Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive342

Continued vandalism on Digital_rights_management
On 12th Dec 2007 a number of edits were made to the DRM page, all centered around the assertion that: However, many sources do not make any distinction between copyright protection for software and for creative works and DRM can often be seen as an umbrella term that covers any implementation of copy protection. The purpose of this insertion was made in connection to this post on an external forum, and whose purpose was to deliberately falsify sources, rather than to inform the larger public.

As a result, I am firm in the belief that the posts and their subsequent "citation" are in fact, merely a mechanism of deliberately asserting false statements. The "citations" are inconclusive at best, and their purpose is to decieve, rather than to inform. As per the two-revert policy, I have reverted this post twice, and have now forwarded the complaint here.

This is already discussed on the Talk Page of the article, and I have already a warning on the user page of iamacreditcard. This was promptly removed by iamacreditcard.

Unedit (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to report vandalism typically. You'd get faster results by posting this on the vandalism board. -- Cat chi? 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already done so. It was immediately removed by what I suspect is an automatic vandalism-removing bot or something. No comment was left on either the Talk Page, nor was the edit revoked, nor was my or the offending person's user page changed. As a result, I am posting here for a resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your report to AIV was removed because the user was already blocked. east. 718 at 22:50, December 17, 2007 I should stop drinking while editing. 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The users in question (User:Masterhomer, User:Imacreditcard and User:131.91.80.21 are all still active, have nothing on their user page, and the edits have still not been reverted. Shall I go ahead and revert the article a third time? This seems somewhat pointless, given that the last two times I've done so, the offending content has been put right back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your report to AIV was invalid; it was removed by User:HBC AIV helperbot3 while it was removing another request. You should use this format for IP addresses:  and this format for users:   — Wen li  (reply here) 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding his own blog to external links
On the Theresa Duncan page, there has been an edit war going on regarding which links are acceptable in the External Links section and which are not. I believe we've made progress through discussing it on the article's talk page, but one problem remains: A nonregistered user who has repeatedly added a blog (his own, it seems) back in despite numerous deletions and attempts to discuss with him on the Talk page. So far he is the only Wikipedia editor who's spoken up in defense of his blog being included. And when he adds the blog back in, he inserts comments in the link about how Wikipedia is censoring him and covering up facts about the "suicide" (his quotes) of Duncan.

When he identified himself (as Alex Constantine) in Talk he was posting from the IP 75.31.79.120. I think it's reasonable to assume the other edits adding his blog back in are his, because he appeared to be saying they were his, but of course I don't have any proof. The edits adding the blog have been made from 75.28.96.143, 75.31.68.46, and 75.28.143.244; as far as I can tell, the IPs all belong to AT&T in the Los Angeles area. (Sorry for not posting "diffs," but I am not quite sure how to do that, plus I think you have to review the editing history for the past few weeks to understand what's been going on.)

Note that I consulted earlier with a Wiki administrator, Pigman, and he offered an opinion on the article's Talk page and also left a friendly message for Mr. Constantine on the Talk page for 75.31.79.120. He suggested that, if this continued to be a problem, I might want to post here, because more admins would see it. Candy (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

username issue - second opinion requested
I've engaged a user in a discussion about his username. The user seems to belive that I have a COI, so I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to file a WP:RFCN. Can someone else take a look a the user name (signed "Economic Crimes Unit") and determine what (if any) action should be taken. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My first thought when seeing the name &mdash; Economic Crime Unit &mdash; was neutral. Reading J.smith's first comment on the editor's talk page &mdash; " " made sense, but the "official" part was not clear, as it might be a stretch to think that one would interpret this as being a Wikipedia "official".  However, Economiccrimesunit's note to User talk:Xavier687  here  &mdash; with "Vandalism Cease & Desist - Official Warning" in the edit summary and on the user talk page: "...this your official warning..." and "You are hereby WARNED that you are to CEASE and DESIST...." makes it sound "official". In addition Economiccrimesunit claims on his userpage to be a State's Attorney General. His response border on crossing the line on WP:CIVIL.  &mdash; User: (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the username in tangent with the users attitude. When he talks to vandals and new users, he implies that he has an official position within wikipedia - he certainly talks with an authorative tone - I'd suggest a forced name change, if he doesn't agree, a block may be required.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And possibly WP:LEGAL, by the sound of things. JFW | T@lk  00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, legal too. But I didn't want to poison the well by mentioning that in my first comment.  There are what appears to be behavior and/or misunderstandings of wikipedia's purpose. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)It doesn't look Wikipedia-official, but it certainly looks spuriously "official". Like, say, calling yourself "Police Commissioner" or "ISP Abuse Department". In combination with that kind of "warning" I'd certainly agree with Ryan - change the name (and a strong suggestion to read WP:BITE, the warning template page, WP:CIV and so on. Tonywalton Talk 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed; especially since he does claim legal authority in the "real world". Username change or username block at his choice.  I'm going to notify him to that effect.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I've taken a look at his contributions. An article that looked a lot like spam, deleted. He then informed the deleting admin that "It seems from your contribution list that your (sic) are a frequent deleter" followed by advice on how to contribute constructively to the article. Article reposted, deleted by a second admin, and the second admin (JS) informed that "It seems from your contribution list that your are a frequent deleter", followed by the same helpful advice. Economiccrimesunit seems not to know what a broom is for. Tonywalton Talk 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to let WP:DRV take care of that issue, should he decide to push the issue. A discussion is only productive to a certain point in many cases. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree a change or block is in order. Gtstricky Talk or C 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I've notified the user that a rename is required, and will give him some time to ask away. If they edit significantly without requesting the rename, I'll username-block until they do. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A Requests for comment/User names has been filed, if anyone wants to weigh in. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shishno
This might be me being a bit overcautious, but any concern to the comment left in this article by the creator regarding hunting down someone by their IP? Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a physical threat to me. --EoL talk 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And to me. Verging on a CU (code A) to hunt them down and block their IP address. Article speedied as an attack page and attack placed on their talkpage. Tonywalton Talk 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Aranherunar
There is a misinterperted Japanese reference at this article Ayumi Hamasaki. Information was provided on the talk page under the heading "sales" to show it was wrong, but this user continued to revert the article anyway, and responded to me with this racial slur "You can learn what you little pumpkin Japanese called "etiquette". Go drink a cup of tea" which I am very offended with. I also find his comment on my talk page insulting, particularly this sentence "In fact, please don't live in a world I assume you should not live in" 220.253.16.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I call for the rejection and ignoring of this completely premature content dispute. There is apparently a misunderstanding here, with this user believing me to have added the "misinterpreted Japanese reference". The Japanese reference and the corresponding comment had nothing to do with me- What I did, along with another user, was to revert the edits in which the user removed  massive amounts of well-cited information, claiming "copyrights" which obviously does not apply and original research. The user also happened to have made several attacks on my person, but I will let that go as he is apparently a new user and has little experience. End of case. Aran|heru|nar 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aranherunar, I can understand that it can sometimes be frustrating to deal with confused new users, but why on earth did you have to use the term "you little pumpkin Japanese"?? What is the excuse for such incivility? A  ecis Brievenbus 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted the comment after consideration, but I must insist that Japanese do look like pumpkins - if you are willing to go to the articles and make the comparison. This, I believe, is not a misleading description. I understand that unnecessary descriptions only add to the stress (or, in this case, possibly a tingle of shame) to other editors - however, as the editor has been making a lot of descriptions himself, some on me (In fact, I did not even recognize the IP user at the beginning of this discussion - only now do I realize that I have had a few previous encounters with him, which probably explains why he accused me, wrongly, of "wiki stalking") and many on others , I can' help but show the user that we, like others, can make descriptions.  Thank you. Aran|heru|nar 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the user added them back himself. If I do not misinterpret, being called pumpkins is actually an entertainment in Japan. Aran|heru|nar 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have protected the article for 2 weeks (at the wrong version, naturally), though obviously the protection should be lifted earlier if the edit war is over (however it ends). There was a subsequent flurry on my talk page, and I have told the two editors to go off and talk to each other and try to resolve their dispute. Both have conducted themselves poorly, and when I see one editor making a racial slur which is then wisely self-reverted and the offended editor reinstating it, I'm inclined to think that both parties need a cold shower. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was reinstaded due to this complaint, it appeared the user was trying to pretend they didn't write it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The information was removed because it is incorrect. It is also stated on the companies website (and the reference) that it may not be used without permission. The reference itself is misread, I even provided a reference from the same website, which mentions the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million records. This user claimed to speak Japanese, so I find it interesting they ignore both these points. I also provided an English reference to a news publication about the death of a famous Japanese female singer, who has achieved considerbly more than the singer in question. They are the only parts which were removed from the article. This user ignored them, and instead made a racial slur, and again insisted upon it!! I am very insulted by it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I claimed to read Japanese, not speak Japanese. Suntzu says, "知己知彼， 百战百胜"; Confucius says, "溫故而知新，可以為師矣"; Laotzu says, "知人者智，自知者明". By the way, somebody should learn to read Chinese! Ha. Ha. Ha. Not funny.
 * Your words are very wise, BrownHairedGirl. In fact, I haven't had a shower for two days. I'm definitely going for one now. So long, my friends, especially the one resembling a radish head. Aran|heru|nar 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aranherunar, coming to ANI and making further offensive personal attacks is not clever. I will now block you for 24 hours.
 * 220.253.16.5, if you are offended by a comment, then reinstating it is simply disruptive: it remains in the page history, so there is no problem in determining who write it. Continuing this personal dispute at ANI is also disruptive, so you too will now be blocked for 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now both blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and one talk page protected due to further attacks. – Steel 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's more to this than meets the eye; after some strange edits this week, I spent some time looking through Aranherunar's talk page and edits, and found a pattern of warnings removed from his talk page with edits similar to those I saw. Since his/her user talk page isn't archived, I had to step through the diffs to see how frequently these issues are occurring, and found one instance of a claim of someone else using his/her computer. The issue I saw was at ¿Por qué no te callas?, where Aranherunar made a series of edits that appeared semi-legitimate, but removed a good deal of cited text that enjoys consensus. Red flags went up at one piece of strange original research, uncited prankish text inserted into the middle of the seemingly legit edits:   It looks like cleverly disguised vandalism, to insert vandalistic text among semi-legit edits. It's not clear to me if this is ongoing vandalism, pranks, someone else using the computer, or what, but I hope someone will take a closer look at the long term pattern of this user. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, most of our Hong Kong English article has been deleted (without any allegation that the assertions removed were either untrue or erroneous). May I restore them? A l i c e ✉ 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that text isn't fully cited. In the case of ¿Por qué no te callas?, Aranherunar twice deleted fully cited long-standing text, and replaced it with uncited original research prankish text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. There may be some merit to the suggestion it needs review, but mass culls without discussion are probably unlikely to result in such an outcome. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have prepared a version with seven references hereA l i c e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've extended his block to 48 hours after this completely unacceptable post on his talk page after the block. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a common theme here. In this edit, ostensibly referenced material is removed. <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That ridiculous request for unblock deserves an indefinite block, imo. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No rush. If the user needs an indefinite block, they will prove it time and again. The diff provided by Orderinchaos is the sort of thing that leads me to conclude that this accounts purpose is disruption, not encyclopedia editing. - Jehochman  Talk 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed by the way this complaint has been handled, especially BrownHairedGirl's administratorship. Anyway, unless that user wants to disrupt the article again, or make further asinine racial remarks, this issue has been resolved. Thanks 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism on Mr. Children
Excuse me but I also have a complaint in this matter in regards to 220.253.16.5. They have been editing out content in many Japanese articles in regards to sales record, and have been using only one English article to prove they are right (which only talks about one artist). They have given no other verifiable fact or resources, and pretty much have come to the conclusion that they are 100% right and the referenced source in the article is wrong. For example in the Mr. Children article, I reverted their deletion of Mr.Children's sales based on the fact that the Japanese equivalant of Billboard USA, called Oricon, said Mr.Children was the second highest selling artist. They even made a table in the article listing the top 5 artists. (and the statement was even referenced) This ip user then reverts my edit and then says this in the Mr.Children history edit page: "See talk page. You will be reported if you vandalise this page again,)". The Mr.Children article was NEVER vandalised, and this comment is totally uncalled for. They are threatening me for NO reason at all. I do not appreciate that. They even wrote this in my talk page: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." I've been editing here for a while now and again this is totally uncalled for. I am not vandalising anything. These statements made were referenced with a verifiable source. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to comment on this, but since it's connected to this dispute in a way I figured it was okay. And now I'm afraid to edit the Mr.Children article since they said they're going to report me. - Hedatari (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems with raising it here. I've put a subheading on it to distinguish it from the rest. Orderinchaos 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave you a level 2 vandal warning because you continued to add misleading and false information into articles. The reference you are talking about is not an article about the 5 highest selling Japanese musicians. It also clearly states that the article may not be used on any website, blog, cell phone, ect, without permission from the company. This can cause copyright problems for the Wikipedia. This is from that same company, which I'm linking here to resolve this problem. It is the artist page for Michiya Mihashi, who in 1983 became the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million albums. There is an English version at this website. It appears it is your personal opinion that the band B'z is the highest selling Japanese musician, with around 75 million records as of 2007 (according to that same company) Edit: I'm not going to search for record sales of other Japanese musicians who have sold more than 75 million records, such as YMO. It is a rare thing for a record company to publish such information. Although an English news release about the death of Hibari Misora has already been provided on that talk page, and it details the amount of records she had sold at the time (which was 20 years ago) Please do not add information into articles, which is not true. This is the type of thing that mkes the English Wikipedia a poor website for learning. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly I NEVER added that original B'z sales statement to begin with. Someone else added that. I only reverted the part where you deleted it. Don't accuse me of stuff without thoroughly reviewing the article's edit history first. Secondly, like I said I did not add false information. Also the article can be used for encyclodic purposes as it is NOT stealing the information from the article. If it was copying and/or reproducing directly what Oricon had written in their article, then yes it could be considered a copyright violation, but instead it's linking (in addition to crediting) readers to the original source, in addtion to taking no direct quotes from the article to be in violation. Tons of Japanese artist articles here reference Oricon as that is their main source of verifable and factual information. Having some verifiable source to back up statements is better than having none at all. It seems this is something you are very passionate, and unfortunately, angry about but instead of trying to be helpful and work with your fellow wikipedia editors to improve these articles, you are bullying them and threatening to report them as vandals. - Hedatari (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my complaint. I'm not being helpful and working with fellow Wikipedia editors to improve articles? I removed false information, and gave a polite explanation on the talk page, only to be met with racism from one editor and your ignorant and rude response. (below)

"It is NOT false information and can even be confirmed by the reference link that was listed. If you have a problem with the way Oricon calculates sales, I suggest you write to them and complain. By deleting information like you just did, you are placing your own personal opinion, and are failing to see that, while you may disagree, the information is verifiable and correct according to Oricon. Wikipedia is for posting verifiable facts. Not inputing personal opinion on whether or not we believe something to be true or false. I'm sorry you feel like the article is making false statements, but it is not. Unless you can find another official list (from RIAJ for example) of the highest selling artists in Japan, I'm afraid we have to stay with the current official list which was released by Oricon, of which places Mr.Children as the second highest selling act."

Thats speaks for itself, I shouldn't need to explain it. If you want to revert articles back to contain false and misleading information, especially after giving the above statement, then you will be given a friendly warning. Furthermore, according to Oricon, you may not use any information from their website without permission. This could explain why the Japanese Wikipedia appears not to have references to that website. If the English Wikipedia wants to take that chance, thats their problem. I was just pointing it out, especially since Japanese companies tend to protect their rights and take action. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. If a site is publicly available on the internet, then it can be used as a reference if it is deemed reliable. What they are actually stating is that the page itself may not be copied without permission (which is standard for copyrighted text). That's the most common statement I've seen on a wide variety of Japanese and English sites out there. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in the context, Oricon states you may not use their ranking data. I only mentioned it, because a magazine once used their data (quoting Oricon, which is as good as referencing) and were sued. Anyway, this problem is solved too. Thanks 220.253.109.122 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a standard copyright notice. --Saintjust (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to be rude, and if you feel that way I am sorry, but you're initial talk response did not seem like a "polite explanation", but more like accusing everyone of trying to purposely sabotage artist sales. I also don't consider threatening to report someone in addition to calling someone a vandal a "friendly warning". Not only that, but now you are implying me and everyone else is stupid in all your talk page responses. Do you not see a problem with the way you're handling this? I'm sorry that other person was rude to you, but I never called you any names, and I'm not being ignorant. All I'm asking is for you to try and be a little understanding and not call everyone liars and vandals. Also, this issue does have something to do with your complaint as it is connected to the larger issue at hand. Additionally both of you wrote in my talk page, so I wanted admins to know there was more to this story than what the initial complaint was about. - Hedatari (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue here. If you want to poke at a dead horse so to speak, then point out where I'm implying "everyone else" is "stupid" and how my initial comment on the talk page is not polite, and how it is also "accusing everyone". It is short and to the point. A decision to be stalwart after your comment, and this summary "According to Oricon they are. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you write to Oricon and complain" it was clear what action needed to be taken. Furthermore, Oricon is not an official source of anything, its just a marketing company. 220.253.31.178 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

edit warring at kwanzaa
Don't know where to bring this as he is a very powerful user here at wiki, User:jpgordon has been edit-warring at kwanzaa over the past couple of years and has escalated things in the past week or so. He's reverted multiple times in the past day or so with very dishonest edit summaries like "yawn, that's just vandalism" when the edit was clearly NOT vandalism and calling contributions "rants". Just now he told me he'd block me if I edited the article. Seems like bad behavior from an arbitrator. Maybe another admin could speak to him about it.

Thanks Justforasecond (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that it's not vandalism, and appears to be a good faith attempt to add to the article. However, a point that is not mentioned is the fact that it's not sourced. You quote a Washington Post interview, but do you have a citation for it? Issue number, publication date, etc? I'm still reading through the article, but claims about living persons fall under WP:BLP, which may be what is triggering the revert.


 * Also, If you agreed at one point to stay away from the article, as jpgordon indicates that you did, perhaps it would be better to post your additions (with citations) to the talk page for discussion? If it's well-cited, someone else will certainly add the material. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, it is not being reverted as BLP, its being reverted as vandalism.  It is easily verified in frontpage mag, which I think covers the BLP question, but other editors have also looked through washington post microfiche and verified it is there too.   Anyway it seems like improper behavior to me,  jpgordon knows wiki inside and out and is calling things vandalism which are not at all vandalism.   He's reverted at least three separate editors in the past couple of days, which seems to be disregarding consensus.  Gordon's policing for true vandalism, like the time an IP called kwanzaa "pagan" is appreciated, but calling good-faith edits vandalism is not.  Justforasecond (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless, do you have the complete citation or not? That is the real concern.  The other editors there indicate that they don't consider Frontpage reliable which doesn't look good when you repeat that argument here.  Pharos just saying "I looked it up a while back" in the Washington Post doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  The real policy concern is WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * the citation at, which seems to meet [WP:V], but if the policy is verifiability can speak to him about the distinction between verifiability and vandalism?  also seems really incivil to use edit summaries like "yawn, that's just vandalism".   Totally unconstructive.  Justforasecond (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler
Could someone please look over User:Jayjg's remarks at Talk:Phyllis Chesler ? It seems to me that his concluding statement constitutes a threat, and I'd be quite interested to see how others would interpret it.

I should indicate that I've already responded to Jayjg here. CJCurrie (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In your links, I see two people who adamantly disagree. I don't see any threats. Maybe a threat to request page protection, but the idea that "stronger action" is a threat of violence or an abuse of admin abilities seems really silly to me. Your response, which you linked to, seems particularly goading and sarcastic. There's no need to assume the worst. My suggestion is: toughen up, assume good faith, and work toward consensus. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've vastly overstated your case: I don't think Jayjg's comment is even close to a threat. That being the case, I can't help but see this as a case of coming to WP:AN/I with an exaggerated claim in the hope of gaining the upper hand in a simple content dispute. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I could be convinced that this is a simple content dispute, but the implications of Jayjg's concluding words might seem to suggest otherwise. CJCurrie (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nothing different than what dozens of other administrators say dozens of other times daily at Wikipedia in similar circumstances, and frankly, he appears to be correct on the content issues there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree on that point, but it's not the main issue for our purposes. CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the underlying content dispute, it is entirely appropriate for an administrator to threaten to take further action when they believe an editor is violating Wikipedia policy or editing against established community consensus. Arguably, that is one of our primary roles as administrators. (Please note that I have not reviewed the dispute in question, I am only commenting on the question of the "threat".)
 * That being said, I encourage the parties to try to reach an agreement or, failing that, avail themselves of the various avenues available at WP:Dispute resolution. — Satori Son 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sam coles 1234
This user seems to have tons of sockpuppets, so far today 4 of them, is there get the underlying IP for this user blocked? VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See if this falls into an area under WP:CHECK - they are capable of checking this information, they only use it if it is, in fact, necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite block on IP
is a shared IP address registered to a public high school. Although students might contribute positively to Wikipedia, most potential edits would turn out to be disruptive. Please block this user indefinitely. Doomed Rasher (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP's current block is due to expire in October next year. Perhaps we could revisit the issue after that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

72.39.110.204
User continues to make reverts at Template:Canadian mobile phone companies. He hasn't broken 3RR, but he's gaming the system. GJ (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you are the only one reverting the edits, the same must apply to you. I noticed the talk page is still a red link. That is probably a good place to start a discussion on the difference between a major mobile phone network operator and a mobile virtual mobile phone network operator. Or you could try and start a discussion on the IP's talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, but I'm saying the same thing) The issue seems to be with Fido solutions, who the IP wants in the "major network operators" and User:GreenJoe reverts to "regional network operators". I'd certainly agree that the IP's actions are not constructive, but equally (and bear in mind here that I know nothing about the Canadian telecoms industry) the term "major network operators" does seem somewhat open to interpretation.  Is this an official classification, or should it be "national operators" or similar?  Unless all ambiguity is removed from the classifications in the template, you're relying on users' points of view instead of on verifiability, and that only encourages the sort of behaviour we're seeing here.  We can warn and/or block the IP, but it would be better to sort out the underlying issue. Waggers (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Standshown
Can we block this user for longer time period because of edit wars ? He has been blocked for 1 day before (but he has taken 6 days break). After returning to wiki he has in only 2 days returned to old edit warring (because of which he has been blocked) in articles Puppet state, Serbia (1941-1944) and he has started 2 new edit wars in articles Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and Ante Pavelić. In the end we are having threats to administrator which has given him 24 hours block. In my thinking this SPA account need to be blocked for long time period. --Rjecina 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Capital punishment, ,
, have several times between them added what amounts to an anti-death penalty petition to talk:Capital punishment (eg ). I've reverted Oboeboy twice on the grounds taht it has nothing to do with actually improving the article (per the talk header). reverted all additions by as vandalism. I've left two mesages on Oboeboy's talkpage, but he added the petition again after the first. Please could you keep an eye on this situation. I don't want to end up breaking WP:3RR myself. David Underdown (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it's not mentioned at WP:VAND, WP:TPG is very clear: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." As far as I'm concerned, it's a form of vandalism and therefore you should be exempt from WP:3RR when you remove it.  You seem to be doing everything right, but I'll add it to my watchlist too. Waggers (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 24 hours and noted at User talk:Oboeboy. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the block. This is a fairly new user, and he has not even broken 3RR. A warning and explanation should have been enough. Also, if you want to uphold the block, I strongly recommend to replace the completely generic template (attached under the wrong header) with a clear explanation why the user was blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and reverting at La Plata High School
Page was created with joke content (i.e. "La Plata High School was originally established by a group of Knights Templar as a convent") and being re-reverted back to the same by and. I have reached 2RR and since it is not "obvious vandalism", I probably cannot revert farther (and continue to add vand noticed to the users.) Can someone please take a look? Thank you, --guyzero | talk 17:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, it is vandalism. One, the Knights Templar have not existed for the last 700 years and there is/was no chapter of the organization that remains in the spirit of the knights. I lived about 20 miles away across the Patuxent river and it most definitely is not anything other than a high school (There is however a carmelite mission nearby). Let me see if I can't add some real substance to the article.


 * It's not only obvious vandalism, it's self-admitted vandalism. See the end of this revision of the article. Tonywalton Talk 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --guyzero | talk 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:209.62.173.129
This IP has just been unblocked and is now vandalising Pan (mythology)opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-blocked. Future episdoes of uncomplicated vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV - the response time is sometimes a bit faster over there. MastCell Talk 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock harassment
This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. . See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Go to WP:ARBCOM right now. Go! -- Gp 75 motorsports  <sup style="color:#800000;">REV LIMITER  15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is not the right suggestion to deal with sockpuppet issues, Gp75. I see there are tags, was an official WP:SSP case filed? There is a checkuser link, but it does not go to the correct case, it only goes to the main checkuser page. If a checkuser was done, it would be best to link the tag to the subpage. The editor is blocked, so it is just a matter of identifying any additional socks, tagging and blocking. ArbCom is not for dealing with sockpuppet vandals. <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee would probably laugh if someone filed a case for this...  Daniel  04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is used primarily as a last resort for disputes, and they make a decision that all parties must abide by. Sockpuppetry is handled differently; the accounts are all blocked, including the sockmaster. There are two places socking is handled: WP:SSP, where administrators compare editing patterns and attempt to establish a connection, and WP:RFCU, where checkusers check the IP of a suspected sockpuppet for tough cases. It checks every account that has logged into the IP, as well as every IP the account has logged into, in the last six months (I believe that's the amount of time). If the socking is persistent enough, the user is banned. Maser  ( Talk! ) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion
Main issue solved; no need to turn this into Yet Another Drama MagnetTM. — Kurykh  05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: pink; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In editing content about the "origin of religion" User:Muntuwandi refuses to abide by WP:Consensus and thumbs his nose at the outcomes of processes like Articles for deletion, Deletion review, and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While I can imagine specific content disputes being dealt with through mediation (even if it quite literally is Muntuwandi against the world), I would like to know if something can be done regarding this user's disruptive editing behavior. Here is a relevant outline of activity.


 * 1) Muntuwandi adds information about the prehistoric origin of religion to the entry Religion.  In the resulting discussion it is suggested that Development of religion is a much more appropriate forum for his information, but also that his presentation of the information is problematic.
 * 2) Without engaging Development of religion Muntuwandi returns to add the same information to Religion once again.  This time he creates a parent entry called Origin of religion prior to doing so and links to this parent entry.  In the resulting discussion it is also suggested that Prehistoric religion is the appropriate entry for some of Muntuwandi’s information, which in its present form still suffers from presentation issues and various inaccuracies.
 * 3) In the meantime another editor nominates Origin of religion for deletion, the result of which is delete.  The closing admin deleted the entry as a content fork of Development of religion and during the discussion several editors suggest merging the usable portions of Muntuwandi’s content with that entry.
 * 4) Muntuwandi then asks for a deletion review which endorses the deletion.
 * 5) Before the review finishes Muntuwandi appeals to the Mediation Cabal who remain unresponsive to his request.
 * 6) Muntuwandi then appeals to the Incident Noticeboard where it is suggested that he stop forum shopping for a favorable answer.
 * 7) After this Muntuwandi simply recreates the deleted entry by changing the singular “origin” to the plural “origins.”  The resulting discussion can be seen here.
 * 8) When Origins of religion is redirected to Development of religion Muntuwandi creates Evolutionary theories on the origins of religion which is speedy deleted.
 * 9) A month later Muntuwandi once again recreates the entry, this time making a plural into a singular to end up with Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion.  He then returns to Religion to link to his new entry.
 * 10) Currently Muntuwandi is fighting tooth and nail to 1) keep the deleted entry under its current title 2) to have all the other entries he once created redirect to it and 3) to keep relevant information out of entries like Development of religion so his entry can't be accused of being a content fork.

All the while Muntuwandi has refused to take the suggestions of engaging Development of religion and Prehistoric religion seriously, while ignoring the outcome of the AfD and DRV and/or the advice of the Incident Noticeboard. While I understand that content issues should be dealt with through mediation I don’t believe what I have outlined is a content issue, but a behavioral issue. This editor simply refuses to believe that all the other editors who have commented on his entry through several processes are right, but he is, and he is willing to continue a disruptive pattern of editing in order to come out victorious. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi's latest content forks have now been deleted (under WP:CSD) as recreations of the deleted Origin of religion. I have suggested that considering he's been warned a number of times already, that continuing to act against consensus, edit war, ignore AFD discussions and continue to try and create content forks he will face various sanctions which may include blocking. Given the warnings he's had, you could consider this a "final warning". <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO ADMINS: Muntuwandi has recreated the entry Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion about 4 hours after it was deleted.  I can't see any administrative justification for doing so which causes me to assume he's simply taken it upon himself again to say what's what.PelleSmith (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted comments on the Anthropology project pagewhere I received positive feedback regarding this article. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is done in bad faith. I have even requested for mediation to which the editors refused to get involved. See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see point #5 above which links to and refers to said request for mediation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the content to my talk page. User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion for review on the accuracy of the information. I have requested Neil the admin who deleted the article for retrieval of the talk page discussions because there were some important and valid arguments that have been deleted. I think this should be treated as a content dispute, rather than a procedural dispute. I am and have always been willing to go for mediation. At present this dispute centers around three editors, myself, PelleSmith and Dbachmann. I have no problem with going through any independent dispute resolution process. Draconian measures such as deleting, protecting or threats of blocks will work in the short term. In the long term, the origin of religion is arguably one of the most important aspects of religion. As long as these underlying issues remain, the dispute will not be resolved. This dispute should not be played out on the notice board because this is mainly for administrator attention of procedural issues. We will not get any academic input from the notice board because the administrators are not necessarily academics. I therefore recommend to go for dispute resolution, if anybody is willing so that we can end this problem once and for all. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) ''ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:''
 * Below are Dbachmann's comments


 * 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
 * 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
 * 3. the teleological view (revelation)

''the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?''. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC) The notion that I am unilaterally considering this article is not valid. I therefore believe the articles deletion is premature and not justified. I have changed the name of the article from "origin of religion" to "Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" so that iit is specifically referring to evolution. I understood that one of the problems is that evolution is not accepted by everyone, therefore having an article titled "origin of religion" that reflects mainly evolutionary science, may only be giving one perspective. Hence the controversy. By specifically naming the article "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" narrows down the focus, so that those editors who believe in creation will not find a reason to dispute the content. It is for these reasons that I have outlined above that I will proceed to recreate the article. Feel free to post your comments there. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann in his own words expressed validity for this article.
 * Bruceanthro also expressed the same concerns and support for the article. Anthropology project page.
 * The administrator who closed the deletion review said there was nothing wrong procedurally but he admitted that there were a lot of merits to the argument.
 * when the article was first created, editors dismissed it as being complete nonsense. However these were just initial impressions due to a lack of understanding of the content. Even PelleSmith, my adversary in this dispute, now admits that the content is accurate and valid. Our dispute is mainly about which article this content should be placed.
 * PelleSmith has been deliberately trying to undermine my efforts on other articles. For example he tried to get this article I created on Steven Mithen deleted simply because I created it. See Talk:Steven_Mithen and Articles for deletion/Steven Mithen. Editors deemed the nomination for deletion to be in bad faith.
 * AFD decisions are not permanent. They just reflect the consensus at the time. The AFD took place 3 months ago. This article has to be reviewed on its specific merits again because it has undergone significant changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lastly, allegations of disruptive behavior are without merit. This is my third year editing on wikipedia,I have enough experience to know when content is valid, and I am always willing to work with other editors. Unfortunately it is other editors who are not willing to work with me, despite many invitations from my self. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all nothing you have written here is to the point. This is not a noticeboard for content disputes.  Any content disputes withstanding what I asked for was some action on your behavior which is disruptive and tiresome.  Also, to clarify, I did not nominate Steve Mithen for deletion at all.  In fact I clearly stated that I was only bothered by the circumstances of its creation but had no expertise to judge its merits and did not vote in its AfD.  I have also never opposed all of the content in your original entry.  I have been clear about this all along as well.  There has been no 180 here since I, and others, have always stated that aspects of what you have been writing are worthy of inclusion in Development of religion and Prehistoric religion.  It is the manner in which you synthesize information, and sometimes also misrepresent information, that is problematic and that lead to the downfall of the disputed entry.  Yet I should repeat that this is not the forum for content disputes.  This is a forum in which I've asked if there is a way to make you respect the results of the forums in which content issues were discussed by many editors (not just you, Dab and I).  The fact that you haven't even waited for a single response from any administrator before taking it upon yourself to recreate this entry I think just about says it all.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I redeleted The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. It also has been copied in user space at User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, if that matters.  Pastordavid (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, article name
These are the primary sources that have been used in the article User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. A few editors have suggested that the content should be placed in the articles Development of religion or Prehistoric religion. I don't know the basis for their suggestion. I included the content under the title "origin of religion" and "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" because the major sources cited used the term "origin of religion" not "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion".
 * "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553.
 * Excerpted from Evolving God by Barbara J. King
 * Nicholas Wade uses the terms "Evolution of Religion" and the term Origin of religion in the book
 * The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3.
 * The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion. Also uses the term evolutionary origins of religion in the first paragraph.
 * Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex.
 * Wentzel vanHuyssteen uses the term Origin of religion.

I would therefore like a good explanation why, other than the consensus of two or three editors, the content should be placed under the title "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion". I would like to know where these editors got the idea that this content should be in the articles "Development of religion" or "Prehistoric religion". Without an answer, I cannot be satisfied with these assertions. The articles may be deleted, I may get blocked, but I will not be satisfied.I will be under the impression that it is just a personal opinion that is not scientifically substantiated or verified. I have provided proof from external sources for my reasoning and you can verify for yourselves. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for a content dispute. If you believe that Development of religion or Prehistoric religion should be renamed, take it up on those talk pages and at requested moves, and seek consensus.  However, there was a consensus here, involving much more than two or three editors, for not having the seperate articles.  Pastordavid (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this is not the place for a content dispute, however PelleSmith reported me here so I have to defend my position. Wikipedia works on consensus, however consensus must reflect the reality. Reasoning should prevail. If there is consensus to give an article about cats the name dogs, then the consensus is incorrect. The consensus should still justify why they want to give an article about cats the name dogs. This is exactly what is happening here. The consensus believes that this is a content fork of Development of religion, when the authors cited do not use the term "Development of religion", they use the term "origin of religion", "evolution of religion" or "evolutionary origins of religion". I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why the content should be in Developmen t of religion, when the authors cited do not use this term. There is a tendency for administrators to just focus on procedural issues so that they can keep their records clean. However, i think this case some very simple logic is needed. Procedurally, yes I am wrong because I am going against a 3 month old consensus. Academically I am right.Muntuwandi (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi - on your talk page, Pastordavid pointed you in the direction of The Truth. I suggest you read it. Continual insistence of "I am right and everyone else is wrong" is usually a sign that you need to take a break and cool down. If you are unwilling to step back, and continue to act up against consensus, a break will be enforced upon you. Your own content can stay in userspace, and I suggest you try and discuss things on the appropriate talk pages (Talk:Development of religion or Talk:Prehistoric religion, or ask for further input from Wikiproject Religion. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  09:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Neil,I dislike your MO of continuously making threats of blocks and trying to throw your weight around as an administrator. This behavior is nonconstructive to resolving disputes. First of all there are other editors who have been in agreement with me as I have pointed out above. Secondly any group decision has to provide justification for their decision with some form of reliable source as per wikipedia requirements, which they have not. Therefore the consensus is flawed because it has no backing from reliable sources. To be fair, I have researched their point of view and still find no justification. If you read the article on crowd psychology you will realize that some times groups of people do act irrationally. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many administrators who would have not done you the courtesy of warning you that your behaviour could lead to a block - they would have simply blocked you by now. I note that my "threats" have stopped you continuing to recreate the deleted content under different names, and so they achieved their purpose, with no blocking necessary.  Please engage with your fellow editors in a productive way rather than running roughshod over the consensus they only recently arrived at because you don't agree with it. Group discussions do not have to provide reliable sources for their decision(s).  WP:RS only applies to article space. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see you have your finger on the trigger. I engage with my fellow editors all the time. Unfortunately along with the article, you deleted pages of useful discussion on the talk page. I would be happy if you could restore it to my user space. If you read through, you will find that your actions may have been unnecessary. If a group decision refers to article space, then it must comply with WP:RS. Otherwise groups will engage in original research, which is what they did. They made up a decision from out of the blue.If you read point 5 why was my page deleted, it is perfectly acceptable to recreate content that has been deleted which is what I did 2 months after the AFD. The guidelines indicate that one needs to do is to find more evidence of notability. If you see the article that was deleted 2 months ago and the article you deleted yesterday, there are significant changes. This is why I believe it is inappropriate to refer to an old AFD when dealing with new content. On the talk page that you deleted, you will see plenty of discussion on the reliability and notability of the content. As I mentioned to Pastordavis, we cannot continue to refer to one AFD forever and ever. It is not the holy grail of all decisions. I have seen articles nominated for deletion several times with the outcome of each decision different. Some articles get deleted after surviving several AFDs. This means consensus is never fixed but ever changing and evolving.Muntuwandi (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody here cares for content disputes. This is the incidents noticeboard, where one-off things like banned users evading blocks or other things requiring emergency administrator intervention are discussed. There are other venues to resolve grievances of your nature. <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 09:23, December 18, 2007
 * I didn't bring this dispute here, someone else did. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the reason that they brought this matter here was not because of the content, but because of how you have been disruptive by recreating this article. You have what you wrote in your user space, where you can show it to others to make your case about article content. If you stop recreating the page, then the matter is ended & we can close this thread. Simple as that. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not restrict the recreation of an article if notability is justified as I have mentioned earlier. In fact the article already meets all notability guidelines as per WP:RS AND WP:VERIFY.Muntuwandi (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One last thing, if there is any administrator interested in some dispute resolution, you would very welcome as long as they would be willing to take a neutral and unbiased approach. It is a very interesting topic. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Twsx
This user has for the last few months waged a constant edit war on at least two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth). He has been warned many times before about this. I reported him before but no action was taken as this was the first time he was reported. However, User:Scarian had a conversation with him telling everyone if they continued to edit war they would get reported and blocked. Well, Twsx refused to listen, obviously, because he's right back at edit warring. I ask for a block. As you can see from these history pages: 1 and 2, the user has waged a long running war and has an agenda that no one wants (users such as myself and other keep having to revert him). Thank you. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Notified editor of this thread. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification, Pastordavid. As I have had to respond to this very issue (with this very user) too many times before, I have created a small page listing my arguments on the matter. It can be found here. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That page Twsx would have you look at is ridiculous and biased against me. It also brings up many old issues and edits that I have done in the past. For one it brings up that I have been blocked twice for edit warring on two different pages.  I agreed to stop a long time ago and I would like to point out that Twsx is now doing the same thing I was blocked for and that is not acceptable. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have warned this user a couple of times about his(/her?) POV pushing and warring behavior, without any success. I have tried to stop the POV pushing through discussion on a larger scale here. As users couldn't agree with each other I proposed a truce (here). Since the truce has been in place all edit wars and POV pushing have stopped.. except for the ones Twsx was involved in, despite numerous comments on Twsx' talk page. Kameejl (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some comments I've posted on Twsx' talk page., , , Kameejl (Talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed
I have to go right now, but can someone please block the uploader of this image (don't worry, it's perfectly safe) and delete all his uploads? This is a serial copyright abuser I've dealt with before. Grand master  ka  23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the prior account? We probably shouldn't just zap someone no warnings without confirming the sock history...  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I took care of it. See the userpage for details on previous accounts. Grand  master  ka  23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary
I have only been here a few weeks, but unfortunately I have run across one of the rudest and worst behaved editors here. After noticing me on an article he was engaging in an edit war with several other editors, he followed me to two other articles to revert me. He has a fairly extensive history of being blocked, and is currently engaging in an edit war Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy‎

Could someone please speak with him and ask him to behave. . <font face="Times"> DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Newly created account User:DJ Creamity has exhibited far more knowledge and dexterity with Wikipedia user fonts, formatting, and policies than typical of most three-week-old accounts. That's because he's most likely a sock.  He's been concentrating mostly on political pages, and has been blanking huge amounts of data on the Laura Ingraham page, without gaining consensus, and citing the catch-all "BLP VIOLATION!" ruse when no such policy violation exists.  When asked to back up his claim of "BLP Violation," he refuses to supply a coherent answer.


 * And now he's falsely accusing me of Wikistalking, and engaging in an edit war. I'm doing neither.  But I will be reverting his blanking vandalism, and I encourage all interested editors to watchlist the pages he edits. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, DJ, he's right about that. Why are you removing much amount of sourced information here and here?  I'll also add that for this comment, I have half a mind to just mark this resolved and watch you more carefully. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Ricky81682. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion at Talk:Laura_Ingraham, DJ's issue seems to be that the controversy section (even though there are plenty of 3rd party cites) should go because none of those third-party citations use the word "controversy"? I'll leave it to others, but I'd suggest WP:3O but I think it'd be a waste of time. I see that Will have changed the section heading per your view but you still chose to remove the section again.  While it is probably not best, I'd like to see how you read WP:BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin.Kinchen
Block dispute, not only blocked erroneously, insulted by the admin and wronged, when I tried to explain in discussion on my own talk page in a clear civil manner, It was continuously removed... Thats my personal talk page mind you, and then blocked from editing my own talk page, the comments that revealed what was occuring were consequentally removed and a bot came along and mega blocked me. This user or admin didn't just try to provoke me, they out right harrassed me. Coren. They followed me from a discussion that was being had in regards to an article in AFD and lashed out at me. Then to make matter worse they cited "The only contributions from this account are to support another single purpose account posting hoaxes. Please read the policy on using multiple accounts" but the fact is, they are the ones who declared anything a hoax. They declared it on an article that had already passed deletion review and was re-instated and already was in afd and deletion overturned. If it went through both processes and was un-deleted, then in what way is there a hoax. I almost let this go but you see, not only was I insulted, bashed on my own talk page, and subsequently treated very harshly, removed by a bot and apparently indefinately banned. I was left with no way to prove anything, no way to rebute anything and consistantly tormented by someone who has a conflict of interest, I could feel the guy laughing at me on the other side of the screen. I have never been so insulted. this is honestly how i feel and in regards to the accusation of a sock thing, I have an account... 1, only one. Not 2 not five not 11, 1, just 1. Someone I know was trying to promote an effort to be recognized because they wanted to do it. they also are just one. From our discussion, hers and mine i can assertain she was treated just as poorly, (although she might have deserved something) the extent of the actions and the outright refusal of this person to give even the smallest shred of evidence on my or her behalf is infuriating. With little explanation and motive of as i see it punishment for disagreeing with thier point of view we were prosecuted and immediately without regard shot in the back of the monitor execution style. Everyone involved was trying to make an honest article, there was no hoax involved whatsoever. This was totally and completely over blown by someone who just wanted to be right. I feel better now for atleast i have told you why I feel the way I do and why i am really not liking wikipedia much right now. I know not everyone there is like that so for one last shred of decency I thought I would take the chance and post my thoughts.

P.S Her account is castawayred if you want to see her side of what was happening.

Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at your contributions, it looks like your account is a single-purpose account, designed to keep a single article. If castawayred, who you tried to protect, is also a single-purpose account with the same purpose, then it makes sense that someone may consider you a sockpuppet of castawayred. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason why it was called a hoax is because it is. Every single assertions in that article bearing your name is provably false, and indeed have been verified to be false or physically impossible.  Tom Lane (nor any of the other devs) know you by this name or your purported aka, the database you claim to have constructed has been described by them as "impossible", and is alleged to run on a platform that postgresql cannot, and never could, run on.  You are not "widely known" in any community, the books you claim to have published do not exist, and I'm willing to bet that if we were to check with the Marine Corps, they never heard of you either. Whether you are trolling, attempting to make some sort of twisted point or simply honestly deluded is immaterial.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Block Coren
 * This is vandalism, and personal attack by Coren. I suspect the reason for the non speedy deletion in cases of a potential hoax centers around this fact. Notoriety pertains to something notable. Having seen this discussion go so many shades of wrong i expect an apology and reversal of everything ioeth or loeth and coren have done in the last two days to anyone who is even remotely involved with this case. The reason being that while I am not allowed my day in court here, the truth is I "can" and given the oppurtunity "would" prove this. Thats why it is notable after all. It is not impossible. Postgres can and does run on that platform. I was in the Marine Corps and the tone and feeling of the entry itself is nothing short of insulting and accusatory.

Dear Od Mishehu, The question has risen if this is a single purpose account. Hello, i signed up saturday, made one comment, got blocked and banned almost immediately and have been hounded and followed by coren and ioeth ever since. Really now. If you are blocked right after you sign up how could you in any way have not only done one or two things.

Given time and the ability to prove this article I would, however, this isn't even my article. The fact that I have anything at all to do with it is because Coren rather than ask for references or proof has been insulting and accusatory. So in that I am here by requesting mediation. I want coren blocked from anything involved, I want "my" account unlocked and only mine because it is mine. and I want the oppurtunity to add relevant facts, proofs and references to a deletion review that would prove this article is not a hoax. That said. The policy of wikipedia requires atleast that much but the admins involved here did not follow it. If I can prove this, and lets just say that I can, and I can, wouldn't you agree, this is insulting. i am gathering all the resources, screen shots, statements, and specs. In addition I am contacting postgres with this activity and getting some statements. In a weeks time or so, I will have it all prepared. Please unblock my account, and based upon all this stress block Coren and ioeth, or at the very least Give me a restraining order against their obviuos harrasment and vandalism to my page. They even blocked my own user page discussion so I couldn't provide evidence. Three days out of the bin and this is how I am being treated, Sockpuppet? Really? Don't you think this is witch huntish.

And I am not simply honestly deluded. I am sick of these abusive comments. They really need to stop.

Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're blocked, the fact that you are posting here is a violation of your block, and this IP address User:70.6.109.105 should be blocked as well. You can post on your Talk page and put on an unblock tag. <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix  talk  18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, he cannot:  protected it after he abused the unblock template.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In all fairness I myself apologize for ever starting any sort of article on wikipedia, I didnt mean to cause any harm whatsoever, I am not doing any trolling thing or whatever you called it, I honestly tried to put an honest true article on the encyclopedia and with no ill intent I have one account. The autobot blocked me from my talk page as well for supposed abuse that occurs over a supposed hoax which when it turns out not to be a hoax and is true in any form, by the way still no ill intention whatsoever was intended, and I do have a single account, the initial block would be removed making the subsequent blocks removed making the whole thing null. The autobot blocked for abuse of unblock after asking a second time, I don't get that. I don't see that as abuse but as a personal argument contructed by an admin who should have backed off long ago due to conflicts of interest. It is already too personal for them. regardless, they caused all of the grief and based on thier actions make all the accusations, given what was covered up, restoring what was said and following the progression in a straight line of everything that was done, would this seem a hoax? Would it even seem in-appropriate? Everyone took this just a little too seriously and thats why everyones feelings are hurt. <font face="Comic Sans"> castawayred talk  16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.130.126 (talk)

A considerate vandal
I must be seeing things - does this mark the first time a vandal has been considerate enough to report themselves to administrator intervention against vandalism? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Must not be getting enough attention. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A friendly considerate vandal, it seems. They welcomed... themselves . Tonywalton Talk 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to do a double take when I saw that, but in the end I thought it maybe better to grant the request. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This has me at ... a loss for words. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on David Milband
Can we get some more eyes on David Miliband, there is some fair contentious edit warring going on (I myself perform a revert early on in the edit war)which might slip over into BLP territory, since Miliband is a very prominent member of her Maj's govt and that article is likely to be watched by various media sources, I think we'd all prefer not to find ourselves, once again, the subject of mockery in the UK press. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page, the edit war had been on going for a few days with no non-reverts in between so protection seemed like the best step.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Herward77 is not only engaging alone in edit wars with at least 3 editors over this but he ois also insulting everyone with such classics as Sounds like the newly found power in your otherwise empty and pointless life is going to your head and calling those who disagree with him communists, anti-patriotic and any other insult he can come up with. IMO this editor is being seriously problematic and seems only interested in attacking Miliband, and his behaviour should be at least reviewed as without him ion the picture there would be no dispute and no issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a reasonable compromise position available here, which I have suggested at Talk:David Miliband. Herward77 does seem to be POV-pushing, and has reverted everyone else who has contributed, but I think that when faced with all the furious denunciations of Milliband by Herward77, Squeakbox has over-reacted a little bit by trying to remove all the content relating to relating to Milliband's granbdpa. Some of it seems quite uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP

 * Vandalism only IP. Not current. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. For faster service, please report simple vandalism cases like this to WP:AIV.  Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Qworty
This user continues to violate WP:BLP issues relating to Mitt_Romney by inserting criticism related to the Mormon religion which is unrelated to Mitt Romney himself. In as much he is in violation of 3RR which apply to violations of BLP issues. In general he is trying to turn the Mitt Romney article into a WP:COAT which is being used to criticize the Mormon Religion. Arzel (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just look out, one more revert and you violate 3RR. It does seem to be a rather short, well-referenced statement, and I don't think it's turning the article into a COATrack. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Material in violation of BLP issues are not subjected to 3RR. It only takes one coat to be a coatrack.  Arzel (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore did you even read the reference? No, didn't think so.  The reference does not make the assumption that Religion played a large issue for Romney in '68 like it does today.  The reference is not even in direct relevance to the subject, it is one sentence "Cherry Picked" out of an unrelated article.  Arzel (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His contributions show that he hasn't edited much else for two days. He's been warned a number of times. I think a 24 hour block might be in order here, though an admin may want to talk to him before we have to go that far.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While i'm not sure that Mitt's father's experiences have much if any bearing on 40 years later, since editors at that article have opened the door, what QWORTY is adding looks well referenced and legit. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Arzel, I must say, I don't appreciate the attitude. I'm just trying to help. First off, George Romney is dead. There's no BDP. I actually did read the source - going through it a second time. The article from the NY times says that much of the attention on George Romney was "concentrated on its [Church of LDS] policy at the time of excluding blacks from full participation." Qworty's edits are referenced, correct, and quite neutral for criticism. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your quick response didn't make it clear that you really took the time to examine before responding. This really is not relevant to George Romney, and I am not making any BLP issues in that regard.  However, and let me make this explicitly clear, Qworty has been trying to introduce into this article numerous times that the Mormon Church is either currently racist, or was racist at one time.  This many very well be, but it is not relevant to Mitt Romney.  This is where the violation of BLP falls.  The article is about Mitt Romney, not his run for president.  Not George Romney's run.  Not about the Mormon Church, and whatever they did in the past.  In essence this is what he is trying to say.  "Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  Mormon's were racist against blacks when his father, George Romney, ran for president."  Now tell me that doesn't violate WP:BLP via WP:COAT.  Arzel (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there's a reasonable case to be made that the edits violate BLP on the Mitt Romney article, for reasons Arzel has articulated here. I have left a warning on Qworty's talk page asking that he pay more attention to BLP and NPOV on this topic.

Please do not take this as license to try and swing the article the other direction etc etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of doing so. I don't even particularly like Romney, but I think it is important that BLP articles be neutral and focused on the individual.  Arzel (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the article says"Religion has played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign". The religious background of his family is relevant to the campaign, discussed widely in articles dealing with him, and relevant to the article. This may be another disgraceful example of presidential campaign politics, but its relevant nonetheless. I don't seethe point of pretending otherwise. DGG (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be some relevance to his campaign for president, but this is not an article on his run for president. There is already an article for that.  Arzel (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision deletion requested
Could someone please delete the last six or so revisions of Talk:Alberto Gonzales, please? I've requested oversight, but it hasn't been done yet, and there's some alleged personal information there about the subject and subject's family that really should be removed from the history. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - it should be restored soon.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistant abuse by ip
This IP (clearly a sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf) is currently abusing many NBA articles here and here and now even messing with my talk page here after I tried to revert him. I feel that I cannot deal with it alone anymore. And need admin attention now. <font color="blue" face="Papyrus" size="3">Chris! ct 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now blocked.   Acroterion  (talk)  01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lyoshka
I just noticed that is just putting down links to one website as functionally all of their contributions, as seen here. Is this spam? I'm not totally sure, as the site seems fairly useful, but seeing one user just embed a site on many, many articles caught my eye. The links are all to URLs like www.legistorm.com/member/Rep_Charles_Wilson/867.html for government staff pay information. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Though the site is a ".com", I don't see any ads. The material is objective and well-presented. WP now has about 658 links to the site. There are 540 members of Congress, so I assume they've all got the link. I'm not thrilled when an editor makes adding external links their sole job, but in this case I can't find anything to object to. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a problem either, but it was the spam radar of seeing one person doing just that which led me to ask just in case. An interesting site, at any rate. Lawrence Cohen  18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At first blush I thought this looked like a WP:LINKSPAM issue, however after looking a little closer, I do not see anything objectionable per se. Certainly the volume of links added is a bit surprising.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the content of the www.legistorm.com website. I was fascinated to see how my congressman was spending his staffing budget, and this would be relevant information for all 534 other congressman. There seems to be justification neither for a spam warning nor to revert these changes. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 505 links from an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than legistorm.com, is a violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It has become apparent that this account is only being used for spamming external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I know where your intent is from, but... - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * legistorm.com is owned by and registered to Storming Media LLC. So we could add WP:COI to list also. Its fairly clear this is promotional spamming
 * Accounts  →Storming Media LLC STORMING-MEDIA-LLC --Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a few more from Storming Media;   The last three are spam only WP:SPA accounts, with a pattern of starting articles based on the link.--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWhich (talk • contribs)


 * What else do you call it when a group of people edit the encyclopaedia from an IP address associated with a company, adding pretty much nothing other than links to their company's website? I don't think it's especially controversial to describe that as spamming. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny
Jeeny has used sockpuppets to commit abusive attacks on Jimbo Wales, repeatedly 'retired' then returned, showing a great lack of respect for the wikipedia community. In fact, she is currently editing with her retirement templates still in place. She has also attempted to remove licensing information from images she has uploaded, showing ownership of articles.

Her block log shows that repeated blocks, and even mentorship, have failed to curb her disruptiveness and abusiveness.

Her sockpuppet, which she has admitted to, is user:Humain-comme. Contribs. See these two edits for evidence of both puppetry and abuse and.

Jeeny is continuing to create a very hostile environment on Wikipedia. I am suprised an indefinite block was not imposed long ago, especially after the sockpuppetry. --The White Stallion (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the merit of the proposal, it seems odd that a sockpuppet is making a report on ANI about this. I think White Stallion is in all probability the user who has been harassing Jeeny for the last several months. Jeffpw (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned this one was not blocked, and have blocked the account. This is one of the most insane users I have ever met, and I use the term in the most careful sense.  The OTRS tickets form this user are nothing short of surreal, and the email addresses have been blacklisted from unblock-en-l, otrs-en and probably other places.  Far, far, far too crazy to be let loose on Wikipedia. 'm about to blacklist the known email addresses in my server, based on what happened to the last admin who blocked this account. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NPA says ". It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.". As an admin, you should no better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment, Guy, can you please clarify, were you talking about Jeeny or about the Hayden sock? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there actually any solid proof, such as CU, that Humain-comme is Jeeny, by the way? It could be like the thousands that "claim" to be RickK. Also, as Jeff correctly points out, Stallion seems very experienced for a new user and is most definitely a sock. Will (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, this isn't defence of Jeeny; I'm just suspicious about the complainant. Will (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet said it was Jeeny when it placed the tags, and Jeeny didn't seem to protest. --EoL talk 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prove anything. Even usertalk vandalism can be buried by further edits. However, Jeff's comment that H-c=Jeeny does. Will (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Jeeny. She has emailed more than one person saying it was. Now, should the sock who placed this report be blocked also? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The complainant is Jeeny, too? I've blocked it, anyway.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The complaintant is probably the banned User:Hayden5650, who has had probably near 100 sockpuppets, and continues to harass Jeeny. -Rjd0060 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As he's started to make legal threats, I've protected his talk for 24 hours to let him calm down. Revert me if consensus goes the other way regarding his block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on Jeeny's behavior, can I ask something: has Jeeny invoked RTV and start all over in order to get away from Hayden5650? — Kurykh  02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I comment? I was just wondering about the OTRS comment...WP:OTRS states "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Consequently, it doesn't seem proper to user OTRS communications to characterize the user or these communications as surreal and insane.  <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M anners U·T·C 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I struck some of my more belligerent comments above as being unhelpful. The fact remains, this is an unstable and aggressive user.  You're right, one of the links I supposed is unproven, but there have been email complaints about this user's conduct (including complaints to me direct via email) and numerous complaints within Wikipedia. I do not think this use is here to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia.  Guy (Help!) 07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even disregarding OTRS this is more than enough reason to uphold the indef block. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the block. <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M anners U·T·C 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder
The block log states that Jeeny has exhausted the community patience. Should this be considered a community ban? Maser ( Talk! ) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone unblocks Jeeny, then he isn't banned after the unblock, defining a ban loosely.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but is there any admin willing to unblock? If not, then this user is banned. A community ban occurs when a user is blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock the user. The reason I'm asking is because JzG said that the user exhausted the communities' patience in the block log. Is there any consensus built for this? Maser  ( Talk! ) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If Jeeny's name is placed on Wikipedia:List of banned users as a result of this discussion, and no administrator is willing to remove her name from the list, then she is banned. (Note: being unfamiliar with the case, I am not commenting on the merits of the block or proposed ban.) - Jehochman  Talk 08:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. But is this block widely endorsed? Personally, I think this user has had numerous chances. What do others think? Maser  ( Talk! ) 08:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Abusing socks (rather badly), abusing her mentor's trust when that mentorship was the condition for her previous escape from an indef block and making legal threats because she wants to revoke the release into the public domain of her uploaded images ought to be enough for a ban in my opinion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band) again, and legal threats
I just blocked 66.229.248.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) for this rather unambiguous legal threat. Fighting over this article, from tabloidesque, libelous insertions to conflict-of-interest-violating external links, has gone on for a while. I invite review of the block, review of the general situation, and also another few pairs of eyes on what goes on there. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clear, unambiguous legal threat. Sound block. Looks fine to me. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— <font color="#660099">Ocat <font color="#333333">ecir T 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I extended the block to six months and contacted Jimbo as the situation is more complicated than what it appears, for once he directly ignored Jimbo's desicion in this case wich was that none of the users involved in the COI influenced edit war was to edit the article within a month. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably should email the Foundation's legal counsel also. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is neither our policy nor custom to forward on-wiki legal threats to counsel. The great majority of such threats are done for the purpose of intimidation and disruption. The appropriate response is to block the user until they retract the threat. (Note: I have not looked into the facts of this particular case, and am commenting on process only.) - Jehochman  Talk 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that suits were supposed to be filed in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey? This guy is going for Florida, that will never work. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. I wonder what ever happened to that chap.  Ah, the good old days.  :)  Antandrus  (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be wikistalking me, with several violations of policy and wikilawyering on both disputed pages Gamespot and Al-Qaeda, specifically, NPOV. See also User talk:Crum375 Will (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP seems to have taken issue with User:Sceptre as well, if the re-posted (an entire) conversation at Talk:Al-Qaeda (per this diff). ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, Will and Sceptre are one and the same, Ultraexactzz. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  13:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How obvious is it that I haven't had my coffee yet this morning? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just thought it was funny given your user name ;) Will, do you have any specific diffs?  I can't see anything suggestive of wikistalking at first glance, which is a serious accusation - all I see is yourself and the IP having a Big Argument across lots of pages with wikilawyering coming from both sides, and now he and you are both trying to get the other blocked. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He was trying to disrupt the Gamespot page by lawyering to include an edit that had got the whole set of articles protected. Suspiciously, he is now trying to lawyer for a term on a page I edited, after I edited it. If that isn't following my edits to continue disruption, I don't know what is. Will (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A Wikiquette alert has been filed by the IP here. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange user, requesting review
I'm strongly considering just blocking and forgetting this user. But I would like others to see if there is something here that indicates a positive contribution to the encyclopedia.

I noticed because he copied User:Shell Kinney's userpage to this User:202.14.85.246 IP editor user page. Since then I've seen him copy two other user's talk pages to his (User talk:Jc37 and User talk:Sheep81). Yesterday Tonywalton deleted a number of hoax pages he had created. I can't find an edit that I'm sure is good (but I'm not sure those to Dumaguete Science High School were bad, so I haven't reverted them yet. The user appears to also be editing from  today and  yesterday.  GRBerry 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be also worthwhile considering User:Sphynx rdc as well? It seems 202.14.85.246 likes to edit his userpage. Rt . 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen this user vandalize multiple established user's pages, that they vandalized that one once doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. GRBerry 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was implying he may be a sock. Rt . 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating, I've blocked today's IP address for 1 week for vandalism. I've also semi-protected Ced101's talk page for vandalism by the IP address; I don't see any reason right now that an IP or new editor needs to be commenting there. But semi-protection will allow Ced101 to use it should he log back in. GRBerry 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam by Timjowers
I have to head out right now, so I can't take any action/investigate this further, but could some admins take a look at ? His last edits are all adding a link into about 2 dozen articles. Thanks, Metros (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also that many of the links are inappropriately added in "See also" sections. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for now, feel free to unblock if the user shows that he won't carry on. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a warning have been in order instead of a block 2 1/2 hours after their last edit? --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No-one asked this user about his edits. No-one told him about WP:SPAM.  No-one told him about this discussion.  No-one warned him.  All his previous edits show good faith, don't have anything to do with the supposed "spam" links, or any other external links.  Both of the links he added appear to be to ad-free non-profit pages with information appropriate to the articles in question, and quite within the ambit of WP:EL. While posting the same link to several articles may be spam, there's no evidence it was in this case. JzG: please explain why you did not warn this user, or ask him about the links?  Please explain why a block was necessary despite the user being inactive for several hours?  Please explain why you blocked an account with other, quite acceptable, edits indefinately?   -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * External links to votesmart.org are in my opinion reasonably appropriate. It might be a good non-partisan source for data on candidates. guono.com also just might be a useful non-partisan external source with a matrix of public perceptions of positions for the presidential candidates, though it isnt a scientific survey. JzG has been removing both, but I am not sure that is justified. and a block in the situation seem wholly inappropriate. With any additional support, I am willing to unblock & they should be discussed first before further action is taken DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please unblock him. The vote-smart link is a valid link. I haven't looked at the other one, but a warning should have been issued first.  Horologium  (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the user hasn't requested an unblock&mdash;he may, of course, having been bitten (although the account was registered several months ago, the user had just fifteen edits before today, each, notably, constructive and plainly made in good faith), departed&mdash;I, too, would support unblocking. Even were the votesmart.org link not almost certainly appropriate per EL, a block in the absence of a prior polite warning/explanation of EL/SPAM seems altogether unwarranted.  Joe 03:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said here and on the user's talk page, I have no problem with him being unblocked once he comes back and starts dialogue, but users whose principal contributions are numerous external links to the same website have a long history, in my experience, of being unrepentant spammers, so I did not want to set a block that would simply expire without some kind of admin interaction to ensure the problem is fixed at source. This is not a failure of good faith, it's ensuring that an apparent problem is averted.  Guy (Help!) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * None of his previous edits were spam links; in fact, outside of his user page (to which he added three external links), the only external link he had added prior to yesterday was a reference to the IRS for one of his edits. This is not a linkspammer.  Horologium  (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The sites that he linked too may be useful, but is it necessary for every candidate page? Can they just go to the more general election article? I don't see a reason for this redundancy of having the same links on every candidate's page like this. That's what set off my radar was that he was posting this to dozens of candidate articles. Metros (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic case of shoot first and ask questions later, but without ever asking any questions. I found the Project Vote Smart website several months ago and have found it to be an invaluable source of information about candidates and current office holders. The Wikipedia article for the organization states that "Barry Goldwater, John McCain, former US Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, founded PVS. PVS does not accept financial contributions from lobbyists, governmental organizations, corporations, labor unions or other special interests." One would be rather hardpressed to manufacture a complaint that actually refers to links to Project Vote Smart as "spam", regardless of how many articles have been updated by any individual. I, myself, have added the website as a link and source to nearly all 120 General Assembly and State Senate members in New Jersey (take Upendra J. Chivukula as an entirely arbitrary example). When can I expect my permanent block to start? It disturbs me that there are admins like JzG (including Metros comments above) who will allow their "radar" or "Spidey senses" to allow them to determine that edits are in bad faith without any further investigation or information from the user involved, and that the only answer to the supposed problem is a permanent block. This isn't spam, this is administrative abuse. There is a problem here, and its not with Timjowers. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I present this set of contribs, and these responses from JzG (Guy), when engaged by Tj, as evidence for unblock. It was a bad block. Mr Which ??? 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't really see evidence of a bad block in that particular exchange. In fact, Mr. Jowers response here concerns me somewhat. — Satori Son 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the sites are appropriate or useful, it doesn't confer a license to spam Wikipedia even when it's true. We are going to see alot of these type of Political positions sites added over the next year, this trend has already begun, for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Spamming is about promoting a site or a site you love (Ie. adding alot of similar or related links), which does not always mean they need to be "commercial" or "spam sites" to be spam. "Relative and informative" sites get spammed excessively on the project all the time. good link/bad link + mass addition = spamming. FWIW. --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, adding useful links from a given site to a wide variety of articles is, indeed, spamming, but it's not the sort of spamming for which we would ever block, since, well, it's constructive. Under your formulation, an editor who adds links to the respective IMDB pages of a large group of films would be engaged in pernicious spamming, notwithstanding that the links would be entirely consistent with EL; a block, then, would devolve simply because a user elected to add in rapid succession links to the gradual adding of which no one would object.  In any case, though, even was the user here engaged in spamming, it is clear that he acted in good faith, and it is, frankly, ridiculous that he was blocked with no warning at all; had issues been raised at his talk page, he might well (AGF and all) have stopped adding links until such time as a consensus for their inclusion developed or until the EL/SPAM issues were clarified, and so any putative disruption might have been prevented with much less collateral damage.  Joe 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop making so much sense. What you say is very true, though. Adding links to candidate positions isn't inherently "spam", which has a negative connotation. And it's certainly not blockable, especially when it's combined with the set of contribs I linked above. This was a bad block, it's as simple as that. Mr Which ??? 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a great idea: why not just ask Alansohn about everything, he'll always tell you I am wrong, and then we can all go away happy. I blocked the guy to stop what looked to me like repeated addition of links to a site which I don't see is authoritative or objective; I googled beforehand and saw several incidents of Tim Jowers promoting the site.  I said then and here that I have no objection to anyone unblocking if they think the risk of further spamming of this site is over, I don't think it is based on his response to me, but I don't like political zealots (which his response to me suggests he is).  People seem to be making an awfully big deal of this. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. How about not getting snarky, checking Timjowers contribs, and unblocking him yourself. The fact that someone whom you claim opposes "everything" you do "on principle" opposes your block in this case, does not mean that your block was, in fact, good. The evidence doesn't support a block of any length, his angry reaction (that you classified as "right wing zealotry") notwithstanding. Any new user (heck, even old users) would get pissed if they were blocked for no good reason, and without warning to boot. Mr Which ??? 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, blocking someone is a big deal, even if you think it's not, as you apparently do from your last line above. That's an awfully cavalier attitude toward one of the most sensitive buttons an admin has at his fingertips. That's one of the more disturbing comments I've seen from an admin lately. Mr Which ??? 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What only makes this whole Timjower "spamming" incident all the more disturbing is that a set of three links to Project Vote Smart -- for biography, voting record, and interest group ratings -- are included on the Wikipedia articles of every single member of Congress, as far as I can tell. How did they get there, pray tell? It's included on the Template:CongLinks, which builds these links and links to a whole set of other links, including for-profit company websites with (heaven forbid) ads, such as that of The Washington Post. I'm not sure why we allow any administrator the ability to decide arbitrarily what constitutes spam, but this seems to be one of the worst determinations ever. Be warned, that there are over 1,600 links to vote-smart.org, if anyone is really determined to remove this offensive site from Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can see of it, "guono.com" is not a neutral, reliable site. Their explanation of the issues,, is not mainstream. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Legistorm spammer
As an example of the supposed abuse of "spam" that we'll be sseing more of, check out Special:Contributions/Lyoshka, who has had the unmitigated gall to add links to legistorm.com, a site that provides information about salaries paid to congressional staffers. This person seems to have added 505 links to this site so far. Will this user be blocked, as well? Please do so quickly, as there seem to be 30 more congressional articles left to be updated and lots of work to needlessly revert all of these changes. Timjowers seems to have been hit by one of the greatest presumptions of bad faith I've ever seen. Blocking a user should only be done as the last resirt in the most extreme of cases where the block will stop abuse that is currently taking place; that's the principle I seek to uphold. I don't oppose anyone's actions on principle; it's the lack of principles that I object to. Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh. A once and final warning was issued earlier today, I'd have blocked.  That is spamming, pure and simple, the user has no edits other than adding that link.  Guy (Help!) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, an anon who was reverting removal, soft blocked for a while and rolled back. 130+ links remain, if anyone feels motivated Special:Linksearch/*.legistorm.com. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief! What's the problem with adding links to salaries of congressmen?!? Were they to a commercial site? A blog? What was the problem with the links?!? Mr Which ??? 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the problem Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. 5 WP:SOCK spam accounts and an IP registered to the owner of the site.--Hu12 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which ??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note discussion below. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?
LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) User:Marcellogarcia made this edit recently. Is this acceptable? GlobeGores (talk | contributions) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has now been deleted under BLP concerns, and any possible legal threat has been removed with it. Unless the editor repeats the comments (which I haven't looked at) at another venue then we should all just move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, reviewing their complete contributions including deleted, it's hard not to conclude that it's a single purpose vandalism-only account. I indef blocked Marcellogarcia.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Marcello is asking for an unblock review and may have clued in. Uninvolved admin review requested.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Their unblock request states, "I agree to add content to a page only in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I understand that my substantive difference regarding the William P. DiSalvatore page was not an excuse to get into a needless war over the site and that wikipedia provides ways to deal with disagreements. This is my first time using wikipedia and I have learned something about how it works from this disagreement. Please take this into consideration."
 * This new user seems pretty reasonable at this point, and I would support an unblock. — Satori Son 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As the user who brought up this request, I hope I'm allowed to voice a comment here: althought I'm not an administrator, I would support an unblock of Marcellogarcia now that he/she seems to know the rules and promises to abide by them. Feel free to strike, remove, or otherwise indicate that this comment is invalid if it is invalid. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no restrictions on who can comment on things here, although it might be best to avoid putting things in bold like that, people might think you've mistaken this for a vote. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see Nat is handling this and has given them an easy and reasonable option for getting unblocked. Looks resolved to me. — Satori Son 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A second set of eyes
Hey guys, I am having a very minor disagreement at Talk:Charles Peirce about content that has been merged as a result of an AfD. Nothing untoward has occurred, but I would like a second set of eyes on it to make sure that I am not way off base here. Also, I am curious about an editor who gets into a debate about our compliance with the GFDL within 6 minutes of his/her first edit. Thanks Pastordavid (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you merge the full content of Prescisive abstraction into Charles Peirce? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I placed it (it was a short stub) onto the talk page of the article, for the editors who know more about the subject to merge into the article as appropriate. The original article (Prescisive abstraction‎) was not deleted, but redirected.  Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a help guideline that governs what you need to do in this case. You can find it at MERGE.  So, in short, cut-and-paste mergers can be GFDL compliant, as long as you follow that guideline.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this new account might be an old friend whose name rhymes with Jon Awbrey. <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 23:24, December 18, 2007
 * Cloff! Guy (Help!) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, I thought something might be off about the account, but AGF and all that. Pastordavid (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alert: Have just reverted this . Looks like someone is back again, as this is his first (major) edit. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Kato9Tales has just appeared and reversed my reversion herer . It is clear this is the same user as before. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both now blocked. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew M. Stein deleting sourced content with POV edit summary at 9/11 conspiracy theories
If an admin could take a look, I would appreciate it. This bit of POV-pushing was his first edit in 9 1/2 months. He followed shortly with a reversion to re-delete the sourced material after I restored it. I dropped a note on his page letting him know this was disruptive, and potentially blockable. Mr Which ??? 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He is now attemtping to add original reseach and POV wording to the article here. He's made it clear in his edit summaries that he is not editing in good faith. The sooner he is blocked the better. Mr Which ??? 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still at it. Would an admin please take care of this? Mr Which ??? 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This belongs on WP:AN/3RR since both sides are now edit warring - including 6 reverts by the user being reported here. Report it there instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, why? 3RR takes all day, and gives the user all day to keep edit warring, and, quite often, the user will meanwhile get his version protected and not even get blocked (seen it happen a million times) - not to mention this is a single-purpose account, quite possibly a sock. Why the process-wonkery? Just block him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect because a) both sides are warring rather than asking for protection b) if everyone came to ANI with these things they would fill up the entire page and c) because this is a content dispute. AN/3RR is for people fighting over content issues - ANI is not. The rest of your message is irrelevant to what I was responding to. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, both sides are not "edit warring." One side is protecting the status quo version of the page, while the other is attempting to unilaterally insert POV into the article. We little editors don't have the "protect" button, EG. Our only method of "protecting" an article from such POV-pushing is to remove his changes, and to ask for help here, which I did. Mr Which ??? 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich, it's 5:15AM over here. Nobody's awake except for the Australian Cabal™. EconomicsGuy, AN3 isn't a place for content disputes either; they get ignored here but laughed out of there. And lastly, I've protected the article for a while. <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 10:17, December 19, 2007
 * How does Stein get away with pushing his POV crap into the article, and I get subtly warned about 3RR by EconomicsGuy? This is the kind of junk that discourages normal editors from reporting problem users here for admin intervention. This seemed like a pretty straightforward block of a SPA/POV-pushing user to me. Never mind, I guess. Mr Which ??? 12:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will review the contributions. Please be patient.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stein clearly edit warred and was not seeking NPOV or discussing on talk pages. 31 hour block and long explanation on his talk page.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article becoming image gallery
User:Nikkul insists on putting an image in Poverty in India article taken by him with a caption Low income homes in rural. In doing so Despite my repeated deletions, he is adding the image again and again. Someone please investigete the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is becoming an image gallery
 * The image is cleary irrelevant there.

User:Nikkul also put this image in Poverty article. The image is also irrelevant there. He is specifically insisting of putting this image photographed by himself. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the image is properly licenced, and not obviously vandalism, then the matter of its inclusion in a particular article is a content dispute. As such WP:DR, rather than WP:ANI, is the correct venue at which you raise your concerns. In particular, with the exception of over-use of fair-use material, articles becoming image galleries (or not) isn't specifically an admin matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - doesn't seem to be a problem, as the image is properly licenced, and image seems appropriate to article. Orderinchaos 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The image may be licensed, but the problem is that the image is not appropriate there. This image is very misleading to the subject of the article. The homes shown in the image doesn,t illustrate the subject of the article. The homes may belong to those who are not affluent, this is not explicitly illustrative of poverty in India. Poverty in India is much more dire than this image. The article has three images which exactly illustrate poverty. This image is completely irrelevant and is being input with POV to disparge the subject of the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, this is not the place to discuss it. I cannot find any sign of you trying to discuss with User:Nikkul regarding those images, one of the first steps in dispute resolution.  This "case" is a content dispute which needs to be solved by dispute resolution, and this page is not part of it.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy thread

 * Let's try and keep things on topic, please. "I don't like Guy" comments moved here. Thatcher131 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the resolution of the blacklisting issue (which is, one might argue, better dealt with at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist), I don't know that there's much that this thread can accomplish. I have long been of the opinion that the net effect on the project of JzG's being an admin, and perhaps being an editor, is negative, and I have long been inclined to believe that that view is shared by the majority of the community, although on each occasion of Guy's leaving the project many editors described him as an exceptional admin and encouraged him to return. In any case, though, even as the community has the absolute right to confer the tools on any editor at its discretion, it does not, at present, bizarrely, have the right to remove the tools, and I don't see any behavior&mdash;or, really, pattern of behavior, since most of his controversial actions seem to garner at least some support from the community, such that they're not all, I suppose, plainly contrary to consensus and policy&mdash; here that would result in the ArbCom's desysopping Guy, and I do not believe that any further input from the community on this issue or on the broader issue of "administrative abuse" will produce any positive results. Joe 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with everything you wrote above. And since I don't see the community of admins having the stomach to really sanction him for what he does, I've decided that until or unless he makes another block as bad as the one on User:Timjowers, I will not address him again. He has blanked several threads on his talkpage, by various editors (one that included multiple posts from several editors in that thread alone) who attempted to question his actions. Those aren't the actions of an admin open to changing his behavior, and I'm not experienced enough (a la Giano) to be able to truly agitate for change with the Arbcom. Mr Which ??? 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the apparent lack of willingness on the part of admins at large to confront an admin who is managing to seriously piss off a number of good editors through his unwillingness to listen to the community, his (what appear to me to be) misleading comments, his hypocrisy in complaining about behaviour in others which he engages in himself, and his refusal to admit that he ever makes mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is serious enough conduct, please file the RFC as that will be the first step to resolving this issue. Going straight to ArbCom would probably result in a rejection. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before choosing to lynch Guy over this spam blacklisting, I suggest you review the evidence at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
 * I think the data on this massive spamming campaign speaks for itself. -- A. B. (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just stop with the "lynch Guy over this spam blacklisting" hysteria. Those who have a problem with Guy have made it clear that the problem with Guy runs much deeper than that. Much deeper. Mr Which ??? 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then take it to RFC. There's no actions here for an admin to take.  Metros (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when Metros would turn up. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made it crystal clear what I'd like to see an admin do. It's very informal. I don't want an effin' RfC. I want someone who Guy won't "hang up on" at his talkpage to discuss his pattern of behavior with him. Mr Which ??? 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request review of User:JzG's block of User:Timjowers
I am formally requesting review of this block. It was placed on a sub-100 edit user, User:Timjowers after he placed links in several different presidential candidates’ articles. It was placed with no warning, and no attempt to engage in a productive, educational dialogue with Timjowers. The block has no expiry, making it even worse. He indef-ed a new user with no warning, and no attempt to engage in productive dialogue pre-block. JzG has steadfastly refused to unblock, though he claims he has no problem with another admin unblocking Timjowers.

Here is the response from the blocking admin, after User:Timjowers responded, with some justifiable anger, to the block. Note the blocking admin’s bite-y “You have precisely two enforceable rights here: the right to fork and the right to leave.”

I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look at Timjower’s contributions to the project thus far, and unblock him straightaway. For further discussion of this block, see JzG’s talkpage, as well as the “spam” thread about Timjowers above. Mr Which ??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * JzG unblocked him about 20 minutes ago. No comment on any further review you were hoping for...just thought I'd mention it. --Onorem♠Dil 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When I constructed the above request, the block was still active. I will strike through the request to unblock portion, but I think such a review of the actions taken in this case might be instructive. Regards, Mr Which ??? 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As JzG has now chosen to blank the relevant portion of his talkpage, here is a link to an old page containing the entire discussion, where several editors attempted to reason with him about the block over the last day or so. Mr Which ??? 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this here? The complainant is already participating in a thread on the same subject at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you link to that thread please Guy? I have been unable to find it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not there. He's probably talking about the "spam" thread above. But this is a thread intended to focus not on Jowers, but on the block itself. Two different--though related--issues in my mind. Mr Which ??? 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that JzG has unblocked the user, you still request that we conduct a "review of the actions taken in this case"? After that, what administrative action do you think would be warranted? This is an administrators' noticeboard, after all, not the Wikipedia complaints department. — Satori Son 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but it does say at the top of the page " If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here.". -- Ned Scott 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with the above statements, seems to be a complaint.--Hu12 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? I made it clear, I was simply wanting a few admins to take a look at his actions. That Hu12 (a fellow anti-"spam" admin) closed and archived this with an edit summary of "no merit" is beyond unreasonable. I am requesting that it be reopened for an informal review of JzG's actions in this case. Mr Which ??? 02:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that Guy could have handled it in a number of different ways. Discussion. COI noticeboard. Editing. Blocking, and without discussion or warning, was probably the worst of the options. But it has been undone and dealt with now. I think that is the best you are going to get. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I basically was just wanting to know that it wasn't just me as a lowly editor that thought the block was a bad decision. Let's hope he didn't chase off this editor for good with both the block and his snarkiness after the block. Mr Which ???  02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, MrWhich, you asked for a review of the block. A review was performed and closed. What more do you expect to happen, that has caused you to reopen this section? <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix talk  22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. An admin archived the thread before many people had a chance to discuss the issue. I agreed to the archiving, simply because it appeared that no admins had the stomach to deal with JzG's actions. That tide seems to be turning somewhat. Mr Which ??? 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So what do you want us to do? Don't tell us to just look at JzG's actions; we did that many times already. Those who demand change should give suggestions on what and how to change, and not leave other people guessing about their intentions. — Kurykh  22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like for someone with the juice to actually talk to the guy (who he won't feel as comfortable simply reverting threads from) to discuss the pattern of behavior that JzG has evidenced throughout his tenure as an admin, including his bad block of Timjowers referenced above (and his responses to disputes of that block, both here and at the talkpage). I don't have that "juice." Mr Which ??? 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People make bad blocks over the course of their admin tenure. A few bad blocks that are reversed does not an abusive admin make. — Kurykh  22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)Guy has a history of blanking attempts to talk to him, with edit summaries such as "not interested". He aslo, in my experience, has a history of failing to read threads properly before forming his unalterable opinion. He might be more receptive if an admin had the guts to point out his disruptive behaviour, as it is fairly obvious from his behaviour that he is not prepared to listen to non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite simply Guy is a nuisance and a menace and as an Admin serves no useful purpose. He needs to be de-sysoped, God knows how with that attitude  he was ever promoted in the first instance.  The problem is, is there anyone around with the guts  to do it? -   I doubt it. Giano (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Innocent editor"? Please see the domain registration info for guono.com, the site he was adding all those links to. It's registered to "TimmyInternet Jowers". I would not have followed as strict a course as Guy did -- I would have started with a very mild warning -- but Timjowers was adding a number of links to his own website. -- A. B. (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid nothing alters the fact that Guy's attitude as an admin is wrong and harmful. He services as an admin need to be dispensed with. Giano (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is turning into an edit war on this page as people archive and de-archive this discussion. Some 3RR warnings need to start being issued. <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix talk  23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thread would appear to have been prematurely archived, as discussion is continuing (including edits made to the archived thread by the editor who originally archived it). DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still no explanation as to what the various anti-Guy editors would have admins do. <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix  talk  23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is - we would like some admins to explain to Guy the problems he is causing - I believe I am right in saying that this has already been said above. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also object to the epithet "anti-Guy editors" - I am not "anti-Guy", I am anti disruptive behaviour by an admin, and the apparent refusal of admins to attempt to resolve it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's ironic is the editor that called us "anti-Guy editors" (a clear personal attack), dropped a personal attack notice on my page for questioning the archive. Mr Which ??? 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only turning into an "edit war" because of the abuse of the archive function by Metros. Mr Which ??? 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This really is a pointless discussion. Admins can block, delete and protect.  None of these functions is appropriate even if there was a consensus that Guy was abusing his position, since there is long precedent and practice that editorial abuse is dealt with by blocking one's ability to edit, but admin abuse is dealt with by removing the tools.  Only Arbcom can do that.  Therefore, discussions like this, no matter who started them and who the focus is, can accomplish very little in relation to the amount of drama and ill feelings they promote.  If you intend to file an RFC or Arbitration case, feel free to advertise that fact here.  If not, then nothing further can be achieved by perpetuating this discussion. Thatcher131 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An RfC seems like a more organized forum to collect and air grievances of this nature, while hopefully assessing community consensus on the matter. Imperfect, yes, but hopefully better than a posse on AN/I. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that there is no point trying to get Guy to engage in discussion of his behaviour? Or to expect admins to try to deal with disruptive behaviour? DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Thatcher is suggesting that an RfC would be a better mechanism to achieve both of those ends. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Posse" implies some degree of organization, what happened here is that people see a problem being discussed and join in - not a posse. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the meaning I had in mind -- was thinking more of the vigilante aspect -- but point taken. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling people vigilantes is no improvement. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to focus on, I dunno, the matter at hand? – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - Guy's behaviour is disruptive, uncivil, hypocritical, and damaging to the communtiy and the Wikipedia generally. The failure of other admins to attempt to engage Guy in discussion with a view to helping him contribute more positively undermines confidence in all admins, and the way in which discussion of the issue is curtailed by premature archiving of threads (this is NOT the first time, as I am sure you are aware) creates more stress and drama than it prevents. I am reluctant to start an RfC, both because I do have better things to do with my time than track down diffs of Guy's behaviour and the effects it has, and because when I have seen Guy's actions, a few predictable admins seem to leap to his defence by a) criticising or mischaracterising those raising the issue, or b) sideling discussions into tangential issues. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If only there were some forum where you could back up accusations of admin abuse with concrete evidence like diffs and community support. Like an RfC or something. I'm not trying to be condescending, really I'm not, but you've just specifically said you're not going to take the one avenue most likely to produce results, and that doesn't make sense to me. If you're really of the opinion Guy is ignoring complaints, make the sort of complaint he can't easily ignore. You've said you're unhappy with prior forays on AN/I (I think?), that's probably in part because discussions on AN/I rarely ever lead to desysoppings -- RfC->ArbCom is a more standard escalation, in that regard. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying I am reluctant to do something is not specifically saying I will not do it - please read carefully. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay? Either an RfC is filed or it isn't. It seems to me that you and Which are getting distracted by unimportant word semantics, and that's blunting your momentum. I mean, I'm sorry that I offended you, that was my mistake. If you want to address allegations of admin abuse, focusing immediately on a poor choice of words I made without really thinking about it isn't getting you any closer to your goal... and it makes it difficult to talk to you, if I have to spend five times as long carefully considering the various ways you might interpret every word I throw out. We're not making law, here, we're talking. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-focusing, then, after your personal attack calling us all a "posse" and "vigilantes": I started the first thread as an attempt to get a few admins (who Guy wouldn't feel as comfortable just reverting their comments) to attempt to engage him in discussion. That's not too much to ask, and kind of the point of AN/I, I thought. Mr Which ??? 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That might depend; is your goal to get analysis of a single admin action? AN/I can work well for that. But an entire admin career? RfC is probably better suited. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. IT's more about his attitude, and his playing fast and loose with some of the tools (especially the block button). Having a few respected admins discuss his behavior and actions was what I considered an initial step, before an RfC. Mr Which ??? 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, if it keeps coming up, and you're not satisfied with his responses, I'd still recommend escalating -- it may not settle matters entirely to your liking, but hopefully getting some proper closure on things will help? – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If JzG still believes they have the trust and confidence of the community then why don't they put themselves up for an RfA reconfirmation similar to Walton One. They'd be no need for them to resign beforehand but if the RfA goes against them, then desysopping would be automatic. A lot quicker than an Arbcom and it gives the whole community the chance to express their views and get a quick result. At present it seems admins are easy to create but hard to uncreate, hardly conducive to harmony I'd say.RMHED (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is he in the admin recall category? If so, then your advice would have been taken already. If not, then your advice is moot. Admins are not politicians subject to constant popularity contests. And we are veering off topic. Again. — Kurykh  00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is accurate to describe a suggested solution as "veering off topic", and it is not a question of popularity, it is one of competence. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate Mr Which's attempt to badger the admin community into trying to work with User:JzG and improve his actions, this is really a waste of a lot of community goodwill. The community would be better served by allowing User:JzG to actually retire as he has threatened to do, and pick up the admin work he feels he's the only one doing. less drama all the way around. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk about bad faith and personal attacks... Mr Which ??? 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As folks in this thread have been told multiple times already - AN/I is not the place for this discussion, period. If you feel the issue needs addressing by the community, then file an RfC or an RfAr. If you can't do that, then it must not be that important to you. There is nothing that can be done here based on your review, except what you have already tried to do (engage him in discussion). So, move along. <font color="#008080">Avruch Talk 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest opening an RfC on JzG. There's plenty of material to support one (I know where to find plenty without even having to search for it), and I could be one of the certifiers (two are required), because I've tried and failed previously to persuade him to correct his behavior. If anyone else wants to start an RfC, let me know and we can work together to collect all the evidence and get it drafted. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by others, please take this somewhere else. I don't see any new arguments being made by now and this particular noticeboard is really a poor venue for an ongoing, extensive debate such as this. If Guy's critics were out to criticize him and possibly embarrass him, they've done so by now. If they were out to de-admin him or otherwise smite him, well it's not going to happen here on WP:ANI. If the goal was to deal with the legistorm spam or Timjowers' block, well that's either been done or is being discussed elsewhere. If Guy's critics wanted to get his attention, well clearly he's been reading this since he's made several replies. If the goal was to make Guy grovel, well, it's certainly not going to happen any time soon based on an objective assessment of Guy's comments on things.
 * So, I blocked someone for adding links to a site of which he is the owner. Terrible, the project will crumble Real Soon Now.  And I blacklisted a site for no grounds at all, other than hundreds of links being added by single purpose accounts, which is not in the least bit spamming.  Much.  Given that I appear to be the very spawn of Satan, at least according to my loyal crew of grudge-bearers, can't people find better examples of supposed abuse than these? About the only genuinely helpful or productive thing anyone's said to me lately is "go and write some articles".  Which was good advice, so I took it. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy, do you honestly believe that you are benefiting Wikipedia in your rôle as an admin? Or maybe you could be more productive by dropping the tools and going back to writing? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just this kind of snarky attitude that I'm talking about. Mr Which ??? 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, "loyal crew of grudge bearers"?!? Care to support that accusation in my case, JzG? Before the Durova affair, I didn't know who you were. Mr Which ??? 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy acts grouchy like this sometimes. It doesn't excuse his admin actions, but it does explain (in my eyes) his talk page attitude. It's not so much a snarky attitude as a rather jaded one. Learning when you need time off to recharge the batteries is nice if you can recognise it in yourself, but not everyone can (I generally can't). Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggested you do some writing? That was Irpen, wasn't it? Nice articles, BTW. Commented at your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this comment by Irpen was blanked as well, though now Guy calls it "the only genuinely helpful or productive thing anyone's said to me lately." Mr Which ??? 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This board is largely for short-term incidents that need immediate administrator assistance and attention. If this topic needs further discussion, I'd like to ask that Guy's critics take to his talk page or to an RfC. it's time to open WP:ANI to other traffic. -- A. B. (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When taken to Guy's talk page, the comments are promptly deleted. I have diffs to prove this if you need them. He can't just delete comments he doesn't like here. Mr Which ??? 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the complainants should wonder why no action has been taken on their request, that is, assuming any action is necessary (hint hint). Multiple admins have commented...in the same fashion. Now no one is saying that JzG didn't do something wrong. But the complainants should take a step back before further commenting on whether their quest for JzG's pound of flesh is worthwhile and appropriate. — Kurykh  01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments add nothing to the discussion, in my view. I don't want a "pound of flesh" from him. I want uninvolved (read: not you) to discuss his behavior pattern with him, and for this behavior pattern to change. That's it. If he refuses, as he is doing, then perhaps an RfC is the only option. Mr Which ??? 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise your constant expressions of ire add nothing to Wikipedia. If you want to open an RfC, open one already and save us all this drama here. I certainly won't stop you. Perhaps you should stop trying to discredit any comment you don't like and blindly charging forward and actually try to follow some advice that we have given you here. Of course, you are free to continue down your path of JzG criticism, but favorable solutions not guaranteed. — Kurykh  01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, BS. If you look back through here, about the only time my "ire" really got up was when Merkos just archived it without allowing discussion. I've said from the beginning that what I wanted were for some uninvolved admins to talk over JzG's problematic behavior with him, and for his behavior to change. I'm not looking for "advice" here at all, so there's no need to give me any. I'm looking for a few admins to communicate with JzG about his problematic behavior. Mr Which ??? 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you're not here looking for advice. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them either. You're here to find admins who will do what you ask, and not finding any, you are here complaining? Does the obvious reason of "because they don't see your point as valid" escape you? But perhaps you will disregard my comments because they don't conform with what you want to hear, so I guess I'm wasting my time on this thread. — Kurykh  01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One sees remarkably few admins actually speaking up for Guy's behaviour - rather one sees narrow defences of certain aspects of it, or ridiculing of editors who complain. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And one also sees when the complainants have been judiciously rebuffed, they will repeat the same thing again and again until they get their way. How constructive for the encyclopedia. — Kurykh  02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true, DH. Carch told me last evening (when I opened my "Review" thread) that his response was probably the best I could hope for. He was certainly right. There do not seem to be any admins willing to actually discuss these issues with JzG on his talkpage, which was all I was asking for. How that becomes a "pound of flesh", I have no idea. Mr Which ??? 02:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurykh's comment was well said. You may want to consider the "conspiring with the Forces of Darkness" allegation, seems he's  posibly the very spawn of Satan.. lol--Hu12 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you, Kurykh: if a relatively new admin like myself had done what Guy did, and said what he said, what would have been the response? DGG (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The response certainly would not create this drama here. I'm sorry for not directly answering, but the question seems to have omitted the aspect of prior history, which is in play here. The complainants are trying to use JzG's history as "proof" of their allegations, something that would have been absent for a relatively new admin. — Kurykh  01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He asked you a specific question. You did not answer. For the record, the answer is, several admins would have engaged you on your talkpage, and let you know what was wrong with your actions, and how you could improve. That's all I've wanted to see happen from the beginning. (I'm going to go work on the actual encyclopedia for a bit before bed now.) Mr Which ??? 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one told you to answer for me, and no one was asking you to judge my answer. Your interjection was extremely rude. DGG can evaluate my answer himself, and I can elaborate when requested. — Kurykh  02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I can comment whenever, and wherever, and for whatever purposes I would like, without your permission. DGG can also evaluate my answer himself, and I'm free to elaborate on your nonresponse if I wish to do so. And there was nothing "rude" in my initial response to DGG. I simply pointed out that you had not answered his question, which you yourself admitted. Mr Which ??? 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a good example of the classic "this is a free country" reply. Enough with such boring and pointless rhetoric that only serves to make the encyclopedia look foolish. — Kurykh  02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a good example of the classic "I'm an admin, so I'm inherently smarter than you" reply. "Boring and pointless rhetoric"? Do you ever respond to the substance of a post? You called my initial reply to DGG "rude." It was not. I corrected that notion, reminding you that you aren't empowered to tell me when and where I can post. Arbcom could, but not you. And you respond with another non sequitur. Mr Which ??? 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when was I asserting my admin status? I was calling your reply in my stead "rude," so there goes your straw man. I did not say that you weren't allowed to answer; after all, we can't stop you. I am, however, allowed to rebuke you for it. But let's get back to the current issue of JzG, shall we? — Kurykh  02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks for admitting you were trying to put words in my mouth. What an ingenious way of trying to convince people of your point. — Kurykh  02:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort. I answered DGG's question, after you gave a non-answer, and admitted that you hadn't directly answered his question. Mr Which ??? 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it outdoors, lads. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Weasel123
User has been blocked by for 31 hours. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC) This user is continuously creating user-talk pages with a message stating they have been blocked indefinitely by User:Chrislk02. He has blanked his user page several times. Could all the fake messages he created please be deleted? He has vandalized my userpage too. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Report him to WP:AIV as well if it hasn't already been done. He also got my page as well, and I was a bit confused to put it mildly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked for 31 hours by, and it appears his contribs have been reverted already. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note his second-ever edit was to install Twinkle. Can he be trusted with it? --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there no minimum edit limit on TW like there is for AWB?. Surely since they are as far as i know used for the same things, similar enforcements should be in place.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean VandalProof, Jac1688. AutoWikiBrowser is, as far as I know, used primarily for cleanup and/or markup fixes in the mainspace. VandalProof has a editcount limit of 250 (non-vandal, mainspace) edits. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AWB has an edit limit too, you need 500 mainspace, and be approved by an admin, see WP:AWB.--Jac16888 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rodhullandemu. Another user, User:Le Funtime Frankie, who has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul, had installed TW and was using it to the last 20 or so edits admin Yamla had made (using 'vandalism rollback'). In fact, as far as I know, he still has the Twinkle script in his monobook.js. However, Weasel123 never actually did use TW when he edited. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's ongoing discussion about TWINKLE use over on WP:AN right now; maybe the policy stuff should be directed over that way? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have pointed out this thread over there; I'm thinking that perhaps this discussion would be better on its own page because it clearly has deeper significance than just one or two users. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rock Soldier
User has been repeatedly rude, impolite and uncivil on numerous occasions. Recent examples (Some are in the edit summary):, and the restoration of a personal attack after I removed it. I didn't want to argue so I just took it straight here. He makes good edits but he is prone to losing his temper and allowing profanity to enter during his dialogue with other editors. What to do? (I've warned him a couple of times using templates) <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scar <font color="black" face="tahoma">ian Talk  22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Todd Marshall
This AfD is so old, it is getting moldy. To merge this may take several mops. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD isn't even an AfD anymore; it's a merge discussion. — Kurykh  00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would probably be best to just redirect all the articles to the list for the time being.  BLACK KITE  01:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Report of Repeat Offender- Deleting Portions of Article
User ElkenaJ4 is a repeat offender of deleting portions of Venetian_Princess article on a daily basis to start edit warring. I have already posted a warning to this user in talk, and he/she ignored it and continued to vandalize the article. To prevent this user from further abusing of wikipedia articles, I would like to request that this user be blocked.

"Journalist23 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * Keeps simply deleting the text after a few days. Denied at WP:AIV, but I decided to leave a message on the talk page asking why; let's wait and see. Basic content dispute otherwise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

External links added by
has added links to a Freefoto site in four articles today - for example, please see this edit to Aerial photography. I don't know whether the external links are kosher or not, so I'd like someone to review them and advise the user if there is a problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Must be his own personal site. I've dropped a warning for him. We don't need his link on every article that meets a certain criterion. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the Freefoto website, these are free photos &mdash; all released under CC-3.0 (cc-by-sa-3.0). &mdash; User: (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Missed on item, it is cc-by-sa-nc-3.0.  So the "non-commercial" makes it non-viable, so to speak, for Wikipedia.  Well, I certainly can see how the contributor could, in good faith, be making this addition of images and the link.  I don't think there was any real spam intent.  The editor just needs guidance in the details of licensing of images for Wikipedia. &mdash; User: (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Knataka
This user has persistently spammed and vandalized articles in Wikipedia. This user has also received warnings regarding these (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knataka&oldid=178845574), as well as a warning by an administrator for edit warring (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnataka&diff=178887030&oldid=178845574). In addition to this, this user may need to be monitored, as there is a strong possibility of sharing of accounts or sock-puppetry as suggested by the administrator here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=prev&oldid=179128524. There is no doubt that one of this user's sockpuppets/accounts/IPs include 76.212.8.87, and it is very possible that there are others as the user continually suggests on the user's talk page. I request the user (and sockpuppets etc.) be blocked to prevent any further disruptive edits. I also request that this user be monitored thereafter so to ensure there is no other suspicious activity thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

 * '''Original thread re-located to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Larry Lurkington. Further comment is welcome at that page.

Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.

Well, that's one way of hindering a debate you don't want to have! It would be helpful to have more clear edit summaries in future for such moves (eg. indicating the section title of the moved material). DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a compromise between clogging up ANI with a thread that had moved towards "Yes it is/no it isn't" territory, and merely archiving it. You are of course free to continue the conversation on the subpage if you beleive it would be constructive.  BLACK KITE  16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There should not be a compromise between something and "merely archiving it", because archiving an active discussion should not even be under consideration. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't archived, just moved elsewhere. Does this need to be moved into another sub-page?  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that moving it to a subpage is better than just slapping on the archive tags, but neither of them should have happened. There was no cause. -16:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion no longer belonged on the main ANI page as it had mainly moved towards a discussion of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK, and no admin action is currently required.  BLACK KITE  16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Un-semiprotecting
has started systematically unprotecting semiprotected pages without attempts of obtaining consensus about his actions. This includes pages such as obesity, cancer, Judaism, Muslim, Jesus and other predictable targets of vandalism. When I asked whether he'd considered the risk of vandalism, I received the reply that "eight and a half months is excessive. Period." This user has now stopped communicating with me.

I am deeply concerned that important and vandalism-prone content is being exposed to vandalism. JFW | T@lk  00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've told you already, I'm dealing with the 8.5 month backlog at Special:Protectedpages, mostly because no other admin has taken the initiative to do it. Your also twisting what's happened, because I haven't stopped communicating with you. Your using as many methods you can to make sure that everyone has a bad first impression and therefore side with you. Anyways, yes I consider that 8.5 months is excessive for semiprotection. Every article is unprotected at some time, even Bush gets unprotected once and a while. Why not others? There isn't a policy that says that cancer can be indefinitely semiprotected just because someone says. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, unless you haven't checked, this is a wiki. Everything is vandal-prone. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection is never meant to be indefinite solution. Take a look at this discussion on meta: Protected_pages_considered_harmful ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The meta page does not allow for semiprotection, which is the crux of this dispute. JFW | T@lk  00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We are clearly disagreeing on an interpretation of policy, so I would like to ask you to stop until this has been clarified. Is that possible? JFW | T@lk  00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be blunt, but I think this is more of a case that you are misunderstanding policy and precedence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedence" actually dictates that indefinite semi-protection be used for articles subjected to continued heavy vandalism, biographies subject to POV-pushing or slanderous material, user pages when requested, and policy pages on a case-by-case basis. I'm disappointed that this administrator didn't seek input before going on a large unprotection spree. <small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 00:47, December 18, 2007

Could you explain what I'm misunderstanding here? Or rather, how do I know that it's not Royalguard11 doing the misunderstanding? And where is the precedent you are referring to? JFW | T@lk  00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with most of these unprotections, but a few should probably never be unprotected - I've just re-protected Gay after it was hit twice within minutes of the protection being lifted; this one probably isn't worth the effort. I've watchlisted a lot of others, and will keep an eye out.  BLACK KITE  00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds, and for how long, would you reinstate semiprotection? Obviously, the majority of the pages unprotected by Royalguard11 will suffer vandalism within the next hour or so. Where are we meant to draw the line, and should these pages have been unprotected to begin with? By semiprotecting we are not exactly closing down editing - we are only delaying for autoconfirmed registered users. JFW | T@lk  00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Royalguard11 acted in good faith, but the unprotection of some of these articles shows a lapse in judgment in my honest opinion. In any case I agree with Luna, lets take it case by case for now. <font color="#151B8D">Knowledge <font color="#6D7B8D">Of <font color="#461B7E">Self | <font color="#461B7E">talk  01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel I must chime in here, that mass unprotection is a Bad Idea(tm). Those articles are vandal magnets and consensus has long been reached that indefinite semiprotection was reasonable for those.  Quoth the WP:PROT "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad that semiprot seems be putting back in place on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a blind mass revert. I haven't checked a list, just yet, but from the chatter it seems like a fair number of these were overdue for unprotection. Possibly not the best method, but I think it was done in good faith, and it's brought attention to the issue. Sooo... on to the issue. If any of these become controversial, we can (and should) discuss them in particular. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt this was a good faith move, especially given the foundation issue. But it's also a ill-conceived moved&mdash; I would support reexamining all of those semis, but just doing the blanket unprotect was a bit... too bold.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Batch unprotection is not uncommon. There are several admins who routinely go through Special:Protectedpages to let in a breath of fresh air to those that are locked for too long without expiry. There are some pages that remain protected for years because no one has remembered, or bothered, to get them unprotected. There are some pages which are obvious candidates for permanent semi-protection, and I hope the unprotecting admin applies some common sense, but if any are unprotected and subjected to extreme vandalism then they can always be reprotected. No big deal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like batch unprotection... but at the same time, I don't like when admins semi-protect an article and never follow up. Your goal should be finding the right balance of semi-protection and non-protection. Going around and unprotecting articles like Gay and walking away is irresponsible, but so is semi-protecting some obscure article due to a few instances of vandalism, then leaving it semi-protected for 8.5 months. Everyone needs to be more vigilent here... if admins wouldn't make perpetual semi-protections where they really aren't needed, there wouldn't be admins running around doing batch unprotections and walking away. Unprotecting articles like Gay and so on shouldn't be done en masse... anyone wanting to do that should be familiar with the article and its editting patterns and willing to stick around and revert vandalism, and judge when or if semi-protection is needed again. Assuming someone else will do the dirty work is disrespectful of people who deal with unprotected pages, rather than just dash around making them unprotected. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following what's been done before here. Before I did it, VOA did a ton of unprotection runs, again because no one else did. A lot of the ones I unprotected had "vandalism" as the reason, and was protected for 8 months. Maybe I'm missing something, but vandalism that happened 8 months ago doesn't matter anymore. If I don't do large unprotection runs, the backlog will just get bigger and bigger as time goes on (as it has for the last 8 months). Sometimes these articles are protected almost indefinitely because no one goes through them ever, and no one bothers to ask for it to be unprotected. That's obviously not what Jimbo nor the WMF have in mind for the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", because we have way too many uselessly protected pages right now. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to try to figure out which ones were bad semi-protections, just in response to relatively minor vandalism, and which ones were on articles with severe vandalism problems. Unfortunately, community consensus is that some articles, like George W. Bush, really have to be perpetually semi-protected... advocates of non-protection have unprotected that article then quickly reprotected it in frustration. You unprotected too many pages, as far as I can tell, for you to be following up on them all to see if vandalism got out of control on any of them. --W.marsh 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how are all these articles going to be unprotected? Shall I request the unprotection of a thousand articles at WP:RFPP? -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should indicate you aren't just throwing the article to the wolves, but will be watching it and helping out. Vandalism isn't just magically dealt with... the people who deal with it appreciate a little respect. --W.marsh 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, even after the "excessive" amount I unprotected, the backlog still stands at late April. If I unprotected the first 1000 articles, that only puts us at Oct. 10. There's still 2 months after that. Do you have any better ideas on how to deal with that? -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, everyone needs to be more vigilant... that includes admins who don't set expiration dates (not sure if that feature was around in April though) on semi-protections, and otherwise don't follow up with their semiprotections. If they didn't do that, it's my belief there wouldn't be such backlogs in the first place. But one irresponsible action doesn't justify another... even if it is a big backlog. I could go close every open AFD in a few hours, and justify the dozens of bad closes by saying "How else could we have dealt with the backlog?" --W.marsh 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I must have missed the memo. When did AFD become 8 months behind? The difference is, of corse, AFD is always cleared within a week because it's watched. And while looking through the logs for pages, some had been thorough an expired protection, then reprotected without one. There were several admins who just repeatedly didn't set an expiry date. There are some who don't put an expiry date now for no good reason. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you talked to any of these admins? --W.marsh 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things would help here - first, talk to these admins, as W.marsh says. Second, in the spirit of poka-yoke, is there any way of changing the protection page so it puts an expiry period of 1 month in the field as default, forcing someone to actively select indefinite protection? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That second is actually a really good idea. Don't know why it never occurred to me that "Indefinite" should not be the default option for article protection any more than it should be for account blocking. Is this a proper issue for a BugZilla request, or is there a simpler way to edit that interface? — Satori Son 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. Some even missed the whole point here, so if you want to say something, go ahead, I don't think it'll change anything. I see also that no one has come up with a viable solution for the problem at hand (backlog of pages). The idea about defaulting to 1 month I like, because I'd consider that to be the maximum for any new protection. As zzuuzz said above, articles can be reprotected, it's not a big deal like it's been made out to be here. If someone reverts my unprotection, I won't loose any sleep over it, I promise. Everyone is way too afraid of being accused of "wheel warring". Like Nike says, Just Do It, and stop trying to be politicians. Be bold has been a wiki-principle forever, but no one does it anymore. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. I'm not sure if that's a good approach.  By that reasoning, the rest of us ought not talk to you, either, and just undo your actions without comment.... Incidentally, I don't mind the idea of having a default protection period of some intermediate length.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no point in talking, the only solution is to undo admin actions with a template message? This kind of behavior on both sides is why we have this problem. As far as I'm considered both sides are being uncommunicative and irresponsible... then wondering why there's a problem. --W.marsh 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ... be bold but not reckless. I have no beef with unprotecting most of those articles.  I have a big problem with mindlessly unprotecting all articles without so much as a bit of consideration on whether it's a good idea for the specific articles.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As nobody seems to object to putting a default protection period of a month rather than the blank "indefinite" period, does anyone have a Bugzilla account and would be willing to request this? I am technically inept and would quite possibly request the wrong thing from the wrong person. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto; such a request is completely unfamiliar to me. I'm not even sure BugZilla is the right venue; it might just be a matter of someone editing our local en- interface? Again, no idea, but it would be a shame to let this excellent suggestion fall to the wayside. Any suggestions from anyone on how to get this implemented? — Satori Son 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found no Mediawiki page for this. You're welcome to dig through Special:Allmessages, but I'd just report a bug (I'll do it myself later if no-one does, but the bugzilla search isn't working for me right now, and I'd want to check it wouldn't be a duplicate first) —Random832 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to give up here. I will stop unprotection runs. But, since you guys want me to stop, you can figure out a way to deal with the problem that we have. Oh, and just keeping them protected for longer isn't an option. We're already violating our principles by having these protected for 8 months. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:The dépeceur of Bergen is accused on the checkuser page of issuing serious threats in french. It does not qualify as a checkuser case and I do not speak french so I am bringing it here. Below is the text of the complain from CAT:RFCU. -JodyBtalk 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABradipus&diff=177566301&oldid=173777205.

I do not know if any of you speaks french, but this text is a death threat directed to me and my family. This is most probably linked to fr:WP:MS, a long term vandalism on WP:fr. Besides vandalising, the vandal steals identities (I had some difficulty getting back the "Bradipus" identity, also here), and posts defamation on WP:fr admins all over internet (here in the serbian WP, a text accusing various admins of serious crimes such as pedophilia!!).

But what brings me here is this text of which I will translate the beginning: "I will cut you into pieces. I was unfairly blocked ( not by me, as far as I know ), I will do justice myself. I will cut you into pieces and eat your brain and your willie. I will kill all french speaking bourgeois (...). I will take care myself of your two little pieces of trash ( that refers to my two children who are mentionned on my user page ) that I will drown after crushing them against a wall. We will have your wife raped by hobos. No flemish would want to have that latin bitch (...)".

Death treats againts me and againt my family, this is getting quite serious. And according to what I know, this guy may well live a couple of kilometers away. I would like to get the IP of that guy if possible. Bradipus (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask Slakr. He knows French. &mdash;Bo L  @  23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is definitely a death threat. Blocking.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... been beaten to it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was able to get it confirmed. -JodyBtalk 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ewww... Very nasty (odd it's in French, though, given the rantiness of the content against Francophones). I see there's a link in there to the nl wiki. Might that be worth investigating by the people over there? Tonywalton Talk 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Took a look at nl - the user mentioned appears to have been blocked as a sokpop (what a nice word) some time ago. Takes all sorts. Tonywalton Talk 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Affaire Lustucri-MS and Vandalism reports/BogaertB. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should update the meta page (is protected). x42bn6 Talk Mess  04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken advice from Mike Godwin here and have now answered the above checkuser case to the best of my abilities under the circumstances. I wish there was more I could do here but there isn't. I've revealed as much information as I can legally do and note that there is no useful geo-locating information to be obtained from the underlying IP address. BTW - the message in French actually reads worse than the above translation, IMO. It's disgusting - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not want to be accused of exagerating in my translation...thanks for the efforts. Bradipus (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely not an exaggeration. ("I impatiently await the day of liberation for Brussels by the forces of public hygiene" - Mon dieu!) <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My goodness, a death threat in another language, possibly to intensify the message - block endorsed. Maser  ( Talk! ) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And coupled with a username which is the nickname of one of the bloodiest serial killers in recent Belgian historyFrenchEnglish... Not much positive can be expected of this editor. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Immediate action requested regarding email abuse
This morning, I opened up my email to discover a blizzard of short messages saying "F*** you, n****"--all sent by way of the "Email this user" function. All of the emails were sent from accounts that were created very early this morning (North American Eastern Time). I am assuming that these are all socks of an experienced user, as it is very unlikely that a new user would know about the email capability. They are also clearly the person, as the emails all come from the same Yahoo Mail address.

I am asking--no, demanding--that the following users be indefblocked immediately:



If necessary, I'll forward samples to any admin who needs proof of this ... just one email from each ID, before anyone gets spooked. Clearly someone is in need of a permanent Wikibreak. Blueboy96 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, e-mail blocked. Although of course it will be difficult to stop them from continuing through other throwaway accounts if they really want to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could try WP:CHECKUSER to try and block the underlying ip. Woody (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Requests for checkuser/IP check. Woody (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't demand. :) However, based on a CU check as reported here the three accounts you've reported operate from a common IP and I have blocked it for a week with account creation disabled. Please advise of any further issues or concerns. I think Kim's on to something interesting if it can be elaborated and turned into a developable thing. Maybe not once per day but certainly not unlimited. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Lar ... I was just hot enough to melt the snow in the Northeast when I saw 400+ emails from this troll clogging my Inbox. Thank God I have Yahoo Mail ... Blueboy96 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this might be useful to report to devs, as it's a spamming loophole. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim, are you thinking of putting a limit on its use? For example, allowing each person to use this feature only once per recipient in a given period of time? (The recipient usually has an email address for the sender, so if the recipient wants to talk about something off-wiki they can reply, which gives the sender the recipient's email address, & neither needs to use this again.) Or do you have a better solution Kim? -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerns for User:Bluetim1
Here. Special:DeletedContributions/Bluetim1 may have clues as to identity. Dloh  cierekim  14:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Worthless People" and expression of anger User:Bluetim1 and on my talk. Special:Contributions/Bluetim1. Dloh  cierekim  14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not therapy. There is not direct threat at all. I consider this matter to be a non-issue. - Jehochman Talk 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Resolved tag as I believe that this IS an issue. Is it possible for someone who can access the IP address of the user in question to forward details to the local law enforcemetn so that a check can be made - as has been done in previous cases? DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Too right! Wikipedia is not therapy, but it might be nice if a checkuser could identify him and send out the appropriate help. Do I need to post there, or can we get this done from here? Dloh  cierekim  14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But, there is no threat apparent. Let's not create drama for the sake of drama. Encouraging people to file reports that waste law enforcement resources is not a joke! Perhaps I am missing something.  Can you point to the diff that contains an actual threat? - Jehochman  Talk 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a nurse, I see enough to say we need to try to identify this person and have the cops do a welfare check. Speaking form Potentially suicidal users, there is enough to contact the authorities and have them do a welfare check. We are not shrinks and could not assess over the internet if we were. Ergo, the best, safest choice is to try to identify and get local authorities to check. Dloh  cierekim  14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also per Potentially suicidal users, it is not a waste of time. Dloh  cierekim  14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk of suicide is often a threat of suicide even if the threat is not directly articulated. In my experience, the police would much rather investigate and find no real problem, than not receive a report and run the risk of having to tell a family that their loved one is dead, and that someone knew there might be a problem and chose to do nothing. To make a good-faith report of concern to the police is never a waste of their resources, instead it is giving them the information they need in order to do their job properly. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff? I don't see talk of suicide. - Jehochman Talk 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The VERY FIRST diff at the start of the thread - the addition of the comment "solves everything" to the talk page of Suicide. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Suicide talk page here, as I already posted. State of mind as evident in his comments to my talk page and and his uesr page. State of mind in the deleted article Worthless People.(Links as per my original, heading refactored by someone else, post.}  Dloh  cierekim  15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's trolling, perhaps, but not a threat. I will say it again, Wikipedia is not therapy. Don't try to get inside other peoples' heads. Bringing this to ANI is risks WP:BEANS. - Jehochman Talk 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not qualified to to say it is not a suicidal ideation. Having the cops come to the house and consider an involuntary commitment is the last thing any one wants. It will not encourage anyone to post such remarks to have someone send out the cops and check. That is why the policy says to post here. Dloh  cierekim  15:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a simple venting of frustration to me rather than an actual serious threat. I wouldn't consider a ambiguous statement made 10 hours ago to be something that is really actionable at this point.  More likely than not, any attempt at this point to get authorities to contact this person will only exacerbate the situation.--Isotope23 talk 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy is just frustrated because he really wants Wikipedia to have an article about his favorite science teacher. Last time I checked, Notability says we don't have articles about non-notable people. It isn't worth it for us to send law enforcement out to his house. There's no credible evidence that he's threatening anything against himself. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that "otherstuff exists" isn't regarded as a valid reason for keeping an article, but Wikipedia has thousands of articles about non-notable people - but women who flash their tits for money, or guys who wrote some obscure video-game are apparently the sort of people a lot of editors want to see here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we're not in a position to judge whether somethings credible or not. We're not mind readers, it's always worth it to send law enforcement on check welfare calls. It's part of their job and it's what they do. I'm always surprised when I read people's comments when they try and judge whether someones serious or not. I'll tell you one thing, they (LE) always take this stuff seriously. Always. And we should too. It's not "therapy" having someone do a welfare check...RxS (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no threat at all. If you look at the diff, there is no statement whatsoever like "I am going to do X". Please people, let's stop being trolled and get back to work. - Jehochman  Talk 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out that if law enforcement authorities conclude that there is no threat and do not act, it then becomes their decision rather than ours, and I'd much rather they decide than myself. That being said, there is a high chance it is simply trolling. Orderinchaos 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Expressing unhappiness is not a threat to commit suicide. Proceeding with matters like this is nonsense. W are not here to do welfare checks, or to screen our posters for mental illness. DGG (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are not here to do welfare checks - but the police are happy to do them, it is, after all, part of their job. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * re the 'lets stop being trolled' comments (& keeping in mind what duncan just pointed out): following WP:SUICIDE & passing it on to relevant lea without attempting to second guess users mindstates is the least 'troll-feeding' option. as it is by having this discussion every time this comes up (a few times in the last fortnight) we are effectively giving potential trolls far more attention than we would by simply following a procedure which, btw, was wholeheartedly endorsed by jimbo & many long standing eds/admins in one of those recent discussions. <font style="background:white;" color="black"> &rArr; <font style="background:white;" color="black">bsnowball  08:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho
Probably vandalism, but this comment was posted on the talk page: "I MUST SAY THIS DUDE IS LIKE A ROLE MODEL TO ME.. IM PLANNING ON DOING A SIMILAIR MASSACCRE IN MY SCHOOL ITS GONNA BE AWSOME!!!" see diff: --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, he just posted that it was a joke, . --Strothra (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still worthy of advice that this, even as a joke, is unacceptable on Wikipedia. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. --Strothra (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Report to WMF if possible? &mdash;Bo L  @  03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much, I doubt the Foundation would be bothered. A stern warning from an Admin should be enough. It would be very different indeed if the comment had not been retracted, however. That would have merited LEA involvement. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam"
Continuing his crusade of administrative abuse, User:JzG has add legistorm.com to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see this edit). As discussed earlier, this is a neutral, non-partisan site that provides objective and relevant information regarding Congressional staff salaries. Above and beyond the general benefit of providing this information fro all congressmen, an example of where this is particularly relevant was a citation used at the Jerry Lewis (politician) article, documenting the fact that the representative's wife is employed at $120,00 per annum as his chief of staff. This reference was removed by JzG, with an excuse in the edit summary noting that he was "removing per discussion on ANI and elsewhere". The problem is that there has been no consensus reached that Legistorm.com is spam, nor has there been any support here for JzG's bizarre position. It seems that JzG, having been caught with his pants down in an abusive block of User:Timjowers, has decided to compound the abuse by declaring the site spam, preventing any reference to the site in any context. Above and beyond removing the listing from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, it is high time that JzG is stripped of any and all administrative powers. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest proposing the removal of the site from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find any relevant ANI discussion or even a consensus on the blacklisting of the link. After viewing the site, I can't find any reason that the site should be banned, given that it does do a heck of a job at providing politician salaries.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is all I can find: . It's used as such in the CongLinks template, such as this example. And there has been no discussion or even feature removal at the template, indicated here.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would have been blacklisted for spamming, obviously. It was blacklisted per here, here, and here. Sean William @ 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking above and here, five accounts and an IP registered to the site have spammed the link. I support the blacklisting. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One problem with the site is lots of ads. Adding a link to hundreds of congresscritter's articles helps to funnel eyeballs and therefore ad revenue to the site.  Linking to a noncommercial source for the same information is preferred under external links policy. Thatcher131 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds right (although google adsense is hardly "lots of ads"), but is there a non-commercial site? A quick look finds me no replacement. Unless there's an alternative available, I think the site should be removed from the blacklist and be linked on its own merits.


 * As for the retributive attitude, I understand the need to deter spammers, but I'm going to confess some ignorance. When I think of "spam," I think of a minor site getting undue placement for its own benefit. These links, although they were spammed, look meritorious and have been adopted by non-COI users. I think it would be bizarre to blacklist meritorious sites; it would give bad faith spammers the ability to block links to sites they don't want. I think this kind of gaming would occur in political topics. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don;t think the links, as added, were meritorious or editorially appropriate. It's as if you put a list of salarys of Microsoft executives in Bill Gates' article. See my comments below. Thatcher131 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Gates is not a public servant; it's a strange comparison. Even JzG saw merit to the information stating, "If that is public information it'll be available form a site that does not eomploy spammers." Isolated sources do sometimes report on staff expenditures, but this has the combined annual data in one place, along with their financial disclosures, which are useful primary documents. The Washington Post links have more ads than this, quite honestly. Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) is it appropriate for an editor, who may be associated with a website, to add hundreds of links to the site; and 2) does the legistorm.com website, which provides neutral and objective details re congressional staff salaries qualify as spam, such that it should not be included as a link under any and all circumstances. You might find support that case 1 qualifies as spam (though I would heartily disagree). As for case 2, there has been no discussion, let alone any valid justification offered, as to why the site should be included on a blacklist so that neutral third party editors could add it as a link or reference. It is case 2 that is the subject for discussion here. I am more than willing to leave issues of JzG's administrative abuses to be dealt with separately. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no attempt to provide any context here, such as "representative Smith has the largest and highest paid staff, despite being a junior member" or some such. Remembering that this is supposed to be Rep. Smith's biography, a bare link to a site with information on his staff salaries seems tangential at best. If Rep. Smith has had problems with his staff, or his staff has in some other way come to public notice, perhaps. As nothing more than a link, without context in the article, and on a tangential topic, it is unquestionably spam. It may or may not deserve to be on the blacklist; I expect that if Rep. Smith or Sen. Jones' staff suddenly get embroiled in a scandal, their salary information will be covered by other sources without the spam problem. Thatcher131 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you put information about Microsoft executive salaries in Bill Gates? Is there an article on Congressional Staff Members that discusses salary?  This would be a good place for the link, or as a source. Thatcher131 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a faulty analogy. I also wouldn't link to how Bill Gates voted, what his campaign contributions were, or how various interest groups rated him either (all of these are currently on all/most congresspeople).  Neither those or staff salary information makes since in the context of a CEO of a private company.  However, they all DO make sense when we are talking about a public, elected official.  Each of these are currently used.  The following two of them also from sites that feature ads as well (more prominant than those on legistorm), and have not be blocked.
 * The bad actions from some users/ip's apparently associated with the legistorm domain justifies blocking (after the warnings I assume took place) those users and/or ip #'s from editing -- it does NOT justify blocking an a site that offers useful, relevant information that is not offered anywhere else online (that any of us have found). kenj0418 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Claire McCaskill's voting record maintained by The Washington Post (huge ads) Claire McCaskill's issue positions and quotes at On The Issues (dancing and/or blinking banners)


 * Jesus wept. See the start of the thread?  User:Alansohn.  As far as he's concerned the definition of an abusive action is: I did it.  He has been nurturing a grudge against me for pointing out that he used misleading edit summaries in a content dispute.  I blacklisted the site because it was being spammed, it's a perfectly standard action, thois is an AdSense spam site which was being heavily linked by single purpose accounts - the canonical definition of link spamming.  It was linked on the noticeboards and the spam project. What's really bizarre here is that it was Alansohn who originally complained about the legistorm spammer!  Which admins will Alansohn permit to deal with his reports of spamming, so we can avoid being accusded of admin abuse for dealing with a problem that he identifies? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Before everyone gets out the pitchforks and torches, lets look at the spam report earlier today (well before the blacklisting) on the WikiProject Spam talk page. Another admin, Hu12, went through all the edits of multiple single purpose accounts (and a Storming Media IP) and found two of these SPAs had added 656 links with no other edits.


 * That's incredibly abusive spamming -- probably the worst case reported in a month or two. Guy absolutely was justified. He just got confused and referred back to the WP:ANI page and not the WT:WPSPAM page. -- A. B. (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The bad actions by some legistorm related people (I'll take it on your word that it happened) does not justify removing a legitimate, informative website by blocking the entire domain in the spam blocklist. This is a ridiculous overreaction. I have requested that this domain be removed from the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist kenj0418 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a complete inability by JzG (and his apologists) to distinguish between actions and content, combined with an utter refusal to pursue consensus on this issue. While one could argue (weakly) that the addition of links by those assoicated with an external site could constitute spam, no one -- not even JzG at his most disruptive -- has argued that the site itself is spam, and that no third party editors should be able to add links to the site under any circumstances. You admins can decide amongst yourselves if the editors associated with site and adding links are spammers. I'm not, and I am one of many editors who want to link to the site. Either give a legitimate policy reason why the site should be blocked as spam under any and all situations or remove the link from the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki, and what is done can be undone. There is no question that the addition of 600+ links, to an ad-supported site, with no other editorial content or purpose, is spam.  Putting the site on the black list is the most effective way to deal with it.  If a regular (i.e. multi-interest, not connected with the site) editor wants to selectively add the link where appropriate (say, to an article about a congressperson who has a staff scandal) he can ask that it be removed from the list, either temporarily or permanently.  But there is nothing wrong with the initial blacklisting at the time. Thatcher131 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I added it, it'd be okay? Either the links are okay or they aren't. The account that adds them shouldn't matter. Timjowers e-mailed me today. Fortunately, I don't think he's gone for good. So, at least Guy didn't manage to chase off a potential contributor. Mr Which ??? 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the impression a huge number of SPAs (sockpuppets?) were adding a huge number of links in a very small amount of time. Why wouldn't that attract some stiff attention? I don't think I've seen a declaration that "we won't link to this site, ever," more like "WAAAAAAGH WE'RE DROWNING IN LINKS STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT." Now that things have hopefully calmed down a bit, it's easier to discuss the merit (or lack thereof) to linking. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that if you as an editor felt that this site was a reliable source in an editorially appropriate context, then you should be able to do that. However, adding 600+ links in the absence of any editorial context was spamming.  These are bios about the members, not their staffs.  If the article includes discussion of the staff so that it is relevant to talk about their salaries or financial disclosure forms, then this site might be a good reference to cite.  The distinction is perhaps too subtle for some, but I think (in general but definitely in this specific case) that adding relevant sources to the body of the article as determined by the needs of the article is good editing, but adding the same external link to 600+ articles is spamming, even if the site would be acceptable as a reference under other circumstances.  I guess that means that I think the site should be taken off the blacklist, but that the prior editors who made 600+ links were spamming, and the addition to the blacklist was in good faith. Thatcher131 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Justifiable Blacklisting, supported by evidence, more evidence and facts. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. This blacklisting is a clear result of WP:SPA (WP:SOCK) accounts and a WP:COI IP ('Storming Media LLC) being employed for the sole purpose to Spam Legistorm.com and to self-promote. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Storming Media LLC has clearly illustrated a situation where a single company is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763).--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, all you have accomplished with this supposed "evidence" might support the fact that those individuals associated with the site who are adding links may justifiably be considered spam. There has been no discussion or justification provided by the administrator who blacklisted the site as to why this was done or what we're being protected from. Nothing in this laundry list of links justifies falsely labeling the site and its contents as spam. I -- and many other editors -- have indicated that there are valid reasons to include the site in articles, both in references and as external links. Rather than asking "Mother, may I" for each and every article that would benefit from a link to the site, the entry must be removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Leaving it on the blacklist is disruptive in the most WP:POINTy way possible. Hell, if ads are the real issue, let's get rid of all those links on Congressional articles to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Alansohn (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then go to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. Thatcher131 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, Additions are logged. The administrator who blacklisted the site did properly log the entry apropriatly, so that future users can easily find the reason. We had this discussion on the CongLinks template's talk page, You were aware of the posibility of blacklisting, and act supprised that it has occured. --Hu12 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hu12,t he policy say one should avoid editing with COI, not that it is prohibited. The reason for this is that many good articles (and many good links are originally contributed by people with COI (and then have to be discussed by other editors). What would have been really good is if the outfit had come out with the proposal to link the material there, and let people consider it objectively. I hope we would have decided to use it, for it is truly excellent material that cannot be matched by any other single site, is non-partisanb, and very useful; to supplement our articles. They support themselves by ads, yes, but they do do to a good purpose. Our  own purpose is to write an encyclopedia. We have the COI and SPAM policies because most material from such sources does not help accomplish this, and instead contributes to onesidedness, lack of NPOV, and bias rather than enlightenment for the user. When something comes along otherwise, we should use it. They did it wrong, but to we want to punish them for it, or to provide information in an encyclopedia. I care about results. I care about providing NPOV information. DGG (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear what your saying DGG, and was well put. Perhaps Whitelisting on a "case by case" basis is best for Wikipedia at this point. Whitelisting should be implemented where it can be demonstrated as a valid source, in an appropriate context.--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are two people who believe that there might be a conflict of interest here does not constitute a discussion nor does it create a consensus. No one appointed you or JzG as the authority to determine the appropriateness of this site, and I couldn't give a crap that you can't figure out why anyone would want to link to the site. You have no authority to unilaterally impose a whitelist, and consensus seems clear that this site provides relevant, useful information, that there is no objectionable content that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy and that there is no alternative source for this information that would satisfy your arbitrary demands. I'm not surprised that someone would have the gall to propose a possible blacklist; I'm just stupefied that anyone would have the chutzpah to follow through with it. The fact that someone can point to their own gobbledygook in a log doesn't constitute a "justification", it merely provides an excuse. Now that the damage has been done, and it's clear that this is no legitimate purpose to this abusive permanent block, it's time to fix yet one more mistake and remove legistorm.com from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. You can even feel free to a log entry explaining the screwup. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter what you think of how it was handled, clearly there was blatant and massive linkspamming by someone with a significant conflict of interest. And as I read through this thread and the previous four discussions, I do see that there was consensus for the initial blacklisting of the site based on that inappropriate behavior.
 * So let's please try and stick to the current issue, which is whether or not it is now appropriate to un-blacklist the site, as might well be the case. Personally, I am not at all convinced that legistorm.com meets the requirements of a reliable source, but I can see times where it would be appropriate as an external link. Are there any strong objections to now removing it and monitoring its addition to articles? — Satori Son 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I object. They spammed their website using five user accounts and an IP. And their website is full of ads. If/when it gets unblacklisted, whats to stop them from doing it again? And what about the advertising on there? I'm thinking that Wikipedian clicking on link = money for them. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Now that I think about it, this is probably not the best venue for this particular discussion anyway. For those interested, this matter is currently being debated at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Thanks. — Satori Son 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can "object" all you want. The WaPost and the NYTimes have ads all over them, and they're not black-listed. If the only problem is that SPAs are adding them, then let Alansohn put them back in. The information found at the site is neutral and helpful. Blacklisting them is not helpful to the project, which is what we're all about, right? Mr Which ??? 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)