When I was viewing the talk page for Public Information Research, I noticed an IP address [1] and [2] sign there with his name. I am not sure whether banned user posting on article talk pages is acceptable, so I am bringing this issue up here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is my understanding that all posts from banned users may be deleted on sight, nomatter where they are posted. However, I see that admin Will Beback is in discussion on the talk page and has taken no action, so perhaps I have missed something. Jeffpw (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on second thought, after re-reading WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, I have deleted the posts. Jeffpw (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posts from banned users should be evaluated with understanding and intelligence and not just blindly deleted merely because of the source. In this case Brandt had an issue with an article that has BLP considerations about himself. Not deleting until enough people could read it was a good move. Deleting once people had read it might wind up being helpful, so I don't see that as unwise. Just be thoughtful, folks, that's all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while I don't agree with the ruling, officially they're to be removed without prejudice under all circumstances AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Was 4.250 is correct on this one. If a banned user removes libel, don't revert it it. If a banned user removes blatant vandalism, don't revert it. So on and so forth. From our ban policy.. "Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.". Regards, Mercury 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand this, Mercury. "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." The edits should always be removed, regardless of their merits. An editor who reinstates the edit by the banned editor takes complete responsibility, but the one who removes is has no further responsibility, even if by removing this edit he reinstates older vandalism or so. Fram (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, with great respect, I think you are misunderstanding. No policy was meant to be interpreted with such rigidity. With have to use common sense on this. Absolutely remove libel, do not reinstate vandalism. Reverting a banned user is no excuse for harming the encyclopedia and could be met with preventative measures. Very respectfully, Mercury 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the important word in the policy is may. Each edit by a banned user is to be examined and reverted if it does not suit our purposes. We don't have to revert them, but can without discussion. In this instance, the first post Brandt made was arguably helpful, and was replied to by an admin. His second post seemed to descend into ravings. As an admin had seen the first post and acknowledged it, I saw no need to keep the conversation in the talk page, since that would encourage more such postings on Brandt's part. Jeffpw (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors can make useful edits in attempts to mislead us and pick us apart from the inside. We should not revert such edits. What's the point of reverting vandalism reverts made by banned editors? There isn't any. --Deskana (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I said, I disagree with the policy but it's been firmly enforced in the past. WP:IAR seems to get thrown out of the window if the subject of the ruling happens to be one of a handful of banned users or that Dramatica place. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumper, his posts were removed as soon as I saw them, so existing policy was enforced. How this policy is interpreted and enforced could probably better be handled on the talk page of WP:BAN or the admin notice board. Jeffpw (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides having the pleasure to laugh at us when we argue on whether or not we should follow policy, I fail to see why Mr Brandt isn't contacting WP:OTRS if he has a BLP issue with an article he is closely linked to. May I suggest we ask him to do so and go do something constructive with our limited time? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of you are mistaken and should read WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits a little more carefully.

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users.

Emphasize mine. This article is akin to Daniel Brandt posting there and if an anonymous IP address is posting as him, it should be removed, without prejudice. We're not talking about blatant vandalism or BLP violations people are trying to wiki-lawyer above, he's making posts about a topic he is related to and he is banned, thus his comments no matter what they are, should be removed and not restored. I've taken the liberty to remove them now. — Save_Us_229 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank oyu, Save_Us. I removed two, but didn't see the others. Jeffpw (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that, regardless of someone's status on Wikipedia, they should be fully entitled to comment on article content that directly concerns themselves. Everyking (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you are banned, you don't have a status on WP. Any edit you make is revertible by anyone. If you have a BLP issue, you email the Foundation. Crum375 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have a status: banned. I don't understand your reply. I was simply stating my opposition to the application of that to banned users commenting on information concerning themselves. If we want good content on Daniel Brandt, and Daniel Brandt has something to say about the nature of that content, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot to keep him from saying it. Everyking (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use some commons sense here. The edits may be removed, they don't have to be removed. If there is a good reason for the edit in the first place, like correcting a BLP problem, then let's accept the help and not be pricks. --Duk 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing libel trumps WP:BAN. End of story. If you don't understand that, you need a healthy dose of clue. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong, he wasn't removing liable, he was commenting on the talk page, and as a banned editor, he is not permitted to do that whatsoever. To let someone know of something potentially liable and to avoid violating WP:COI (and WP:BAN in his case) he should e-mail the Foundation like every other person with the complaint that he has. Daniel Brandt gets no exception, no matter what his status quo is here. — Save_Us_229 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, remember. The banning policy clearly states that edits by banned users should be removed on sight, as the user is unauthorized to make those edits. A ban is basically telling a user "We will no longer allow you to edit here." However, we must always remember to use common sense. If it'd be detrimental to the project to revert the edit, then we simply shouldn't. WP:BAN is an important policy, but always remember to keep the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, even if it means ignoring a policy to do so. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good of the State err... project is not the only thing that can justify keeping edits by banned users. Even if he is wrong, there is no way to justify making it hard for people to comment on content about them. Anyone who hasn't been banned can, and often does, just comment on the talk page or remove the information themselves. Requiring Brandt jump through more hoops because we don't like him is wrong. -Amarkov moo! 07:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN means you are no longer allowed to comment by normal means like every Wikipedian.

"The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia."

Brandt is banned from all parts. Editors who are banned have their comments removed and their edits undone (and if they are helpful edits, they are redone at the editors discretion). It's not because we don't like Brandt anymore than another banned editor, but because that what policy dictates. Brandt is like every other banned editor, and everyother banned editor is not allowed to comment either. — Save_Us_229 18:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Us 229, Brandt is *not* like every other banned editor. I don't believe we have articles containing biographical information about any of our other banned editors (folks can feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Our Biography of Living Persons policy states "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." (Emphasis mine.) BLP policy takes precedence in this case. If Brandt were to edit the article on, say, Superman, any editor would be absolutely within his right to remove the edits. Care must be taken not to violate the GFDL by reinserting, word for word, what another editor wrote that has been subsequently deleted; those edits should be appropriately attributed to the original author even if re-inserted by someone else. Risker (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other cases that come to mind are banned User:ColScott, who is a movie producer we also have a biography article for, and possibly blocked User:Ashida Kim. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Beckjord? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns can be done through the office, Banned people are not welcome to edit. Full stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors do not have any right to edit here...this has long been the case. If they have issues that need addressing they can contact the arbitration committee and or Jimbo wales via email.--MONGO (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we want them to do this? I'd really like to know that something was removed because it's poorly sourced and Brandt denies it is true. That's very much preferable to being told WP:OFFICE. -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is a banned editor. Wha6t;s the point of banning people if we don't enforce the ban? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Durova scandal in full heat, it's time for everybody to re-examine policies and attitudes where the punitive and vindictive activity of seeking out people to ban and then treating them like Orwellian Unpersons takes precedence over building an encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an IP address or account identified with a banned editor carries out a noncontroversial action that you agree with, like removing libel or copyvio from an article, or removing vandalism, then it is not necessary to revert that action (though sometimes this is done accidentally when mass reverting a large series of edits by a banned user). Equally, if someone does revert such an edit (thus re-instating the libel, copyvio or vandalism), then it is perfectly acceptable to revert back again, thus removing the libel/copyvio/vandalism (and technically reinstating the edit made by the banned user), as long as you take responsibility for the edit on yourself. What might also be needed is to follow up on the editing and enforce the ban (or at least report the breaching of the ban). Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Knee jerk reactions aren't helpful here. This is symptomatic of a larger issue we have within the Encyclopedia, when our content policies conflict with our behavioural policies. That was always the challenge with WP:NPA which took many months to resolve. Perhaps a pre-emptive generic discussion on the topic of whether content or behavioural policies take precedence when the two are in conflict should take place, but not on this page. Risker (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally when removing edits from a banned user, I'll explain to other users who ask that if they like any of the removed edits, they are free to put them back, as then it is a good faith edit by a user in good standing as far as I am concerned. Banned users are usually banned because they have abused the system and/or their fellow editors. It's disruptive to the writing of an encyclopaedia, and that is all that banning should be intended to discourage IMO. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in cases where the banned editor has added content. When a banned editor removes content, things are different. Consider the following sequence: (A) Random vandal XYZ adds "isn't wikipedia great!" to an article; (B) Banned user ABC goes on a large vandalism spree from an IP address, including reverting the action of vandal XYZ, and then confesses to being a banned user; (C) Industrious admin QRS or other user comes along and rapidly undoes or rolls back all the edits of ABC without checking, leaving the edit summmary "reverting edits of banned user" (I've seen this happen). End result, the vandalism has been restored and (because it seems to be a legitimate reversion) may be missed for some time before it is spotted and corrected. I've seen this happen. I've totally blown WP:BEANS out of the water here, but it was necessary to get across to people that there is a qualitative difference between reverting additions and reverting removals. When you revert a removal of content, you are effectively re-adding what was removed. If you cannot check what you are re-adding by this action, then you shouldn't be doing it. Blind reversions of the removal of content can easily damage the encyclopedia unless there is human oversight. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my sentiments. When a banned user does something such as an anti-vandalism revert, it shouldn't be reverted because then we'd be bringing back vandalism. It is to the detriment of the project to return vandalism. Basically, what should be done is Brandt should be customarily blocked per WP:BAN, but if he removes disruptive content, we shouldn't just return it. WP:IAR applies here. Maser ^(Talk!) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angli Cado Primoris has been repeatedly inserting a non-notable singer into List of female heavy metal singers. I have left information on his/her talk page explaining him/her that wikipedia has certain notability criteria for including musicians on it, but s/he has not responded and has continued to reinsert the non-notable into the list, and has not responded to my attempts to reason with him/her, nor has s/he responded to Wikiquette alert that I posted here[3] and on his/her talkpage[4]. Can somebody please help? Asarelah (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the user a level 3 vandalism warning in response to his/her editing pattern. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this after this user made a few edits to female wrestlers taking out some kayfabe tags. I note that just two hours after your level 3 warning this user went right ahead and ignored it again. Suggest further action. !! Justa Punk !! 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4 (final warning) given to this user. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing WP:EDITWAR, it seems I was mistaken on given the user a vandalism warning. Instead it should have been a 3RR warning, which I will give him/her now. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered a problem, where I believe information important to honoring our contributor's liscenses is being lost.

I have uploaded over one hundred simple maps to the wikipedia. Some dozen of them have been uploaded to the commons by other wikipedians. Most of those other wikipedians were completely scrupulous about copying the attribution and liscencing information, and original date. I am sure the rest of the uploaders meant to be scrupulous, but some of them failed to copy some of the information.

Last night I started uploading those maps to the citizendium. Some of the maps I created are no longer on the wikipedia proper because a robot noticed that the commons bore an identical image, and nominated them for deletion.

The citizendium, like the wikipedia, and the commons, has a template where the uploader is supposed to put the date of first publication. I haven't been able to fill out that field for about a third of these images because the people who uploaded them to commons didn't preserve the original date of publication.

Presumably they didn't realize that preserving the original date of publication was important. I got notices of some of those nominations. It didn't occur to me to check that the original date of publication was preserved on the commons version.

These nominations are done by a robot. But, if I am not mistaken, the actual deletion is done by a human?

If so would it be possible for those humans to check to make sure the person who first moved the image to the commons,

1. correctly attributed them;
2. correctly copied the original uploader's liscense;
3. correctly copied the original uploader's original date of upload/publication?

If I am not mistaken the only mechanism for transferring an image from the wikipedia proper to the commons, is for a fallible human to:

1. download the image from the wikipedia to their hard drive;
2. then upload the image from their hard drive to the commons;
3. finally manually paste in the information on the original author, the liscence they released the image under, and its date of first upload, or first creation.

Given that humans are fallible, wouldn't it be desirable to have an automated, or semi-automated process, that allowed us to skip the step downloading the image to our hard drive, only to then upload it to the commons? Given that robots are good at this kind of thing, couldn't a robot be tasked with making sure the original liscence, author/uploader, and original date were all properly copied?

Wouldn't it be possible to have the robot that nominates apparently duplicated images for deletion to also figure out which one was uploaded first, and if it wasn't the commons version, suggest the liscense info on the commons be updated?

May I question whether the wikipedia version should be deleted, even if both images are now identical, if the wikipedia version had multiple versions of the image uploaded in the past? Deleting the apparently redundant wikipedia version erases access to the older versions of the image for ordinary readers.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is an error proof method of moving images to commons please see WP:MTC β^_command 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Kudos to the author of this tool! I made a request to be added to the list of users approved to use this helper.

I am still interested in a discussion of how those images that have already been copied, without all the original info, could be fixed. Am I correct that if the 2nd uploader doesn't copy the date of upload we are not fully honoring the creator's liscense? In a hundred years or so all those images would lapse into the public domain. Since we are going to be so scrupulous about making sure we only host truly free images, shouldn't we also be scrupulous about preserving the real date of first publication, so we preserve the date when the image enters the public domain?

I would still like to know whether the robot that nominates articles for deletion could make sure we preserve all the original liscense information on the version we keep.

I would still like to ask whether it is appropriate to delete the original of images that are identical, when that loses its history of prior uploads.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot moves everything to commons, and thanks I wrote that bot. yes it does tag them as dupes. when the bot moves the image all history is kept so it is safe to delete the local copy. β^_command 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some valid concerns here. People often copy an image to Commons saying "see English Wikipedia original for more info" and then the original gets deleted because it's "identical" to the Commons image. Please remember to make sure that all relevant information is preserved. Haukur (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another bot which helps out admins if images need to be attributed properly. east.718 at 18:27, November 24, 2007

Not exactly related, but possibly of use to OP, if you need help finding specific dates on which you (or someone) uploaded a particular image, your image upload log may prove useful. If you need a peek at deleted revisions of pages, that might be harder, but I can probably help out some if you know which page(s) you'd need. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bot complaining about "see English Wikipedia original for more info" in Commons entries? (SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kudos to the author of this tool too. Am I correct that the logs only go back three years? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was banned indefinitely in August following discussion at the community sanction noticeboard (see here), has asked me to request a review of this ban on his behalf. He disagrees that the edits cited as evidence of disruption were actually in violation of any policies, and asked for clarification on how they were disruptive. I suggested a deal under which he would be unblocked, given a topic ban from Judaism-articles for a period of time, and asked to avoid Durova, the blocking administrator, which he indicated he would accept - but this proposal didn't work out. So, what are the community's feelings on Bus stop - should he be given another chance, or not? Picaroon (t) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage is scheduled to become unprotected on December 15. It should also be noted that just about every person who "stood up for him", including Dweller and Fred Bauder, has over time come to disagree with Bus stop regarding the acceptability of his actions. Personally, I think the best way to go would be to let the situation stand as it is, and let him renew attempts to get unblocked starting on the 15th, as per the last block placed on him. I know that I can clearly be counted as being far less than impartial on this matter, but I really can't see why the matter is so urgent that the remaining less than three weeks from his last effective disciplinary action should be voided. Like I said, though, I have no doubt Bus stop counts me as one of his top persecutors, and would doubtless impugn my objectivity and fairness. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't your proposal work out? It seems like a good compromise to me. Based on a reading of that thread, he/she was a relatively positive contributor elsewhere but disruptive on Judaism-related articles. It didn't become a siteban until his/her responses at CSN concerning a Judaism topic ban, if I'm reading correctly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs below, it would have to be amended to a complete religion topic ban. It appears that the user in question simply cannot keep his/her cool on that subject. Does that apply elsewhere? I gathered that it didn't from the comments at CSN, but I have no first-hand experience. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance in hell I would support an unblock unless this editor was to actually assume good faith, not accuse editors of being sockpuppets, not violate WP:NPA, WP:NOR, etc.. — Save_Us_229 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expires in Dec? The block says an indef is in place...??? Besides, I have to agree with Save Us, what do we have to make us think he's changed? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd want to ask Fred Bauder and Dweller why they withdrew their offers to mentor him. I think that would be relevant. I believe his e-mails played a role in their decisions, but I can't remember all the details now. For what it's worth, the new Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates page was created by me at least partially as a response to this editor and his situation, but I'm not sure anyone else would be willing to offer to mentor the editor in question. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He chose to not listen to any advice I gave him and just kept beating the drum. I don't think he has much interest in editing articles that are not Jewish related. I sympathize with his desire to patrol Jewish subjects and remove anti-Semitic vandalism. Perhaps some folks could work with him from his talk page. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, the protection of his talk page expires december 15th, not the block itself.--Atlan (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose lifting the ban. We don't need tendentious and hostile editors, in any topic. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. east.718 at 06:01, November 25, 2007

The above diffs were hair-rising enough. I can support unbanning only if it's guaranteed somehow that such behaviour will not be repeated. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who clashed with Bus Stop the first go 'round, it's clear to me that no matter WHO tries to help him, or how they try to do it, he's stuck on a mindset that will not be adjusted by any weight of evidence, any amount of kindness, nor any amount of threat. The project is better off without him here. he was thoroughly tendentious the last few go-rounds, and likely to resume it. IF a ban on all religous content were imposed, he might be able to learn more about working with others, but as Fred Bauder notes, he's only interested in articles about Judaism, and occasionally other religions. I'd suggest, IF his ban is lifted, a full ban on religious articles AND Israeli-Palestinian content as well, to preclude end-runs around the block. ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even tho' I can;t say I agreed with everything he's ever said, I can't see where he was the sole culprit in any clashes he had and of course I vote to lift the ban.FlaviaR (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I feel I need add nothing more to this topic than my latest post at Bus Stop's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that Did You Know is overdue. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is over 10 hours late. This means that almost 2 cycles of DYK hooks have been lost (opportunity to post it has been lost). Admin assistance requested in moving the hooks from the next update page to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this one night earlier this week, decided to do something about it, but gave up after I found the instructions too confusing. Any hopes of a simple set of "step 1, step 2, step 3" instructions being written so that interested Admins who have a spare moment can make the occasional update? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't WikiMedia be programmed to automatically update the page, if a few days worth of DYK's are set up in advance? Or are there already such mechanisms available in the software? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New account, signed up solely to attack one article and its creator via WP:COI/N and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, has a Verizon IP address tracking to Newark, New Jersey (nwrknj.east.verizon.net) matching many others previously reported for the same pattern of attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for the last day or so; however there is something to be concerned about here. Definitely seems to be pursuing someone. If he starts up again, a block for disruptive editing and wikistalking should be strongly considered. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account - same IP origin at nwrknj.east.verizon.net - is continuing the attack as 72.68.125.254 (talk · contribs). [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has vandalized several times:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Those were all on Sept. 9 and Sept. 24, and the user seems to have been briefly banned for this, but he vandalized again at more recent date (Nov. 16):

• [12]

The user posts articles which are machine-translated gibberish (Google Translator and similar sites just can't handle specialized texts, and what comes out is nothing close to a real translation and can't really be used as a basis for a better text) or texts from the Swedish or Norwegian Wikipedia which he has not even attempted to translate:

• Samnorsk: [13], [14], [15] (the last one on Nov. 24)
• Dalmål: [16] (deletion discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmål). The user has made this page into a redirect and pasted the content at Dalecarlian language: [17], and removed the deletion message: [18]
• Norrlandic_language[19] (in Swedish, not translated, has already been deleted by the time I post this)
• Värmlandic: [20]

Generally counter-productive edits (although probably done in good faith):

• Removing the letter Y from the Norwegian alphabet, insisting that "Norwegian doesn't contain the letter y": [21], [22], [23] (Cf. comments by a Norwegian user on User talk:Fiet Nam)

• Similarly, removing the letter L from the Arabic alphabet: [24], claiming that "Arabic doesn't have L in it's alphabet" (It was undone by somebody else. Just to be sure, I checked with a friend, who said that this claim is bullshit.)

• Changing links to articles to links to his own user pages: [25]

User talk:Fiet Nam contains several warnings for other incidents or pages which have been deleted. I have not looked at all contributions of this user, and I suspect that there may be more like the ones enumerated above. Some of those may have been bad but may have remained undetected. Most contributions of this user are to linguistic articles, and some are to languages that are likely to be less well-known to other people on Wikipedia and may not be on any other user's watchlist. Are these edits likely to be any better? Olaus (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the articles;

• Samnorsk: cleaned up.
• Dalecarlian language: tagged with {{notenglish}} for translation or deletion
• Norrlandic_language: already deleted
• Värmlandic: tagged with {{notenglish}} for translation or deletion.

ELIMINATORJR 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: please see this for previous talk page history before page move to current usertalkpage.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  13:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this. This editor has made some very cranky edits to articles on linguistics. He's also tried to delete his own talk page amongst other things. Some evidence leads me to suspect we are dealing with a very young user. Whatever the case, he should be strongly discouraged from messing around with article content any further. --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this section of his user page is nothing but an attack on the Danish language. This isn't just a skid who doesn't know better, it's an editor with some issues bordering on xenophobia. Long block is needed, as it's clear he's got a serious POV to push and hasn't stopped yet, nad will continue to do so. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I tend to agree. Immature crank or deliberate troll, the effect on Wikipedia is the same. Some of his edits are incomprehensible. He's already been warned several times. He won't be much of a loss. Long block needed. --Folantin (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a strong warning that he will be blocked of he doesn't stop. If someone else wants to just go ahead and blcok I will not complain, but I feel we should at least try to reform him first. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for originally posting this at the wrong administrator board page. Anyway, Fiet Nam has continued today: "The Swedish name for nine is ni (not nio) and the Swedish name for ten is ti (not tio), that is like Danish and/or Norwegian having i at the end (filosofi) and Swedish having ia/o (filosofia/o).". The summary shows that he lacks even rudimentary knowledge of the Swedish language. Intentionally destructive or just ignorant without realizing it? I don't know, but why should other people have to correct Fiet Nam's errors. And who can fix whatever problems he may have inserted in articles like Yola language or Old Tupi language? For all I know, his changes there may be perfectly fine, but how can anyone trust that? Olaus (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing some of the edits in question ([26], [27], [28]), I am really surprised this editor was not blocked last month as being a vandalism-only account. Now it looks as if Fiet Nam has graduated from outright -and easily spotted- vandalism to the more insidious sneaky vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who can fix whatever problems he may have inserted in articles like Yola language or Old Tupi language? That's the nub of the problem. This guy has been adding blatantly false information to Wikipedia (like making the claim Norwegian contains no letter "y" [29]). How do we police the material he adds to more obscure subjects? Why should editors waste their time doing so? We're an encyclopaedia so deliberately messing with content is the most serious offence possible. With the latest edit Olaus links to, which came after he had his final warning, this guy has finally spent his credit and his account should be blocked as "vandalism only". --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice he hadn't been informed of this discussion on his talk page. He has now. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've deleted Värmlandic. There simply was no content, the single EL is non-working, and the ISO language code supposedly applicable to this dialect doesn't exist, and there are zero non-wikipedia-related G-hits. Looks like more fakery from this editor. Since Rodhullandemu has notified him of this discussion, it is only fair to wait a bit to give him a chance to reply, but I'm all for a long block, as it seems that this is pretty much a vandal-only account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef, no point wasting further time. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Afterthought: it would be a good idea for any editor who is genuinely knowledgeable about Scandinavian languages (the chief focus of Fiet Nam's edits) to check through his contributions there to see if any damage he has done has been left unreverted. --Folantin (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User was blocked indef by Theresa knott

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check his contributions. New user can not be aware of complicated Giano episode and this user attacked Jimbo Wales in first edit. He is obvious sockpuppet.

Perhaps he don't know that I am termed as master of sockpuppets. Sockpuppet can identify other sockpuppet easily. We use steel to cut steel. I am User:Neo.. Thanks to Ryulong. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I would please like other users here to review the behavior of user:Moldopodo. He is a relatively new user who has entered into numerous edit conflicts with other users, including myself. My concern is primarily his accusations of bad faith against user he disagrees with and an unwillingness to seek consensus for certain controversial edits. I have tried to discuss the matter with him on his talk page, however he feels that I have acted in bad faith. Please take a look at his recent participation on Wikipedia. I believe he is more likely to take into consideration the advice of a more objective user, or if others believe that I have indeed acted improperly I would like to know that. Thank you. TSO1D (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours for his disruptive editing. Hopefully this will prevent further damage to the articles, and give him a chance to think about his editing techniques. Anthøny 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Moldopodo was blocked, he added the following to his talk page, so I will add it here:

"TSO1D openly lies and I have nothing to hide or to improve. Unfortunately I had no time to write anything on the ANI page, where TSO1D put a comment on me. TSO1D bad faith is manifested by the following:

1) Intentionally enducing in error readers on the Balti talk page as the discussion was started on move of Balti article and ended, thanks to TSO1D ill manoeuvres, in discussion of general move of eastern European localitis and general debate on diacritics. Hence the significance of the initial debate was lost.

2) TSO1D lied, as TSO1D filed a block request against me, that I do not support my arguments with a source, whereas me and other users (Illythr) confimed and reconfirmed this (please see the Moldova page, last days edits), TSO1D also lied on Moldova talk page that I do not provide sources, right after my sections and references with sources.

3) TSO1D has immediately reverted Balti article to the strongly contested pro-Romanian version deleting all Russian names of districts, which is against consensus reached on the Balti talk page previously.

4) TSO1D does not make the necessary effort for a constructive dialog and pushes through a personal opinion both on Balti article and Moldova article." TSO1D (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that my intention in making this report was not to have Moldopodo blocked. I consider his recent behavior to be disruptive in many ways, however I believe that blocking him is unlikely to solve the problem. It will only generate certain ill-will and possibly exacerbate the conflict, and as soon as the block will expire, he will probably return to the same pattern. My idea was to try to make him understand Wikipedia policies and what he is doing wrong, and since he believes that I am too biased against him, I wished for others to review his actions and talk to him. TSO1D (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(follow up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive331#Sambure_and_Porcupine)

As many of you probably know, User:Porcupine was blocked for a month after this thread on ANI. Back then, we all thought that User:Sambure was a new user. Checkuser proved meanwhile that Sambure was (yet again) a sock of User:Bonaparte. Porcupine/Rambutan asked me to paste the following statement:

After consideration, while I still think that regardless of who was Sambure Rambutan was very wrong, I think that he was most probably tricked here. And I wanted to gauge the community consensus on a shortening of Porcupine's block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock. Will ^(talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate editing priveleges with the proviso that he watch his temper in these situations. I've gone through similar stuff (first with BlackStarRock, then with Dereks1x), and I did not find it hard to keep a calm head. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave blocked or shorten slightly. Porcupine wastes too much of our time. John Reaves 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are designed to be protective rather than punitive, as lucas. correctly points out. Unblock tomorrow, and strongly caution over the encyclopedia's requirements regarding policy and guideline obedience. If Porcupine restarts his nonsense again, re-instate the block. Anthøny 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblock. I thought a month was a bit excessive anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock; whereas I agree that given that situation Porcupine should have acted differently, I though 1 month was too long and given that he was tricked by a banned user, I think it's only fair to let him go now. However he should be warned that if this happens again, a block of similar duration will be put in place. TSO1D (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there's no suggestion that Bonaparte was targeting Porcupine specifically, though it's quite possible that Bonaparte was trolling in a general sort of way. The block of Porcupine arose because Porcupine's conduct was unacceptable regardless of who he was dealing with. Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (né Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has a long history of incivility and biteyness; the fact that it was coincidentally aimed at a banned user doesn't really excuse the sheer rudeness that he was demonstrating right on AN/I. (I note that Porcupine only drew Bonaparte's attention after making a poorly-adjudged AfD nomination.)

There's no indication that Porcupine knew or suspected that Sambure was a banned editor—that Porcupine thought that his own behaviour was an appropriate way of dealing with a new editor explains why he should remain blocked. Disputes on Wikipedia sometimes involve editors where one is clearly in the right and one clearly in the wrong. In this case, both editors engaged in disruptive and obnoxious behaviour; Bonaparte's has been sufficient to earn him an indefinite block. Porcupine fully deserved the one-month block he received, given that he had been warned and blocked repeatedly before for the same type of actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unrelated sidenote, Porcupine said that he thinks Bonaparte has 30 sockpuppets. The truth is even better, look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte, it turns out that Bonaparte has 120 sockpuppets. Now that's dedication! I wonder if he the greatest Wikipedia puppetmaster of all time? 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Further sidenote: I think Mascotguy still leads the pack with 700+ socks. Kuru ^talk 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see an immediate unblock, very much for the same reasons as TenOfAllTrades. I could understand lowering the block to a week or two, but not an immediate lift. The problem of incivility is not a function of who it is addressed to¹; it is a problem based in what is said. Nobody should get a free pass for incivility, regardless of who they are or who they are addressing. ^{1: Unless the two parties have a long standing relationship such that the speaker can be confident that humor will be so understood, which is clearly not the case here.} GRBerry 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an additional comment here, Porcupine has been in touch with me via email, and has assured me that he will be ensuring he does not violate any more policies. I've also informed him that his contributions will most likely be getting watched, which he is agreeable too. Anthøny 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay with an unblock — he understands what he did wrong, and was provoked into it by a banned user. I don't see much more "prevention" from the block anymore. --Haemo (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often do we have to deal with Rambutan (first one)/Porcupine/Circuit Judge? He's had several AN/ANI cases just in November, not to mention multiple blocks between the three accounts. He's been warned several times, then says "I'm sorry, I'll behave", and just goes and does it again. I agree with John Reaves, Porucupine wastes too much of our time and we should stop letting him off the hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rlevse, I think an examination of Porcupine's history suggests that his assurances that he won't engage in disruptive, incivil behaviour ought to be taken with a grain of salt. During his last block (October 23, for seven days) he first attempted to argue that his behaviour (including calling another editor a "self-important, lazy, rude, bureaucratic prat", and misusing the term 'vandalism' after its correct definition on Wikipedia had been explained to him) didn't constitute incivility or personal attacks: [30]. After that unblock request was denied, he acknowledged that his behaviour was "a little childish" and that he "may have been brusque with newbies", and sought an unblock on the basis that he would not "edit-war, revert more than three times per day or be exceptionally unpleasant" [31].

Less than a month later, we're back on AN/I again. He was being needlessly inflammatory and incivil in a dispute, and biting an apparent newbie. I'm pleased to see that he has realized now that his conduct was inappropriate and that he now regrets engaging in incivility and attacks. Nevertheless, there's no indication that he will consider his actions before he takes them in the future. I fear that the only way that he's actually going to take the hint is if we stand firm on these blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely.02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

People seem to be approaching this from the angle that this was the first such incident in Porcupine's past, or that we can be as rude as we like to banned users. This isn't the first time this sort of behavior has become a major problem, nor even necessarily the first time in recent memory. I don't recall seeing any blatant baiting or trolling to provoke Porcupine, either. The user was banned, but this only became clear after the fact. This is probably a mitigating factor, but given the history of problems, I don't know that it excuses the harsh response that was elicited. That said, I'm very curious about the IP addresses which returned to vandalize, after Porcupine's block -- were those Porcupine, or Bonaparte? That's a key question, as I see things. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nobody notifed Fram, the blocking admin. I've corrected this oversight; I would urge that anyone considering any action here give him a chance to comment first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops sorry my bad. I told him I was considering bringing it to ANI, but forgot to link directly once I created the thread. (Rambutan can vouch that I didn't have much spare time yesterday! ;). That being said, I am not contesting Fran's block in any way, because I agree with it. I think the data changed, and that this unblock request shouldn't be handled directly by one or a small group of admins. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this (most likely Rambutan). It just furthers my lack of faith in him. John Reaves 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is Rambutan / Porcupine - WHOIS shows the IP is in Germany, Porcupine is in the UK. Kelpin (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP was almost certainly an open proxy[32]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I whois-ed some of the IPs that Luna's referring to above, when the vandalism to Sambure started after Porcupine's block, and they appear to be from the same IP block in Germany. A computer centre in Munich, as I recall Berlin. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT is not my strongest subject so I have no idea whether a user in the UK could use an IP address in Germany (which is what I think zzuuzz is suggesting above) but even if they could I'd be surprised if Rambutan / Porcupine was responsible for the messages concerned. As has been noted elsewhere in this discussion this isn't Porcupine's first block and I haven't seen IPs posting abuse on the talk pages of those who asked for him to be blocked before (and I'm speaking as someone who had him blocked a few months back). Kelpin (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOIS results are not in any way relevant. Anyone, anywhere in the world can use this IP address. It is the same type of open proxy that Bonaparte uses, and I am not familiar enough with this situation to say who was using it on this occasion, but you cannot rule out any one person using it because they are in a different country. I would not rule out a joe job either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed. In fact Porcupine makes just that point on their talkpage (with justification) - in the absence of records from the proxy provider there's no way of knowing who posted the obscenities; it's unlikely to be Porcupine and is somewhat more likely to be Sambure/Bonaparte. By the way, Kelpin yes, a user in the UK (or in fact Romania) could use a proxy in Germany, thereby appearing to come from Germany. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose any consensus to unblock/reduce/increase/whatever. I don't see how Sambure initially provoked Porcupine (by creating an article that has been unanimously decided should be kept?), but he of course knew quite well how to play along once Porcupine started acting the way he did. On the other hand, seeing the history of Porcupine, I don't know what value should be given to his assurances. Remember that this block came just one day after the end of his previous one week block for trolling. Fram (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Porcupine can be uncivil at times, (and I've had cause to complain about this in the past) I think in this instance he received more than sufficient provocation to cut him some slack (Sambure started a message on his Talk Page "Listen Pig") I might get a little incivil if someone posted that on my talk page! Kelpin (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but before that, he had already made a quite uncivil AfD nomination, and an edit summary like the one here[33] can also hardly be called civil (it has the same condescending tone he would use throughout this episode). The "pig" edit by Sambure was only the next one[34]. This indicates to me that he has a quite basic problem with incivility on Wikipedia. If you look at his unblock request[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APorcupine&diff=173123186&oldid=173115843 (which starts by changing the header "block notice", which I put there, to "notice"...), he is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that there was a problem with many of his edits (apart from a little sarcasm), no matter if he was provoked or not. Now, he is just saying that he is really not a threat to Wikipedia, not that he will change his behaviour or that he understands the reason for the block. To me, this all comes across like "unblock me, I haven't done anyhting wrong". I don't think under these circumstances unblocking would be wise, as that would only encourage him to continue this behaviour. Fram (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would really like to believe Porcupine when he says `I have learned my lesson,` we have certainly gone through this cycle of disruption/block/apologize/unblock several times before. However perhaps his offer to accept a mentor is a step in the right direction. Now if only a good mentor (*cough*Ryan Postlethwaite*cough*) would volunteer for the job! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller's proposal

Porcupine invited me by email to contribute here. He may not thank me for this though.

I am inclined to nod at Fram's comments above, but they're more appropriate for a siteban discussion than a reduction of a month block.

Which is appropriate, I think. Porcupine's rap-sheet is extensive for one garnered over a shockingly short period of time. Problem users of this type are usually leopards than cannot change their spots.

However, I think there's extenuating circumstances in this case. The arguable position that Porcupine has been leniently dealt with in the past is not balanced by being harsh on this occasion.

I'd support an immediate block lift on these conditions:

1. Porcupine apologises on his talk page, without reservation for past bad behaviour
2. Porcupine agrees to fulfill WP:CIVIL - its word and spirit
3. Porcupine agrees to accept mentoring from an admin for three months
4. Porcupine accepts that contravention of any of the above points is likely to end with a full siteban

I'd be looking for Porcupine to explicitly accept these points on his talk page prior to the block being lifted. Otherwise, I do not support reduction of the block terms.

If this proposal achieves consensus (and Porcupine's agreement) I warn Porcupine that most people who get this far with incivility and other problem editing issues inevitably end up with sitebans as they just can't help themselves. Perhaps you have the guts to be the exception to the rule... I'd be delighted. Nothing makes me happier than former problem editors contributing usefully. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB Porcupine's response to this is at his talk page. I leave it to others to decide if a) my proposal is wise and b) his response is sufficient. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, his 'rap sheet' under his previous username, Rambutan, ought to be mentioned. I note that there are entries there where unblocks have occurred on the basis of 'user has agreed to move on' and 'reducing to time served. User has indicated a willingness to improve in future'. For the record, the block that Porcupine is currently serving came on the heels of a one-week block for using his sockpuppet account Circuit Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to troll an ArbCom candidate's question page. He had been unblocked for less than a day before he managed to pick the fight that led to the block we're discussing now. Showing a 'willingness' to improve is an important first step—but at some point we have to expect that he actually demonstrate improvement.

Frankly, the tone of the response he's made on his talk page doesn't fill me with hope. He is 'prepared to apologise' if and only if the community 'restor[es] [his] editing privileges very soon...' (his italics). It's in the community's hands, of course, but I'd hate to see this turn into one of those 'Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop!' again!' situations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree. The talkpage response is less than encouraging. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also emailed by Porcupine - I wonder if it was because I was on his side over the issue of whether his old user talk page could be deleted or would have to remain a redirect. Porcupine got into a severe dispute with a user who turned out later to be a sock of a banned user. Does that later discovery restrospectively diminish his disruptiveness? Not fully, and there is a longrunning problem. I would go with Dweller's suggestion if a competent mentor can be found. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB Porcupine is responding to some specifics on his talk page. This is all very clumsy. Any support for removing his block now on condition he only edits this page in addition to his talk page? We can always reinstate it for the remaining period if consensus is against my proposal. And if he runs off and edits elsewhere, I'd drop this as a charade and propose community ban straightawy. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more I see a user who doesn't get why their behavior is a problem and is going to repeat their problematic behavior in the future. I'm now tending to think that we should already be having the community ban discussion, not a discussion about lowering the block. He clearly emailed Coren, who reviewed the situation and said on his talk page that it was a bad idea to think about reducing the block. (discussion). He then says he is leaving for a while and wants to make the talk page vanish, yet appears to have emailed others shortly thereafter asking for another review of the block. His attitude in response to Dweller coveys an attitude that the community did him wrong when he was blocked, and that he has "agreed to degrade myself (!) by accepting mentoring". This user doesn't get it, and until there is a potential mentor who thinks they can and will put an end to the incivility, I don't believe there is any point in continuing the discussion or unblocking. GRBerry 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see no reason to unblock at this point. I am disheartened by what seems to me to be a total and complete lack of remorse. "I'll apologize if..." does not an apology make. I do not support an unblock at this point. - Philippe | Talk 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would volunteer if the community doesn't think me an inappropriate mentor. In full disclosure, I have no previous interaction with this user (he apparently emailed me because he thought I might be sympathetic, based on my involvement in the Bus Stop case, above). I am prepared to wear the egg on my face from the likelihood of this backfiring, in hope that the less likely resolution of the problem would fill my little heart with good feelings. And, less attractively for the rest of you, inflate my ego to unbelievable proportions. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of swelling Dweller's ego unfeasibly, well done! Given the conditions stated I'd be content (not happy, just content) to see Porcupine unblocked and let's se how it goes. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now we have a potential mentor. I've never seen a mentorship attempt that worked, but since the successful attempts are the least visible, I'm willing to let them be tried. I still think the current block should last for a week or more, but am willing to allow a last chance mentorship program. Several someones should make a note of where this thread archives to so that it will be easy to find in the likely event that we need it again. GRBerry 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo: "The more I look at this, the more I see a user who doesn't get why their behavior is a problem and is going to repeat their problematic behavior in the future." Glad someone besides me sees this. This is the root of his issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Red-carded. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance someone could check on the identity of User:More to it All? His/her only contributions so far have been to a discussion started by another sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul's. – PeeJay 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and I don't mean by goalies. The first two edits were enough for me to block him - he attacked Yamla again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to the article JAMAA, which was, in my opinion, unjustifiably deleted. It was first speedy deleted without reason, and then restored and nominated for deletion. I opened a second deletion review and it was closed within hours of its opening. I opened a third deletion review to appeal this closure and this was again deleted within hours. It is sheer administrative abuse to allow a deletion review to be closed within hours, particularly when I have given many legitimate reasons as to why this article should remain intact. Please see the latest deletion review for more information, which also provides links to the previous deletion reviews. I will continue to appeal this deletion to the fullest extent of Wikipedia policy. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh.* The Nov 25th one was closed and the Nov 24th one was re-opened because it was closed prematurely (due to a misunderstanding that has been fully explained). In other words, you got exactly what you wanted an hour and a half ago, but you wanted to scream "admin abuse" so we've got this. Leave the drama elsewhere, please. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing the recreation of a properly referenced article asserting notability.--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page for 'David Bradbury' "... has been protected to prevent creation" due to issues with an apparently non notable trumpet player with the same name.

There is now an Australian member of parliament with the name "David Bradbury" - see http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/lind.htm

I think the page should be unprotected' 1dragon (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graham87 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could another admin, dispationately have a look at Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)'s latest sniping at admins and tussling with ReasonableLogicalMan (talk · contribs) (see [35]) As a quick background: I issued a uw-npa4im warning on 1st November - see User talk:Skoppensboer#Stop personal attacks which references the truely awful accusations (including "Listen up, you self-promoting vandal and liar" and "unlike you, whose edit history shows to be interested in only one thing: the promotion of your flagging and sad career"). The two had been edit warring on Prostatitis. When ReasonableLogicalMan created an article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, admin User:DGG helped out by highlighting problems with that article (lacked citations and seemed synthesis/OR to collate the conditions in the manner that it did) and added a "under construction" tag, with a suggested review of situiation after 7 days. His actions then belittled with the snide remark of "Surprised admins cannot see the breach immediately"[36], and no sooner had the suggested 7-days pass, than Skoppensboer nominated it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology), during the duration of which citations were added and DGG made some major changes to the article to streamline it and address the OR issues. Subsequent comments at AfD discussion were then for "Keep and improve". A previously uninvolved further admin, Davewild, eventually closed the nomination as a keep[37].

Having got involved in prostatis and this AfD, I'ld be grateful for comment/action from my admin colleagues over resulting posting by Skoppensboer of [38], feining innocence and belittling again the work of admins (with "Someone closed the AfD") and more specifically clearly continuing to breach WP:AGF (which is of course an official policy) with "the editor has created an article to further an agenda" Given the past uw-npa4im, but were I not quite so entangled, I think I would apply a short 24-hr block for continued unpleasantness in what is meant to be a welcoming inclusive collaborative environment of a wiki. The final bit of the posting calling for an admin to speedily delete the article both further undermindes Davewild's admin action, and is ridiculous as the article would never now be deleted under the speedy process (given not clear-cut as per recent AfD discussion), but of course could be renominated for AfD. David Ruben ^Talk 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David R helped improve the very rough revision I made to keepable status. I will say personally that I am not fully satisfied with all the comments of Reasonablelogicalman at all stages of the dispute, but that the comments of Skoppensboer seem totally incompatible with cooperative work on WP. Were I not involved I would have applied a much longer block than 24 hours. DGG (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hello, I would like to contest the block of Jgoessling1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He or she created one (or at least was warned once) about a non notable person and made a test edit on User:Jimbo Wales (reverted by him or herself). I would like to propose an unblock, as the only warning was for the speedy deleted article. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the block should be reduced to 12hrs. I will do so myself unless anyone objects. TSO1D (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contribs, I'd say KoS was a bit trigger-happy here. The Jimbo Wales edit was self-reverted, (s)he hasn't created any more pages (attack or otherwise), and the Melon edit was in good faith. I support an unblock, not a block redux like TSO1D is saying. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree, no block at all should have been imposed. TSO1D (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I unblocked him. TSO1D (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah—like we all haven't heard the "my little sister vandalized while I wasn't looking excuse before" no wait now it was the brother who vandalized the melon page.... "My younger brother played around on my computer with my account, which I created today, and vandalized the melon page. I am very sorry about the mishap and I will not let it happen again" The deleted article was an attack page—and while the melon edit may have been good faith, the guy admitted it was vandalism. Yeah for the record maybe the block was a little "trigger happy" but it appears to me it wasn't a mistake. Oh well, with regards. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 70.218.5.177 for making a legal threat. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User wasn't warned. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats does not necessarily require a warning for the user to be blocked. People would be wise to heed Doc glasgow's adivice below. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS! Unbelievable! Actually that was probably the frustrated subject of an apparently libellous biography. Please don't jump in with "legal threats - block" and quoting house policies when- first ask if someone has a legitimate reason to be upset. (Article now deleted). --Doc^g 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for a week, but I am going to check the article for BLP vios because that was the basis of the threat and remove the block myself since there seems to be basis against. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) -Text redacted by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}[reply]

WTF, I'm tempted to block all the above idiots (not Deskana) for cluelessness and extreme stupidity.--Doc^g 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Uncivil sorry, just very angry.--Doc^g 01:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for WP:AGF, folks. The article looked decent when I nominated it for deletion. I can't look at it now to see what it may have become since it's now deleted but I'd appreciate an apology from a few folks since all I've done is proper and necessary. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still don't get it. A badly referenced article accuses someone of being a criminal - it is blanked by an IP who suggests that it is libelling him and it may be legally actionable - and your response is to revert the banking (restoring libels) and ask admins to block the IP???? That is not "proper and necessary" it is incredibly negligent. I apologise for my angry incivility - but not at all for my criticism. Pay attention if you want to deal with BLPs. And stop and at least ask if an IP might have a reason for its actions - that's called assuming good faith.--Doc^g 01:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT is very clear - block someone making legal threats. Then we can investigate. I don't question our lawyers in legal matters nor would I advise you to do so.

I don't recall anything in the article being libelous. I didn't even get a chance to look at the article after the anonymous editor made the threat as I did the right thing: I immediately reported the legal threat. I then dropped a note at the BLP notice board. In between those two actions, the article was deleted.

I'm sorry if I missed something but threatening to block me and jumping all over me is uncalled for and unfucking cool. I'm pretty damn angry for all the work I've done here, following the spirit and the rules to the best of my ability as a normal editor, and I get shit on like this. I'm done for the night. Others can babysit article, revert vandalism, and make unappreciated reports of vandalism and legal threats. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at its log, the article was deleted three times (including tonight), and twice within the past 48 hours. If it pops up again, I'll delete and salt it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "salt" it? Is that a reference to salting the earth? Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, prevention of re-creation/regrowth. Acroterion _(talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALT. --Yamla (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a violate if someone uses a mathematical formula in their sig, because it generates an image and images are not allowed in sigs. This user has is one example but there are others: [39] --Dacium (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images aren't allowed because of the potential for vandalism and the cluttering of Whatlinkshere. Is this doing either? No. Is it doing harm? No. Just leave it be or point them politely towards Unicode. Cheers, east.718 at 02:55, November 26, 2007

Because of the nature of the math formula tags, it doesn't always generate an image, either. It depends on the personal preferences on every user log in. I don't really see a problem with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the image has to be generated (are they cached?) each time it is viewed, also depending on the viewer's preferences. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are cached. So only one image needs to be generated for each preference. --ais523 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I encountered a number of this user's edits to both American Apparel and Dov Charney (CEO of the same) and I was going to come here and ask an administrator to see if they could find out where the edits were coming from, however in this edit, that user identified himself as "Spencer Windes, American Apparel Web Communications Coordinator." Mr. Windes' repeated edits to both American Apparel and Dov Charney seem to indicate that account will only be used to promote his company, which is outside of the guidelines set forth in WP:COI. His edits to Dov Charney are especially concerning, since they have whitewashed much of that article and cast a very rosy light on his direct employer. I would ask that an administrator warn Mr. Windes against such edits or bar him from editing articles directly related to his company. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've spent the last hour trying to take out reams of POV OR and synthesis from Dov Charney and I'm inclined to just rewrite the entire article, since this user has so thoroughly corrupted it with his own biased modifications. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clouds! Assuming this is for real, it's not only improper per Wikipedia rules but also an unclueful and potentially damaging PR gaffe that could backfire rather seriously. I left him a message about that and will mention on his page that we're talking about it here. It has been several days since the last edit and I don't see that he was ever warned before, so despite the disruption and clean up effort I don't think discipline isn't in order. Let's just hope he gets the message. Wikidemo (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Through my continuing edits, I've noticed that that editor inserted a huge amount of information that he copied verbatim from the New York Times article And You Thought Abercrombie & Fitch Was Pushing It?. For instance, here he added the line "In marked contrast to industry norms, Charney pays his garment workers an average of over twice the minimum wage, subsidizes their health care and meals, provides free on-site English-language classes, and, at regular intervals, sends massage therapists onto the factory floor to massage workers during their break." which is cribbed almost verbatim from the article which reads "All of American Apparel's clothing is made in downtown L.A., by workers to whom Charney pays an average of almost twice the minimum wage (and sometimes much more) and to whom he offers subsidized health care, meals and free English lessons, as well as regular massages. Charney says he believes that he can have a greater degree of quality control and quicker responsiveness to the marketplace by keeping everything in house."

Here he adds the line "Charney frequently refers to himself as a "Jewish Hustler,"" which is also copied almost verbatim from the New York Times article: "Dov Charney proudly refers to himself as a "Jewish hustler."

In that same diff, the editor adds "In the summer of 2003, Charney rented a storefront gallery in the Echo Park section of Los Angeles to display a selection of photographs taken by his friend Luca Pizzaroni. As an afterthought, he sent over some T-shirts to sell at the opening reception—the next day, seeing that he had made $1,500 in T-shirt sales, he began planning to expand American Apparel into retail sales. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23apparel.html]" The Times article reads: "In the summer of 2003, when Charney rented a storefront gallery in Echo Park for an exhibit of photographs taken by his friend Luca Pizzaroni, it only occurred to him as an afterthought to offer some T-shirts for sale as well. The next day, when he discovered that he had rung up $1,500 in sales, he began signing more leases in hip neighborhoods in other cities."

Other editors may want to review more of User:Leftcoastbreakdown's contributions and revert any suspected plagarism. Cheers. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I found another. This is identical to the final paragraph here so I deleted it. Users can be banned for persistent copyright violation - I would give him a single final warning for that. Thank goodness he's made less than 50 edits, to four articles in total. I think we'll have to go through every single one to look for copyvio. Might as well manually undo the remaining effects of all his non-clerical edits while we're at it. Wikidemo (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote articles

Based on the above concerns I rewrote the American Apparel and Dov Charney articles. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's prior edits, and I can't claim the results are actually great articles, but I did try to help things. I looked at each of the edits done by the company employee, and the anonymous IPs, and restored any negative information they deleted. I went through the articles and removed anything that sounded like advertisement, marketing/PR speak, or POV defenses of criticism against the company and its CEO. I can't promise I found every copyvio, and there are still some verifiability/sourcing problems. Wikidemo (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks a lot better than it did, thanks for all your hard work. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Last name hardblocked. Can do no more until he shows up again or the IP check happens. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps creating unacceptable usernames in a short span of time:

• User:The Gustasfon says, "I am a big shithead!
• User:Jeff O. Gustafson is a Shithead!!!
• User:Ih8jeffogustafson
• User:I hate Jeff O Gustasfon

Perhaps a checkuser should be run and an IP address blocked. Useight (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file the IP check, but the underlying IP is prevented from making names for 24 hours anyhow (the latest was hardblocked). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filed. It's in the CUs' hands now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

128.111.95.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is restoring and adding new soapbox posts in Talk:Misandry. This is Anacapa (talk · contribs) (description). Page history shows several of these posts previously removed by other administrators. Claims "As for this IP being 'suspected' of being a banned editors IP that is a false suspicion. This IP is shared by hundreds of other users." Could use a short-duration block on this IP. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post three or four diffs showing the soapbox posts? I have dealt with Anacapa before. This sounds like his editing pattern. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All 8 of today's posts from this IP address are to Talk:Misandry. First edit restores information previously posted by 128.111.95.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 128.111.95.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), deleted for being Anacapa[40] (plus a few replies to same by another editor)[41].

These deletions are discussed extensively here (which BTW provides a useful guide to spotting Anacapa).

• 2007-11-26T05:27:57 Banned user suspicion is false. This IP is shared by hundreds of users. Restored censored content
• 2007-11-26T05:33:31 to editors who cry "forum"
• 2007-11-26T05:30:09 added discussion on forum and banned user

3 edit conflicts trying to post this. No idea why. /edg ☺ ☭ 06:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Looks like everything is settled --Haemo (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to file a complaint against Admin User:Swatjester, is this the right place in order to air my grievance and show proof so I don't waste my time? - Jeeny ^(talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If administrator attention is required, yes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has threatened me with a block because he says I'm "trolling". He deleted this with the edit summary that I was trolling and uncivil. I really wanted to know why I and others of the community should trust his judgment when he is up for a trusted position of ArbCom. I have problems with his attitude, and he is exaggerating in his wording to me, and that I have "strong feelings" and need a break. He is abusing his power by intimation, and this needs to be addressed right now. See his message on my talk page. I have a troll that is following me around and has now responded to SwatJester's warning to me. So, I'll be blocked and the real troll is free to come back again and again to disrupt this project. Swatjester has to be kept in check on this issue. That if he blocks me, he is abusing his "power" that is supposed to be no big deal, and a trusted member of this community. This admin is calling me a troll, which is very offensive to me and not true. Are you sure this is the right place? I have more. - Jeeny ^(talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned for referring to another person repeatedly as a moron. After the first warning, you blanked it with the edit summary "If it fits...". You then proceeded to troll my arbcom candidacy page. That is unacceptable. You seem to have a disdain for the policies and procedures on this project. You would do well to heed them. Also, please note at the top of the page here: This is not the administrator complaint department. This is not an incident in which administrator attention is required. The only attention that is required here is for you to calm down, relax, take a deep breath and a nice cup of tea, and edit civilly without personally attacking other editors as you have repeatedly done in the past week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He even admits he is an asshole (see my talk page). He doesn't mind being called names. Unlike you, I have more respect toward the a "real troll" than someone who cannot admit when they are wrong, and is all high and mighty. Cannot read between the lines, and has no flexibility. - Jeeny ^(talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that in the diff that I reverted from my candidacy questions, in one single edit you referred to me as arrogant, flippant, accused me of false representations, compared me to Essjay, accused me of making things worse for others, accused me of disrupting the project, referred to me as "Mr. Defender", accused me of lying, called me egotistical, called me a "babe in the woods" and made statements that could be interpreted as a threat against me off-wiki. You're lucky I didn't block you right there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? There you go exaggerating again. You repeatedly say I repeatedly call people morons. And where or what did I say that made you think that I made a "threat against [you] off-wiki"? You called me a troll. I did not accuse you of lying, show me where I said that. I said you exaggerate. Big difference, because it's difficult to know the motives of others when on the internet when you can't see their face, body language, etc. And now your saying I should be "lucky [you] didn't block [me] right there"? Is that not proof that you are a bit trigger happy? - Jeeny ^(talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I exaggerate nothing. Typing words on a computer is one thing, but actions proves another could be construed as a threat, especially since you were talking about how you are "better than me" off-wiki in the sentence before that. Here, you change another persons edit summary to Scumbucket. Here, you call someone a moron in both edit, and in edit summary (hence, repeatedly). Again, you call someone a moron, accuse them of adding bullshit, tell them to get a grip on life, call them a troll. Here you call them the Perfect Troll. And even when blanking the conversation, you call them trolls. This incivility is unacceptable, and it is symptomatic of the pattern you have shown over your 14-entry long block log. It ends now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was better than you. I feel I am no better nor worse. See, that's what I mean about exaggerating. I can't trust you to be in ArbCom if you continue to misconstrue statements like that and turn them into something against YOU. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What was the point of "(BTW I have more experience than you in mediation, conflict resolution, and arbitration, and with many awards to show for it, in REAL LIFE)." then? Chopped liver? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact. I've lived longer than you have. I have 8 years of experience in THAT one job. Just the facts. Not better than you. As you can accumulate the same time in 8 years. See that's fair. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been advised several times to cease conversing with SWATjester. I really suggest you take that advice. FCYTravis (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What!? I have asked HIM to stop with me. Where was I "advised several times to cease conversing with [him]"? Oh, forget it, you don't need to answer that. I'm done for the night. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then oppose him when voting starts. I don't think this discussion is going to be very productive — everyone just needs to walk away and cool down. --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Haemo, thanks. I'm done. You show a reasonableness, and I can deal with that. :) - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that's only really 4 valid blocks. --Haemo (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and Phil's shouldn't count. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeny, you really need to cool down. I hate to say it, but the concerns Swatjester raises appear to be valid. While I'm not sure whether or not he was entirely cool dealing with you, just remember that when you get frustrated with a user, you shouldn't resort to calling him or her a troll. It's best to take a break for a little while, or go edit something else. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, he was the one who called me a troll. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs Swatjester has provided are compelling. There is never an excuse for "a few bad words" directed at other Wikipedia editors. I've had death threats before on Wikipedia and haven't replied insultingly. What would be the point? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "diffs" Swatjester is using are against a KNOWN troll, which even he called him himself. This is crazy. - Jeeny ^(talk) 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT. Personal attacks are never acceptable against anyone, even a troll. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'rly?. I can find many more where this is accepted from admins, MANY more. Don't you see that you're helping to make Wikipedia a joke more than it is? Do you not know any people in academia? They laugh at this place. I'm trying to help that not be so. Also for the essay; "There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls". Again, I take offense being called a troll, and should not be acceptable for admins, ArbCom wannabees, or in any others in "trusted" positions to use that word without good cause, if at all. Stop the insanity! - Jeeny ^(talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just use the word "troll" in your edit summary? Seraphim ^Whipp 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was what I was called. - Jeeny ^(talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Jeeny, your continuing this discussion is becoming disruptive. You need to calm down or write articles instead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to make a comment along those lines a few hours ago but I forgot to save (too many tabs). Jeeny, you are wasting our time and disrupting the encyclopedia. Please stop before you get blocked. John Reaves 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disrupting because I see an inconsistency? Didn't you say once that if an admin abuses his or her power than to speak up? Do you not understand the implications this has? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not anarchy either. I'm truly trying to understand the dynamics here. I'm not disrupting for the sake of it, but to understand. Threatening me with a block is counterproductive. Honest to goodness I do not get it. I'm a degreed academic, and do not understand this place. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? - Jeeny ^(talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a degreed academinc haven't you ever taken a course on harrassment and appropriate behaviour or do you resolve your off-line problems by calling your colleagues and peers trolls and morons? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such thing such as a course in harassment, maybe a seminar, or for law enforcement. Also, it's spelled "harassment", one "R". I don't work here, I'm trying to help, but this harassment by young persons who have very little life experience, and little education is frustrating, and disruptive. Don't you see that? Plus they are in a position of power? Just because you did not call me a "name" does not mean you were not intending to insult me by your comment.- Jeeny ^(talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes it is. Now go work on it. John Reaves 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm doing. - Jeeny ^(talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not, now you're harassing John Reaves on his talk page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I have blocked Jeeny for 48 hours, not only because of his disruption and trolling but because he has a long history of it and is showing every sign of not learning. I think everyone concerned needs a couple of days of peace from this. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He's been blocked for a couple of weeks, and presumably left the project as well. It appears my predictions were entirely accurate about the outcome of this situation. --Haemo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, this person seemed like a promising candidate for participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all our claims of supporting the actual editors of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be all out to write, we very rarely actually do it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop extending the block and then protecting the page. This backwards approach is needlessly punitive. El_C 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Category deleted by Mushroom. Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please watch Able to Love and Category:Benny Benassi songs please - I've been declining a G7 speedy by Alexander Vince - twice - and they've resorted to logging out to place the tag instead. However, if someone else gives them a look and thinks G7 is valid, I have no objections. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently dealt with a huge spate of G7s related to Benny Benassi songs, but deleted them all since the author was the only person to make significant edits. Other admins are welcome to trawl through my logs and overturn if necessary. east.718 at 06:11, November 26, 2007

I think the songs are worth redirecting. (Which is what I did to Able to Love...) Someone can tag this section as resolved, now... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mushroom (talk · contribs) has deleted Category:Benny Benassi songs. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I going through the suspected sock puppets cases I noticed the following report. Upon checking this report I noticed that the user User:Morgwatchwatch — a new user whose only contributions were filing this report. I found it suspicious and noted so [42]. I am not sure what else to do about this so I am bringing this notice here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 10:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of this and the first report, which is almost identical to this one was oversighted. I'll take care of it, along with a checkuser. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant sockpuppet blocked and report deleted. Thanks for reporting this. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The submitter is, yes, but it's way more complicated than that. I'll get to the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has asked me to make some edits to Template:Infobox_Company as I pressed the protect button. But that template is really complicated and used on a lot of articles, and I am pretty confident I would bugger up a few thousand articles inadvertently (not being particularly good with all that complicated wikicode stuff) despite the best of intentions. Could an admin who is wise and able with template syntax take a look? The thread is User_talk:Neil#Request_for_Additions_to_Template:Infobox_Company. Ta. Neil ☎ 10:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an email to someone which has included their email address - [43]. uw-pinfo warning given. The recent edits on WP:Reliable sources appear to be 15% vandalism. Please consider protection. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please send future requests for the removal of personal info to oversight-l lists dot wikimedia period org (as to avoid the delete a page with lots of revisions and kill the servers problem). Thanks. MER-C 12:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Looks studiously at feet. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that only the person/s affected could do so ? WP:RFO & WP:OVER are unclear - I will ask them to clarify. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can submit a revision to be oversighted or a complaint to the Oversights via email. The subjects themselves may to go OTRS (but I assume normal users can, if they have information they'd rather not give on-wiki). x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe the only way to request oversight is through email. At the very least, there is no on-wiki noticeboard for oversight. I imagine the reasons for that are rather obvious. Natalie (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight - the request must be emailed. And a good thing too. On the handful of occasions that I've needed to request oversight in my experience the response has been very quick and appropriate. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an anon editor who was mass reverting character articles about Samurai Shodown. Apparently the character articles were redirected to one singular page back in April of this year, (Samurai Shodown (series)) I couldn't find a discussion about undoing those redirects, so I reverted and left the anon a message asking him not to undo the redirects without consensus. My question is was I wrong? His edits did not appear malicious in the very least, so I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone has any insight into what is right. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's no trace of the information from all these articles left. Not a SINGLE word. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Samurai_Shodown_characters is just a redirect. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further delving into this, it appears that someone else is working on a list of characters in their sandbox in preparation of restoring List_of_Samurai_Shodown_characters. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Icebear1946 (talk · contribs)

This disruptive editor has shown no remorse in continuing to disruptively edit Immanuel Velikovsky. He's been given enough second chances. Please community ban him and remove the headache.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban. Editor has removed sections of links regarding criticism of the subject, and instead replaced them repeatedly with two links from the same dubious group. Such repeated reversion and replacement of content cannot be permitted. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban per the above and evidence of behaviour on Immanuel Velikovsky and its talk page. --Folantin (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny but this is a serious matter. --Folantin (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's never a matter that's too serious to be laughed at at some point. --WebHamster 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I LOL'ed. Loudly. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked. Flagrantly disruptive SPA. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user was blocked for vandalism on 20 November and warned about it again on 26 November. He's at it again [44] I think a longer block is needed. Kelpin (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. However, this would have been better brought up at WP:AIV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

See this vandlism.Sulivanes (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it vandalism so much as an attempt to perhaps suggest a link between the two groups. It's hard to tell though because it is a completely contextless redirect to a page that doesn't even mention Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils. For this reason I've deleted the redirect, though if someone wants to take the time to write an article on the group or provide some context in the target article to justify the redirect, that would certainly be grounds for recreation, but apparent POV pushing that leaves readers confused isn't helpful to the encyclopedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently received a warning here in which User:GreenJoe has told me that despite the fact that the Template:PPAP itself specifically now indicates that it should be replaced, he considers it edit warring now that I have done so twice. For what it's worth, I was replacing the banner in all such pages in order, again, as indicated by the template itself, so didn't know I had done so twice. Please advise of the proper way to proceed in this matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hurry up as its value seems to be decreasing ;) --WebHamster 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template's own page says its "depreciated". Di they know something we don't? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a dollar thing! --WebHamster 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're transcluding it into another template, I guess it has a salvage value. :) —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, must check if there's anyone living in that template. My money's on Bluebottle. --WebHamster 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather he discuss the value of replacing the banner. There's no policy that say it must be replaced. Doing it twice is edit warring. I'm just warning him politely, as we do with anyone who does that. I'm trying to remain nice and assume good faith. J (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I politely ask you what reason you have for insisting that a template which itself explicitly states that it should be replaced remain in place. I have yet to receive any justification for the continued use of the template, only a notice that you consider it edit warring to do what the template itself currently requests an editor to see it do. To date, all I've had is a possibly inappropriate warning (3RR does not clearly apply to talk page templates) with no justification given why this one person's wish to keep the old template in place should take priority over the explicitly stated content of the template itself. I look forward to a reasonable explanation for why the template's own content should not be followed. Your comment that "your trying to be nice and assume good faith" is frankly ridiculous. I am doing what the template itself requests be done. I cannot see how there can be any basis for questioning the good faith of someone who is doing what the template itself specifically requests. Again, I look forward to a reasonable explanation why this one editor's opinion takes priority over the explicit text of the template itself. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the template page is where the determination that the template is deprecated was made. There's no requirement that the template must be replaced immediately, though it should be replaced in an orderly fashion. I see no reason to leave the template in place on this article--at least, certainly not in the absence of discussion on the matter. (The net result of keeping the old template, btw, is to keep the article out of Wikiproject Canada.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, as that is seemingly one of only two reasons (the other being the fact that the new banner isn't entirely devoted to the Political parties project), I have to question what just cause there is to keep this specific article potentially unique in being apparently the only one which it is specifically demanded keep the old, deprecated, banner. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have been created solely for the purpose of vandalizing the McDonaldland article after it was protected for repeated vandalism , specifically about the character Grimace dying of AIDS. The user has also uploaded an image of Grimace purportedly in the final stages of the disease that has been removed three times already. It also appears that he is a sock puppet of the banned user Docboss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his other puppet Docboss2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Ban again SVP, and possibly block the creation of the inevitable Docboss4, Docboss5, Docboss6...

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Docboss3 is blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also blocked Docboss4 which is clearly a sleeper account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

...to all the Wikipedia shortcuts? They all seem to have been renamed to Wikipedia:Shortcut name. — Rudget _{contributions} 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be working for me. I mean WP:ANI still points here. Is there a specific one that isn't working? —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were a whole bunch that weren't -- WP:TW or WP:UNFREE for instance -- but they're back now. What the heck just happened? Gscshoyru (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, some have started working again. It may be my end. For example, look here in the shortcut section to the top left. — Rudget _{contributions} 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y - All seem to be working now. Thanks to those who commented. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I think somebody is screwing around with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cillian_Murphy? Either that or my browser is going insane there was lots of headlines extra space on the top that shouldn't be there and I think introduction part was missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.188.87 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism. It has since been reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You people work fast. --130.243.188.87 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)M.B[reply]

Fellow admins, following Alison's release of checkuser data at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand, I would like some uninvolved administrators to review thoroughly review the recent contributions of some of the confirmed sockpuppets, and consider whether blocks would be appropriate for...

• Shamsudin (talk · contribs)
• Hurooz (talk · contribs)
• Jim-Bronson (talk · contribs)

Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't Hurooz already been confirmed? — Rudget _{contributions} 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not what I'm asking for. These users are not banned. They simply have previous accounts that were blocked. We should not block people simply for having previously blocked accounts. If they have previous blocked accounts and are still editing in the same manner that caused their previous accounts to be blocked, we should consider blocking. But I would like other people's input, thus this thread. --Deskana (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, was going to post just that, then. I see from the block log, he hasn't. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Shamsudin is a sockpuppet of a user who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (User:Khampalak), so that's a block there. In addition, Hurooz = Jim-Bronson = Khan1982 = NisarKand who has also been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. So, blocks all around? --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. :) — Rudget _{contributions} 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this. I prefer not to block socks from RFCU myself, so that I do not involve myself in disputes that I know little about. --Deskana (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them all. If anyone wants to review, I don't have a problem with unblocking if you disagree, as I'm not super-familiar with this case. --Haemo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please provide a reason (with clear understanding) why User:NisarKand and User:Khampalak were blocked in the first place? If no reason can be given then they both are entitled to keep making new account names, and that does not break the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Both users were making excellent contributions, it is not justified to block someone because you may not like their race, nationality or ethnic background. You all know in your heart that you all have alternate account names which you use sometimes to avoid detection so you all are guilty of sock puppetry. I disagree with them being blocked and should be unblocked immediatly. It serves no purpose to block people who are proven not to be vandals... who are just helping Wikipedia by making excellent contribution... and who will make further user account names if you keep unjustly blocking them. We are suppose to keep this place friendly, not a place for war and hate.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe another RFCU needs to be run? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)NisarKand was originally blocked for flagrant, blatant, over the top, personal attack incivility. For the avoidance of doubt, the final straw was the worst such example I've seen. The post that was the final straw was a long screed (about as long as the prior portion of this thread) that managed to attack not only named editors but also a large branch of one of the world's major religions, multiple ethnic groups, and at least one entire country while also threatening physical violence, crimes, and war crimes against them. This user can be considered community banned under the "and no admin would ever think of unblocking" rule. All sockpuppets thereof should be blocked.

Khampalak was also originally blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Shamshudin also was incivil and made personal attacks. Ghaffar73 clearly engaged in an attempt to use multiple accounts in the same dispute in order to create a false appearance of consensus. Rudaki was also participating in the same dispute. So all of these accounts are clearly abusive and would merit blocking even if they were unrelated to Khampalak. GRBerry 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so GRBerry (a.k.a. or I shall say sock puppet of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise)? I know who you are very well. You strongly support Beh-nam against NisarKand... same way you supported the now banned Tajik, who lives with you in Germany. All the things you just said about the 2 blocked people (Nisarkand and Shamshudin) are BS unless you provide evidence. You are known to hate Pashtuns and support Tajiks, so there will never be anything good coming out of you towards anyone who is Pashtun. By the way, Wknight94 is also Future Perfect at Sunrise). It's very funny to see that some general public who work for FREE as administrators on this free to the public website use sock puppets but they tell others that it is against the rules.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kappa Gamma Psi was nominated for deletion on AfD due to notability and copyright issues. The original author Badagnani continually removes AfD and CSD notices put on the article and reverts whenever I put them back. I put standard warning templates on his talk page, but he became angry for "templating the regulars" which I know I really shouldn't do (he's been around awhile) but I'm not sure he's understanding WP policy that you can't remove AfD templates until the discussion is closed (it hasn't been) or CSD templates from articles you originally authored. Wondering if an admin could help here, thanks Rackabello (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from involved editor - Removal of template was simply for the reason that, although asked four times, the templating editor failed to provide justification for the placement of this template as the article's "Discussion page," per community norms and the recommendation on the template itself. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that (apart from some bot edits and removal of a db-org speedy tag (placed by Rackabello along with an AfD tag, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Gamma_Psi&diff=next&oldid=173989204), the two of you are the only editors who have edited this article. Why not leave the AfD to take its course, meanwhile the both of you staying cool? If you have some problem between yourselves taking it to your talkpages, or preferably email. might be more productive. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]