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting creationist comments in a few scientific articles, then posting creationist rants on various user pages (now reverted), after coming off a 1 day block. I blocked him for another 2 days, and now he responds with this rant on his talk page. Do you think an indefinite block would be in order? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The user clearly isn't ever going to be able to edit in a collaborative manner, so an indef would be reasonable (quite apart from the egregious violations of NPA and CIVIL). Black Kite 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm one of the primary targets of his attacks, so I might be a bit biased but considering he says at one point that "neither your nor Wikipedia's rules superceded God's" I think he has made it pretty clear that he isn't interested in abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Support indef. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes. Support indef. Hopeless. Am I going to hell now? (he said as a conservative American Christian and admin) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we can always afford another religious extremist sockpuppeter. *A huge lightning bolt crosses the sky and smites Keeper* - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. Coldmachine^Talk 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. The vandalizing of User pages with long angry rants is unacceptable. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This person appears to be only interested in inserting his POV into Wikipedia, and not in abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and probably a bunch more besides. Aleta ^Sing 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef agree with Aunt Entropy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I increased to indefinite referencing this discussion. Not at all controversial, this one is not here to help build an encyclopaedia I think. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What a lovely person, and such well-written comments. I propose we offer the editor some nice cookies and milk and maybe he/she will cool down and become a useful and valuable editor. Support indef-block. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow... yeah, we don't need that around. Endorse the indef block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef, RBI. caknuck _° has a nasty slice in his golf swing 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. GlassCobra 06:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist is continually inserting the {{editprotected}} macro to request a change which clearly is controversial and clearly does not have consensus. I have tried to explain this to him. Moreschi has tried to explain this to him. I give up.Kww (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an uninvolved administrator thinks that this edit is truly "controverisal" and lacks "consensus" then they are free to turn it down. I don't think it is the place for another editor at the article to place nowiki tags around the request. I don't know why Kww has suddenly seemed to flip-out like this. It's really weird to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm what sillyness. ScienceApologist is right in that there is no reason to delete the template from the talk page, simply voice your concerns. Kww is right in that an edit is uncontroversial only if all parties ageee, and they dont. Solution? Leave the template on the talk page, voice any objections there let admins ignore the request. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not silliness at all. If the macro sits on the talk page ignored, how does the next edit request get handled? There's no reason to believe that the page will ever be unprotected, so this is the only way that changes happen.Kww (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it sit for a while. Why the urgency? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need urgency to motivate them to prevent things that slow them down. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are already beginning to discuss the next change, and trying to gain consensus as to what it will be. When it's ready, we'll signal it with another editprotected request. It won't work if people that scan for requests get used to seeing bogus requests permanently flagged for an article. How many times in a row would you click before you decided to stop looking? Once that happens to enough admins, the edits stop. Using editprotected is the only process we've found that seems to work for that article, so it's important that it not be abused.Kww (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined this editprotected request. When I handle editprotected requests, I apply different standards to fully protected templates vs. articles that are protected due to dispute. If a change to a template is uncontroversial or has clear consensus, then I'll make it. But for disputed articles (not protected due to vandalism), the protection is intended to stop editing until the disputes are resolved. So for those articles, I don't feel consensus is a generally adequate standard for making a change; if there really is consensus, the article can be unprotected. I have declined many editprotected requests using this reasoning.

I noticed that an "article probation" has been proposed on the talk page. I think that may be a reasonable solution, if it allows unprotection of the article while still preventing edit warring over the dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. More article probation. Oh brother...I am not convinced article probation is such a great option.--Filll (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. There aren't a lot of great options if a group of editors on a page isn't able to resolve their disputes using the ordinary DR system. Anyway, I haven't implemented any article probation there, I was just pointing out it was proposed, and I would support it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a much worse solution than article probation. We have actually started to make some progress using the editprotected macro on a protected article. Great progress? No. Would I recommend it to everyone? No. Better than any alternative than anyone has proposed? Pretty much. I still prefer deleting the article and salting the namespace, but I can't seem to get consensus on that.Kww (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you don't like it (as one of the participants on the page)? The editprotected system isn't designed for this sort of thing, and it puts admins who are asked to respond to the requests in an unenviable position. Just an ordinary 1RR would be enough to resolve the concerns about "new" editors who ignore consensus while permitting editors who are working in good faith to make uncontroversial changs without admin interference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had something that worked on this article in a backhanded kind of way that editros were able to deal with, after months of discussion. Unconventional? Probably. However it was working. Any chance of backtracking and going with that system no matter how unusual. Of course, all editors would have to compromise and collaborate as was happening before this dispute.(olive (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To Carl: Two reasons: one is the systemic flaw in the "xRR" definition, and, more importantly, the rancor involved in probation, which feed off of one another.

The systemic problem is the definition:A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. Basically, any edit which can be shown to take the article from where it is now to closer to a version it has been in the past. For an article like this one, that means "any edit". If I wanted to file a 3RR report against someone, all they have to do is edit the page 4 times in a day. I'd be able to find a version in the past that they reverted to "in part" for each edit. At 3RR, the wikilawyering gets to be obvious, and request gets bounced. At 1RR, I can probably find one that will hold. If you think I'm imagining things, look at this discussion, where Dreatdstar threatened ScienceApologist for a revert for matching a sentence in a version of the article that was 5 months old. The rancor level means that people want to do this kind of thing. The amount of time wasted by admins dealing with bogus requests on the Homeopathy articles has been insane. The same applies to the "civility" restriction on ScienceApologist, which gets stretched beyond all reasonable limits. Problem is, all of these are mixed with real violations, so admins actually have to investigate each one.

All I'm asking is that if we get agreement on a change, put in an editprotected with a pointer to the change, that some admin somewhere be willing to do it, or provide a reason that they believe consensus hadn't been truly reached. I also need admins to take abuse of the macro seriously ... if someone makes a request that obviously had no consensus, they need to take some kind of action. If you need me to find a couple of admins that are willing to take responsibility for the article, I'll try that. This is really a last-ditch before the article ends up in Arbcom. Not many good alternatives exist. Moreschi suggested protecting the talk page as well as the article, and I've suggested deleting and salting. Neither seem to be realistic.Kww (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked by fut perf --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notorious sockpuppeteer and troll from IP address 217.24.240.11, a.k.a PIRRO BURRI, a.k.a Burra, a.k.a. Dodona is back with a vengeance and threatens to "always be back" [[24]]. He has been editing from this IP since January of 08 and it STILL isn't indef blocked, which it really ought to be. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fut perf got him: [25] Thanks for the update, and if he comes back again, let us know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy activist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has only done vandalism to International Republican Institute. User has not contibuted to anything else and have ignored all warnings. Please see user's contributions and also history of the article. The article was under attack from an announimose with an IP owned by International Republican Institute. Then the article was blocked from anon edit. THis username was created right after that and is used only to continue the vandalism made before as anon. I recommen a long time block of the user as looking to its past vandalism history, the user comes back every couple of weeks to perform the same vandalism. So a temp block of for example 2 weeks would have no effect on its vandalism. Farmanesh (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user. In the future, please use WP:AIV for vandalism reports - they will be handled much more quickly there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Farmanesh originally did post at AIV, and an admin moved the report here. Aleta ^Sing 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nope it was Farmanesh who moved it it. Aleta ^Sing 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did move it here from my original post in AIV as admins adviced me to do so, they told me as this matter is a persistent one it should come here, so what is the correct way? Farmanesh (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my recommendation, as it looked to be more than simple vandalism. As noted above, there was vandalism from an IP as well, which would seem to move the case from AIV to Long term Abuse, this board, or elsewhere. Glad to see it was resolved. It's possible that I overthought it, but either way - the problem was handled. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An "anonymous" IP user Special:Contributions/217.87.77.88 has started making personal attacks [26] [27] on WT:MOSNUM and has also started to write on User_talk:Greg_L. This IP block has been used before for attacks, please see the bottom of User:Fnagaton/SarenneSockPuppetReport for the most up to date entries. The last time I had to get my talk page semi-protected because the anonymous user was repeatedly vandalising. Because the IP user is known to hop IPs when one is blocked I'm asking for a temporary semi-protect of the MOSNUM talk and project page. Fnagaton 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the identity, its from the same dialup service used last time to evade blocks and vandalize pages. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Gni has been documented to have edited the CAMERA article, and related articles from a computer in the CAMERA offices. See the WP:COIN report here On a WP:ANI complaint that was filed here, Gni was advised to avoid to "avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one," and it was noted "his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing." Following a a 3RR block and an additional block for Gni's use of an IP registered to CAMERA to dodge a block, Gni returned to the CAMERA article and related articles to continue to press the CAMERA POV. He is currently pushing contentious, pro-CAMERA edits on the CAMERA article (poorly sourced "praise" of the organization) as well as deleting without explanation sourced criticism of the organization. See this edit where Gni attempts to sneak a additional removal of criticism under the guise of reverting back his version.

I do not wish to provoked into edit warring with an editor with a clear and serious WP:COIN issue. although there is an open case on WP:COIN, Gni's behavior is warranting this WP:ANI posting as well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the content issues, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the number of forums in which this complaint is currently open. That said, when an employee of an organization is editing aggressively and racking up 3RR and sockpuppetry blocks for promoting said organization, it's a COI problem. I would suggest that Gni (talk · contribs) be warned of the terms of the Palestine-Israeli articles Arbitration case, which was intended to empower the community to help deal with this sort of thing, and placed on 1RR with free access to the talk page to advance their case and try to achieve consensus without edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds eminently reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. And yes, it has COI in spades. You might also want to point out to the editor that it's also the kind of thing which can attract bad media publicity to his apparent employers (recall the controversial corporate edits unearthed by Wikiscanner). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's shown up yet to accuse me of being biased, I'll leave this open a bit longer before acting. :) MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)This is NOT a new issue. Gni has been warned repeatedly of this, and should be given NO MORE leeway on this issue. See:

• Where he is blocked for 3RR on the article in question, and several different users and admins try to counsel him, rather gently, on how to properly resolve disputes
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30]
  • [31]
  • [32]
• Where he has tried to dodge the above block by editing anonymously:
  • [33]
• Where he was warned about mischaractizing the edits of others as harrassing or vandalising:
  • [34]

That softer measures have been tried, and apparently failed, shows me that we need to get more stringent on this one. Gni knows that what he is doing is tendentious and against consensus, and yet he persists in doing so beyond the patience of the community. He's been the subject of half-a-dozen ANI threads over the past month or so as well. We need to move on sanctions, perhaps a topic ban, on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Merlet (talk · contribs). See this. There is a related discussion at WP:BLPN#Merle Terlesky picture. Nesodak (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the user for making legal threats and made sure the user had the OTRS contact to pursue their image copyright concerns. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright if the image isn't in doubt. Terlesky just objects to any picture of him appearing on Wikipedia, regardless of who holds the copyright. Anyway, the image was removed by an OTRS volunteer at virtually the same time as you blocked him. The "legal situation" (the term is used loosely) being resolved, would an unblock now be appropriate? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user retracts the threats I suppose. But this has not happened to my knowledge. The user has been in contact with OTRS, but he has not retracted his threat there either. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvirgos (talk · contribs) is a likely COI editor who has repeatedly made inappropriate edits. Nuvirgos only edits have been to the article of the group Nu Virgos and the creation of article about the group's albums. Nuvirgos and their ip address 86.57.5.153 (talk · contribs), have removed to tags from Nu Virgos without addressing the issues [35][36] [37][38] [39][40]. Nuvirgos uploaded several copyrighted images (Image:Nuvirgos fhm.jpg,Image:Nuvirgos_idontwantamna.jpg, Image:Nuvirgos 2007.jpg, and Image:Nuvirgos gold.jpg), a bot tagged them as missing fair use rationales and Nuvirgos removed the tags without addressing the issues. I retagged the images and Nuvirgos removed the tags again. Nuvirgos most recent edits have been worse. In this edit Nuvirgos removed a section on the former members of the group without an explanation, and in this series of edits [41] [42] [43] they removed the article's only reference, several fact tags, a reflist, and a refimprove tag. Nuvirgos has received a warning about COI and multiple warnings about their inappropriate editing. Some sort of block seems to be in order. BlueAzure (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username etc is inappropriate if he's using his account just for promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention report here, if it's truly as you say, he's here to represent a business and should go. "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. ". There's also a COI noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard special, random, Merkinsmum 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A username block does not restrict someone from using another name, so that would not have any effect. I am familiar with COI noticeboard, the COI is secondary to general problem with their editing. BlueAzure (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/STORMTRACKER94 -it's mistakenly in upper case, plus this is at least the 2nd go for User:Stormtracker94 . I can't do it right and get it to move:) Unless someone's already done it? Help appreciated.:)special, random, Merkinsmum 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 4. I'll check the RfA page for correct transclusion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks fine, you need to transclude once User:Stormtracker94 has accepted the nom. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert but I'll have a go, I just came across this in Recent Changes. Thanks for sorting it.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator should do it, I'll drop a note in his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

• Kristy22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On The world of Wikipedia; actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account. Editor is trolling. See any edit for example, particularly user pages. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given him/her a final warning just for the fun of it. It won't be long now. ... discospinster _talk 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could just be another over-excited young user who is eager to help... either that or a troll. I'd like to AGF on this one, though. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I don't get the impression that this is just some giddy fangurl. You would think that someone with such good grammar would be able to grasp the concepts of "inappropriate article" and "vandalism" once they've been explained to her. My guess? Bored sociology major. ... discospinster _talk 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I received one of her Talk Page doozies a few days ago. I peg her as a misguided kid . I AGF on this one too. But it is getting a little long on the tooth. -- Alexf⁴² 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) Moving this to WP:AN/I to allow for more discussion/monitoring. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I tend to be shorter on good faith than many, I don't think it has a bearing on this case. Disturbed tween or deliberate troll, the result is the same. If there was a single, useful, non-disruptive edit it might be a harder call, but there isn't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed this user's contribution I came to the same conclusion that other users did, she is trolling and violating several other policies ( WP:OWN and WP:NPA to name two), then there is also this edit wich may be a puppeter confession, evidently not a good sign. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And can you believe she would do something like This? Thats just wrong and really doesn't make her look good. Momusufan (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see absolutely no constructive edits from her at all, all she's done is make excuses and making a fool of herself. I don't think it matters how old you are, you can't do that. Momusufan (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it is trolling at this point. Also, the deleted article on the world of wikipedia made it appear as though they had significant previous editing experience. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just now blocked two of his socks, User:Amangadkeet and User:Byederek. Thought people should know. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request the blocking of User:Littlebutterfly on all Tibetan related articles. this user has consistently shown an editing history of POV pushing in tebetan articles, this user also exclusively edits Tibetan articles only. other editors are aslo noticing a trend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibet#Littlebutterfly

"Alexwoods, my motivation is to make this article as encyclopedic as possible. I will only use material from creditable sources. Some editors here are editing with an anti-Chinese government attitude which makes this a soapbox. My position is not different from that of Dalai Lama’s regarding the sovereignty of Tibet. He said Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence. I would argue for the human rights of the Tibetans but not Tibet independence. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)"

(im somewhat new to wikipedia, if this is not the correct format for a compliant i apologize)

It seems a little early to block for an edit war; the article was protected only last night (btw it's 01:49 here), and this is better worked out on the Talk pages. Admins can do nothing if there is no breach of policy, and I don't see one yet. If you can't work it out, look at Dispute Resolution, but I see nothing to justify any action against any editor as yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User:SqueakBox, on whose nature/character I won't make any comments (as many of you might know well about), is in my view disrupting User:Martijn Hoekstra's RfA (here), which is still in preparation and naturally hasn't been launched yet. SqueakBox, who was obviously either watchlisting this RfA (he's had previous disagreements with Martijn) or just wikistalking me, insists in adding his oppose !vote right away [44]. No reason provided for the latter. I would like to ask the community to comment on this behavior, and if a block would be in order if SqueakBox persists in adding his blatantly bad faith oppose to this still unborn RfA. Thank you. Húsönd 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a comment regarding the pre-live oppose, with a link to this thread. The closing admin for the RfA will take the comment into consideration regarding Squeakbox's oppose. seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a simple but effective way to resolve this. Thank you. Húsönd 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make a big deal of it. If he wants to oppose before it going live, no problem. There are better ways to disrupt an RfA ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to disrupt the rfa. I watch Martin's user page and I had no idea it hadn't gone live, how would I know that? TYhis was a good faith edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed both at your talk page and edit summary of reverting edit, that the RfA hadn't gone live. Yet, you reinstated your oppose twice afterwards. Húsönd 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this is an isolated incident which has already been accepted as being resolved as a good faith edit...aren't supports commonplace on RfA's before they "go live"? Would you also consider it disruptive for people to !vote in favor of a candidate before transclusion? Feel free to delete this comment entirely or move it into a new section for discussion if it's considered inappropriate as a discussion point related to this specific case. --Onorem♠Dil 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there really a need for a AN thread? he opposed the RFA before it went live, so what? most people (including me) have accidentally !voted before a RFA goes live, its not like his opinion would have changed if the nomination was active. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have had a positive experience with SqueakBox, and I don't think I'm that naïve to bring this here albeit similar to those enthusiastic support-before-launch !votes. It's a far more complex situation with deep background. But anyway, resolved. Húsönd 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been marked as resolved. Let's move onto more important matters. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Abtract (talk · contribs · logs) keeps removing a part of my comments without my permission, see [45], [46], and [47], in spite of the warnings I gave him/her. I went as far as saying remove all of it, not some, but the user does otherwise, calling it "sarcasm", "personal attack", or what have you. Can someone revert and explain to the editor why changing part of a comment goes against WP:TALK? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be an all or nothing proposition when it comes to altering comments left by someone else, but is this really something that requires administrator assistance? Why not just remove the additional commentary, or the whole thing, yourself? It's obvious that they've seen and reacted to it. What is it that you are hoping to accomplish by forcing them to keep the entire comment on their talk page? --Onorem♠Dil 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left Abtract a note asking him to just remove a comment entirely if he doesn't like it on his talk page. In the future though, you really shouldn't edit war with a user on his own talk page. Not that you were doing anything wrong, but that nothing good usually comes of it. Better to seek help sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To answer Onorem's doubt, I was trying to prove a simple point, really, to the user in question. (S)he didn't quite understand (or perhaps ignored) what I was saying, however, I'm glad it was settled in this fashion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of editors notably Michellecrisp are aggressively attacking this BLP page.

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons Very negative statements, personal attacks, breaches of policy (please see following policy citations), the administrator Doc_glasgow recently stated "horrific" in terms of how negative it was.

Wikipedia:Vandalism When user Wikifactsright has removed the negative information sighting appropriate policy the aggressive parties have reinstated it and vandalised Wikifactsright talk page. User Michellecrisp's opinions with policy citations on the Wikifactsright talk page are inappropriate given Wikifactsright is only acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, by sticking to the policies we can all enjoy a great encyclopaedia resource.

Wikipedia:Attack page The user Michellecrisp and others are only writing negative statements.

Wikipedia:External links The links are all negative.

Wikipedia:Coatrack Fact picking etc is rampant, again it is all negative.

Wikipedia:Libel Negative information here is defamatory.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Although one user has been making the majority of negative statements there seems to be a number working in co-ordination.

Please investigate or advise what should be done here, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifactsright (talk • contribs)

As nearly as I'm able to tell, you're removing statements that are backed up by reliable sources. I think you might misunderstand many of the policies you're quoting above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to that. Removing well sourced controversies regarding an individual is not warranted. While it does portray negativities regarding the user, they are well documented and are not blatant mischaracterizations and certainly are not vandalism. Having negative material alone is not a breach of BLP. Also, please assume good faith in regards to other editors; labeling every user who reverts your edits as sockpuppets is not very conductive to the edits. seicer | talk | contribs 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit.c. In fact, it looks like fans of this person are removing sourced material or pressurising for it's removal. This earlier version [48] has three sources for the fact they keep removing, which is not libelous as it involves a fact that is verifiable. special, random, Merkinsmum 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone feel free to check my edits as for vandalising Wikifactsright talk page, I've only given standard template warnings. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikifactsright seems to be a single purpose account with the sole purpose of erasing any negative citated information about Geoffrey Edelsten. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing nothing about this man, I will say that the page, when I looked at it, clearly failed WP:UNDUE. It may be that all those negative things are well-sourced, but we cannot make a page that consists almost entirely of attacks, which this is. (And yes, it also violates WP:BLP). IronDuke 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing anything about the man, how can you judge what's an UNDUE violation? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"negative things" =/= "attacks", by the way. And admins who can see deleted edits can judge the (now-deleted) contributions of Wikifactsright (talk · contribs) for themselves to judge the degree of hagiography going on. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Edelsten has appeared in the press over many years. I do not believe the page fails WP:Undue. All facts are supported by reference to reliable sources. These sources are diverse - he has frequently appeared in the press. I do not see that statements of facts are fairly characterised as attacks. That assertion could be made about many crimainals - Edelsten ahs been in jail for his misdemeanours, disbarred from practising as a doctor, up before the courts on tax matters, ... However he is not somebody who has no place in the encyclopaedia as he has owned football clubs etc which mean that he meets the threshhold for inclusion. --Matilda ^talk 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the removed bit said was that he'd been in jail and what for- it was one sentence so hardly is against WP:UNDUE. That someone has been convicted of a crime and imprisoned is a bit important to be not mentioned at all. "Undue weight" is giving undue weight to something which is not as important as it's being portrayed in an article. Having spent an un-frivolous amount of time in prison after being found guilty of a crime is pretty important and worth the sentence it had.special, random, Merkinsmum 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so all I know is that you wouldn't read this in a normal encyclopedia, it is a kind of encyclopedia isn't it? Anyway, what about Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy?--Wikifactsright (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy, if the information is not available on the public website such as address, names of close relatives etc then there is a privacy issue. Criminal records and deregistration as a doctor is on the public record. For the record, Wikifactsright, please state if you know Edelsten as it is a strong conflict of interest if you do. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be pretty clear to any experienced Wikipedia editors/admins that the accusations initially brought up by Wikifactsright (an interesting name) are frivolous and in most cases patently false. I'm sure there's going to be tons more discussion about this, as usual, but the outcome is practically foreordained. Now, assuming good faith on Wikifactsright part, this discussion should happen somewhere else - probably on his/her talk page - to educate them on how to properly read/interpret Wikipedia policy. Tan | 39 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this incident be closed. The editor who raised this is a single purpose account who has been very disruptive on the Geoffrey Edelsten article and talk page. This editor has been engaging in WP:POINT and has now been blocked for violation of WP:3RR [49] Michellecrisp (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the above user, Irn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. The reason I've unblocked is because I can't find any evidence of a WP:3RR violation, any attempt to warn Irn about 3RR beforehand, or any evidence to show that Irn was deliberately avoiding discussion (in fact, Irn started a discussion which wasn't responded to). Just double-checking I did the right thing here and I'm not missing anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, the software beat me to the unblock, but I would have cleared it had I been in time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Did you ask the blocking admin why he was blocked? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, and as it turns out I wouldn't have had time anyway; however, he left a detailed explanation of the block on the user's talk page in response to another editor (non-admin) who felt the block was undeserved. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, other than that I have no suggestions and support the unblock based solely on the fact that the user wasnt even warned. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been sustained disruption at USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page by a dynamic set of ips: 65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs), 64.126.34.118 (talk · contribs) (others?). Their modus operandi has primarily been to insert inflammatory comments on the talk page of the aforementioned article despite repeated warnings to desist. I've protected the talk page twice (it's currently protected), which has merely shifted them to the article space and other talk pages. Who knows whether these ips sincerely subscribe to such dogma - I'm actually skeptical about that despite their persistence. What is evident is the disruption it's causing and the blatancy of their efforts to provoke. Would anyone consider blocking them? To be candid, I haven't range blocked before and don't want to cause any problems with that when editing at well past 3:00am. SoLando (Talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the 24 IP and 65 IP's (belonging to Road Runner Kansas City Dynamic IP pool), rangeblock won't work as it's a /14. You would knock out 262,144 hosts which would present colleteral damage (/15 and under blocks can't be blocked anyway per Here Note that MediaWiki only supports blocking CIDR suffixes 16–32). 64.126.23.130 is a static IP belonging to Everest Connections LLC, 64.126.34.118 also belongs to Everest Connections LLC but that IP is dynamic but is in a /17 block. it may be possible to block 64.126.0.0/17, Colleteral damage for this range may be minimal. Anyone else got an opinion on this? Momusufan (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a /17 block is a lot of collateral damage, ESPECIALLY considering that since we can't block his whole range, it is likely to have no positive net effect, since he can still edit under the other ranges, and will likely do so. Perhaps the best is to maintain longer and longer range semi-protections until they go away. Trolls like this usually find some other way to get their rocks off in a few weeks anyways... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternately Whack-a-mole blocks, while not exactly fun, may be our only option, if they drift off of their main targets to random other targets... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, /17 would block out 32,768 hosts, you got a point there. I think page protection may do the trick. There are some other articles besides USS Liberty incident they have targeted too like Holocaust Denial. Momusufan (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jayron32, let's semi-protect and whack the moles for a while. If that's not effective over the long run, we can revisit the range blocking idea. I'll be glad to assist. Dreadstar † 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was contemplating 10/15 min blocks with the hope that they would prove to be sufficently frustrating that they tired of it, but I respect and appreciate the disruption such blocks have always caused. I'm thankful for the input. Semi-protecting for a few days hasn't proven that effective, so we're be talking weeks and months. Thanks for the assistance, guys. SoLando (Talk) 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the two pages mentioned here for 2 weeks (or more) and have applied blocks to those IP addresses. Let me know if it begins to spread... Dreadstar † 04:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I'll raise this again if the trolling resumes. I can almost see these ips frothing over keyboards when they edit. Meh. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJBot appears to be tagging fair-use images as unused when they in fact are not orphaned... at the very least it has occurred to Image:Dawsonscreekalbumcover1.jpg and Image:MadisonCtTownSeal.jpg see User_talk:BJBot. I don't really know the cause, but this may be happening to many unwatched images right now. --Matthew K (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am posting here without interacting with BJBot's operator merely because I suspect a software problem or other error outside the bot itself and the bot may need temporarily disabled while this problem is being fixed, in order to avoid mass deletion of viable content. --Matthew K (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, Image:MadisonCtTownSeal.jpg is orphaned at the moment. Maybe some edits from the articles temporarily orphaned them? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lag needs to be specified in the bot request. If the bot is tagging only seconds or minutes after images are orphaned, that is not allowing time for routine vandalism repair. Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request blocking for this user Alexwoods (talk. He violated the 3RR rules today on two pages.

His 4 reverts on the Tibet page: revert 4 revert 3

revert 2

revert 1

He ignored my discussion on the talk page and instead stated his will to start a revert war: “I am going to keep reverting him, but it would be nice if others would help out. Alexwoods (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC).” See under subsection littlebutterfly here

He also reverted 4 times on the People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) revert 4, revert 3, revert2, revert 1

I engaged him on his talk page with good faith, see subsection fresh start. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.”

I invite you to investigate my edits. All I did was to add sourced material to provide more information. And when I removed two paragraphs I started a discussion on the talk page here.

He should be blocked for his violations. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a block as it clearly shows he doesn't want to engage in a discussion of his edits. The Tibet article has been fully protected by another admin because of 3RR violations. Any other suggestions? Momusufan (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you'd get a faster response by posting on the three revert rule noticeboard. shoy 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has indulged in disruptive edits in various articles..He first started altering refered content, that was contributed by me in Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. After getting warned by administrators and me, he purposdely started making disruptive edits to articles which i contributed.[52] He is doing this intentionally, probably to harrass me. I have repeatedly warned him,[53] but it has no effect on him. He cites non-reliable sources and manipulates them. He refuses to see reasons and explanations provided to him on his talk.[54]

Now he has made a serious allegation, accusation at me. He indirectly stated me to be politiclly motivated terrorist and seperatist,[55] , on talk page of User:Gtstricky and User:Heimstern.

This is a serious violation, this will hurt my reputation on wiki. I am anguished and ahast. I have made contributions to wiki in good faith and this is like a slap on my face. Please see and do the needfulAjjay (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has again accused me in an indirect way of being religiously, politically and Khalistani motivated person.[56] this amounts to defamation and character assassination on wiki. Ajjay (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Character assassination"? You are either extraordinarily sensitive, or you have a thinly-hidden agenda here. Tan | 39 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time determining the root of the problem here. However, I am disturbed by both of your actions and by the discussion on User talk:Spy89 that lead to a fake block template being used here. Both of you should step back and take a break. Then take it to the talk pages of the articles and work out these differences in a civil manor. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having problems with this IP ever since October 2007. The user has been blocked 5 times already, but keeps coming back once his blocks expire to continue with the same sort of vandalism. Mostly Serbian/former Yugoslav footballers' infoboxes. I've left him a warning, but I'm sure he'll be back shortly. Could someone please look into this? Cheers! BanRay 07:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 6 months, I hope that will suffice... -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! BanRay 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user just created an account and found its way to AfD. It began nominating articles like crazy. Any takers for a block/ban? Anyway, I'm off to close the AfD's, unless someone objects. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not closing any AfD that has been given a reasonable reason to delete already, or tagged for speedy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message, will watch for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No additional edits that I've noticed. AfD log for today doesn't show any similar sprees. Resolved? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The issue still remains as to what to do with a user such as this. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they good faith, but mis-placed, noms? Or is the user AFDing anything they see? It seems some users would prefer AFD to speedy or PROD because it allows the community to discuss stuff before deletion. I dunno, would the editor have been reported if they'd used a mix of speedy, PROD and AFD, or if they had just PRODded a bunch of stuff? IMO there is a bunch of stuff that can't be made into a useful encyclopedia article (unless WP wants to allow every business with a yellow pages advert to have an article) so deletion focused editors aren't necessarily evil, if they're also doing some proper fact-chcecking or ref adding before they AFD. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if what this editor is doing is vandalism or not, but some more eyes on his last few edits could be useful. He seems to be hitting a number of related articles and uses edit summaries like "revert lies". Loren.wilton (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as 212.201.55.6.. Loren.wilton (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WHOIS, both IPs resolve to Saxon State Library in Dresden. Shared public computers, I'm betting. --clpo13_(talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#SV_Dynamo_and_multi-indef-blocked_User:Kay_K.C3.B6rner Novidmarana (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#For the sake of sanity, subpages please
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Requests for arbitration clarifications

Your attention please, please yell if you are paying attention. -- Cat ^chi? 10:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC) *yells* Viridae^Talk 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea how to fix it, but the image is suddenly showing at full size. No edits in the last few months. I think it's to do with the parsers on image size; perhaps #ifeq: is playing up? In any case, a template-savvy admin would come in handy right about now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, heh. :) The ifeq statement could, in tandem with the surrounding text, produce an image call with size like "300pxpx" or such. Apparently that was upsetting to something. Looks okay to me, now? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that fixed it. Not sure why having pxpx changes anything, but yeah...nice work! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other trouble with image sizes lately? This morning I've got a few images on my talk page that suddenly wen from icon-sized to default size, and I can't find a reason. Maybe this is related? See User talk:Equazcion, the images in the upper-right corner. What the heck's goin on? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Barnstars_format. Maralia (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – azqq.com added to meta blacklist

I had to indef-block a vandalism-only account Grantkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few hours ago. They claimed to be from British Columbia, Canada, but focussed exclusively on vandalising Australian Labor Party members. Unlike most common-or-garden vandals this one seemed to know what he was doing, and right at the end posted a link to a site which, had it not gone through a tinyurl-type service, would have been blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter (I tried to add the raw link - which is infoslash.org - just to test it, and hit the filter). Another user is reportedly experiencing computer problems after accidentally clicking on it. Firstly, is there anywhere the malicious link needs to be reported to? Secondly, is it worth checking to see if this user is related to any of our known cases? Orderinchaos 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added infoslash to the url blacklist a couple days ago, after an IP posted it without tinyurl. You could report the tinyurl to MediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklist, but I think tinyurls can be recreated/changed so it's probably not worth it. ctrl-alt-delete and end the browser process if you click on it, that seems to be all you need to do. No permanent damage as far as I know. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why service such as tinyurl are not on the spam blacklist anyway? Viridae^Talk 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:51, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I made a post there with this suggestion - MediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklist#tinyURL. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:54, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Tinyurl was blacklisted on the 23rd as I discovered when I tried to avoid this. Has it been removed since? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinyurl and many like it have been blackedlisted since the dawn of time. He's referring to a 'tinyurl-like' service; in this case 'azgg'? Kuru ^talk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for its addition to the meta blacklist. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No deletion.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ola Brunkert contains somewhat offensive trolling about his recent accidental death. There is nothing else of value there. I considered just blanking the page, but don't know if that would have been acceptable. Could some administrator just delete the page, please. Olaus (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While those comments are on the insensative side, they don't qualify for libel or any serious violation of WP:BLP, especially since the facts are essentially true (though, yes, insensitive). We only use deletion as a last result for particularly defamatory remarks (like that he was a rapist).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG seems to be on a holy crusade to purge all of Wikipedia, including talk pages, archived closed AfDs, etc., of links to some site called the Post Chronicle, which he alleges to be an unreliable source. From what I can see of it, it doesn't seem to be a BADSITE of the sort people were fighting about last year, and many of the places he's purging it don't involve BLP issues where there may be a legitimate reason to limit use of questionable sources even in discussion, so what's up with that? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first impulse would be to ask JzG about it. I'll ping him about this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the reason. Metros (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus on that issue was to search for replacement references if feasible, and to only remove when they were a sole reference for controversial BLP information. I don't get the removals in archives, talk pages, etc. Nesodak (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's claiming that it's for his convenience so that he can more easily monitor for inappropriate links to that site without all the clutter in the link list from pesky uses that aren't quite as inappropriate... but since when does JzG's convenience become policy? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site looks completely not-okay for WP purposes to me, whether it's in BLP's or Pokemon articles. I don't see what the problem is. Is it actually a good site? IronDuke 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed on general principles to link purges that affect even meta-discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know. But since the site explicitly acknowledges violating copyright, and WP:C is policy, your personal crusade can safely be ignored. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "zOMG! Somebody removed a link! BADSITES! BADSITES!" Oh, no, wait, actually it's absolutely nothing to do with that at all. If only Dan had bothered to read the prior debate about that site, the entry at the Spam wikiproject, WP:C (which applies in all namespaces), WP:BLP and WP:RS we could perhaps have been spared this waste of time. All I am doing is unlinking the problem site in some project pages to make it easier to find the links in mainspace using Linksearch. There are a lot of links in mainspace, mainly linking to utterly unreliable reports of salacious gossip in WP:BLPs. The site's disclaimer says it is unreliable and hosts copyright violations, and many of the links were added by the site owner. Others are being proposed on talk pages in good faith, and a note to the effect that it's unreliable is a service in that instance. What more do we need to know here? Guy (Help!) 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have raised the issue on your talk page of your removal of the links to the Post Chronicle from the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango, but your response seems to inconsistent with existing guidelines that closed AfD's should not be altered. Regardless of any debate on ANI, the editing of a closed AfD is very unusual, as I believe the clear prohibition is very clear. Whilst I agree that the Post Chronicle is not a reliable source, I must question why closed AfD's should be altered at all. Can you explain why you have taken it upon yourself to breaking this protocol? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because WP:JzG'sCONVENIENCE is a policy that trumps that other one. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no more policy than WP:DAN'S-HOLY-CRUSADE, but WP:C is policy and as I said several times, nothing was removed except the letters "http://", which is hardly an issue of such magnitude as to require you to come trolling the noticeboards, I'd have said. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be grateful if Dtobias could refrain from making personal comments. I understand that WP:C is policy, but WP:C does not say that JzG has been given carte blanche to edit closed AfDs. Can you give an undertaking to refrain from doing so? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) You know, the data is still in place - the URL is intact, except that it is not formatted as a clickable link. The context of the debate is thus preserved, which is - I believe - the intent of the prohibition against editing closed AfDs. Yeah, it's hinky, but it looks to be a good-faith sort of hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate a point that seem to have been lost here, here's the site disclaimer:

Disclaimer: Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Where ever and whenever possible The Post Chronicle™ sources and or includes the name of the author/owner and gives them full recognition for the excellent and invaluable work they do. The Post Chronicle™ make such information available because of it's newsworthiness in our efforts to advance understanding of: free speech, the free press, environmental issues, political practices, human rights, economics, democracy in general, science, political and social issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of The Post Chronicle™. We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material.

So:

• It explicitly acknowledges violating copyright
• It explicitly acknowledges that it is unreliable and makes no real attempt to be otherwise
• It also notes that it carries adverts - it has AdWords content, banners and popups
• We also know that the site owner added many of the links himself
• We also know that the site owner created an autobiography promoting the site and himself

So, there is clearly no way it can ever be used in articles as a source due to WP:C and WP:RS. It's also an invalid supporting link per WP:EL. But apparently the ability to link to it is of such paramount importance that we may not go even so far as to unlink it in project space, because by doing so we're... er.... er... er... actually, can someone tell me what exactly is the problem with unlinking a site we can't use, leaving the text there for anyone who really wants to see for themselves? That one's a bit lost on me. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not to get too far afield, but this looks like a standard fair use claim rather than an admission of copyright violations. Has it been found that the site hosts copyright violations? Nesodak (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept there may be a copywrite issue , but my conern is with alteration of closed AfD debates. I think JzG may have overreached his authority as an admin by editing a closed AfD debate. By doing so, he is setting precedent that that has not been agreed as policy. I am not trying to attack JzG, but I think this is a broader issue which he may not have considered. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing closed deletion discussions is permitted. Generally they are not edited, but we can ignore that rule at our leisure if it helps the encyclopedia. For instance, blanking a potenially libelous discussion or if a copyright violation has been posted. We can do what we want. We don't have to be slaves to arbitrary guidelines. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you will see that editing closed deletion discussions is generally prohibited, rather than not allowed, which is why I am concerned. I am sure there may be exceptions that allow the rules to be broke (even I have claimed that, mea culpa), but in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango, there does not appear to be any libelous discussion, and I am concerned that the mark has been overstepped. If alteration of closed AfD debates in this instance is justified, that is fine, but I would like to know that this is agreed policy rather than POV pushing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been noted above, we edit closed discussions all the time, to courtesy blank or whatever. What we don't do is add new information or alter the sense of comments made during the debate. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example, this Google search shows that the disclaimer above is a standard boilerplate fair use claim used by hundreds, if not thousands, of websites. The links, while probably not good for controversial information, should probably be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than using automated tools to delink all of them, especially if they were added by other people than the site's owner. Nesodak (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nesodak, when the New York Times reprints content from AP, it does so under license. The NYT does not reprint content from other publications. Post-Chronicle appears to have two types of content: that which is copied from other sources, which may be mainstream news sources or blogs, with no evidence of permission or release; and that which is written in-house attributed to what appear to be pseudonymous by-lines. There is no evidence of a fact-checking process. I don't see any circumstances under which we can use this site as a source for content, not least because there is no obvious distinction made on the site between content from reliable sources and that from blogs and other unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy. I'm not disputing your claims regarding reliability, I'm just saying that it's probably unnecessary and needlessly inflammatory to make public accusations of copyright infringement, especially since people associated with that site have already made legal threats. You can accomplish your objective of protecting BLP by referring to reliability alone, without rhetoric about intentional copyright violations. This prevents drama...just sayin'. :) Nesodak (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavin: Yes, it has been established that content on that site - actually quite a lot of it - is copied and pasted with no assertion of permission from other sites. Editing a closed AfD is no big deal at all - it's not clear to me why it would be. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Guy is doing is fine. Ideally, though, the external links checker could be set up to specify namespace, so Guy could work on removing links placed in articles, and stop wasting time delinking them elsewhere just to make it more obvious what is left to do. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the policy here is that closed AFDs should not be edited in such a way that any substance of the debate is altered. The delinking of a site which we shouldn't bother linking to is no big deal at all, especially in light of its demonstrated usefulness for other reasons. Nothing to see here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good in theory, but in practise altering AfD debates is sure to annoy the hell out of those editors who contributions are now deemed to be "unreliable". I don't think it is good idea. Its one thing to tell an editor that their sources are unreliable during the course of an AfD debate, but to go behind their back afterwards and alter their contribution without their express permission seems unsound to me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It annoys the hell out of people even more when it's the source for some bit of tittilating gossip in a biography, but that's not a very good reason for not doing it. And actually, unlinking the site doesn't affect the contribution to the debate - the site is no more unreliable now than it was when it was originally linked. Or rather, it was no more reliable then than it is now. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Guy's actions here - we do not link to copyright violations. This isn't just a RS issue. Are the links being removed in such a way as to make it clear that there was previously a link there? —Random832 (contribs) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. It is trivially easy for any involved editor to check the originally linked content (where it still exists - some does not). Guy (Help!) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too far afield, but this looks like a standard fair use claim rather than an admission of copyright violations. I'm no lawyer, but their claim of fair use is pretty clearly bullshit. Anyway - the "restriction" on editing AFDs is intended to prevent actual debate from continuing after closure, applying it to stuff like this is wikilawyering. Though... that said, your edit summaries could have been clearer. —Random832 (contribs) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make a difference if he put <nowiki></nowiki> tags around the link instead? All that is happening is a link is being reformatted in a tiny way so that Mediawiki interprets it as text instead of a hot link. Please find something else to complain about. Thatcher 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And let me add here that it would be perfectly acceptable to remove every post-chronicle link from every mainspace article regardless of content, except I'm sure that would also lead to great wailing and gnashing of teeth, especially if Guy did it. By trimming the links from project space, it makes it easier to actually look at the articles and determine whether the link is to something like an AP story, in which case it can be substituted rather than blanket-removed. This is a Good And Helpful thing, actually, to be doing it this way, at least until someone can get a developer to add a parameter to exclude project space from Special:Linksearch. Thatcher 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the concept that the convenience of those who are checking for inappropriate use of links justifies the indiscriminate removal of links without regard to context simply in order to make the task of finding the inappropriate ones easier. If somebody wants to propose making this policy, fine, but it's terrible precedent to allow it to be done simply on a WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO basis. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you disagree, because you are on a holy crusade to protect the sacred right to link to crap. But these links violate core policy and content guidelines, and nothing was removed other than the letters h-t-t-p, so there is no problem worthy of your soapbox here. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one doing a mass purge for your own convenience, and I'm the one with a "holy crusade"? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think he's doing this "for his own convenience?" Good God almighty. FCYTravis (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his own words on the subject appear to say so. And I'm not sure I believe in God, almighty or otherwise. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this be helpful? According to this, GeorgeMoney wrote User:GeorgeMoney/UserScripts/hacks/FilterLinksearchMainspace, a script which automatically filters a linksearch to mainspace-only results. It looks useful, I think I will install it. Nesodak (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan,you're drifting from BADSITES debating into 'any and allsites should be linked no matter what anywhere because DAN says so' debating. I've yet to see you explain any real, material reason to allow links to a copyvio site. This isn't a badsites issue, other than that some websites really are bad to link to. This site makes us look bad because it's shitty citation, not because we're afraid of some attack messages. Bad citation is bad citation, poorly written, falsely attributed links make us look like stooges. It'd be like linking to lemonparty to show that the little blue pill causes geriatric homosexuality. it's a bad citation problem, plain and simple. If i'm totally wrong, please explain how, but I don't see anythign wrong with avoiding shoddy citation. ThuranX (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango be restored to its state when it was closed. I said at the time that the link to Post Chronicle was not reliable: it turns out I was right, but to no avail, but the link should remain to provide context to the AfD. None of the arguments given (liable, copyright policing, threat to national security etc) apply, since at the end of the day it is just a link to a bad source cited in an AfD debtate. Once this AfD is restored (and any other AfDs if they too have been altered), then I can sleep soundly, knowing that AfD contributions will not be altered, as specified at the top of each debate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gavin, as I understand it the AfD wasn't substantively altered, the actual content and context hasn't changed, there just isn't a clickable link anymore - there is, instead, the original URL with the http:// removed. Most users probably know how to use that with copy-paste; most browsers won't even need the http:// added back. Removing the http:// had a helpful function and did no realistic harm. It is not permissible to alter a closed AfD in a way that actually changes the discussion (without very good reason), but that doesn't. SamBC(talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion producing anything beyond 100%heat and 0%light? Is there any purpose here except zOMG! GUY KEEPS REMOVING 6 characters from pages NO ONE READS! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO! How about nothing. Can we close this as an entirly non-productive thread yet?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the principle of the thing... and one of the principles involved is being against the suppression of discussion one doesn't like for some reason, of which your premature closing of this thread would be an instance. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that what I'm doing in this instance is discussing the issue, not warring over it... I have not reverted a single one of JzG's edits. To label me a "troll" and demonize me for it seems inappropriate. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not discussing an issue, you're trolling a non-issue. There is a difference. Wikipedia isn't about the principle of having links to noncompliant websites preserved for ever, it's about the practicality of maintaining an encycloapedia. I'm doing something to be of practical help to me in enforcing two core policies, copyright and biographies. In the process I am also reducing the number of links to a site which does not respect copyright. You've yet to come up with a convincing reason why this should be considered a problem, as Jayron32 notes above. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The principle being that de-linking a web site on a closed project discussion page is more harmful than making it easier to find and remove BLP, Copyright and EL-non-compliant links from articles? Gosh, being unable to hotlink to that web site in the closed discussion, and being forced to type "http:// ctrl-c ctrl-v" in a new browser window must be terrible for you. This is the sort of nonsense I see from editors who think that books and newspapers older than 1996 are unacceptable as sources since they are not on the web, but I expect better from you, Dan. Thatcher 16:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, would it be acceptable to you to simply use the above script to assist in your linksearch, instead of removing the non-mainspace links? This would seem to eliminate the controversy. Nesodak (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no controversy - more or less a one-man crusade. FCYTravis (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion about solving a concern through consensus, or fighting and insulting each other like two-year-olds? God Almighty, you are all embarrassing yourselves. Nesodak (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this drama is ridiculous, I am sure if a bot had done the spam removing we wouldn't be having this conversation, he is only disabling the spam links, a work that is obviously constructive and deserves a barnstar more than senseless bashing on ANI. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nesodak, you seem to miss that DanT. Is the kind of guy who thinks shouting Fire in a crowded theater should be protected speech, and that those who were trampled in the ensuing panic are simply those who weren't participating in a conversation fast enough. he's on a 'free speech must be 100% free, damn the consequences' kick. Anything relating to links, he'll raise a stink. It's old and ridiculous, and this isn't the first nor last time we'll see it. ThuranX (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't know any of the history. It just seems to me that, if the purpose of the link removal is to assist in filtering, and there's a way to filter the linksearch without pissing off DanT, then why not take the easy road? Nesodak (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan being "pissed off" is exactly the problem, he is creating a storm in a glass of water, effectively creating a lot of undesirable drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's not JUST the filtering, Nesodak, it's the use of the site as a cite, AND the filtering, VS. Dan T.'s stubborn assertion that ANY link, no matter the quality, should be allowed. Dan T. believes this to be a free speech issue, but it's not. It's an accurate citation issue, which is incompatible with the project goal of providing true facts, not dogma and propaganda and lies. ThuranX (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but creating the page User:JzG/Lines, which states "I must not let Dan Tobias troll me" a hundred times, seems only intended to inflame the situation rather than defuse it. Is is possible to disagree without insulting and demonizing people? Is this how administrators are expected to act? Nesodak (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. I am striving very hard indeed not to let Dan troll me. I have a long history of rising to the bait when trolled, especially when someone is as good at getting my goat as Dan is. I am trying really hard to keep the discussion on topic and not go off on one, and that's part of my coping strategy. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.

I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?” —Travis^talk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:

• Valid Keep votes: 9
• Valid Delete votes: 5
• Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn 92.46.72.14 was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
• Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
• Other votes:

• Possibly rename: 1
• Possible move (destination unknown): 2
• Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1

• Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!

Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?

• Support —Travis^talk 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and volunteer as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may want to take a look at this guy. He's been going around closing AFDs as "delete" and removing the AFD tags. He claims to be an admin because he's "Jimbo's best buddy". I think I reverted all his "closings". --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am best friends with Jimbo and when he finds out about this, he is going to ban you from this site. Have a nice life! The JPTaxEvader (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a sock. Also not an administrator. Has claims of being a pedophile and such on his userpage. I am going to indef block him. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also created User:Phaedriel/Today/March_25 which i deleted. This guy is clearly a troll and most likley a sock.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Damn ec's) Ignore my AIV request then.Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abuv the law. I initially accused him of being a User:Fredrick day sock (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, to which the user responded thusly. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(rv by Abuv the law, restored by Eq) So you decided to shoot from the hip again, eh? Abuv the law (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, don't blank that most telling response. To answer it, yes. The great thing about that is, if you're right, you look real good in the end. Based on your tone, I'm fairly confident. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Man, you really get a kick out of trying to piss me off, don't you? Abuv the law (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Fredrick day was as sock all along? How disappointing. Anyone know why? ThuranX (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock of Obuibo Mbstpo, if that's what you mean. At least I don't think... He just socked from a bunch of IPs as far as we know. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, that'a LITTLE better, but still a shame. he was helpful on a feww articles I worked on. ah well. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked as an obvious not-here-to-improve-the-encyclopedia sock. Quack. Black Kite 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a checkuser be willing to check Obuibo Mbstpo, et al. (I have a list of about a dozen socks) and if their all from the same ip address/range, hardblock it? MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that should probably be done. This user has clearly stated his intention to continue creating socks. A hard block would be appropriate here. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Checkuser verified sock of Sarsparilla et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean the IP(s) are now blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:01, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Good that it CU'd, but if all (most) of these socksUser:Obuibo Mbstpo, User:Abuv the law, User:Candi Marisa, User:David Janssen, User:Emily Stevens Gardner, User:Jesse R. Binnall, CPP-T, PRP, User:Larry E. Jordan, User:Refactory, User:SpiritWorldWiki, User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:Absidy, User:71.63.91.68, User:ReplyToSM, User:Captain Zyrain, User:Thespian Seagull, User:Take You There are from the same, IP, can you hardblock it? MBisanz ^talk 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, could someone please consolidate all the SSPs and SSP cats, I think User:Sarsaparilla is the oldest provable account. MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, the main one is a university; the /16 has a number of annoying socks, but also a lot of perfectly good users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I understand, I was really hoping it was a static IP or something blockable. But its not like this guy is hard to miss. MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make a quick check of this user's contributions? for some bizarre reason he has been redirecting his user page to that of other users and odly enough to the main page. 24.139.203.232 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dryazan has done so as well. 24.139.203.232 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dr31 previously redirected his user page to that of Dryazan [57] and Dryazan redirected his talk page to that of DR31.[58]. Now both talk pages say 'Enough is enough. Bye, Wikipedia.'--Tikiwont (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the redirects, now they point back to their respective pages. Momusufan (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created over 40 accounts to vandalize Wikipedia from October of 2007 to now. He has definitely exhausted our patience, and should be blocked forever. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is, or is there a sock that not blocked indef yet? Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 5 socks that have not been banned yet. There are also these hoax articles they created that have not been deleted. Please help me out here. The Wikipedians from Singapore (whose articles ColourWolf vandalizes exclusively) have offered me no assistance at all, and I have been battling them alone. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list the remaining socks here? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:44, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I can help, there are 2 of them reported at AIV, i'll post them here:

• Zero of any heroes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Elemental of Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Momusufan (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely

• Elemental of Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OriginalOdin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zero of any heroes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orpheus the Musician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Checkuser has indicated that all of them are vandals. I will also need help reverting their edits. These wikiterrorists have stated that they have edited at least 3 more pages with their fake contents. They have issued a threat (a la Osama Bin Laden) that if we do not revert them within 72 hours, he will massively vandalize Wikipedia. I have also filed an abuse report with the owner of the IPs these users use. They are owned by QALA Singapore and StarHub, both Singaporean ISPs. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has indicated that they are likely to be the same person. Checkuser did not assess their contributions. Because the IPs are shared, the contributions should be checked before blocking. Thatcher 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs can't be blocked, obviously, but the users listed above all share the same edits. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColourWolf (2nd nomination). Please add evidence there of the sockpuppeteering, and hopefully we can implement some more permanent solution if it is determined that these are all indeed the same user. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:57, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

From his first edit (in the summary of which he identifies himself as "a marketing guy from IBM"), this COI s.p.a. has done nothing but edit in ways which are favorable towards his employer and its products, particularly IBM Lotus Connections. He has even set up something called Portal:Lotus Connections which is basically a website advertising Lotus Connections, on our servers! I realize that the COI wall is not absolute, but this guy's editing history appears to me to be so shameless that I feel it should be brought to other folks' attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing is that OrangeMike just became aware of this because he saw my MfD nomination for Portal:Lotus Connections, which I only noticed because of StephenfromIBM's edits to Comparison of instant messaging clients, which is only on my Watchlist because my wife was using it to research multi-lingual IM clients, which she suddenly needed for her new job -- at IBM! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instapundit, a high-traffic aggregator, just linked an article making accusations of bias on the above article. Probably could use some eyes on the article for a little while. Nesodak (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major revert war between Armenians and Azeris. The issue is weather or not Armenia is indeed the first Christian state. Revert war is also spilling into Edessa, Mesopotamia. Chaldean (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some clarification. There are no Azeris involved, I am the only one editing that article, apart from a number of non-Azeri-Armenian contributors who restored or otherwise agreed with my edits, every sentence of which is sourced with reference to an article, journal or a book. The revert war started after my initial improvements to this article [59]. A group of POV-pushing contributors, including TigranTheGreat, Eupator, VartanM, and a number of anonymous IP accounts (some of them engaged in vandalism [60]) have essentially wikistalked me to this article, which they never edited before me in 5 years of its existence, and unrelated to Armenia-Azerbaijan subjects in general, and started mass removing sourced material after edit restorations by even unrelated contributors - [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. At Edessa, Mesopotamia, this group was joined by another Armenian contributor User:MarshallBagramyan - [71].

Apart from calls to stop their obvious collaboration in pursuing my edits (as said above none of them have edited either article before for years since its first creation), attempts to engage this group of users, who went through couple of ArbComs already, in discussion resulted only in Armenian POV pushing without any demonstrated desire for compromise on article which has nothing to do with adoption of Christianity in Armenia century later. Perhaps, some independent mediators can look into the issue on both pages. My edits are all sourced, and I am ready to present more on this important subject in history of Christianity. Atabek (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – schoolblock six months --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked; now back to their old tricks. Salmanazar (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated inclusion of potentially libelous material at Basil McCrea. User is a suspected sock puppet under checkuser investigation. I have broken 3RR for which I have provided what I feel is a justification on the talk page. Block request was turned down. Am now requesting a 6 hour block until checkuser can be completed.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've full protected the page for 12 hours. Rather then block both parties, I'd prefer to wait to see how the checkuser turns out before anyone gets blocked. (TU, I added one word to your initial request to make it clear that there's an open checkuser request on this) SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]