Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

Korp! Estonia on wheels

The Bronze Soldier controversy brought along a wave of new users from Estonia. Some of these are single-purpose-accounts, with an aim of waging the Russian-Estonian propaganda war on Wikipedia. This new community has a ringleader, User:Digwuren, who's contributions are limited to tendentious editing, disruptive editing, trolling and personal attacks. I cannot consider him a member of the Wikipedia community in good faith.

For the last two month I have been the largest foreign contributor (I am Finnish) to Estonia related articles. During this time I have created 11 new Estonia related articles (one in DYK) and significantly contributed to one In-the-News article. For my contributions I have been under constant attack by the ringleader and his puppets. Most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes.

The only solution I see, is that the ringleader is indefinitely blocked for total disregard of WP:NPOV, or given a community ban. I have been advised, that this issue will have to go to ArbCom, for this I have been collecting evidence.

From the talk pages, it will be extremely difficult to see which side is the vandal and POV-pusher. Digwuren has an excellent command of the English language. In his comments he manages to convey an impression of honesty. To understand the issue, one has to look deep into each party's edit histories. It will be easy to see, that Digwuren has contributed absolutely nothing of permanent value to Wikipedia. He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect. Worst of all, he has utterly failed to accept and understand Wikipedia's basic principle of neutral point of view.

After I first announced my intentions by asking for advise from User:Neil, Digwuren and his group of "volunteers" have been preparing to counterattack, by filing a WP:RFC/U against me. I find this action to be yet an other indication of bad faith. My edit history is clean from most, if not all wrongdoing. I have not reverted any of Digwuren's original contributions. In the "edit wars" I have defended my own edits from what I see as disruption and POV-pushing by him and his followers.

I interrupt this tirade to point out that Petri Krohn is lying about the timeline. The WP:RFC/U was first mentioned in [1], more than eight hours before this "asking for advice": [2]. I'm calling it a lie this boldly because this first mention happened on Petri Krohn's very own user talk page; in all reasonability, he must have known it.

Now, in a theatrical manner, I ask you: who is the one of bad faith? Digwuren 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I come here to ask for advice. Does this issue need to go to ArbCom? Do we have to wait for Digwuren to file his WP:RFC/U. Will some rouge admin just block him indefinitely? More important, if he is indefinitely blocked, is there some administrator around that would revert the decision? -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Why the title? The Korp! or korporatsioon are Estonian student nations, the most famous of these is Korp! Sakala. The Estonians in this dispute are most, if not all, classmates at the University of Tartu, as evident in this checkuser request. -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This dellusion is becoming anoying... Prove it or stop it!--Alexia Death 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to repeat it here. Digwuren is obviously not a single-purpose account. He has created at least Kukly (not very insightful stub as of now, but really necessary), June deportation, March deportation, tagged articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia, wikified internal links etc. Yes, there are some problems with edit-warring, but obviously, one cannot be engaged in edit-warring by oneself. Another party is needed. The behavior of Petri during the last two months looks like harassment. Could you both please stop? Blaming people for their place of study is something. Colchicum 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos! This shows real improvement. All three articles are created in the last four days. Two of them clearly serve his single purpose. On the balace of things, they hardly change the picture. -- Petri Krohn 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change a picture in your mind, but I don't understand why the Wikipedia community should bother with it. The accusations He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect are clearly false, the rest of the story has also very limited credibility. Petri, you are a good editor (at least when it doesn't concern Soviet-East European relationships), but I don't appreciate your efforts to eliminate the Estonian community from en-Wiki. POV policy requires different significant points of view to be represented rather than the only "true" one. Colchicum 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will change that to He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect before June 15. I have not been stalking, like he is. -- Petri Krohn 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bothering to verify your facts before making claims is not stalking. And since when there is a deadline on how long can someone be a member before creating a new article?--Alexia Death 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would classify this as harrasment based on nationality: As far as I know, none of the accused have never even seen eachother, and only relation between them is estonian nationality. Although you have contributed a lot to Estonian related articles, most of the edits are heavily biased Soviet POV. I do also agree that editwars is not a solution, but your smart manipulations are hard to fight on legal grounds aswell, specially counting the fact that you refuse of any normal cooperation and throw baseless accusations of trolling and puppetry instead. Suva 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like an attempt to get opposition banned before "S*it hits the fan"... First on Alex Bakharevs and Neils talkpages and now here. I hope the admin making a decision on this takes a deep hard look into the matters before making a decision. Just a note tho. The RFC/U is not a retaliation for anything. It just has become inevitable at this point. Even without Digwurren(should sanity be having a day off), it is going to happen.--Alexia Death 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would point out that the mass scale evidence-gathering associated with the RFC/U -- incidentally, a reason why filing it is not a matter of a single day but may take as long as a whole week -- makes it waaaay easy to map, and at times, even predict Petri Krohn's actions. For example, as Alexia Death points out here, this complaint here on WP:AN/I belongs to the rubric of clear pattern to try to avoid responsibility. It is not the first one, either; Petri Krohn has previously complained here. (Be sure to also check out the following, currently archived, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.) Digwuren 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to distance myself a bit during last few days, but it seems to be inevitable that I must get involved again.

While Digwuren has not been perhaps a paragon of a perfect Wikipedian, he has not done anything that would require blocking. In many cases he has just reacted to Petri's edits and edit summaries - that seem to be inserted in many cases just to provoke or insult other editors. My own first contact with Petri was when he reverted my removal of unsourced (and incorrect) claim here with edit summary reverted drive-by deletionist with POV agenda. Until lately - undoubtedly because of the upcoming WP:RFC/U - his edit summaries were often like Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.

Current claim of Korp! Estonia on wheels is clearly meant to intimidate his opponents - and get rid of Digwuren. Like it has been repeatedly shown, we are not sockpuppets, we do not know each other and do not communicate outside of Wikipedia (I did have one email from Digwuren while he was blocked, but I replied on his talk page - exactly because I wanted to avoid basis all such accusations). We are not from same class/university course (whole claim is silly - I finished biology, as far as I know, Digwuren and Alexia IT, but on different years. Suva is a musician, I think 3 Lövi has something to do with law and I suspect Erik Jesse is still in the university, studying law or philosophy. I have no idea about Staberinde).

To summarize this, accusations are clearly baseless and only meant to intimidate and hide Petri's own misjudgments.

DLX 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets look at facts for a moment. Petri is currently trying to push for block of Digwuren but also tries to get some admin to do it without Arbcom. Reason is simple, in ArbCom Petri's open racism aganist Estonians would be unavoidably be part of discussion. Also he would be actualy required to prove his numerous accusations(of course I do not deny that some of them may have some truth in them, but from my personal experience, Petri seems to be make quite serious accusations oftenly with practically non-existant evidence). I say, if Petri wants Arbcom, go for it.--Staberinde 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've actually said it before, prety please make this ArbCom happen, This sword tangling over someones head is nerve wrecking and starts to look more and more like intimidation.--Alexia Death 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent view

I have nothing to do with any of these articles. User:Petri Krohn has a high edit count, and a long history of constructive editing. I think Alexia Death deserves a 24 block for this rude comment posted above. User:Digwuren has a checkered history, at best, and should worry about himself before worrying about other users. This isn't the place to litigate a content dispute. Come here with specific complaints about user conduct and show diffs, and please don't make long winded arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My jaw dropped when I read this... I cant believe it. Ive been called a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet and a national extremist by this user without any finger pointing directed at him and now I'm being rude by simply stating that this constant and persistent claim is WRONG?--Alexia Death 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should apologize for calling the other editor insane. Feel free to refute him as strongly as you like, but maintain civility or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delusion does NOT imply insanity by default. I feel that I have nothing to apologize for.--Alexia Death 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when has delusion been a banned word? Is saying that one is mistaking also an insult? The text above is indeed a long-time belief of Petri (repeated twice today in different places). Claiming that it is false is not a crime, regardless of its holder's edit count. Colchicum 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As to checkered history, both contributors have experienced blocks for edit-warring, no reason for preferences here.Colchicum 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One block versus 21,000 edits over 23 months is very different from two blocks against 2500 edits in two months, and calling somebody insane is out of bounds. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And fame is everything? Old timers cant make mistakes? Cant have profusely false beliefs and biases?--Alexia Death 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in the complaint, you can take a look at this. I think this is way too much for a RfC, indeed, it would even make for an Arbitration, due to seriousness of the issues.
And please do note, that someone's high edit count is not a justification for misbehaviour. E.J. 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[3] - this is just to give you the idea of the dispute. Colchicum 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The complaint is not a good example of an investigation. There's no chance of this going to arbitration, in my opinion, because it's a simple content dispute. Arbcom generally doesn't hear content disputes. If you want help with investigations, leave a message on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Having seen your way of responding to complaints here (e.g removing others' comments), I doubt if any of us would need your 'help' with investigations (an offer which in itself is most kind of course).E.J. 14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

E.J. - that was a simple edit conflict, not an intentional deletion. I was copying my comments from the lower box to the top box and accidentally womped something. Your response is a fine example of tenditious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did write something in some of these articles. As far as the Bronze Soldier is concerned, any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text (which is relevant, since the last "German" defenders of Estonia were in fact an SS Walloonia detachment (check Leon Degrelle, he was a fascist), and among the defenders of the Narva there were SS regiments composed of fascists from Flanders, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries) was summarily reverted within minutes. On Lydia Koidula I not only tried to keep Livonia as part of the denomination of her birth place (which is in fact a compromise already, some people would argue that according to wiki conventions we should say that she was born in Russia) but tried to improve the general makeup of the text. I quickly noticed that a whole bunch of editors devoted much more energy to keeping out this one mention of Livonia than to the pertinent question whether about half of the second paragraph refers to Koidula or to Kreuzwald. But of course, I am still naive enough to believe that this is an encyclopedia, and not a repository of political pamphlets.--Pan Gerwazy 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve the community ban of Digwuren on account of his mind-boggling history of disruption, revert-warring, and trolling that destabilize a large segment of Wikipedia.[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] [15] His meatpuppets (Alexia Death, DLX, Staberinde, Suva) should be placed on one-revert parole. Martintg, 3 Löwi and Colchicum should be cautioned and their activities closely scrutinized, as they routinely lend their support to disruption and trolling on the part of the Tartu accounts. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any proofs for the accusations? If there is no specific piece of evidence, Ghirlandajo as an involved party should be subject to scrutiny as well. Colchicum 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the diffs of Digwuren you have just provided? Content dispute mostly. In one case you erased a comment by Digwuren on Alexia Death's talk page and Digwuren reverted it. I understand that you feel disrupted, but let's stop this.Colchicum 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to give the people sense of your involvement, Talk:Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia#Fraudulent edits. Colchicum 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The root cause of the problem is Petri Krohn. Despite his otherwise high edit count, he still regularly manages to insult Estonia and Estonians (see, just, e.g., this accusation of "terrorism" [16]. Put it simply, without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" (and, of course, there have not been any, and will never be nowhere near the same amount of insults flying the other way against "leftist pro-Soviet Finns"). Just my 2 cents, and please save your time by not accusing me of being one of Digwuren's meatpuppets. Cheers, --3 Löwi 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" I disagree. Digwuren started edit war on Monument of Lihula, repeatedly deleting referenced materials and denying link between Holocaust Denial and building monuments to Nazi collaborators and got 48 hr. ban for 3RR violation. After that he responded on comment about very POV error made in the source he provided with personal attack. RJ CG 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the Estonian Wiki-editors and real life Estonians I know support or openly engage in Holocaust denial. Nobody has built any monuments in Estonia to commemorate collaboration with the Nazis. Insinuating so is not only blatantly wrong, but also extremely (and personally) offensive. What you, RJ CG, are doing (see above) is the same kind of offensive word play which Digwuren, perhaps a bit less diplomatically and a bit more painfully, reacted to in the first place. By saying this, I have no intention to insult you or anyone. However, I am not, and the other Estonian and Estophile editors also are not, obligated to prove over and over again something that is rather obvious: we do not support Holocaust denial and we do not see collaboration with the Nazis as something deserving monuments. Over and out, --3 Löwi 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to familiarize yourself with Monument of Lihula page, it's edit history and talk page before chiming in. There was never any wholesale accusation of Estonians in Nazi sympaties or Holocaust denialism. There was, however, referenced data about Mayor being Holocaust denier (he actually published book about it). Memorial honoured those who fought in the army of Nazi Germany or the Waffen SS, this was never disputed in any of reference materials too (materials include article from Estonian newspaper translated by Digwuren). In any European country those who fought in the German Army or the Waffen SS are called collaborators, even if they had very valid reasons to do it. Digwuren started edit war trying to deny links of Holocaust denial and building monument to Nazi collaborators, even if both acts are from the same person. RJ CG 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion of Petri Krohn and Ghirla. I am also independant and arrived while surfing at a heavily biased page about an Estonian politician. An attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren. See [17]. I don't approve indefinite community bans, but a year is ok. Otto 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are obviously involved: [18]. So far the only non-involved party here has been Jahochman.

Colchicum 07:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I became involved after experiencing revert warring and rudeness as I just stated above. At the time I neutralized the POV lemma I was not involved. Anyone who takes the freedom to add a Soviet point of view to Baltic history is brutalized. That is hijacking of lemma's and destructive antisocial behavior. Otto 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla just managed to accuse 7 different editors(not counting Digwuren). I expect that accusations aganist me(meatpuppetry) are proved somehow, and I assume other editors who were called meatpuppets or were accused in disruption and trolling also have similar expectations. Also as I was accused by ghirla I think some of his own comments(all breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks) are appropriate here: campaign of persecution organized by a group of well-known extremist editors whose activities are coordinated from Estonian Wikipedia, group of Estonian extremist editors, including yourself, gang of trolls, Statements in support for extremist editors, a troll-free territory. I think this helps to understand "neutrality" of this user.--Staberinde 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that I can tell a troll from a reasonable user. You won't find many wikipedians who exposed more trolls than I did. I am also the only user holding this humorous award :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you read anything by Franz Kafka? Digwuren 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care about your assurances. When someone accuses me in meatpuppetry and demands some kind of sanctions I expect them to put some serious evidence on table. Oh, and I also can tell Stalinist-POV-pusher from reasonable user, still for some reason I do not make any personal attacks on them.--Staberinde 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Petri Krohn and Ghirla. An example of Digwuren's "work" in the Wikipedia is unilateral rewriting the article, that involved removal of existing references to multiple sources. It could be understandable, if Digwuren rewrote it on their own, using multiple sources and incorporating existing references, but for their long article they just translated excerpts from one source. When I began reverting the article to the previous state Digwuren was accompanied by Alexia Death to avoid WP:3RR. Since then they stick to that "wikitranslation", satisfied with the fact, that they can always avoid 3RR using meatpuppets, while I can't. Cmapm 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also this [19] my edit which was reverted by Digwuren. He also placed a message in my talk page insisting on "Soviet yoke" terminology.--Dojarca 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that not only complaints from number of different users are almost identical, but accounts listed in those complaints are almost identical too. Aggressive use of meatpuppeting, POV pushing etc. Moreover, all opponents of Petri Krohn's complaint are the members of group another wikipedians are complaining about. I guess admins have a choice between believing many unconnected users who complain about identical destructive behaviour of same group on very different topics and believing this very group, as nobody came forward to clear them. RJ CG 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages

I'm afraid this matter is too complex to evaluate fully without spending a lot of time looking through page histories, but I tend to trust Ghirla's judgement. He might be casting his troll net a bit too widely, but there's definitely some objectionable coordination of POV editing going on here. As an example we might look at the contributions to User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn; if that page does not result in an actual user conduct RfC in short order, I suggest that it be deleted as an attack page, because right now it seems like a forum for a group of editors to complain about Petri Krohn. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It will result in RFC/U within this day.--Alexia Death 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The page is a preparation of a WP:RFC/U case. The actual page of the case is already up; I'm expecting to consider it complete and ripe for listing in the appropriate list by around midnight local time, or around 21:00 UTC tonight. There's less than two hours left to that time. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been done: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn. Digwuren 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About attack pages, I suggest Akhilleus to check User:Petri Krohn/Evidence that has been up since 25 may and was blanked only at yesterday(earlier version [20]).--Staberinde 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable behavior on the part of another user should never be used to justify one's own. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedents tend to influence what is considered appropriate and what not. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes your page objectionable is not that it exist, nor its format, but that it clearly was created in bad faith in order to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does not exist for creating disruption. It exists for preventing it. This page is preparation for dispute resolution.--Alexia Death 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but if User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn is turned to RfC soon(unlike Petri's own evidence page which has been up for long time) then I don't see any serious reason to complaine.--Staberinde 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Observations

Has anyone noticed that this incident is totally devoid of evidence? This case seems to be yet another phase in Petri Krohn's ongoing vendetta against a group of editors for no other reason than they happen to be ethnic Estonian, as tellingly revealed in the title of the case "Korp! Estonia". First he attempted to get this whole group perma blocked as sock puppets, that failed, now this. In my view, this is harrassment bordering on ethnic vilification. I say this because I have been closely involved in edit disputes with Petri Krohn as much as these other editors, often siding with these editors against Petri, yet I don't seem to be a part of Petri's complaints. The only difference between me and the others is that I am Australian, while the others are Estonian. In my view, if Petri had a real case, he could have brought it against an individual, however this case is rather sordid example of ethnic vilification. What next? A case called Korp! Jew ? Martintg 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice a load of evidence. It is hard to find a single article about Baltic history which has not been vandalized by suggestive terms like puppet regime. These articles are hijacked. There is no attempt made to keep distance and be objective. Otto 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding Martintg's concern. He's worried that Petri Krohn has not provided any evidence, only sweeping generalisations. And this, indeed, is true. A normal WP:AN/I report generally has diffs of the problematic actions; this one has none. Digwuren 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as to puppet government, these academic journals are also likely to be hijacked. Colchicum 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

V Tech shooter vandal

I just stumbled across this, and thought it worth bringing to admin attentions. Clearly, this IP is shared, so a block on it isn't worthwhile, but the vandal is, and the image should probably be watched/deleted. The vandal is adding pictures of the Virginia tech shooter wielding a hammer to multiple articles. I've got little doubt the vandal will return, so we should probably be aware. ThuranX 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. See if they come back. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

IP resolves to a company in Calgary, AB... You'd think someone working for a chemical company would have better things to do with their time, eh? Point being though that I don't think IP blocks would be as problematic as if this were from an ISP pool so dealing with this by blocking should still be on the table (obviously not for the previous stuff, but going forward).--Isotope23 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I figured a block would be pointless, but maybe someone will notice it. Too bad we can't contact them and be like 'hey, WTFBBQ?' ThuranX 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We should contact that Calgary chemical company just saying what happened and giving the evidence, then the people who run the company can do our work for us (and better) in finding the vandal and repremanding him. PS we contact schools why not buisnesses. Hypnosadist 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's not a chemical company: it's an oil exploration corporation, and a positively huge one. --70.73.252.78 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ARGH that was me. Anyway, the company has about 3,200 employees. --Charlene 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and one of those 3200 people is not doing the job they are paid for (the company's problem) and is vandalising wikipedia (our problem). Lets potentially solve two problems with one email and just email the IT and PR depts at this company and let them sort it out. Maybe they choose to do nothing, maybe they check their logs and find out who did this and repremand them, either way its no skin off our nose to send an email. Hypnosadist 09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So any admins sending that email? Hypnosadist 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott

ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We tried assuming good faith, his next action was to start trolling other people's talk pages, and to remove a strong suggestion that he not do that as trolling by me. He can go back in the sin bin. We unblocked him because part of the problem was his bad reaction to being trolled. Same with Jeff Merkey. Difference: Merkey is acting like an adult, ColScott is acting like an idiot. Maybe he is one, maybe not, I can't be bothered to mop up after him while we find out. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I endorse the block. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good action, SqueakBox 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I understand what Cary was trying to do here with the unblock, but my very brief interaction with this individual would seem to suggest to me that he isn't here to better the project. If he wants to stir the pot, let him do it on his own dime.--Isotope23 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. ColScott's comments range in tone from inappropriately hostile to outright threatening, and do nothing but damage to the project.Proabivouac 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should see the email he sent me a while back; he's the soul of politeness here compared to the off-wiki communication I received from him prior to his first block.--Isotope23 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block as well. With the threat of incivil behaviour at every interaction, this user was apparently using nastiness to replace the review of consensus over his edits. --Fire Star 火星 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... I see Cary has acted accordingly - Alison ☺ 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to delete and protect his Talk page, which currently outs several Wikipedians? Corvus cornix 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - I admin-deleted it, oversights should probably take a look at ColScott's last edits to fully wipe them out. MaxSem 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have exchanged emails with ColScott, I am trying to get to the bottom of the problem here. He is clearly angry, and has some reason to be. The attacks and privacy violations are a very bad move, phoning me at home was also possibly not the smartest thing he ever did, though if we'd got to talk perhaps it might have been (it worked with Jeff Merkey). Anyway, it seems to me we have two factors at work here: an upset man with a pretty short fuse, which we can handle, and a completely uncontrolled fanbase, which is a much bigger problem. There are issues in the history of Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which we need to ensure are permanently resolved (deletion is almost certainly not an option, although the subject wants that). If we can be assured of an end to the attacks I guess we may be able to consider unblocking him, but that's going to get some resistance judging by the comments above. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul

I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems this is an escalation of the conflict between this user and User:Anonimu over some Romanian pages relating to the communist presence there. However, this seems more or less like a death threat (if not some sort of strange alegory involving the murder? strongly directed towards the above user in any case). I'm tempted to give a block for about a week. Just wanted thoughts and/or clarification on what the hell this is all about. Sasquatch t|c 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll issue an explanation here. If you read the context in which the above was written, you'll clearly see it was part of a story that bore no relation to reality, was pure fantasy (a nuclear-armed rowboat?), and expressed no actual desire to murder anyone. Of course, such writing has no relation to the business of Wikipedia and I promise, no questions asked, to cease writing further installments of this adventure. I apologise for any breach of policy that has been committed. But please let's not allow Anonimu to obscure the difference between a fictional attack in an outrageously bad story and the many actual attacks he has made on me. Biruitorul 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's all just a joke until somebody gets hurt. And if it was meant only as fiction, why is my username explicitly mentioned as the name of the one getting stabbed? "Anonimu" is not an English name and it's not even a Romanian one (and i doubt it's used as a name in any language) so it couldn't have come from nowhereAnonimu 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the outcry of Anonimu is somewhat discredited by his behaviour on other editors' talk pages, like here --KIDB 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the story, the names of all the characters are those of Wikipedians, but nobody is going to get hurt here. The story is an outrageous fiction, it was never meant to be taken seriously (nuclear rowboats?) (and its target audience, K. Lastochka, I'm sure did not). However, I have agreed to cease writing and I apologise for any violations I have committed. But yes, to those who have eyes to see, it is fiction, but your many attacks against me are not. Biruitorul 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if you feel attacked (albeit you have few proofs of it) you can go and "fictionally" kill (or threaten, that the same thing for me) users you don't like? Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been attacked repeatedly and viciously by you; do not attempt to deny it now. In the spirit of the new tone I've just pledged to you, I will not attempt to answer your question, which is an attempt to bait me. I have already offered you an apology, explained that no actual harm of any sort was or is meant, and am ready to move on to more productive work. Biruitorul 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of this and your promise to not do this again, I'll just issue a harsh warning. However, do not take this lightly. Fiction or not, you referred to a specific editor and it most definitely was a serious personal attack. Both sides on these romanian issues need to cease the ad hominen attacks and resolve your conflicts otherwise. I would start off by both of you apologizing for any offense you may have cause the other sides as I can see much to apologize for. Sasquatch t|c 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said so to Sasquatch personally, but let me reiterate: the story was a terrible mistake and I will cease writing fiction here. I've committed a serious error in judgment and deeply appreciate the second chance I've been offered. I'm certainly not taking this lightly and will remain civil in such disputes as they arise. Biruitorul 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no coercive measure have been taken, i request that Biruitorul's right to check an anonymous ip against mine through checkuser be taken.(i don't know if that's possible) I have a family, and i wouldn't want problems.Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator with checkuser rights, so this request is unfounded. Besides, as I have made clear: I never intended and do not intend to commit any physical harm, or harm of any other sort, to any Wikipedian. True, I gave that impression, and I'm sorry I did. But the fact remains: I am not a danger to others. Biruitorul 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Any punishment or harsh warning issued to Biruitorul must be issued in equal strength to me. I was 50% of the writing of that unbelievably retarded Horatio-Hornblower-meets-Dr.-Strangelove melodrama. It was my idea to crash both ships on a desert island. It was my idea to have the Anonimu character become the leader of a band of bloodthirsty island savages. It was my fault the story was ever written in the first place, since I was the one who took Biru's silly vignette and expanded it into a dumb epic. For the record, I am deeply ashamed and humiliated over the completely unprofessional and indefensible behavior I have been engaged in over the last few weeks, even after I made a promise to myself that I would henceforth be a model of good citizenship and trustworthiness. Clearly, I am none of those things. I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia for good, but before I go I must apologize for my unbelievably and indefensibly, atrociously poor judgement and bad taste. People like me should not be contributing to Wikipedia--if a ban is called for, I will sadly accept it. K. Lásztocska 04:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the lighthearted inkslinging duel between Biru and K Lasztocska and must say its aim is not vindictive - having "known" both editors for some time I can attest that both are not only very well behaved, but also are active peacemakers in one of the rougher wikibarrios (eastern European issues) [21] [22]. It's true that intemperate words are easily misunderstood, and we should avoid certain allegories (or at least that fictitious villains should carry fictitious names). But I'm also sure that Biru's intemperance here is not vindictiveness but likely whimsical exuberance. I'm also 100% sure Biru is now as painfully aware of that as anyone else on the Wiki. He's not a bad guy and has earned a bit of slack. István 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Orangemarlin is reverting some of my edits because of vandalism when there is none, I warned him/her to stop but that edit was also reverted, his/her reason was “Deleting anonymous vandalism and trollish behavior.” 76.183.213.20 07:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't tell what you're talking about. Could you link to some examples of the vandalism you've been accused of? --Haemo 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is all on his/her talk page history and his/her talk page archives; everything I say on his/her talk page is treated as vandalism, just because I am an anonymous user. 76.183.213.20 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to dig deep to understand the problem. It seems to have started with the following exchange on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution:

• Oppose First of all I do not believe in evolution, second of all it will offend many. 76.183.213.20 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, irrelevant, second of all, irrelevant. Orangemarlin 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest. However, this process aims to assess if an article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, objections that are not actionable or based on these criteria are lkely to be ignored. TimVickers 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And please note, both of his comments were irrelevant. Orangemarlin 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that 76 and Orangemarlin been hashing out their disagreement on Orangemarlin's talk page ever since then. Naturally, Orangemarlin has grown tired of this shpiel, so he calls it vandalism. It isn't, but 76 could use a more respectful tone also. There isn't any need for formal intervention (read: blocks). Everyone needs to settle down. YechielMan 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Very good then! --Haemo 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

… but that dispute has ended and was archived. 76.183.213.20 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No hashing here. I'm basically ignoring the anonymous editor. I haven't responded to him in weeks, except to throw warnings on his page. Shpiel? I haven't heard that word in years!!!! And yes I've grown tired of him, and it's probably not vandalism. I've been amused by the shpiel. Orangemarlin 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologized to Orangemarlin just now, my apology was well overdue. 76.183.213.20 04:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He/She archived my apology under "Amusing Vandalism", that is like punching me in the face after apologizing to him/her in person. 76.183.213.20 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to stay off his/her talk page, that should solve this. I suggest this discussion be closed. 76.183.213.20 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages stuck in bureaucratic, wheel-warring purgatory

On May 24, Shanel deleted several categories, like [23], [24], and [25] as "Does not further the project" or "nobody int his cat". Days later, Jc37 (talk · contribs) undeleted them, without WP:DRV, to make "Neutral" listings at WP:UCFD instead.[26] I closed them the same day, and redeleleted them as 1) Mass procedural nominations are a useless way to spend our time; don't nominate something you don't want deleted, 2) Making a "nomination" with no content or reason for deletion predisposes the discussion for keeping, even though an admin had already deleted them as unencyclopedic, and 3) procedurally speaking, contested deletions go to WP:DRV. In response, Jc37, very inappropriately, in my opinion, reverted my closure of his own nominations and moved my closing note to a comment in the discussion: [27]. The listing was then rightfully removed again (though not archived) as forum shopping, since they belonged at deletion review.[28]

A week later, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) undeleted them all, this time with dozens of other categories as well, without any discussion [29] as a "Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion; note that WP:DRV is not applicable, since it is for "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions", but there was no discussion of these categorie." Again, there is no such thing as a "procedural restoration," which amounts to wheel warring over a deletion she disagrees with, and the claim about DRV not being applicable has no relation to common practice. These, the third "procedural", "neutral" nominations stood and were unanimous for deletion when Krimpet closed them.[30] Then again Jc37, the original nominator, who undeleted them all and reverted the first closure, despite the unanimity, reverted several more of these closures of his own nomination asecond time [31], and edited the closure comments of the closing administrator. After the first time he reverted the closure of his own nomination, I was very clear to Jc37 that it was inappropriate[32] and now he's gone and done it again. Now WP:UCFD#Category:Dadaist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:BBW Wikipedians are having their fourth procedural nomination after two worthless summary undeletions. Someone please end the madness. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's always the question. When you have people with powers such as we admins have, it's difficult to stop people from using that power when it's not appropriate to use the power. I do think that this needs to stop. Jimbo has made it quite clear that he is not in favor of userboxes that categorize people based on looks and that sort of thing. Maybe he needs to be asked about this. I dunno. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's a pity that Dmcdevit didn't have the courtesy to notify me of this ANI complaint, particularly since he has posted two messages to my talk page this morning: I spotted this only by checking his contribs list.

Most of the rest of Dmcdevit's complaint is inaccurate. I did not (I hope) restore any of the categories reviewed at WP:DRV, although since that DRV did not actually list the categories, I may have been mistaken on some of them: I tried to take only the categories which were deleted after the DRV. Sorry if I restored any others.

It is also no misleading to say that the nominations have been closed: most are still open.

Finally, dmcdevit knows that it is simply untrue to say that I restored the categories "without any discussion". After these deletions were drawn to my attention by another editor, I asked dmcd what speedy deletion criteria applied[33], and dmcdevit's reply[34] made it clear that there were no applicable speedy deletion criteria. That's when I restored the categories and listed them at WP:UCFD.

The situation here is quite simple. Categories which meet the speedy deletion criteria may be speedy deleted, and those which do not meet the criteria may not be. A proposal to extend the speedy deletion criteria to include the type of categories deleted here has not so far gained consensus support, but dmcdevit is proceeding as if it was already in place, and is enthusiastically deleting categories which clearly do not meet the existing criteria.

The solution to all of this is very simple: only speedy delete categories if they meet the criteria, otherwise list them at WP:UCFD. Instead of following agreed process, dmcdevit appears to be trying to game the system by speedy deleting out of process, and then objecting at huge length if any admin reverses his actions, insisting on a DRV. It is an abuse of the system to try to bypass CFD in this way, and I am astonished both by the aggressiveness of dmcdevit's voluminous posts on my talk page and by dmcd's total refusal to consider the Crieria for speedy deletion, and instead blame anyone who challenges these breaches of process.

I have no axe to grind on the merits of these categories: on balance, I think that most (if not all) of the categories involved should be deleted, though I don't share dmcdevit's insistence that these categories are soe of immediate threat to the viability of the project. I am also concerned at the extent to which non-admins are understandably aggrieved by out-of-process deletions. Admins are entrusted with tools to use to help the encyclopedia, on a basis of trust; it is not a good use of that trust to set out to simply ignore the processes agreed by the community, and snarl at at anyone who objects.

Dmcdevit evidently believes sincerely that these categories are a terrible thing; I don't entirely agree, but I accept that as legitimate and reasonable belief. However, if they are so transparently awful, then there should be little difficulty in agreeing criteria for their speedy deletion. Unless and until that happens, please can dmcdebit agree not to jump the gun by behaving as if it had been already agreed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that dmcdevit did not have the courtsesy to notify Jc37 (talk · contribs), who is the other subject of this complaint. I have now notified jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) Shanel deletes a category, Jc37 process wonks the deletion and restores it, Dmcdevit process wonks the process wonkery and redeletes them, and BrownHairedGirl process wonks the process wonking of the process wonking, and now we are on to dmcdevit process wonking the process wonking something like 3 times removed? What the fuck? Kotepho 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reading the text above, I see what seems to me to be more than a bit of blurring of what-happened-when (or even what-actually-happened). However, unless this turns into something which I strongly hope that it doesn't, in the interests of minimising more finger pointing back-n-forth, I'm only going to add a link to the first discussion I attempted to have with User:Dmcdevit, and also ask two questions to the community:

• Should administrators be able to subjectively choose to speedily delete something, which is very clearly noted as not a Criteria for speedy deletion?

  (Noting that Dmcdevit has stated several times that his choice to delete was not due to WP:IAR.)

• Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)

Responses/thoughts are welcome. - jc37 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest we have a centralized discussion about these categories either at WP:UCFD (started by someone who wishes them deleted) or at WP:DRV (started by someone who does not). The existence of a few user categories does not seem like an emergency requiring urgent action. >Radiant< 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest what Radiant suggested. In most cases people accept discussions, however they end up. The original deletions were not covered by CSD, so when they were un-deleted they should never have been re-deleted without discussion (as jc37 put it above: "Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)". I really believe some admins have forgotten that they are servants to the community and insist on making editorial choices and imposing their will on the community with the use of admin tools. Community discussions are for the community (what wikipedia is supposedly made up of) and are not just a waste of time/object in achieving your paticular goal. Furthermore, a procedural nomination when a deletion has been overturned, is not all the evil you make it out to be - SOMEONE quite obviously wants it deleted and are therefore welcome to make their case. Viridae^Talk 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Curiously, Dmcdevit (the admin who wanted these categs deleted) has voted in only one the three CfDs at WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process. It's odd that someone so vociferous about the urgency of deletion didn't take the chance to discuss why they think that these categories are so bad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, except for the three I relisted (which also will likely result in deletion), and the Furry Wikipedians (which had its own DRV), these have all been closed (at one point or other) as delete. Several speedy due to WP:SNOW - though I'm not certain that 2 or even 5 comments = SNOW.

What have we learned?

Well, I would hope that we've learned what I presume CFD and UCFD regulars have noted for awhile: potentially contentious categories should not be speedily closed as it typically causes disruption. One of the reasons that the process exists is in order to reduce disruption. Attempting to circumvent the process in such cases typically results in actually creating disruption.

The 5 days didn't kill us, Wikipedia didn't crash and burn, and in the end, most of the categories will be deleted. If anything, attempting to speedy delete - acting contrary to the criteria set out in WP:CSD - merely created a a disruptive situation, with many users complaining, and upset, for no good reason that 5 days wouldn't have solved. - jc37 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note: After reading through all the closures, we may see the monarchist nom, and the ideology nom at WP:DRV. The rest seem to be nearly unanimous. - jc37 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we will see at least one of them there: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June_21#Category:Wikipedians_by_political_ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

and also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Monarchist_Wikipedians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, am late to the discussion. I've already given BrownHairedGirl an earful at her talk page, prior to this thread, but I'll repeat some of that, here, in a more general sense which hopefully applies to everyone involved: undoing admin actions en masse without prior discussion is usually not a good idea. If we do that too often -- much less back and forth, on any regular basis in my opinion we can seriously damage the stability and credibility of the site. As admins, we should be perfectly capable of talking things over, as seems to have happened here. While I can sympathize with everyone's reasoning for getting involved, using their buttons, and all that, weren't there other ways we might have handled this without anything even resembling a wheel war? A lot of effort (and a pinch of drama) have been expended, for a net change of almost zero, pending the one or two DRVs mentioned above. If we're going to mass-revert each other, can it at least be over something more important than this? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a fair bit of aggressive mass-deletion by admins lately, of pages not subject to speedy deletion. I think the moral should be: don't do anything en masse without discussion. If there is some contentious issue at stake that needs community discussion, the material in question should clearly not be deleted, since then there is no way for non-admins to opine on the matter at all. The delete button should never be used to exclude non-admins from a discussion about community norms or content standards -- something which admins have no special right to determine. So rather than saying "don't undelete speedy mass-deletions without discussion" we should focus on preventing the mass deletion itself, which removes material from community evaluation. If you don't think you can convince the community to delete a group of pages, it probably shouldn't be removed in the first place. +sj + 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You did indeed give me an earful :( But I agree that the credibility of admins is at stake here. Unfortunately, the underlying issue here -- jc37's questions about whether is acceptable for admins to speedy delete categories which clearly do not meet WP:CSD -- was something which the original deleting admin did not want to discuss. We could of course have avoided all of this if, after being originally challenged by jc37 dmcdevit had agreed not to perform this sort of deletion, rather reverting jc37's restorations and setting about another round of deletions. I am both surprised and troubled by some of the comments in the various discussions, which seem to me to suggest that it is fine for an admin to acts outside process and in the face of clear objections from other admins. Why are a few contributors to this discussion so apparently keen to overlook that point?
As to the discussions possibly leading us to the same point, if that's the outcome, that's fine: at least other editors have had their say. As Viridae noted above "in most cases people accept discussions, however they end up". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I worry about the same things. Not just credibility of admins, but their role as catalysts and administrators of the entire community's interests, rather than as decision makers. An admin recently deleted an image left for me on my talk page, with the comment that he couldn't find a speedy criterion that matched what he had in mind, so he picked the closest one to justify his action. This is something we should avoid! +sj +

The official reasons given by everybody for each step in this matter:

• Shanel deletes (out of process): Does not further the project
• Jc37 restores (out of process): Improper deletion
• Dmcdevit deletes (out of process): Disputed deletions go to DRV.
• BrownHairedGirl restores (out of process): Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion
• Dmcdevit complains at ANI (without notifying brownhairedgirl): It was out of process, and such actions should have consequences".

The real reasons:

• Shanel: WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• Jc37: WP:ILIKEIT
• Dmcdevit: WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• BrownHairedGirl: WP:ILIKEIT
• Dmcdevit: "Brownhairedgirl reversed me, and I'm mad."

Sorry, guys, no sympathy for anyone here. I only see a lot of pot calling the kettle black here - no one has any right to complain if their out of process action is done. The only thing that's immensely clear right now is that no one wanted to use the proper channels, because they knew they might get their way, and taking an action on their own bettered their chances in the discussion. Doubtless I'll be accused of failure to WP:AGF, but don't you just find it a funny coincidence that the two deleters happen to be deletionists and the two restorers inclusionists? The Evil Spartan 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds a lot like what I had in mind, only better put and more eloquent. Well said. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Evil Spartan, if you were to read the long discussions on my talk page (and I wouldn't recommend it unless you need a cure for insomnia), you'll see that at the outset I was actually in favour of deleting the categories, just opposed to doing so by the back door and without consensus. However, the discussions were quite productive, and after reading the arguments there, I concluded (late in the day) that there was no particular persuasive argument that these categories are divisive, and that they may in fact have a productive use. Isn't that the whole point of XfD discussions, to discuss the issues and be prepared to change ones mind? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) - Not So much concerned about personal sympathy, but thank you for at least considering it : )

AFAIK, I followed the process. When someone speedily deleted a large group of categories for stated reasons which were clearly not valid criteria, as expressly laid out on WP:CSD. I did what I believe we should do. I dropped a note on the editor's talk page that I was restoring the categories for normal process discussion (To date, that user has never responded to that note). This is little different than if someone opposes a WP:PROD, or a Speedy listing on WP:CFD. Later I did re-open an attempt by another user to speedy close the neutral nominations. (It was clear by his comments, that the user didn't understand the process, including that CfD now stands for "Categories for discussion", rather than just "Categories for deletion". So neutral and procedural nominations happen all the time.) And during the initial discussion, when the user re-deleted the categories, after having deleted a large group of other categories (political issue cats, which, by the way, I never nominated for anything. And incidentally, I created the sub-category as an aid to someone else who wanted to nominate them, per a now archived talk page discussion at WT:UCFD), I didn't continue the cycle. Nor did I revert another user who, while the former user and I were still discussing the successive deletions, subjectively removed the entire set of nominations. (m:The wrong version seemed to apply, in my opinion.) I was hoping that we could resolve the situation, and minimise such edit/wheel warring.

The discussion never was "resolved". Instead, the user repeatedly suggested that I "drop it". I finally took that as an opportunity to "Disengage", per Dispute resolution. Immediately following that, the user decided to continue on the deletion spree. Please inform me how, now having been informed of process, such action doesn't seem to fit the last paragraph of WP:AGF? But still, I left it alone. (Though I did and have asked several other editors' opinions about the ensuing situation.) I entreat all those interested to please take the time to read through User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19#Reasons.

In the meantime, many editors started to complain about the deletions. (Furry Wikipedians ended up on WP:DRV and was restored/overturned.) And in one discussion on User:BrownHairedGirl's talk page, someone (I don't recall who) requested some links. I provided several for clarification. Note that in the ensuing discussion that I tried to suggest that we WP:AGF of the user.

BHG then restored most (I'm not certain of her criteria for which ones she restored, except that I think she attempted to not restore the "political issue" cats which had been endorsed by WP:DRV. - Incidentally, several commenters at the DRV also said that these should have gone through process, even while suggesting deletion!) I helped her format/reformat the page, splitting the large nomination into smaller parts, including restoring my previous attempt at a nom (for ease of editing, since they were already split). Ensuing debate, and again the nom was deleted, though this time it was restored (though still not by me). And an editor closed several as "Delete", not waiting the full 5 days, while only mentioning in his edit summary that all of them were to be considered speedy deletions per WP:SNOW. Again, I left a note on the user's talk page, and clarified his closures, relisting 3 that had 3 or less editors commenting (hard to justify WP:SNOW, with only 3 commenters). And now we are here.

I welcome anyone to go through any of the successive discussions and find where I was "secretive", and didn't leave "friendly notices"; where I was intentionally uncivil; where I didn't attempt to presume WP:AGF; where I didn't attempt repeatedly to discuss the problem of the out-of-process deletions.

Perhaps I should have escalated the dispute resolution to mediation, or arbcom (I was thinking about it). Perhaps I should have gone WP:ROUGE and blocked Dmcdevit for disruption (not likely). There are a lot of perhaps and possibles, and other sorts of guessing in the dark at what I could have done better, or perhaps no worse (or perhaps worse, who knows?). But honestly, I sincerely don't believe I have done anything wrong here. And I welcome evidence to the contrary. (For one thing, if I did, so that I can apologise to whomever appropriate.) Anyway, sincere thanks to all who have spared the time to comment. - jc37 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott/Don Murphy

I've protected User_talk:ColScott to prevent its use as a soapbox by a blocked user to make personal attacks against other editors, including those with personally identifiable info. Also, the users legal threats and incitement to fabricate evidence for use in a legal suit on his BBS bring the user block directly into WP:NLT territory. Do not unblock or unprotect without corresponding w/ the blocking admin and/or posting here first, please, no matter how overcome with fan adoration you might be. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you remove the one remaining personal attack? Corvus cornix 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gracias, didn't notice that the first time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The links to his forum pages show that he is out to create off-Wikipedia, real-life harrassment against another editor both at his home and at his place of work. He should never be unblocked until all of that is removed. Corvus cornix 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its become a BADSITE and so should be removed from wikipedia, eg [35], SqueakBox 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to let Bastique know what's going on here. Corvus cornix 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think so, he distanced himself from the situation by removing himself from the talk page. No need to bring this up with him again. Saturday ^Contribs 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* "Could somebody who is not blocked create an account and email me it and the password at my hotmail?" -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors of this nature reveal themselves quickly no matter the disguise. If he creates a new account to avoid a block/ban, we'll all know soon enough. WilyD 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that ColScott has removed the troubling threads from his forum. That's a good first step. Corvus cornix 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Update: JzG has reduced it to semi-protection so that ColScott can post to the page, which, as I ]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&curid=8210276&diff=139688294&oldid=139680591 noted] completely misses the point. His rationale for this is here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I posted the above, JzG explained that he was unprotecting the page because ColScott had threatened to create a sockpuppet account. I'm asserting that this is a poor precedent and shows a remarkable lack of respect for the community. I request external input on the matter, if I'm a crazy person who's tilting at windmills, then I'll find out. If not, then a clear consensus that giving this guy a free pass to attack people is a bad idea will be formed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I think that we need to continue to try and come to terms with problem users. The first, second, and third... attempts may not work. But as long as the user is making some attempt to work with us, I think it is best to keep trying. FloNight 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • It was Guy whom ColScott was threatening to out on his forum pages, so if Guy is happy with this outcome, then so be it. Corvus cornix 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User insists on linking his MySpace blog on César Franck, resorting to SockPuppet

Hello,

User:EccentricRichard appears to be a SockPuppet of User:Vox Humana 8' apparently to evade 3RR; he persists in putting his MySpace blog on this article even after the guidelines of WP:EL were pointed out to him on the Article talk page.

Your intervention is kindly requested, please. JGHowes ^talk - 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this situation on either User's Talk page. Corvus cornix 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Using socks (as in this case) to avoid 3RR is prohibited, period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Has either User ever been informed of WP:3RR? Corvus cornix 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why else would they go out of their way to switch accounts to revert one article, then switch back? This is not a new user, or even a new issue: [36]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP:AGF but I don't know how you can view account switching to make a 3rd revert any other way.--Isotope23 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I softblocked EccentricRichard (talk · contribs) per WP:SOCK. It won't effect his ability to edit from Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs) but given the edits to César Franck and the past history of this editor, I see no valid reason for 2 accounts here and the potential for further abuse.--Isotope23 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested that the link be added to Shadowbot's blacklist. That should put an end to it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, redux

I am asking the community to discuss an appropriate sanction for Vintagekits (talk · contribs · logs).

I was already running out of patience with this passionately nationalistic Irish editor. Although he has contributed some good work, civility and adherence to our policies in general continue to elude him. It then turned out he has been using sock- and/or meatpuppets to votestack in AfDs.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits was recently closed by Will Beback, with the conclusion "Due to the pattern of editing, as well as off-Wiki forum postings, it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him." I too find the evidence compelling that Vintagekits has behaved inappropriately over a long period.

As Will says, "VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts. The disposition of that account is best handled on AN/I". So here we are.

Previous recent discussions may be found from AN/I here and here. My own feeling is that either a long block, or, if it can be made to stick, some kind of parole might be in order. What do others think? --John 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Parole sounds better to me than a long block (ie longer than a week which would be justified in itself). I do also wonder if the arbcom should examine the case and especially in terms of imposing other parole like sanctions, SqueakBox 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that both sides in the debate have reason to avoid ArbCom. SirFozzie 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor has been trying to bait me into incivility for some time, you have also encouraged other to be uncivil towards be. I feel that I need some time off wiki and I am going to take a week off wiki just so I can get some perspective on why the hell I put myself through this.

As for the sock and muppetpuppets - they are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down.

If anyone thinks my form has been poor on wiki recent then 1. they are probably right, but it is very infuriating when you are trying to be constructive on wiki but there are "cleeks" of editors who make this a difficult and unwelcome place to be. 2. I am sorry in I have offended anyone, it was not meant personally but would have been said in the heat of the moment.--Vintagekits 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not had the opportunity to edit material that Vintagekits has. After reading some of the history and previous filings I have to say that I think a long block to allow this editor to cool down, followed by Parole and close monitoring by an administrator would be best here now. DPeterson^talk 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits makes a speciality of annoying editors of Peerage articles; on the other hand, their courtesy has often been open to question. Will Beback blocked the meat puppets; I'm not sure more needs to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was just peerage articles, and among the small group of conflicting editors therein, then you might have a point. But the votestacking that led to this report had nothing to do with peerages, and neither has the subsequent attacks and incivility. VK's belligerent editing can be be found across range of articles he edits. Rockpocket 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a strong warning not to violate WP:Sock, and I'll formally offer to mentor him when he gets back from his WikiBreak? SirFozzie 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for a history of meat and sockpuppeteering is compelling. The refusal of VK to co-operate other than offer uncredible denials and accusations of bias against the Irish, simply exacerbates the issue. I firmly believe VK will not learn anything from this episode other than to be more subtle with his votestacking efforts in future, since it is completely clear to me that he sees the project as a battlefield from conflict between those, like him, who share strong Irish republican sentiments, and those who disagree with him in any way (labelled anti-Irish, Monarchist or bigoted). That is not to say that there are those who do edit from those biases, some of whom have clearly edited in an equally disruptive manner, but there are plenty of good faith editors simply trying to uphold our policies that are on the receiving end of VK's ire, time and time again.

A brief example, just yesterday, when I cleaned up Brother Walfrid for WP:MoS in a serious of entirely non controversial edits. Because I didn't display "respect for his holy orders" by using Walfrid's full name in each reference to him in the text, VK reverted the entire cleanup twice, then told me to "go and play with your central germanic mates", a clear reference to the pejorative term "Hun" and the suggestion the edits are religiously motivated. I could provide many tens of these sorts of comments aimed at good faith editors.

If this was a one off, or even occasional, then it would be tolerable, but this sort of poisonous attitude is utterly persuasive in VK's contributions. Therefore, taking this alongside the votestacking issues, I conclude that the net efffect of his contribution to the project is not constructive and would support a long block to allow him to geet perspective on the purpose of this project. If he was willing to significantly change his MO, then I would support a well monitored parole for both civility and !vote tampering. As for leaving it with the blocking the meatpuppets, I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. I would have thought the meatpuppeteer, not the meatpuppets themselves, would be the person most liable for the disruption and most likely to disrupt process again in the future. Rockpocket 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I started this sockpuppet report in the first place. I also don't think that an excessively long block would be particularly productive. Whilst VK does have definite civility problems and causes friction through his excessive POV pushing, the sock/meatpuppetry needs to be placed in the context of equally dubious editing practices by other parties on numerous XfDs. Some sort of civility parole sounds like a good way to go to me. VK needs to realise that the community doesn't have infinite patience, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits' statement above that "...the sock and muppetpuppets ... are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down" seems rather worrying here, although I am glad to see some contrition from him on the civility issue. No offence VK, but if User:Voice of All thinks it is "likely" that they are something to do with you, I trust his opinion on the subject more than I do yours.

To me it seems there are three main issues here.

The sockpuppetry; this is the second time VK has been caught doing this, but it seems to have been on a much larger scale this time. Vintagekits seems to have got off without any sanction the first time, on 7 December 2006, when he created User:DownDaRoad. Indeed, he wasn't above arguing ex post facto that it was a justified sock, even though User:Dmcdevit had confirmed it in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.

I propose a one week block (officially endorsing a break that VK has already said he would find helpful), with a guaranteed indefinite block if the offence is repeated a third time.

The incivility; as I see this has been a long-standing problem, I propose Vintagekits undertake a civility parole. Any breach of parole would lead to escalating blocks. Of course, as one (along with Rockpocket) who took the brunt of his accusations this time round (on article talk pages, an AfD, and on other users' talk pages), I am maybe not the best placed to monitor or enforce this.

Edit warring; I propose Vintagekits also be placed on WP:1RR. If we can find a taker for my proposed sanction above, they could also enforce this.

If it wasn't for the fact that Vintagekits is intelligent and knows a lot about certain subjects, which has enabled him to make some very worthwhile contributions to the project (here for example), I'd have argued for an indefinite block long ago. As it is, I think he has to consider himself on a last warning here. --John 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I definately do have a problem with you John (or as you were formerly called Gunniog). You have had a withhunt against me for a long time because I stand up to you. You expect me to bow down to you everytime just because you are an admin and you know that other admins will back you. I have never had an illegal sock - I breached no rules with the puppet I had called User:DownDaRoad that account was used within wiki rules and policy and I openly admitted that it was me, you can ask User:Cyde if you wish.

• Have I been uncivil - sure I have and I have apologised for that and I have you say that you created a lot of that with your bullying tactics and your goading by encouraging SqueakBox to goad me. That sent out all the wrong signals and made me think that things were not on a level playing field.

• I would agree to go on WP:1RR but that would be impossible when you are dealing with the likes of Astrotrain (who only logs on to revert), Gibnews and Sqeaukbox. There is a wider issue here that needs to be address and you are just sweeping it under the carpet and making me out to be the scapegoat.--Vintagekits 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We are aware of the wider issue. This is to address your particular conduct. Tyrenius 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good proposal to me, and one I would endorse. Perhaps, if Sir Fozzie agrees with this, he would be willing to oversee a civility parole? I would offer to do it myself, but it will have a greater chance of success if an editor without a history of interaction with VK would volunteer. Rockpocket 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. In Vk's favour, he has made over 10,000 edits and many useful contributions. Tyrenius 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why both myself and John have spent so much effort trying to work with VK, rather than write him off. He has struck a much more reasonable tone today, on my talkpage, expressing regret for his incivilities and suggesting he is taking a self imposed week long break. I propose if he keeps to this then there is no real need for a block, though I guess blocking would do no harm either, I'm not sure the usual protocol for these types of situation. He has also suggested he would welcome mentorship from SirFozzie on his return. He still denies sock/meatpuppetry, which perplexes me as that is entirely in conflict with the evidence. I'm currently in private discussion with him to see if I can determine what is going on. However, since other admins have heard his private evidence and were unmoved by it, I don't envisage hearing anything that would vindicate him. If there is no further objections, I will explain this solution to VK and perhaps him and SirFozzie can come to some sort of understanding of how they can improve the civility of his communications. Rockpocket 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're in a good position to handle things and support your stance. Tyrenius 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll leave him a message on his talk page so he can either talk to me here when he gets back, or to shoot me an email. SirFozzie 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can live with that. My only concern would be that Vintagekits needs to know that the behaviour outlined was unacceptable and must not be repeated. His continuing denial of the sockpuppetry in the face of all the evidence does not lead me to an optimistic outlook on Vintagekits' future conduct here. --John 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talkpage explaining the programme and warning that further violations may result in escalating blocks. If his future conduct doesn't improve, I think the consequences are clear. Its up to him now. Rockpocket 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, that seems to work. I think we have consensus here for a week's block, and thanks to all who contributed. I particularly appreciate SirFozzie's offer to help Vintagekits in the future. As I have said all along, I consider this editor a potential asset to the project. He just needs to work on some of his people skills, in particular how to resolve conflicts more productively. I am sure you will be able to help him there, SirFozzie. --John 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via multiple accounts

• Mynglestine (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Wyington Duarm (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Biowiki (AfD discussion)
• Katrina PeopleFinder Project (AfD discussion)
• Galbijim Wiki (AfD discussion)
• Yellowikis (AfD discussion)

Wyington Duarm made several AFD nominations recently, but didn't complete the nominations properly. Nonetheless, Mynglestine managed to be the one editor to find all of that editor's nominations and comment on each discussion. Xe also began Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biowiki (q.v.). It seems that these two accounts are one single person. After reviewing this edit and this edit, and noting the fact that all bar one of the articles nominated are about wikis, it is clear that this is simple disruption, and is also clear whence it originates. I have therefore blocked both accounts and speedily closed the AFD discussions where only those two accounts have expressed opinions that articles should be deleted. I would not be surprised were CheckUser to reveal that Rllemsheep (talk · contribs), OldDirtyBtard (talk · contribs), Alfedhun (talk · contribs) and others were all this same single person too. Uncle G 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also suspecting Riboflavinl0l (talk · contribs) is a sock as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I requested a checkuser, turns out you were right Uncle. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • THE SESSION EXPERIENCE (talk · contribs) was one of the others that I referred to. That that account is another sock-puppet was apparent from this edit and this edit. Uncle G 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hamheim (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia Watch (AfD discussion)

I have blocked another account and speedily closed another AFD discussion. Uncle G 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shebben44 (talk · contribs) is a likely sock, despite having four contribs, look at his first one. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Users A Jalil and Wikima and WP:POINT

Moroccan POV I've had several interactions with these users in the past over contentious issues related to Western Sahara and Morocco, and lately, they have been too unreasonable to talk and have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have lumped them together because they have been essentially tag-teaming to subvert 3RR and support one another on basically every edit the other makes (such as when he deleted a redundant tag on a redundant image that Wikima uploaded.) Some highlights of Jalil's recent edits:

• Reverted MENA with a substantial edit that deletes Malta from the list, in spite of citation
• Deleted many references in this article and others about the intifadas against Moroccan rule
• Reintroduced spelling and capitalization errors and took out important and relevant information (e.g. the UN Visiting Mission section
• Took out a cited source and changed the text of the article to read something different than its actual title
• Insists on inserting a link to a disambig page instead of the relevant article
• Re-added the category of Cities in Morocco to cities in Western Sahara, here and in other articles
• Deleted sourced, scholarly reference on Battle of Tirafiti. There was a lengthy discussion on talk about the napalm reference and he keeps on deleting it.
• Insists on inserting phrases such as "Algeria-back Polisario Front" and "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"
• Took out sourced citation, leaving an unsourced allegation; he did this twice.
• Insists on taking out relevant articles in this template and hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting
• Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages.
• Keeps on deleting portions of the Western Sahara Portal, claiming they are POV. I've tried to tell him that we can discuss each section individually, but not to delete them outright and then put the POV tag on the portal itself - he's deleted the sections he thinks are POV and then inserts the tag.
• The most frustrating for me: he keeps on deleting information in the WikiProject Western Sahara under a pretense of NPOV and then does things like put references to Morocco in bold. He's changing the scope and definition of the Project unilaterally and it smacks of entryism. Note that on this edit, he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well.

Wikima has done the following lately:

• Redirecting pages to a page that the user does not intend
• And that same page is a contentious move as well, which had no consensus and was moved three times in all; the issue is still not resolved
• Takes out scholarly citations of sources, in spite of several weeks of mediation and a consensus to include it
• He insists that Western Sahara is not occupied, when it clearly is and has been called as such by the United Nations
• Apparently copy-pasted text from an article to its redirect, knowing this was contentious and with no consensus or talk
• just as he and Jalil did at Template:Sahara conflict, he took out relevant links that might support he Sahrawi position. Note that at the other template, these were re-added by an admin, and they deleted them again.
• Uploaded several redundant images inexplicably, including three maps of Western Sahara and this flag.

Typically, his comments and edit summaries include sarcasm quotes and personal references or refer someone to another talk page. As you can see on Jalil's contribs, he also blind reverted a whole host of edits that I made; I suspect solely because I made them. In point of fact, while I was writing this very post, he did the same thing again, reinserting Wikima's redundant images, undo the edits of admins in the WikiProject, etc. Considering the speed with which he undid, it seems possible that he merely saw that I had edited them. Needless to say, these edits essentially help the Moroccan POV and serve to undermine the Sahrawi one. Every reference to Moroccan occupation and the intifadas are deleted, every reference to Polisario is made "Algeria-backed" (this example is one of many.) This is Moroccan POV-pushing. I have requested mediation, but the two editors have either gone on a break or where never free enough to mediate in the first place. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

User Koavf has a long history of edit-warring and aggressive POV pushing on Wikipedia on a whole range of articles and especially on Western Sahara. His block log speaks for itself. He was blocked indefinitely for his disruptive behaviour for more than half a year. For a couple of weeks ago, he was given another chance while being on 1RR parole for one year. He immediately started by reverting dozens of Western Sahara related articles to the miserable version he left them on. there are many editors who were involved in balancing the pro-Polisario POV he added. But, as he made it clear on his user page, he is on Wikipedia mainly for the defence of the position of the Polisario Front. Almost all his edits are reverts as can be seen from the diffs. To say that Western Sahara is disputed not occupied is considered by Koavf as a pro-Moroccan POV. One of his big troubles with a number of editors is his effort to make Western Sahara and the SADR (government-in-exile of the Polisario) be used interchangeably. This is the case of an activist highly engaged for the side of one of the parties to the WS conflict, who sees Wikipedia as a perfect mirror for propagandist ideas.

• Malta is in Europe not Africa or the Middle East. He insists on including it though on the WB page Malta is not found in the drop-down list of countries. It has been explained to koavf by myself (A Jalil), admin FayssalF and Collounsbury, without results.
• He misuses the word "Intifada" to describe some riots that involve a few teenagers rioting in a suburb of Elaiun. While the mention that riots occur by some independence-minded can be added, the use of intifada is over-dosed.
• in Koavf's version there is much more than correcting "spelling and capitalization errors". He claims the text of the Madrid Accords is secret and never made public, while the same integral text can be found on many pro-Polisario sites like this one. The visiting mission has its own article and is not related to the ICJ advisory opinion. He removed the fact that it was Morocco which got Spanish Sahara to be listed on the decolonization list. The role of the Moroccan Army of Liberation is downplayed in his edit. So that has nothing to do with correcting any spelling or capitalization errors.
• The flag of Western Sahara article was the subject of a RfC. Koavf went on to change the article in disregard to all the editors involved in the RfC. He even added some text taken stright from propagada material claiming the black color in the flag means the "Moroccan occupation", while the flag was supposedly created many years before a single Moroccan soldier set foot in Spanish/Western Sahara.
• The cities and towns in Western Sahara under Moroccan control are de facto part of the "Morocco and Western Sahara cities". What is wrong with that?. This is similar to the mention that Bir Lehlu is the temporary capital of the SADR.
• The so-called Battle of Tifariti. Where are the proofs of Napalm bombing killing hundreds of civilians of people without air cover against airplanes. This must have happened in 1975-1976, so how come that it has been left undocumented with images and videos?. Pro-Polisario sites are full of images of people alledgedly beaten by police during the riots (ther are whole pages for just the wounds of one person). How is it that the images of a much more dangerous "Napalm massacre" are inexistent??. That is the proof you should provide, not a reference to a book by a stunch pro-Polisario writer.
• The "Algeria-back Polisario Front" is not in all articles where Polisario is mentionned, maybe mentionned in 1% of the occurences of the Polisario. It is well established and no shame in saying it. I don't see why you try to hide something that Algeria itself is proud of. "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is also correct and again occurs only in a few places. What is wrong with it?. Self-declared means that the "Republic" was not born out of a settlement plan nor out of a referendum. It is simply a declaration by the Polisario that they declare themself a republic. What is wrong with the "self-declared" then?
• A look At this diff speaks for itself. It shows how to hijack an article and make the reference to the WS conflict takes more than half the article itself. My version mentions the exclusion of WS from the agremeent in one sentence. Needless to mention the use of the word "occupation" by koavf as a standard definition of the situation in Western Sahara.
• "hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting" No, no one is posting on talk everyday. once the arguments are explained to you, what is the meaning of posting everyday the same things as has been the case in many talk pages with you. The Wikiproject Western Sahara is for the community, and though you were the initiator, it does not make it a personal property for you to write whatever POV you want on it. It is about Western Sahara not about Koavf.
• "Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages." No, There are three member templates. the first one should be the neutral one not the Polisario one. It is quite simple to understand. Koavf is trying to make the Polisario flag as the primary member template. In addition, he adds "(SADR)" after the mention of "Western Sahara", to wrongly give the reader the impression that they are synonymous.
• The Western Sahara Portal in its version that I restore was the result of many editors' contributions. Your revert discards a lot of them.
• The WikiProject Western Sahara. Good that you call it Western Sahara and not your own personal project. It was edited by koavf to make it again give the impression that WS is the SADR and the SADR is WS. The first thing the reader meets when reading koavf's version is the flag of the SADR being presented as that of WS.
• "he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well." Good you mention it is not NPOV. Of course in Wikipedia everyone should strive to make everything NPOV. What is the rationale behind creating a Wikiproject named after a disputed region, and then stuff it with POV content and claim it is your personal territory where you can write whatever you want. No it does not work like that. The admin you refer to is your good friend Francis Tyers. He acted upon your request for him for "mediation", and started reverting without even paying attention to stupid edits like the explanation of the black color on the flag of the SADR.

In the end, apart from a couple of articles where some debate has taken place more or less peacefully, WS articles were quite calm in koavf's absence, and here we are now just after a couple of weeks after his indefinite block reduced to 1RR parole. Needless to mention that he went on his wave of reverts without going first to the talk page to explain himself in the vast majority of reverted articles. Those that hoped the long block would change his manners of editing must be disappointed--A Jalil 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The real sarcasm is that user koavf is complaining about reverts.
• He is a champion in breaking wikipedia rules as he has been blocked on indefinit after sevral temp blocks he broke and broke again.
• The funny thing, just a few days after his come back he got blocked again because of the same behaviour.
• In this contexte not really credible.

Thanks wikima

Thanks, indeed Wikima's post basically proves my point. Jalil's edits stand for themselves, and he's in the middle of revert warring not only with me but Reisio as well, and generally has not posted on any of those talk pages either. He keeps on inserting the malformed name of Wikima's redundant upload, which is not in the interests of anyone as best as I can tell. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

koavf is posting on the AN/I against anyone standing in front of his pro-Polisario militantism. He did it again against Collounsbury below, but when it turned out he was lying about being polite, he is trying to cut things off. Again in this, he has been un-masked, and as he said it, all my answers to him above stand. Reisio does nothing in wikipedia but reverting, and his talk page gives a good idea about his behaviour with other editors as well.--A Jalil 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing and Leonig Mig had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user. User:Vox Humana 8' talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he was perfectly justified in having the message, removing my messages completely unreasonably, and reverting at least seven times. Also relevent is his arbitration case, in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done? J Milburn 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonid is now also reverting his userpage, as well as vandalising Pigsonthewing's with links to page differences showing old personal attacks from Pig to himself himself to Pig. J Milburn 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remains Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack I cited was from you to him, but it was a long time ago. Check the diff. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. J Milburn 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are worse accusations he could have hurled. For example he could have called you a liar and gotten away with it. 86.135.80.68 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then rise above it. There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse. Your case suddenly becomes somewhat weakened when you yourself have behaved in an unreasonable manner. J Milburn 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse." - Indeed; and I haven't. Andy Mabbett 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not insist that there was no problem. There very much is a problem, as described on my user page. Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We have more than a million articles and four million users. Would all the litigants please go off and do something else for a while and stop complaining, stop insulting each other and stop posting notes here, there or anywhere. That's a very simple solution that will end this dispute. You're fighting about nothing! Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I don't see how multiple WP:NPA and 3RR violations as well as a probable violation of Arb Comm rulings can be reasonably described as "nothing". Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Pigsonthewing's stubbornness and refusal to compromise and the frustration his behaviour engenders in other editors - several of whom feel that he is, if not "stalking" them, then certainly monitoring and reverting their edits more closely than is normal (hence the reason I'm not logged in to post these comments). -- 86.144.101.215 07:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sockpuppetry. Andy Mabbett 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether that user is a sock-puppet or not, what they say is entirely accurate. J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why nothing has been done about this? This is a blatant violation of no personal attacks and the three revert rule, not to mention going against an ArbCom ruling. Why then, do I post this here, leave it overnight, and only get someone suggesting that posting here was an immature action? This is actually rather ridiculous. Why do we have this board, if not for situations like this? J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm I notice that the reverts were in his own user space where the three revert rule is restricted and that at least one administrator was making the same reverts as he was. Whilst I am one of several people irritated by Andy's posts in projects where I belong and I sarted watching this thread as I initially hoped he might be made to shut up at last, I now have come to believe that your posts here are on a similar level to his posts on his page re Leonard Mig that you tried to remove. Can further posts here be restricted to uninterested parties (sock puppets need not apply) or to responses to specific accusations by the person accused. --Peter cohen 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually find that rather offensive. I was originally asked to look into this matter as an uninvolved administrator, and now I am being shufted to one side as if I am 'trying to get one over' on an 'enemy' of mine. I got involved, find myself to be somewhat in over my head due to the excessive amount of reverting done, and obviously I have no interest in breaching the three revert rule myself. I am honestly not sure why Ryulong made that revert- I can only assume it was a mistake, or he was reverting the actions of an obvious sock puppet. I am not quite sure why 'uninterested parties' would ever post; perhaps you mean 'uninvolved parties'? That's what I was originally. And, in completely good faith, no offense meant- who in hell are you to say who is and who isn't allowed to post here? The only reason I have continued to post is because no one has responded here. This is a CLEAR case of disruption, why is everyone so unwilling to do anything about it? J Milburn 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The message is now back on Pigsonthewing's userpage. Could an uninvolved admin please do something about this? As Peter cohen so politely told me, my opinion no longer seems to be valid, and it is not like Pigsonthewing has any respect for the removal, simply reverting without explanation. This is disruptive, and is causing considerable friction. J Milburn 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also regardless of whether his revert parole applies to his own userpage, he made two reverts to another editor's userpage, which is in breach of his revert parole. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone for deleting shit like that. Not even Pigs. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that if you look here various uninvolved editors are attempting to get the information off both userpages, yet Pigs persists in reinstating the information on his page while removing it from Leonig Mig's page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does appear hypocritical, although justifiable when using a particular logic and interpretation. I strongly suggest that the sections be removed from both user pages, but I would also suggest that arguing about it (and blocks) will cause more trouble than the original problem. JPD (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here is strongly compelling that PoTW should be blocked for the behavior he has shown. In particular I first point out that conducting 7 reverts in a single day on his own userpage while not violating the letter of the law with regards to WP:3RR, when taken in the context of removing personal attacks and his parole for reverts is still in effect is very convincing by itself. Second, that PoTW twice attempted to remove similar personal attacks from the userpage of the person with whom he is in disagreement is an unequivocal violation of the same parole. That PoTW insists on behaving in this manner despite multiple people requesting him to stop, despite the prior ArbCom ruling against him for this behavior shows his inability to function appropriately within the confines of a community based project. This user is severely trying the patience of Wikipedia in general. Taking into account his block log, I am hard pressed to understand why this abusive user is being treated with kitten paws. I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted for taking action because they are so embroiled. This effectively undermines the ability of administrators to take action in this case. This has gone on far too long. A block, and a long one at that, is entirely appropriate and should be placed immediately. --Durin 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one find Andy's entire attitude to discussions on Wikipedia unhelpful and wrong. This is not the only incident where he has wasted hours of editors' time trying to push his point. Even if he's the only one who believes as such, he will still claim lack of consensus (ie. I don't agree = no consensus). He will remove comments for no reason (sometimes the token WP:NPA, which in his eyes is anything remotely critical of him) and refuses ever to compromise. For all the helpful edits he makes, he makes far more unhelpful edits and his stubbornness on many issues means that arguments such as this can drag on for weeks wasting everybody else's time. If he is blocked for breaking revert parole, I support the block. He needs time off to learn humility. Centy – – 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your disingenuous reference is to the debate about infoboxes on the Composer and Opera project's talk pages, where I have demonstrated that there are around a dozen or more editors speaking against the supposed consensus. Your "I don't agree" statement is therefore dishonest. Andy Mabbett 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a dozen or more editors putting the boxes back. I haven't even noticed that number commenting. Oh, and off-topic trollfests get archived. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed people stating that they're leaving the project because of the hostility shown to them? I have; just as I've seen you censoring discussion by archiving it within minutes of being posted. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so archiving a discussion that drifted completely off-topic into outright trolling is censorship, with productive discussion finished long ago? Moreschi ^Talk 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involve microformats. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him. --Folantin 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your continued ad hominem does you no credit; it merely suggests you cannot support your arguments otherwise. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to further point out the rapid accumulation of evidence in support of what I said above, where I said "I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted". Since my above posting, three other editors have commented in regards to PoTW's behavior. Results: User:CenturionZ accused of being dishonest, User:Moreschi accused of censoring him, and User:Folantin accused of ad hominen attacks. It seems blatantly evident that PoTW refuses to learn lessons from prior sanctions against him and remains a highly disruptive presence on the project. --Durin 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaking cause and effect. There is no evidence to support your claim. Andy Mabbett 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recognize and fully expected you to disagree with me. I'm not interested in whether you disagree or not. It's a given that you would. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you because your past and current behavior has shown you incapable of working within a community. I've been providing the above commentary to show to others why you should be blocked, not for your edification. --Durin 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you'll want to blame me for your ad hominem outburst as well? Andy Mabbett 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've just proved the point, Mabbett. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other news this week, Pigsonthewings has again put back the offending material after Newyorkbrad took it out. He's also made a right royal nuisance of himself by disrupting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: after his off-topic ranting gets archived, he immediately shouts that he's being censored. I cannot take action myself, due to personal involvment, but I would suggest that someone does. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigs has continued to revert. Could someone please take action? J Milburn 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Peter cohen, I'm finding J Milburn's campaign here a little shrill. Andy's message does not appear to me to be an attack, but merely a statement drawing attention to the dispute. (Although I question the word "abusive" in the first sentence - Leonig's admission that he is stalking does not appear to be abusive, although stalking might be abusive. Ah, I see Andy's point on abusive. My bad.) Attempts to shape Andy to your conceptions of wikiquette, J Milburn, are bound to fail, border on pointless, and are as likely as not to make matters worse. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yes, because it is only me who thinks this is disruptive. (And they aren't the only people...) He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. He refuses to remove these, continues to revert several established editors and administrators without discussion, breaching the 3RR massively, despite previous ArbCom rulings. I see no doubt that he should be blocked, and the only people speaking in support of him appear to be people such as yourself who see the matter, think it is minor, and disregard it. It was minor, until he insisted that there was nothing wrong with him having those comments, continually reverting, and continuing to attack everyone involved, mocking typing errors, picking up on minor mistakes and even edit warring over the userpage of the person he claimed to be his stalker. It isn't like I have seen this and come running straight here- I and another editor worked with him for a short while, and I only came here when I realised that he was intent on being unreasonable. J Milburn 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are in no way uncivil; they are a factual report of the circumstances. I have attacked no editors. I have mocked no typing errors. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get dragged into this debacle, seeing how it's affected everyone else so far; but this seems somewhat incongruous with the claim that "I have mocked no typing errors". -- Codeine 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mockery there; that's the correct way to cite text which is know to be incorrectly written; see sic. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I fail to see how "he's acting like a cunt" can be regarded as anything but abusive. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. We'll be putting WP:AGF to one side for this discussion, will we? Go and take the beam out of your eye, JM. You've made your point at very great length. Now let's see if other more experienced admins pick up on it or, as I suspect, let sleeping dogs lie. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I am not putting AGF to one side, that's all they have served to do. You will also note that other, more experienced admins have also said that they support a long block of Pigs already. J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's block log speaks for itself. Disruptive obnoxiousness and This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia being the most apt descriptions of his behaviour in my experience. I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. --Folantin 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Will somebody please just block him? J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. He has been. Currently he is not. What do you want him blocked for, JM? Disagreeing with your view of wikiquette and having the temerity to be the master of his own userpage? Being a curmudgeon? Annoying the fsck out of us all by his style of argument? Not being what you would want him to be? You are - by analogy - poking someone with a stick, and then whining "oh, won't someone ban him" when he bites back. I just cannot fathom why you've mounted this campaign, beyond the dislike that you have of Andy. And that's just not a good enough reason for a ban. Don't you have anything better to do? --Tagishsimon (talk)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. I have again removed the offensive paragraph from Pigsonthewing's talkpage and warned him that if he reinserts it I will block him. However, Leonig Mig's comments that provoked Pigsonthewing were highly unacceptable and I have left a warning for him as well (I note that a number of other users have also asked him to improve his civility in this matter). Hopefully the matter can end here. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's just reverted his user page yet again after you gave him his last warning. This is typical Mabbett behaviour: he just ploughs on like a bulldozer until he gets his way or gets banned. Hopefully the matter can end here - sadly I don't think this is ever likely to be the case. --Folantin 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. Much more of what? Of Andy not agreeing with your world view? Perish the thought. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. But since there is apparently some dissent, instead of act unilaterally I request input on the proposed block. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully support, as I have done from the start. The fact he continued to act after a blatant final warning just strengthens the case. J Milburn 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support the block, I would say 24 hours, and protecting his user page in the meantime, so he cannot continue to edit war when he comes back. SirFozzie 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just block him for as long as possible. Some of us have had to put up with over two months of this kind of behaviour. There's no point offering him any more chances, he never takes them. --Folantin 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel a block is justified because Andy continues to be disruptive (I'm thinking more of his behavior toward the opera project members, though his activity on his userpage is not appropriate, either). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend locking his user page for a month and not blocking him. Were he to move the content to his talk page then would be a good reason to block him, SqueakBox 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. What does that mean. Is it the disputed message that is causing disruption? If so, what is it disrupting? If not, what exactly is the complaint, other than that we don't much like Andy and his style of argumentation? Is that a sufficient reason for a ban? The whole storm appears a nonsense to me; the ban threat little better than concerted bullying. --Tagishsimon (talk)

(outdent) I have blocked User:Pigsonthewing for 24 hours, per 3RR violations mentioned above. I did so as an admin action to prevent this discussion over-heating. Please would the above participants attempt some sort of consensus in this period. Also, if anyone unblocks or reduces the period then fine, there will be no wheel war as I am off to bed! LessHeard vanU 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that I gave a reason of "harrasment" in my block edit, but I had intended to cite 3RR... I was tired, I guess. LessHeard vanU 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I support a lengthy cool off period. Tagishsimon, you must realise we are not bullying Andy because we just want to pick on him. He brings it onto himself by dragging any of his critics down to his level and then forcing them to engage in a horrible sledging match. If you carefully read through the history of this debate you will see that this is just one and many similar arugments he has caused. In this particular argument both J Milburn and Newyorkbrad assumed good faith and approached Andy with civility. He then responds with his usual stubbornness which includes censoring comments that are in any way critical of himself. It's highly ironic and hypocritical then when he accused Moreschi of censorship when he merely archived rather than removed a discussion. See Durin's post about the examples of how he brings any editors critical of him down to his level. The fact is any 3rd party who tries to resolve this either has to be pro-Mabbett or be cajouled into a heated discussion with him where you are then accused of bullying the guy. It appears that his new tactic of argument is to call any attack on his behaviour and ad hominem attack on him.

It is this unhelpful attitude that I think should warrant a lengthy ban. He was after all banned for exactly this behaviour in the past for 1 year. He hasn't changed one bit. Centy – – 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All that may well be so. But this - WP:ANI - is not the place, and the above discussion is not the process by which such a sanction is determined. At best this is a kangaroo court, at worst a lynch mob. If findings of stubbornness and hypocrisy and whatever else can be proven in the appropriate place (dunno - Arbcom? RfC?) then so be it. Take it to that appropriate place and run with it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You need not worry on that score, though consensus on ANI is a perfectly valid rationale for blocks. Moreschi ^Talk 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's never had any hesitation about hauling other users in front of ANI when they've done something to offend him. And I'll always remember how, when one of his ANIs wasn't going quite the way he wanted, he went on a WP:POINT spree against Project:Opera by suddenly insisting that all operatic terminology be rendered into English forthwith (that was on May 1 of this year). He also has a habit of branding any comments he doesn't like in discussions as personal attacks and deleting them, so this user page controversy is the height of hypocrisy. Forgive me if I find all this "Andy is the victim here" talk quite unconvincing. --Folantin 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a complaint about a 6 or 7 week-old opera dispute really pertinent to the current problem? And I don't think it can all be chalked up to Pigs interpreting comments he simply doesn't like as being personal attacks. For example, one of the inclusions in the 'Stalker' section was when his entire user page was replaced with a link to this. That's a personal attack, and vandalism. No room for dispute on that one. And calling someone a cunt certainly qualifies as well. Whether or not this stalker section is a good idea is a separate issue. I don't find it terribly helpful, and find the declaration that he no longer feels it necessary to explain edits very troubling. But outright blocking when there clearly wasn't even consensus on whether or not he should be allowed to include the box was premature. And rehashing old opera arguments is entirely unhelpful. Bladestorm 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't "old" opera arguments, they're part of the same campaign of disruption which continued until yesterday. They are proof Mabbett knows nothing of the subject at hand. I have no idea why he is editing in this area beyond a desire to push through his beloved microformats. He was disrupting the Opera Project page right up to yesterday morning in an attempt to restart a dispute that has been dragging on since mid-April. We had just agreed a moratorium on the issue when Mabbett burst in trying to re-ignite the whole argument. Those who have had to deal with the user page issue have experienced his behaviour for just one day; some of us have had to endure this kind of thing for weeks. That's why I want tougher sanctions against him. --Folantin 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent) The user has now reposted the comments that were the source of this incident on his talk page. Yet another user has restored it to his user page. Judging by the length and intesnity of this debate, (and speaking purely as an uninvolved party), this appears to me to be a case for WP:RFC. Codeine 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I find Andy annoying, being a pain in the neck, in itself, is not a reason for a block. This current issue was stirred up by the entry on his user page where third parties to that particular argument seem to be split, some restoring, some removing the entry. An RFC would be an appropriate way to deal with that. If he continues to argue the different point on the opera or classical music pages, that two can be dealt with as a separate issue. --Peter cohen 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm Andy's long history of being involved in ugly disputes, and that this is not simply about the stalking entry. Often his behaviour is not the ugliest in the dispute, but it would be too much of a coincedence without the explanation that his behaviour in some way leads to this state of affairs, dragging others down to his level and further by focussing on criticisms of behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Unless Andy decides that this is a problem worth fixing, there seem to be two choices: blocking Andy for a long time, or avoiding the trap of discussing behaviour and ignoring any comments along those lines as much as possible. It might be clear which option I consider preferable, but either would be more productive than stopping to argue about whether the paragraph on the user page is ok or not, blowing that particular problem out of all proportion. JPD (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:H is gone

User:H has left due to threats made to his family. Corvus cornix 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know. I'm so sorry - and so disappointed - to hear that. It's just disgusting - Alison ☺ 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Bangs head* Anyone who takes Wikipedia as seriously as the people harassing him need psychiatric help. It's only a fucking website, people. It's not worth harassing people over. --Deskana (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC x3) If the threat was made on-wiki, can't the guilty party be blocked? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't (just) on-wiki. Can we all leave it at that for the sake of the guy's privacy? - Alison ☺ 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:( --Masamage ♫ 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. This is revolting. (The internet: you no longer have to have a shred of humanity to interact with people.) Gracenotes^T § 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Quick note -- it looks from this to be the GNAA getting revenge for him deleting their article. Real shame about it, though. --72.70.144.228 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, the GNAA can jump off a bridge. I noticed the message my first attempt to edit this section; hence the edit summary I provided. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• More likely to be ColScott I'm afraid. :-( Hesperian 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. Someone typed mean things at him. Sheesh... HalfShadow 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

His family was harassed off-wiki. And not to long ago, he himself was harassed at work due to ColScott (talk · contribs) producing his personal information on his website. This is not decision H made lightly. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Typed? Not necessarily; it is entirely possible that someone contacted him (or his family) in the real world. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's ColScott. I am in conversation with him at the moment. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It will be too bad if we have to lose a good editor this way. Can't H just open a new account, with the bureaucrats/office ensuring that it gets admin privileges ? Abecedare 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hard to make that work -- a brand new account with admin privs tends to draw attention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope something is worked out ... but I'll desist from posting ideas here. Abecedare 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the OFFICE following up for legal purposes? The loss of 'H' is a shame, but the means by which is was effected by another editor are shameful to the entire project. That such people exist can't be helped, but that they perpetuate such behavior over a website? sheesh. High marks to the fast actions of the Admins who moved on it. WIll there be a community ban discussion? If so, can an admin link it here? ThuranX 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't think OFFICE can do anything about it, really. And even I don't think a community ban needs to be discussed. Considering the outcry when ColScott got unblocked, and now, the circumstances of his new block.. I don't think any admin will want to unblock him ever. That's pretty much a community ban right there, neh? SirFozzie 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's not Don Murphy who's to blame this time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My bad, as the saying goes. Struck the comment out. Still, I don't think there's much office can do except possibly ban whomever made the threats. SirFozzie 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point, Foz. The throwaway IPs have all been blocked as open proxies & the one-off account has been blocked indef. There's nobody to ban, unfortunately. Such is the way with anonymous threats. And all these sites (no names) who talk about accountability and attempt to 'out' admins; this is what it brings. Physical threats upon someone's family. As Deskana said, it's only a fucking website. Nobody deserves this kind of abuse - Alison ☺ 06:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This sort of mess is exactly why that other thing, the one no one dares mention, Wikipedia's own ... can't be resolved. Because everyone is afraid to touch that and get this, since that's made clear this is the result he wants. Frankly, I'm frustrated that the OFFICE, and JW, aren't pursuing such actions more aggressively via legal channels. This is NOT the first such incident, and escalation's only more and more likely with each similar incident. Anonimity yields assholery yields brutality, yay intarwebz. cant' we just crush this guy's tube extension? (Stevens of Alaska Reference.) ThuranX 06:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, ColScott isn't behind this. Okay, perhaps he's not the one who made the threats but he is the one who's been posting H's alleged personal details on his talk page. Are we supposed to believe it mere coincidence that these threats come now? At least, it seems probable that these posts are what led the harassers to H, and oversight, while appreciated, came too slow. You know, that's not ColScott's fault either.[37] It's ours. We knew he did this kind of thing to people generally, and we knew he did it to H in particular, yet we unblocked him anyhow…four times in a row blocked for the very same reason, then unblocked.[38] The vast majority of the community wanted him permabanned, but this was overidden by purportedly wiser voices, who had solicited several meatpuppets through IRC.[39] These wiser voices bear some measure of responsibility for this outcome.Proabivouac 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in reading that, am I to understand that one can buttress WP:IAR with extortion, harrassment, intimidation and death threats, and the foundation will give you goodies? This can not possibly be sensible to anyone. ThuranX 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sensible to the Arbitration Committee, which wrote: "Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."[40]Proabivouac 07:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to re-open the discussion to community ban User:ColScott (not just block him per this message,_ and would like to hear some feedback from the community before this discussion is prematurely archived,[41] [42] as it was on WP:ANI.[43]]Proabivouac 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong is right. There's not much to be achieved here in instituting a community ban on ColScott. The guy's indefblocked now & his user and talk pages are inaccessible. This really doesn't help User:H in any way. - Alison ☺ 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot to be achieved. I want appeals to unblock to be directed to the community, not to the Foundation, because the Foundation has in this instance demonstrated its judgment to be catastrophically unreliable, to the point of causing real-world harm to our volunteers. With all due respect, that is completely unacceptable. No doubt, WMF can ignore a community ban, but such a record could prompt a well-warranted gut check.Proabivouac 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop blaming this all on Bastique? He acted as a bridge between ColScott and Wikimedia when ColScott was thoroughly pissed. Any information ColScott had put up then is gone. There is nothing to gain here from banning anyone or casting the blame on anyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott has nothing to do with this recent situation. IRC has nothing to do with this situation. There is no purpose in starting up a discussion anywhere to ban ColScott. I can assure you that Bastique, Jimbo, and whoever else there is will get this resolved (the Foundation is in St. Petersburg, Florida which is in the same timezone I am in, and right now it's after 4:30 am). It's a bad situation, yes, but let's not make it any worse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're coming up on the end of the working day in the relevant time zome, and I've seen ZERO movement on any aspect of this, beyond the above section where supposedly JzG is working on parts of this. Beyond that, I think us regular wikipedians should get an update about which wikipedians represent a threat to our livelihoods, and will not be blocked or stopped for that, so that we can edit around them as best we can. ThuranX 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IP address 12.20.127.109

Whoever is using this IP address (and it appears to be one person) is continuously editing posts to include his own POVs. The writing style is consistent, as is the relatedness of the articles he changes (mainly New York sports radio shows, esp WEPN). He generally erases anything he finds uninteresting or subjectively un-encyclopedic (with liberal use of edit boxes) and replaces them with unsubstantiated and uncited points-of-view and editorials. When this was pointed out to him on his talk page and he was invited to register, he proceeded to erase all contents three times, after each time the talk page was restored with warnings. I propose that this IP address be blocked or banned. TashTish 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. I took a careful look at Special:Contributions/12.20.127.109 for June 2007. I found one inappropriate edit, [44], which was reverted and the user was warned at the time. For some reason another user added a second warning, and the IP blanked the article and then blanked his own talk page. A revert war ensued over blanking of messages on this fellow's talk page.

I have listed Christina Stoffo for deletion because traffic reporters on the radio are not notable. (I actually listen to that radio station in New York City.) That should make past disputes over her article moot. Since the IP hasn't done anything else that's truly horrible, my advice is to let it sit and hope the issue dies. I don't think 3RR should apply to a user's own talk page, within reason. YechielMan 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and more than I could have asked for in regard to seeking appropriate action. I love ya guys! 68.194.79.110 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I need some help... copyright violations

Zosimus Comes (talk · contribs)

So far, I've removed copyright violations (plot summaries) from

• Blonde Crazy
• Fanny Foley Herself, and
• Going Wild,

all as a result of contributions from User:Zosimus Comes. Since March, this user has created over 60 articles that I suspect have all been created with plot summaries that are copyright violations. I just checked the user's first and last contributions, and both included copyright violations (from imdb plot summaries). It would be good to have a few of us go through this user's contributions. I remember a couple of months ago there was a similar situation and somebody was able to make a page with links to all of the articles created by a particular editor... then we were able to coordinate our efforts and strike out articles as they were checked for violations. I'll be off for a couple of hours, but will certainly help out with the cleanup. Sancho 04:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all the user's contributions going back only as far as April 1. Those led me to nine more copyright violations taken usually from nytimes reviews and imdb plot summaries. There's a lot more to clean up. Start at March 31 and go back in time, then leave a note here to say how far you've got. Sancho 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to March 29 now. Sancho 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All done. Sancho 09:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive (and rude) user

Hello, the user Cheeser1 has engaged in rather rude and somewhat disruptive behavior, which started with a loaded revert summary of Calculus and continued in the same vein, see [45]. I have left a message on his talk page to explain the reasons for my preceding edit (I had been the original author of the phrase that he wanted changed, so I was trying to explain the meaning to him). However, rather than respond to the substance of the comment, he accused me of a personal attack and made a number of vague threats. I would have considered this to be a rather tangential issue, since a highly respected editor, User:Silly rabbit has independently restored the article, but apparently, Cheeser1 believes he knows best and behaves as if he were above WP:Civil. Note that he keeps ignoring the substance of my comments, communicating mostly in edit summaries, and even went so far as to remove, [46], the discussion in his talk page with this wonderful summary:

archive BS and delete whine-fest

Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated! Arcfrk 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the summaries in question, you need to take it easy. Not only is he correct, but his edit summaries are not particularly incivil. --Haemo 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying not only is he correct seems to reveal a bias, does it not? Surely, the proper procedure for resolving contentious points is to discuss them at the article talk page first, not to start with highly charged edit summaries, continue with a revert war, and at the same time, take it into the personal sphere? Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[47] strikes me as a far more bizzare edit summary. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since when is WP:CIVIL used as justification for reverting someone in the mainspace?--Flamgirlant 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The disruptive part has been dealt with, as he finally condescended to explain his point of view on the article talk page. The civility, on the other hand... I keep reading about how the standards of civility have been steadily eroding, especially, among the younger people, and here we are. It is amazing what passes for civility these days. Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Chias

After reverting the removal of a bot's placement of the inactive WP account PROD notice on User:Chias (following it's removal by User:75.40.60.181) I was the subject of abuse from such user, this can be found on both my talk page and the user's talk page. To be honest, it is not the abuse I am concerned about - It's whether what I did was correct. From what I saw the user has been inactive since January 2006[48], and therefore had full right to be considered for deletion under the bot's ruling. People on the user's talk page, notably User:75.40.60.181 have defended Chias under the conviction that he is deceased and the page is a memorial to what edits he would make were s/he alive. However User:75.40.60.181 in saying "vandalizing my own user page"[49] gives the impression that this is all a ruse.

Should the user, if indeed s/he has forgotten his/her password, contact an Administrator instead of continuing to perform userpage edits which could be seen as vandalism from an unknown IP - and do I have the right to replace the PROD notice on the userpage under such circumstances.

Once more, not once has the page [User:Chias] been edited by the owner, but by supposedly sockpuppet accounts and this IP.

Any feedback greatly appreciated, MattieTK 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here you go, then:
  • Removing a PROD notice is the way that one contests the deletion. Do not reinstate PROD notices (except in highly exceptional circumstances, such as a readily identifiable pattern of outright vandalism across many articles). See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts.
  • Administrators cannot deal with lost passwords. We have no ability to reset account passwords. Only Developers have such abilities.
  • 'Bots do not make rulings. Thinking that they do will lead to Wikipedia becoming a mechanized nightmare. Human beings make decisions here.
  • MER-C (talk · contribs) is not a 'bot.
• Uncle G 09:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So in this case I was wrong on all counts despite the PROD notice being jusifiable - Chias' three edits are all based on Chantelle Preston's article's proposed deletion and since then he has not made a contribution besdies anon edits on his userpage for almost one and a half years. Correct? Sorry for calling MER-C a bot... I was confused =/ MattieTK 09:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TREAMIS World School

Resolved

 – A nice person here has stepped in and is arranging for the article to be checked and/or deleted etc. Thank you. 86.147.226.186 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please can we have some help on TREAMIS World School? The page is clearly NPOV and a commercial for the school and has been tagged as such. But the author keeps removing the tags; they're added back again by various editors and an attempt was made to talk with him on the talk page which he has ignored. From the author's contributions it seems an admin, Rebvers, was dealing with this but he seems to have stopped helping. Thanks. 86.147.226.186 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Severloh

I just semi-protected Heinrich Severloh as some IP with a heavy problem with the article keeps vandalizing. The article does need further attention especially of balancing autobiographical claims with outside references but graffity on the article is not helping anybody. A few more eyes or a second opinion would be appreciated. Agathoclea 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked the 71.217.222.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a WP:POINT violation and vandalism on the related article Omaha Beach -- Agathoclea 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbots

Not wanting to violate this bit of common sense and all, but shouldn't a bot have caught this edit? It stood for 40 minutes before I reverted it. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot will revert within 15 seconds, so if it reverted something, it's not going to catch this edit. That's why we need human patrollers a lot. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy edit wars further

DreamGuy continues to edit war, by reverting the same edit without proper discussion.[50] (previous reverts: [51][52]) in the article on Mythology. I had complained about this in a 12 May WP:ANI, and he was reprimanded by User:Zero1328,[53][54], and again more recently,[55]

Subsequently, DreamGuy has also accused me of "deception and bad faith", and that anything I add will be removed on sight."[56]. Conversely, I have made the effort to discuss the matter,[57], and more recently,[58], but my suggestions go unanswered.

Technically his edits do not fail WP:3RR, but I feel they fail the spirit of the policy, and his incivility identified by Zero1328,[59], and behaviour identified in the previous WP:ANI, does not help. --84.9.191.165 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the edit war on mythology as cited by the complainant, I found another WP:LAME violation of 3RR here at High IQ society. The pattern of 3RR and incivility by DreamGuy warrants a 24-hour block - just to enforce policy, but he's too productive an editor to deal with more harshly than that. The counterpart in the IQ society should also be 24h blocked - 3RR cuts both ways. YechielMan 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What edit war on mythology? It's just standard editing, no war, buyt the anon user didn;t get his way so he came to complain. And, also, that's not a real violation of 3RR, as it was not more than three reverts in 24 hours. Certainly you could decide to just pull the "I don't like it so I'm going to block for it anyway" card, but it seems to me that's always causes more problems than it solves, especially when this whole complaint was created merely for someone pushing a POV to try to do a run around on consensus on the article by tricking other people into blocking an opposing editor for making badly-needed edits that conform to police and were supported by multiple editors. DreamGuy 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy on productive editors, that they should be given special treatment? Surely one productive editor does not outweigh all the editors they affect, and the other editors who would contribute to Wikipedia if things were more civil, and there was less warring? --84.9.191.165 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is exempt from behavior policies. However, where we might indefinitely block a WP:SPA or a newcomer that does nothing but vandalize, we are careful to recognize that established, productive editors like DreamGuy don't deserve such harsh treatment, but rather, reminders that policy applies to them. Hence, YechielMan's recommendation for a 24 hour block... though I disagree: I just think DreamGuy could use a little more 3rd party support. Mangojuice^talk 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is warranted either, but it would be very nice if DreamGuy would rein in his irritation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm assuming DreamGuy gets the point about being more civil to other editors. Although he was rude I don't see anything that would warrant a block. Rude and misguided doesn't warrant anything to me unless it continues past this point. Give him a couple of days to cool down and we'll go from there. Sasquatch t|c 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. An anon IP account shows up to complain about a so-called edit war when he was caught pushing a severe POV onto the article and multiple editors removed his edits, so he tries to pretend everyone agreed with him and that *I* was just edit warring. It's sheer nonsense. The topic was discussed, policies were pointed out, and what needed to be done got done, but he just didn;t like it because he didn't get to push his POV. Check out his edit history, it's very clear what he's up to. If anything this anon should be chastised for a very blatant attempt to ignore WP:NPOV policy, and running off to ANI to post deceptive comments to try to get his way.

And, as far as civility goes, once again this has been another case where a number of editors out causing mischief have been highly uncivil as of late, and there's even evidence of a group of them banding together to work together to make revenge edits on articles they aren't even normally on just to lash out at me, as seen on some of their talk pages. So I, like anyone would be in such situations, get testy. And, as others have pointed out above, I make a large number of productive edits, and it's largely to get rid of spam and POV-pushing, which of course is going to upset the spammers and POV-pushers. People are human, and, frankly, for all the personal attacks and harassment I get on a regular basis, I think I am doing quite well. DreamGuy 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, this is not a 3RR issue. It's about you making reverts (a) without a consensus being reached (b) without having the courtesy of replying to my most recent comments.

One editor does not decide consensus. I asked further questions in talk, and you ignored them. You made the change as if you had an assumed right to do so. I am not a "group of editors making mischief", I am one editor trying edit in a civil and constructive manner. --84.9.191.165 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is WP:3O or WP:RFC. You're having a dispute. Trying to get DreamGuy blocked is lame, and will not solve anything. DreamGuy reverting continuously will also not solve anything. What you guys need is sufficient outside opinion. Open an RFC. And no, someone not responding on a talk page does not mean they have changed their minds, so pointing to "non-response" is a very weak justification for edits you know someone disagrees with. Mangojuice^talk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want DreamGuy blocked, I want him to participate in a continuous dialog so that we can reach consensus. His revert was unilateral and excluded my participation. If he doesn't respond to a question, I don't know his position, I don't even know if he's still reading the talk page.

Otherwise, if I disagree with an edit, all I have to do is state that "I disagree", and play no more part in the discussion. --84.9.191.165 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pursue the steps in WP:DR, then; this board is not for content disputes. An article WP:RFC seems like a good option. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders sock-puppet

Not sure the best place to post this notice, or if there is anything else that can be done about this, but there is an active, persistent, very annoying sock-puppet vandalizing almost daily. For some reason, my talk page seems to be a favorite and usually first target [60]. The vandal leaves this "notice" on my talk page, then goes on a rampage until blocked. Just wanted admins to be aware. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... at least it's encouraging to know that he won't be convincing many people with an essay so riddled with logical fallacies. I guess we can just keep an eye out. Perhaps if he does in fact post that on your page first, before vandalizing anything, he could be reported straight to WP:AIV as a known sockpuppet. Leebo ^T/C 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's behind the times if he thinks AOL accounts are still blocked. Corvus cornix 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User: White720 and article Tierra on Ashley

User:White720 should be blocked from editing the Wikipedia article Tierra on Ashley. This user has set out on a vendetta to continually shorten this article because he has a personal belief that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. I, User:Lredman, originally wrote this article because my company is constructing this building as an effort to complete a historical green building that is cost-neutral. Now, many people many not understand what that means, but many do and as a member of the green building industry and de facto subject-matter expert I can confidently say that this is a very important project and deserves to be on Wikipedia.

The purpose of the article as I wrote it is part of our educational outreach campaign. Green building is significantly entrenched in the construction world and in society in general (in all societies, not just the U.S.) that people deserve to know about our project. I can understand and appreciate that many people are sensitive about advertising campaigns and blatant attempts to market products via Wikipedia. However, I can assure you that this building has nearly no space for sale or rent, so there would be no financial benefit to my authoring this page. Moreover, even if there was a financial benefit would that necessarily preclude an article from being warranted? Simply because there is some commercial space available in this building- which, of course there would be, the building is not to be completed until 2009- it does not mean that there is no basis for an article.

It is the mission of my company as stated in our mission statement that we aim to educate the public on the merits and financial viability of building green. This is not for financial benefit of ours; rather it is simply an act of contribution to our communities. Allow us to contribute to our communities by posting neutral information about a building about which we are intimately knowledgeable on Wikipedia. Signed, User: Lredman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.69.176.31 (talk • contribs)

From what you are saying here, it sounds like you might have a slight conflict of interest on the page, since your company is the one constructing the building. Wildthing61476 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• So: you have a conflict of interest and are trying to own the article, and want us to come along and help prevent you promoting your company's commercial project, yes? Or was that not what you wanted? Wikipedia articles are not part of anybody's "outreach program", this is an encyclopaedia, not a part of your company's advertising efforts. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Personally, i think white720 should list it at AfD if he feels the article doesn't belong. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, the article was properly deleted. but should Lredman and 209.69.176.31 (the one who started this thread, check the page history and the IPs contribs), be blocked for spamming? not only did they make an article for there own companies buildings, but they listed that article on other articles in the "see also" section. I really think this is spam Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• They haven't received any warnings I can see, and haven't been particularly persistant. So no. WilyD 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The users in question were also uncivil to the admin who deleted the article. see 1 and 2. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!)

For such low grade incivility as that from an inexperienced user, I'd need to see a couple of warnings before a block could be issued. WilyD 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering your botched handling of the corticopia thing, I respectfully ask for a second opinion. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything on AN/I gets seen by plenty of eyes. That I took time out of my busy schedule to explain why a block is inappropriate is just a courtesy - if you're disinterested in the answer to a question, don't ask it. WilyD 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• No need to sanction the users / ips. They have done a wrong thing (in my view) but not an evil thing; as soon as someone uninvolved creates an article on the project (please feel free to do this, you can have the deleted text as a helper) they can comment on the talk page. I do not think they should edit the article, and I do not think their stated purpose in creating the article is consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice. There are, I am sure, some genuinely independent sources out there, if only enough for a paragraph in an article on green building. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Newshinjitsu

This user apparently has one single mission here on Wikipedia: to push romanization reform of Japanese words into English. He has a particular bee in his bonnet regarding the spelling of the Japanese word 抹茶 (article), which is a kind of green tea. The accepted spelling, and correct romanization, is matcha; this user mistakenly and misguidedly believes -- and very passionately -- that the word should be spelled maccha (see Talk:Matcha and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)# new romanisation system should be employed).

Newshinjutsu's entire edit history, dating from when he joined on March 6, has been devoted to a campaign to change the spelling of this one word. He has persistently added misinformation to the Matcha article, including an unnecessary section he calls "spelling debate." When we managed to convince him to stop adding that section, he began creating a discreet article, which was speedied several times.

Other editors on the page have conceded to allow the opening paragraph to read "occasionally spelled maccha," but Newshinjutsu insists on the phrase "also spelled maccha," which is not only against consensus, but incorrect, "also" implying that both are equally used and equally correct, which isn't the case. He has been warned several times, but has also used sockpuppet account user:207.81.142.43 (entire edit history also concerned solely with the spelling of this one word) to push for his preferred changes.

The user hasn't violated 3RR (although he came close yesterday, using 2 accounts), and he hasn't even been here for a while -- before yesterday, he'd been away for about 2 weeks -- but immediately on his return he has resumed his campaign. We have had very lengthy discussions accross several pages with this user. His attempts have been opposed by every user who's come accross them, on the grounds that his spelling does not conform to any romanization system, besides being counterintuitive and confusing.

Warnings have had little effect. Suggestions? Exploding Boy 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This username means "new truth".--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ironic, isn't it. Exploding Boy 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let him fight it out... he's fighting a losing battle anyways with no sources to back him up and pretty much everyone else vehemently opposed. Just revert on sight any of this edits that don't conform to the current Japanese romanisation policy. Sasquatch t|c 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Violating WP:Canvas policy

This user was making false accusations of DPeterson being a sockpuppet [[61]], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support this filing,

":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

I know that DPeterson filed a related claim above. Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[62]] in response to an active mediation case at [[63]] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan.

Administrative action is required and I don't see how mediation can proceed if fishing is allowed RalphLender^talk 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details and background of your interactions and experiences here but your comment, in both content and form, does bear a striking similarity to DPeterson's comments above. It could be mere coincidence and I'm not making any accusations or insinuating anything. --ElKevbo 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because I copied a lot of it here. I filed this after I saw that the person who was polled is now a staunch advocate for the group that recruited him. Now I wonder, should I go ahead and try to Canvas for supporters (not really, just expressing my frustration with that group). RalphLender^talk 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like RalphLender copied most of my report regarding this dimension of it. However, my original filing is gone and this really needs to be addressed. If it considered ok, what FatherTree did, I'd like to know because then I will proceed as he did and search for editors who support my ideas just as he did. DPeterson^talk 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He wrote to one person. That doesn't really constitute canvassing. shotwell 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By the policy on canvasing it does. DPeterson^talk 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Both RalphLender and DPeterson are involved in mediation with FatherTree and a group of other editors. There is suspicion of COI, socks and article ownership involved in this case, and this thread is one more case of the pot calling the kettle black in order to remove members of the opposition. I suspect that a detailed analysis of the edit histories of RalphLender and DPeterson would yield equal justification for blocks.FatherTree may or may not be guilty of WP:CANVAS, but this is a much bigger issue than that. Lsi john 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been ample exploration of the "sockpuppet" issue (see: [[64]] [[65]] )

and it had been unfounded on several occassions. yet this group continues to knowlingly make the same false accusation because they disagree with the veiws of several editors. If I may quote Adhoc:

:*"A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal."-Addhoc

• 'This fictitious cabal will obviously possess views directly opposed to the accusing editor, who will be remarkably willing to overlook contrary evidence."-Addhoc
• 'In this manner nearly every good faith editor will be accused of being a member of entirely contradictory cabals."-Addhoc

This continued knowlingly making false accusations is one of their tactics and should stop. DPeterson^talk 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation

Now here is an interesting response to my post here by DPeterson.

I have always been told that it is appropriate to notify all the parties involved, when you are reporting them to 3RR or AN/I.

1. It seems that DPeterson considers it interference for someone to notify the involved parties that they are being discussed on AN/I.
2. It also seems that DPeterson is trying to bring in extra help by contacting admins.

This is an example which illustrates the reason I posted here to begin with.

If DPeterson's case is as legitimate as he wants us to believe, he should not feel threatened by an outside party contributing to the discussion. Lsi john 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have complaind before about DPeterson et al's habit of not notifying people of ANI etc brought against them. Obviously to no effect. Fainites 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fainites seems to be diverting from the real issue since he has no response to that point. DPeterson^talk 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps if you told the people that you are filing against that you were filing against them you might get a more informed response. I don't see asking a suitably qualified editor who's not a wiki friend to help edit a page is 'canvassing'. I myself went to the psychology portal to find psychologists to see if any were interested in helping edit attachment pages. I thought that's what portals and things were for! There's no way of knowing who's side these people will be on. They may be ardent attachment therapists for all I know. Besides, DPeterson asked all his fellow editors to from the paedophile pages to help him out on the attachment page. Fainites 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

User:William M. Connolley removed some comments of mine (and another editor), en masse from someone's talk page.[66] I politely commented on Connolley's talk page, that I thought this was not allowed.[67][Diff]. He stated that the reason was "obvious"[68], but since it was not obvious to me, I politely asked again for an explanation,[69], but was refused.[70]

Another editor has also contributed that he thought that "Editing or removing another editor's comments is a NO-NO"[71]. Withholding his reasons, and removing my comments meant for another editor, are not helpful. --Iantresman 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your removed comments ([72], [73]) appear to consist of baiting an editor who has left the project. Your previous disputes with this editor may tempt you to deliver one last kick on his way out the door; avoid that temptation and move on. ScienceApologist is free to remove comments from his own talk page, and he's not objected to WMC's actions. Removing such comments is acceptable under the circumstances, and appears to be an attempt to prevent yet another forest fire. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering blocking Iantresman for his baiting and attempt here to cause more trouble WMC... Raul654 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Iantresman, I do not appreciate having my comment used out of context. In the first place, I was referring to an article discussion page, not a user talkpage. In the second place, my initial post was generic and without any background information. William M. Connolley went on to explain his actions to me as I'm sure you are aware. In the future it would be appropriate to notify someone if you are going to use a diff of their conversation instead of a link to the entire conversation here. Lsi john 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lest anyone think Iantresman is being blindsided here, I suggested earlier that withdrawing his remarks toward User:ScienceApologist would be to his own benefit.[74] Raymond Arritt 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would support a lengthy block. He seems to have given up completely on trying to build articles. Instead, he disrupts talk pages by quasi-trollish behaviour, trying to provoke people into reacting. When they do, he'll file endless complaints about the mildest of criticisms (a sample: WP:AE:ScienceApologist, WP:AE:SA (2), WP:AE:SA (3), WP:AE:SA (4), WP:AE:SA (5), WP:AE:SA (7), WP:AE:SA (8).) If you reject one of his obviously spurious appeals, and warn him against vexatious litigation, he'll engage in the most pathetic attempt at logic-chopping imaginable (e.g.: here). I'm not sure about the wider community, but my patience is worn pretty thin. Bucketsofg 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This should not even have been brought here. It is a dispute between two people. The fact that one is an admin is irrelevant, as he did not envoke any admin tools. Unless someone wants to pursue the issue of blocking Iantresman for being disruptive, I suggest closing it as not relevant to AN/I. Lsi john 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is this related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? If so, arbitration enforcement might be a better place for this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct, this is not the place to bring this specific issue, as was recently explained to me by User:Lsi john on his talk page.[75] I apologise.
• There is no suggestion of baiting. I was responding to ScienceApologists apparent justification for breaking policy, and continued use of personal attacks, and guilt-by-association. I find no humour in being the subject of such personal attacks, and I am entitled to give my opinion that such views are no compatible with Wikipedia policy.
• Bucketsofg's comments are a disgrace. ScienceApologists's Arbcom ruling said he was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter".[76] Specifically he was found to have used repeated ad hominem attacks me,[77], which he subsequently continued afterwards, again and again and again. Reporting further personal attacks, which go against both policy and an Arbcom ruling, is not "quasi-trollish behaviour", it's reporting an editor whose behaviour is incompatible with that expected by the consensus of Wikipedians.
• It's no wonder there is little time to build articles, when there is "leeway" given towards favoured editors [78] , whose actions are continually "justified" --Iantresman 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(CC'd from Iantresman's talk page) Persuant to the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and FM's warning above, and Raymond Arritt's, and the arbcom decision, I have blocked you for a week. Furthermore, on your return, I will continue to monitor your behavior and if it should continue to be problematic, more blocks will be forthcoming. Raul654 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse this block and it's length. Bucketsofg 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bustalker1 repeatedly adding irrelevant information to ESG (band)

For the past month, User_talk:Bustalker1 has been re-adding irrelevant information to the article ESG (band). Editors have reverted the vandalism, but the user has continued to re-instate the changes. Please block.--Larrybob 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism-only account, and a fairly persistent if not very active one. Indefinitely blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs); original research, content forking, and material in userspace

I'm having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly tried to place his original research in a range of articles, and has now turned to content forking to achieve his goals.

On June 19, I nominated Francesco Dionigi, an article created by User:Doug Coldwell, for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi). He later copied a substantial portion of that article's text into a new article, Birthday of alpinism, which I have now nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). In my opinion, this is an evasion of the AfD process through content forking.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Doug maintains an impressive array of sandboxes in his user space. For instance, his sandbox 50 is an essay on the ancient Greek work eidos; he has tried to include bits of this in the articles idea, Theory of forms, and eidos (philosophy); when these attempts were rejected by other editors as original research or irrelevant, he created eidon (now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon). As another example, Doug created the article Good sense (now deleted) from material in his Sandbox 48 (most of the revisions have been deleted at his request); this material, somewhat reworked, has now shown up in Good will (philosophy). A set of sandboxes, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_47, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_63, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_65, and User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_67 contains ideas related to the ancient Greek word Nous--which have shown up in Nous and Noema, among other articles. Note also that an anon IP, probably belonging to Doug, requested the creation of Divine Nous on June 8, after Doug had encountered stiff resistance to his edits on Nous; Doug now supports merging Divine Nous into Nous.

Doug does not agree that his articles are forks (see his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). I'd appreciate some outside opinions as to whether there's any policy violations here, including whether Doug's sandboxes are appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comments regarding these points:
    • True, sandbox 50 is the article Eidon, which I worked out in a sandbox first before making it an article. However did not first try to put these ideas into other articles. I make edits to these other articles, but not on this particular subject.
    • true I do have an array of sandboxes to work out the articles first in a soadbox, however note most are deleted. Only the remaining are being now worked on.
      • You can go through my Contributions and see how I work and edit in the sandboxes. I make as many improvements as I can before I enter and make it a new article. You can see through the history how this went, then shortly therafter the new article was actually made. This sometimes actually makes an article so good in initial quality that ultimately there are few or no further improvements - example Petrarch's library and Palazzo Molina and Francesco Nelli and Petrarch's testamentum.
    • Sandbox 47 is the article Nous pretty much the way I worked it out in the sandbox. The points that I improved upon must not have been objectionable to other editors, since most of it is still there. The original article before I did a major overhaul was last edited on April 9. I did the overhaul (worked out in a sandbox first) on April23 - which most of that is still there to this day (so apparently other editors didn't object to most of it). Of course some edits have been done since then for additional improvements.
    • Sandbox 63 is the Noesis article worked out in this sandbox first. Yes, this part was later deleted.
    • Sandbox 65 is the article Noema which I did a major upgrade to on June 17 - no editor has objected or even made any edits to it since I did this major improvement.
    • Sandbox 67 is only dictionary definitions I made to this "new" sandbox of as June 16. I haven't even worked with this material yet since I just obtained it.
    • Birthday of alpinism is a completely different subject that Francesco Dionigi which is explained in Talk of the prior. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be avoided in the new article. If different references are desired, I can certainly furnish that. The article so far has received nothing but Keep from other editors.
      • Its interesting since these Keep votes have come in --Akhilleus has made several improvement edits to this article he nominated to be deleted.
    • I agreed with merging Divine Nous with Nous to go along with the other editors to expide the process. If I would have objected, then there would of course been an objection to this. So to make matters simplier and to expide this I figured this was the best procedure. It really doesn't matter with me if Divine Nous is merged, not merged, or deleted. Whichever they feel they want to do with the article is fine by me because it looks like Nous pretty well covers all the points anyway. I was just trrying to help matters by going along with everyone else. Whereever they want my vote on this is fine by me, since it doesn't matter to me. I haven't put in a vote one way or the other on the article or edited it.
    • Other articles I have started (many of which are few or no edits) are on my User page - mostly concerned with Petrarch.--Doug ^talk 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sandbox 50 has many deleted revisions that are substantially similar to Doug's contribution to Eidos (philosophy) ([79]). Doug tried to include similar material in idea ([80]) and theory of forms ([81]). Doug's changes have been objected to on the talk pages of those articles (e.g. [82], [83]), and some have been reverted. After most of the material that Doug contributed to Eidos (philosophy) was removed [84], Doug started the article eidon, which is so close to the removed material from eidos (philosophy) that it's a content fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I did make major improvements to the article Idea starting on May 15 - most of which are still there to this day (so apparently other editors are not objecting).
    

Here are some example parts I added for improvements that are still there and were not there before I added them and are not being objected to:

History of the term "Idea"

Where ideas come from

Francesco Petrarch

René Descartes

John Locke additions

David Hume additions

Immanuel Kant additions

picture of "Walk of Ideas"

Wilhelm Wundt additions

Validity of ideas

Many additional references and sources added with inline citations and footnotes - including new Bibliography. Basically all the References now on the article are what I contributed. The article previously did not have a Reference section - I provided all the references - a major improvement.--Doug ^talk 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • P.S. Forgot about the parts where I expanded the "See Also" section and added the links to

Wikisource

Wikibooks

Wikiquote

Wikiversity

--Doug ^talk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whether you've improved Idea is discussed at Talk:Idea. As you know, because you were part of the discussion, not everyone thinks you've improved the article. However, the reason I started the discussion here is not because of your edits to Idea in and of themselves; it's because you're creating articles like Birthday of alpinism and eidon as content forks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at it this way - its obvious that I am trying to make major improvements to Wikipedia as is shown by my work. Perhaps I don't get every little rule correct, however assume good faith. If I broke a rule somewhere, it wasn't intentional. I am not trying to put in any particular "ideas" that others are objecting to. If they object to something I put in, I just let them take it out and leave it be. Its just not that important to me rather it is there or not. Most however is not objected to and is still there, so it must be alright. If you don't like something I added to an article, just take it out - I really don't care. There are so many articles to work on that I am too busy anyway to be concerned with nit-pick items. I didn't see you objecting to these points I added to the article Idea. As I already explained in the Talk section of Birthday of alpinism, this is entirely a different article with "different" viewpoints. If you want different references (being the only content items similar to the two articles), then just let me know and I will obtain them for the same material, since there are many references on this material. Eidon is also a differnt article (or anyway I thought it was when I initially wrote it), however you feel they are close - so my suggestion is then why not merge them to make one good article since Eidos is now a stub. It obvious by the quality of my articles that my intentions are to write excellent articles - which apparently I have since most are not edited much. There are some however that do get a fair amount of activity and become an outstanding article from what I started - example being Aemilia Tertia. So my friend whatever you want to do with Divine Nous, Nous, Eidon, or Eidos, it really doesn't matter to me. I have bigger and better things to do. My next major improvement will be on Giovanni Boccaccio and the article On Famous Women - so I thought I would give you a heads start on this one. FYI: I am the one that found the ISBN number for it.--Doug ^talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite sure what you are referring to on edits however here are a few in the last couple of days

1. Petrarch - Added that Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca were his literary models.)[85]
2. History of Rome of a similar climb by Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans (ascended Mount Haemus in Thessaly). [86]

These are not exactly "disruptive" edits, however are constructive. In addition, you can see the quality of my articles I have started and work on.--Doug ^talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: this edit, small though it is, is destructive and incompetent guesswork. "Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans" is an (uncredited) quote from Petrarch; leaving out the quotation marks was already irresponsible. But that Philip is not Philip II of Macedon, as actually reading Wikipedia's article on him would have told Coldwell; Macaulay's schoolboy would have known it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is true I did a major upgrade and major improvements to the article Nous on April 23. If you compare what I added, it turns out most of that also is still there to this day (so apparently has not been objected to by other editors). These are the Sections that were not there before that I added for improvements that are still there as major improvements:

Anaxagoras

Plato

Aristotle

Alexander of Aphrodisias

Neoplatonism

Plotinus

Augustinian Neoplatonism

The Section originally called "History" with identically the same wording has been relabeled "Overview of usage by ancient Greeks" and moved to the top. These are all major improvements which are still there to this day which no editors are objecting to. Of course there has been some additional edits to improvement my major improvements, which is to be expected (since there is always room for improvement). My major improvements have been then a springboard for other editors to work from, which they have. The previous edit before my major improvements was on April 9, which then was basically a stub with no references. It is now a full good quality article with the major improvements I made (which have been improved upon even more). The part of certain IP addresses of Divine Nous "probably belonging to Doug" is just that, a guess. There has been 5 different IP addresses that have worked on Divine Nous. I noticed that Nous, the article I made all these major improvements to, was flagged that perhaps Divine Nous should be merged with it. My first choice would be to delete Divine Nous, however had I said that there would of course been an objection. So since there only 4 choices here (merge, no merge, delete, keep) I chose to merge since this apparently was what the other editors wanted, so I went along with them. Whichever vote they want from me on that article I will be glad to give, if I knew what they wanted without an objection.

If you go through the last 2000 edits I did in my Contributions you can see the parttern is that I work out an article first in a sandbox. Then when all the bugs have been worked out and all the improvements added, I then make it a new article (or a major section improvement to an existing article). This then produces quality and there are few (if any) further edits needed for some time for these major improvements made. Also you can see the many other improvements I have made to many other articles (from ice cream to botanical gardens to science to history) as well as much vandelism reverted. There are times these improvements are then even improved further, which is the way it should be.--Doug ^talk 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistant problems with User:212.219.142.161 IP address registered to Alton College

There has recently been a large amount of obvious vandalism coming from the above IP address, which the user page states is shared by multiple users. Much of this has been reverted by other editors without leaving any warning message on the user page although a quick look through the edits will show there has been very little of any worth. I'm not entirely sure where the best place to leave this message is, but my own view is that the owner of the IP address should now be informed and further editing from this address closely monitored and/or blocked. Mighty Antar 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

School blocked for a bit. Sasquatch t|c 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed at Mountain Meadows massacre

An anonymous user has been inserting large amounts of copyrighted content into Mountain Meadows massacre. I've posted a message on his/her talk page but it doesn't seem to have been noticed or heeded. If someone could semi-protect it for a little while I'd appreciate it. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a few hours, to get the guy's attention. He's on a spree. Probably best to report this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection next time, though - Alison ☺ 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I had a feeling I had the wrong venue for the request. I'll go there next time -- but thanks again for the prompt help. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo-China Wars --> Military history of Goguryeo

Admins, some Chinese ultranationalists accused Korean Wikipedians here as being ultranationalists for naming the article Goguryeo-China Wars so because it sounds "anti-Chinese" or something. Others said that had to be it because Goguryeo won most of the battles & KPOV wanted to put emphasis on winning over China. I personally think that some Chinese editors here are just paranoiac.

And then come here anti-Korean Japanese editors (the same ones who sweat in Liancourt Rocks, Sensaku Islands, etc. & also Korea-China disputes such as Mount Baekdu & Heavenly Lake). They're mostly in WikiProject Japan, but you know what they love to mess around with Korean business. One of them even claims to be a Korean, but all of us know that's a lie. Now, I'm not breaking good faith b/c good faith means assumption. These guys are beyond assumption & "we" know them by heart. They haven't participated in the discussion, but they're like "it's neutral." "it avoids further conflicts". The problem is that they've done this in almost all Korea-China disputed articles. And I guess when I accuse them of being simply anti-Korean, they shrug off, "doing the right thing gets criticism sometimes."

The following is what I wrote, and none of them in the discussion have been effectively able to counter them.

• "Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no reason to rename this article to "Military history of Goguryeo" just because of this trash logic that Goguryeo is a constituent of China and therefore cannot war China - simply b/c the two do not link, and there are so many better options."
• "Everyone should know better that a country's military history is not defined by its single war with another country."

• Let me elaborate. If you wanted to write a military history article on Goguryeo, then you should include weapons, traditions, strategies, and chronology, etc. But the CPOV editors just can't tolerate an article in which Goguryeo is successful against many modern-day China constituents & when the article title specifically states China (it's really out of convenience & practicality) as the opposing country, so they change it to military history. Then it's not neutral because the military history is seen from Chinese viewpoint, and China is not the universal meter for military histories of other countries. (Wikimachine 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• "Second, the consensus is that Goguryeo is a Korean country. See Britannica, etc. above."
• "Third, you cannot use WP:RM to test ethnic neutrality (that is, the CPOV editors are trying to use this naming dispute to overturn the consensus that Goguryeo is a Korean country)."
• "Fourth, even a constituent state can fight its containing entity. For example, war between Hawaii and U.S. Even then, Goguryeo (even if you were to consider the Chinese tributary system, everyone knows that this didn't mean Chinese control but just diplomatic relations) was a separate country anyways. And it doesn't matter which tribes and people constitute which countries - as long as they're separate countries."
• "Fifth, there are so many better options: 1) Get rid of this article & categorize other related articles 2) Remain at this article's title 3) Choose another title similar to this"

Thanks. (Wikimachine 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• Another reason: Always there are bound to be a loser & a winner in a war. (Wikimachine 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I do not feel that you should get emotional over this. Chances are, administrators will not pay attention if you do. This problem can be fixed, but only if we stay cool.

Anyways, I would like to comment that the only thing I am not pleased with is how we are not getting any outside help and how some editors are not punished for their actions. We have repeatedly requested third opinions and an RfC yet few editors and administrators have commented. However, I do agree that this subject is not something most administrators know about and may be uncomfortable. One third opinionist told me that he got "smacked in the chops" for commenting.

I find that several editors are not helping us reach a compromise and that their attitudes and goals in Wikipedia are preventing us from getting a consensus. I am hoping that at least Wikimachine's post on the noticeboard will wave a flag for administrators to come and help bring some stability and compromise in Goguryeo-related articles. Good friend100 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Wikipedia administrators aren't here to solve content disputes. The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page describes the detailed and comprehensive dispute resolution system, which is peopled by decent caring human beings. Wikipedia administrators aren't decent caring human beings; you really don't want the kind of dispute resolution we bring. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a military history wikiproject banner on the page and am about to add a link to the projects talk page so other milhist editors can help this article. Hypnosadist 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Sock to block

Mince&Onion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Graham Heavy (talk · contribs). Strangely only vandalised one page (Torrisholme). Still, could someone please block? Thanks, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Riana! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV next time, since we know his MO... saves time :) Riana (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin regularly uploaded copyvio images

This ex-admin has uploaded a copyvio image here and here with fake licence tags. I stumbled upon this article that clearly states that Archaeological Survey of India prohibits photography on all their excavation sites. This is just one instance. There could be many with such false claims.

What action, if any, would be taken on him for exposing Wikipedia to legal vulnerabilities over the past two years? Anwar 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject, I'm not certain this is a copyright issue if it's a prohibition against photography. The license asserts that he took the picture himself, so if he did so in violation of a local ordnance, it would be the actual act of photography that was illegal and would be wholly unrelated to copyright. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

None whatever. ASoI don't own copyright over ancient ruins, so photographs of them are not copyvios. They may have some claim with Rama's Arrow, but none whatever with us, or any downstream user of the image. "There could be many with such false claims" - please don't come to us with "there could be" complaints - come with solid evidence, or don't come at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, Rama's left, you can start letting go. Riana (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User appears to be removing copyright notices from many images and then tagging them for deletion. I recommend watching and warning as appropriate. -N 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He ignored the message as well that it was obvious Rama's arrow has left. Majorly (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This matter is obviously connected to the ongoing arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that User:Rama's Arrow had recently filed an ANI report that had led to Anwar being blocked. That makes it even harder to assume good faith about Anwar's attempts to delete images uploaded by RA. Abecedare 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this is his original work – Image:Goddess (Small).png. It appears to be taken off a page of a book, and not actual photography. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User targeting College marching bands for deletion

Bassgoonist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently been on a marking spree for college marching band related articles, which clearly meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm not sure what's to be done here, but I'm think he's a bit over-zealous in his actions, and perhaps needs to be spoken to about it? Wildthing61476 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone should speak to him, and indeed someone has. You could have done so yourself, rather than coming here. Admins aren't authority figures: you're as entitled to question his behaviour as we are. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, however he's continued to do as such, and I did not know if this was considered disruptive behavior or not. Wildthing61476 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on reviewing Bassgoonist's recent edits, I see him nominating for deletion exactly two articles for deletion. Please explain how two articles consitutes a "spree". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to have stopped at this point. Consider this a done deal then. Wildthing61476 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat deleting image license tags and then nominating them for deletion!

Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) has been deleting GFDL license tags added by original uploader (User:Rama's Arrow) from images Image:Dholavira.JPG, Image:Dholavira1.JPG and Image:Goddess (Small).png and then nominating them for speedy deletion with the tag "This image does not have information on its copyright status."
Several editors have explained to him why this is unacceptable, through edit summaries and in detail on his talk page, but he has simply reverted their changes calling them vandalism [87], [88] and [89]. He insistes that Image:Dholavira1.JPG has been copied from a (lower resolution) image at answers.com even after it was twice pointed out to him that the latter is a mirror site of wikipedia. Can some admin intervene to prevent edit warring or deletion of legitimate images from wikipedia ? Abecedare 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Will block if he persists. Thatcher131 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that this issue was already being discussed above. Abecedare 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evading sock

Vox AntiVandal 1.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - probable block-evading sock of blocked vandal-only account AntiVandal001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Andy Mabbett 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please report to WP:AIV. The Evil Spartan 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Hannibal Lecter

CyberGhostface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and =CJK= (I don't remember how to post it so it links properly) are warring up a storm. Perhaps if an admin were to step in...? HalfShadow 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Magnus animum just prot'd the article. Can you warn both of them for 3rr4? - Alison ☺ 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Already had. Cyber backed right off, but =CJK= is adamant to having things his way. I'm uncertain if what was being deleted is allowed or not and since it's full-protected, I can't do anything about it anyway. HalfShadow 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block this Danny Daniel sock

Resolved

Article deleted, Sock slammedSirFozzie 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GrossBarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more obvious User:Danny Daniel sockpuppets. The user recreated Coca-Town, an article originally created by another Danny Daniel sockpuppet. See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. SirFozzie 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Low lives"...

[90] What is the policy for off-wiki collaboration and insults? I was one of the proud creators of the featured Macedonia (terminology) that thankfully solved the long standing edit wars over Macedonia-related articles. Hell, I am Greek, and I do have my views; but I don't consider myself a partisan. Now I am accused of being a "low life" for reverting an addition to Macedonians (ethnic group) that is based on a proven falsified pseudo-scientific study: The Arnaiz-Villena controversy, which was persistently inserted as "The Ultimate Truth^TM" in the said article (among others)! The worst part is that many editors attacked sourced edits in various related articles the last few days in apparent collaboration (which is evident from their chat on the link above -do read it please):

• Alexander the great1 (talk · contribs) (this is obviously the user that "was blocked for reverting...")
• MatriX (talk · contribs)
• Jabbalzar (talk · contribs)
• Balkan balkan (talk · contribs)
• Uuttyyrreess (talk · contribs)

The articles concerned were:

• Republic of Macedonia - to exclude the second official language of the country (Albanian), which was sourced by Britannica
• Macedonians (ethnic group) - adding genetic theories that Greeks have sub-Saharan genes
• List of divided nations - that Macedonia (region) should equal Macedonia (country) (the irredentist United Macedonia concept)
• Aegean Macedonia - blanking because the content is not according to the doctrines
• Macedonian Scientific and Literary Society - to forcefully state that it was comprised only by Slavs
• Alexander the Great - to delete that he self-identified as Greek
• Persistent removals of Albanian language name from virtually all cities of the Republic of Macedonia, even if they are primarily inhabited by Albanians.

The last thing I ever wished is to start all over again bitching about who's grandpa relates to king Philip of Macedon (like it's supposed to make any difference in your IQ)... Please examine. NikoSilver 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: The discussion there continues unobstructed [91], now even with:

• posting lists of the said articles for organized reverts
• calling more names such as "plague or virus , infecting the place", that me and other users are paid agents of the Greek and Bulgarian governments (!)
• discussing promoting "Macedonian academics" to "moderator status" currently occupied by the Greeks (I really know of only one Greek admin -User:Yannismarou)
• creating WP:POVFORKs such as "Macedonians (point of view from modern Macedonians)"
• Legal threats: "a class-action lawsuit (perhaps a Cease and Desist to start with) against the Racism and Bias contained in WikiPedia might get some attention"

...and many more. Please give a look, the issue is very serious. NikoSilver 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree making false accusations of sockpuppetry and other problems

User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [[92]] Heis knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([[93]]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:

1. [[94]]
2. [[95]]

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations. Administrative action is required. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate that. DPeterson^talk 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[96]] DPeterson^talk 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How many different threads are you and yours going to start about this topic? By my count, this is at least the third one that is currently active (one being a few sections up on this very page and the other at AN). At what point do your own actions become akin to canvassing or forum shopping? And how does FatherTree's one message to one editor constitute "canvassing?" That seems to be a pretty weak case, IMHO. Are there other recent examples you can show of his or her alleged canvassing activities? --ElKevbo 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I reentered this AN/I because the first one was no longer on this list and no action had yet occurred, although administrator YechielMan had discussed taking administrative action. DPeterson^talk 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, here, DPeterson is involved in mediation for very polarized articles. Perhaps he feels that if he brings enough litigation, eventually something will stick? You reported the WP:CANVAS already above, why are you repeating it here if not for cumulative effect?

DPeterson, from what I can read from the mediation, you have been stalling it and it will end up at Arbcom. This is a mediation issue, not an administrator issue. I know there is a term for your wiki-lawyering and litigation, but at the moment it escapes me. Perhaps someone else can provide it. Lsi john 03:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation (duplicate from above, since this report seems to be an extension of the one above).

Now here is an interesting response to my post (above), by DPeterson.

I have always been told that it is appropriate to notify all the parties involved, when you are reporting them to 3RR or AN/I.

1. It seems that DPeterson considers it interference for someone to notify the involved parties that they are being discussed on AN/I.
2. It also seems that DPeterson is trying to bring in extra help by contacting admins.

This is an example which illustrates the reason I posted here to begin with.

If DPeterson's case is as legitimate as he wants us to believe, he should not feel threatened by an outside party contributing to the discussion. Lsi john 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson has called those who disagree with him meatpuppets [97]and a 'gang'. [98] He constantly makes personal attacks on other editors, accusing them of having a financial interest and the like.[99] [100]The other editors who support DPeterson often make the same accusation. The talkpages are cluttered with it and sensible discussion of content becomes difficult. He also canvbassed other editors from totally unrelated paedophile pages to come and help him out [101], [102], [103][104], (just a sample) with the result that several appeared on the RfC and accused those who oppose DPeterson of being in collusion with pro-paedophiles! [105][106]ANI's about this frequent abuse of policies have not been filed, presumably because we are about to enter mediation. This is all just wikilawyering. I have raised with him before his habit of not notifying others of ANI's or 3RR reports but obviously to no effect. Fainites 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fainites and his supporters appear to be diverting from the issue regarding one of their group because they have no response to the direct charge: FatherTree has knowingly made false accusations of my being a sockpuppet and has been canvasing(originally filed by another editor). I filed the AN/I to get a response, one editor did suggest action against FatherTree. I filed that one again when it was deleted. DPeterson^talk 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as I understand it the sockpuppet report filed some time ago on this allegation was declined, so it was not investigated and resolved so I don't see how Father Trees question as to whether you are in fact Becker-Weidman is 'knowingly false'. The previous checkuser showed no link, but that's not the same thing. I agree that sockpuppet accusations should not be part of mediation. That's why your accusation that people who opposed you were meatpuppets was removed from the mediation referral page, remember? Time for a bit of pot and kettle scrubbing I think. Fainites 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest editing of Warren Grimm and Centralia Massacre (Washington)

As the original poster of this incident report, i have determined that it is more appropriate for dispute resolution than for this page. I am therefore removing the text that i had placed here.

The two significant article links related to this dispute are:

Warren Grimm

and

Centralia Massacre (Washington)

Interested parties are still invited to check out the situation, but it will take a short while for me to summarize it on the TALK pages at those links. Richard Myers 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm now suspecting sockpuppetry for Lupin III

68.43.82.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 146.9.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two IP's have been adding in unsourced material to the Lupin III article for a long time and i've been fighting against them. The problem stemmed from a rewrite of a Trivia section to making it abot how Lupin III is referenced in popular culture (for lack of a better title untill the rest of the article can be cleaned up more) and ever since, the section has suffered from unsourced fancruft for the longest time. After numerous arguements with 68.43.82.69, reverts, 2 months for verification, and a third opinion, i'm now 100% convinced that these two are related in some way. I had my doubts during the third opinion, but wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now I find out that their latest edits and WHOIS traces hit at possible sockpuppetry. In addition, 146.9.13.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WHOIS traces back to the same host (Wayne State University Medical Center), which 146.9.13.112 also originates from. Nearly same edits, or exclusive modification of 68.43.82.69 edits.--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semi'd the article for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the lock, but my main concern is 68.43.82.69 possible use of two other IPs as sockpuppets. The 146 ones specificlly edits what either one puts in, or edits what the 68 one puts in. Aside from the edit evidence, the WHOIS lists all three as originating in Michigan; the 146 ones originate from Wayne State University Medical Center; the 68 one originates two counties away. Plus I've tried to tell him/her about Wikipedia: Citing Sources, but he/she refuses to follow the rules. Frankly, it's an editor refusing to learn, and trying to violate Wikipedia: Trivia.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Shot info

[107]

Where? Please give us some commentary. And a signature. —Kurykh 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lava_lamp

I understand that there is some sort of copyright issue going on, but that isn't my concern. My concern is that I found it using Special:shortpages, even though there is an invisible comment which states it is supposed to avoid that list. Is there something going on?--Flamgirlant 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's been blanked due to OTRS actions for almost a week now. However, the 'short pages' comment-text was only added today & as the short pages page itself is populated from a snapshot of cache, it took its 'snapshot' of the page when it was at 0 bytes. - Alison ☺ 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see. So as long as it never hits zero, it should be fine, right? --Flamgirlant 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. Don't ask what that threshold is, though, as I've no idea! :) - Alison ☺ 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The threshhold for appearing ont he shortpages list is a moving target, but currently is tending to be around 106 characters. The key is that the cached versions only lists 1,000 pages. So it includes the shortest 1,000 pages at the moment it is run. It tends to be run every 3-4 days currently, and will likely be run either later today or tomorrow. If you like working woth shortpages, you might also want to check out User:Zorglbot/Shortpages. This is a bot generated parsing of the special::shortpages data, and nicely categorizes the contents of the shortpages data. The Zorglbot report is also run daily, so while it cannot pick up newly shorted pages until the master cache is updated, it at least nicely shows the current status of all those pages that were on the previous master cache.

As for the invisible comment, that reflects back to the 1,000 article limit for the cache data. I tend to drop that comment on a variety of pages that show up on the shortpages list, but really are not needing attention from regular short pages patrollers. Salting templates, Wiktionary soft redirect, copyvio notices, and the blanked Lava Lamp page. All these are pages that show up on the list, but really do not need attention from the short pages patrollers. And every one of these that I can bump down off the list is one more page that can make it into the 1,000 that may actually benefit from the attention of the patrollers. - TexasAndroid 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Another OTRS drive-by... I've restored it to a stub-level article. It would be nice if the OTRS guy came back at some point to fix the article but... don't hold your breath. --W.marsh 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This I've gotta see: what possible OTRS issue can there be about Lava lamp? Especially one that requires blanking? --Calton | Talk 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See the article's talk page... some kind of corporate trademark thing. Similar to Frisbee at a glance. --W.marsh 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend you don't actually stub it as the issue (from the edit history) is over whether the term "lava lamp" can constitute a genericized trademark or not. Your edits just now say that yes, it is, and it's obvious that Haggerty Enterprises disagree. Not sure if I want to go there ... - Alison ☺ 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• So improve it. But I see nothing in the current version claiming it's a genericized trademark. It just describes what a lava lamp/Lava Lamp looks like. --W.marsh 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should have notified User_talk:Swatjester#Lava_Lamp before going ahead and adding content to the article. I've never heard of OTRS, so I can't help any here.--Flamgirlant 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• (to w.marsh) Yes, but they're likely claiming that Lava Lamp™ is a trademark which is their property, while you're referring to it as a generic term. That's bound to piss them off, esp. given their court proceedings against Mathmos, no? It's not as simple as it looks, hence OTRS - Alison ☺ 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the OTRS ticket referred to, but I suspect the complaint is either that we are genericizing their trademark, or that we aren't using the approved name: "LAVA(r) brand motion lamp". Based on that, any article at that title will be a problem. --Carnildo 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what the bloody else do we call it (not have a go at wikipedia or wikipedians, just the idiot company). That is most definitely a genericized trademark. Viridae^Talk 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, they're "motion lamps" or even "Astro Lamps" (the original name). I guess the people who own the name Lava Lamp™®(r)(C) get very het up about these things - Alison ☺ 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Never ever heard them called anything but Lava lamps. Viridae^Talk 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be endless companies other than these 2 selling things called lava lamps. But this is an article content issue, not a legal issue. We aren't selling something we claim is a trademarked Lava Lamp, we're just describing what people mean when they say something is a lava lamp. Part of that will include who owns the trademark and so on, it would help if they could provide coherent third party documentation. We need to make the article more accurate, not blank it. --W.marsh 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vd by 198.189.162.220

Posted an inappropriate website on my userpage (see diff), request permanent block as it is a school IP. Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• (non-admin reply) Um, pardon, but the last edit from that IP was over two months ago, and IP's aren't permanently blocked. What do you want the admins to do?--Ispy1981 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/Useless Edits by Anon

Someone from 72.14.252.136 has been vandalizing pages since November of last year. He/she has been blocked three times, yet continues to engage in disruptive behavior.

While it is frustrating, we can't indefblock IPs. And a last warning seems to be already given. —Kurykh 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass fair use image reversions

Someone is systematically reverting articles that had large numbers of fair use images removed with a large number of IPs belonging to Belgacom Special:Contributions/87.65.171.9, Special:Contributions/87.64.23.54, Special:Contributions/80.201.75.225, Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Kotepho/reports/fair_use_per_article/done. Would a short range block be in order? Kotepho 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of 3RR?

I've often hear mentioned that 3RR is often in spirit so much as it is actual reverts. For example, if you reverted an article 3 times every 24 hours, eventually you'd be blocked anyway for edit warring. There is a situation here where an editor previously blocked for edit warring on this article is reverting with contradictory edit summaries but not really communicating about the issue. At the heart of it is an inherently unverifiable statement:

According to a widely circulated but unsubstantiated rumor, test audiences, unaware that only archival footage of McCarthy was used in his depiction, felt that the "performer" who "played" McCarthy was overacting. There are no authoritative reports of any such test audience reaction.

Initially I tagged it with {{fact}} which he reverted [108]. Claiming he wanted an authoritative source. Which indicates he seems to acknowledge its lacking a source. I found a source, he removed it claiming the statement was factual [109]. Well he just asked for a source, and nothing about that statement sounds remotely factual. I restored the link and he again removed it stating that the rumour was unsubstantiated which indicates he's aware that it doesn't have a source and needs one, yet opposes the addition of a fact tag. [110]. I attempted communication on his talk page and article page from his first revert yet he refuses to response to it even after I reminded him about 3RR, even though he's been blocked twice for it. McCarthy seems to be a personal interest of his (he mentions on his user page that he edits both that article and the mcarthyism article), but regardless you can't just go about reverting with the only real communication you're giving to be contradictory statements through edit summaries. Anyway, I'm not going to engage in edit warring, I'd like someone else to take a look here, which includes an admin because of his past behaviour related to this article.--Crossmr 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you have also resorted to edit-warring. Although, I do empathise with your point. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where have I edit warred? I placed a fact tag, I then added a citation, then I reverted a total of once. Along the way I made several attempts at communication. As soon as he reverted for the third time, I sought outside opinion through multiple venues. Exactly how and where was the edit warring on my part?--Crossmr 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One – [111], [112]. Two – [113], [114]. However, I completely agree with your edits. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the first two are consequent edits and not reversions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Collounsbury and personal attacks

Pools and pools of blood User:Collounsbury is generally a fine editor and adds a lot to the community, so I have no interest in him being blocked, banned, or in any way prohibited from his valuable additions to the mainspace, but if an admin could gently remind him of the policy about personal attacks, I would appreciate it. On talk pages, he writes some pretty bilious slurs, and I've asked him politely to 1.) not curse at and slander me, and 2.) to reserve talk pages to content related to the articles at hand and post on my talk if he has some dispute with me personally. He has refused to do either, and this is not the first time. Examples:

• ...Good [L]ord, what the bloody hell is your bloody problem...
• ...Now I hope you will bloody well stop your personal djihad [sic] to insert Western Sahara on every damn page possibly tangentially touching on the issue, or deface it due to your ill-informed, obsessive, narrow-minded partisan editing...
• ... Stop your bloody whinging on mate. You bloody well deface article after article - on subjects you bloody well admit you're bloody fucking ignorant about - due to one bloody obsession. For the sake of a bloody fuck, take a breather... your edits show a gullible young fool... It is making a goddamned [sic] point and ... you are bloody well vested in defacing every other article with the slightest tangential connexion with your obsession with poorly thought out, poorly informed obsessive edits - as in here, repeatedly, against better advice, in ignorance. I don't go to your bloody talk page because I don't give a flying fuck about you...

As you can see, his rhetoric is escalating. Again, let me emphasize that, by and large, I think he is a useful contributor and I have no personal ax to grind with him outside of his constant slander and rudeness on talk. For that matter, I don't even think he has a personal vendetta against me per se but gets a little worked-up on talk. I simply don't want to be treated with such a disrespectful and pedantic attitude, especially when I don't give it in return. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You felt it necessary to mock him in response to the first diff you posted?[115] Try to take the higher road and meet incivility with civility. If you're upset by the way he speaks to you, politely relay your feelings on his user talk page. I can't seem to find any discussion about this on his talk page at all, actually. Were the discussions removed? –Gunslinger47 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no He and I have had this discussion several times before, including more heated exchanges. I've been gone for several months and we only started interacting again; I'd simply prefer this to not escalate and not continue. No doubt, I have made serious errors in judgement and probably will in the future; I want to cut this off at the pass. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Koavf was responding:

Bloody Well, you bloody well bring up a bloody point about the bloody dropdown menu and how the bloody World Bank apparently (bloody) contradicts itself. You could consider it MENA, I suppose, because it is Semitic. That seems bloody reasonable to me. I'm personally not invested in including Malta; I only did so because I saw a source that included it. Since said source contradicts itself, feel free to remove it for all I care, but not all of the other reasonable additions (e.g. Western Sahara, greater Middle East, reference to Chinese culture instead of PRC, etc.) Bloody. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think again Koavf is being cut in public lying about being polite. That is the reason he wants this to be cut off at this pass.--A Jalil 11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Alternate Account infringement

Resolved

 – this account is not being used for sock-puppetry - Alison ☺ 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Hello,
This message is regarding the user Flamgirlant. As of this writing and by inspecting Flamgirlant's contributions, Flamgirlant's account only has two days worth of contributions. Yet, from reading this user's edits it is clear that this user is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies; this is very inconsistent with a user that only has two days worth of contributions.Upon leaving the following message on her discussion page:

Hello Flamgirlant,
From looking at your edits it is clear that you are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policy; such knowledge takes time to acquire. Yet, as I was looking over your contributions I realized that you only have two days of edits on your account. Why the discrepancy?

the user responded with this message:

I'd rather not say.

Due to personal and safety reasons. I'm sorry.

which seems rather odd to me.
Please note that Flamgirlant and I are currently engaged in a conversation about whether or not some of my user boxes are appropriate. The conversation can be found here. Is it possible that this is an unmarked alternate account of some user? selfworm^Talk) 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:SOCK is that multiple accounts are allowed, so long as they aren't abused. Any number of scenarios are possible, but I think we should assume good faith: that if Flamgirlant is a sock, the account's user has a good reason for it. Feel free to investigate if you feel something is off. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser might help you in this case. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, better article. Here you go: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. –Gunslinger47 04:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be someone who disappeared under the Right to Vanish clause. So long as they're only using one account or in a way that meets WP:SOCK#LEGIT (hey, I have another account here) then there's no problem - Alison ☺ 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia a long time but my previous account was compromised when I received threats towards my person and my family. If someone really wants to know, I'll be more than happy to discuss off-wiki, due to safety concerns.--Flamgirlant 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My only suspicion was that you might have been sock-puppeting. But if you're not sock-puppeting and if your safety is an issue then your alternate account is legitimate. I do not believe that any further explanation is required and I apologize for this inconvenience. selfworm^Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to pmail me, I'd be delighted to verify and vouch for you. I will not reveal your old account name, however - Alison ☺ 07:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Pam55

I would like to ask the admins to review the situation with the account of User:Pam55. Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of User:Behmod. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55. Subsequently, both Pam55 and Behmod were banned indefinitely by User:Alison. However, Alex Bakharev unblocked both accounts, stating that they belong to the students in the same university. [116] The account of User:Pam55 was mostly used to make reverts to controversial articles like Azerbaijani people, History of the name Azerbaijan or 300 (film). It is highly improbable that a new user would accidentally become aware of the disputes on those articles and appeared right in time to rv in favor of a certain POV. I think that Pam55 is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned. Behmod in the very least should be warned not to use socks or meats anymore. I don't think that it was a correct decision to lift a ban from a proven sock, and I would like to ask other admins to review the situation with the account of Pam55. Thanks. Grandmaster 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that Pam55 and Behmod are two students om the same department. I could E-mail these reasons to an independent admin if necessary. Pam55 is a newbie, she only made 21 edits during the five months she was onwiki. Out of these 21 edits there are four reverts. I am not sure if she did the reverts on her own or on advise from Behmod or another Iranian editor (in the last cases it might be a mild meatpuppeting). Neither of her reverts is to Behmod, neither of these edits broke 3RR even if lumped to Behmod. She !voted once on an AfD but Behmod did not participated in the discussion. I have warned both Behmod and Pam55 to avoid editing the same articles or !vote in the same discussions. Assuming they would follow my advise I see no disruption from her editing. Alex Bakharev 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked for checkuser of Pam55 long ago, since it was a highly suspicious account: [117] At that time it was not made, but now checkuser says that Behmod is the same as Pam55, which means that accounts used the same computer to edit. In a situation when a large group of editors of Azerbaijan related topics is placed on parole by the arbcom and is limited to 1 rv per week every rv counts, and the use of this account to rv articles in favor of a certain POV is disruptive and seems to be aimed at provoking the paroled users and getting them to violate their paroles. Grandmaster 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, acting in a way that seems to be aimed at provoking the paroled users and getting them to violate their paroles, as Grandmaster has put it, is severe enough to be blocked for - but only after being warned about such behavior. The word seems is an important word in that statement - this is the impression of a third party, which may or may not be correct. Blocking a user for such behavior sould only be done once the user has been warned. Od Mishehu 06:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that the user (Behmod) should be warned, but how about the suspicious account of Pam55? Is it OK to let it continue its activity, once everyone forgets about it? 21 edits in 5 months do not create an impression of a serious contributor, considering that some of those edits were rvs in disputed articles, and that it uses the same computer as the established user Behmod. Grandmaster 10:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin in this case and I blocked both accounts as a matter of course when the checkuser ended and I was asked to. Subsequent to that, I began receiving emails from Behmod requesting unblock. I directed him to request it through unblock-en-l, something he decided not to do. From his emails, he appeared to be an unwitting meatpuppet in the whole affair and appeared singularly contrite. I heard nothing further until Alex Bakharev contacted me today to say that he'd unblocked both. I can forward the emails to a third-party admin, if required, but will not publish them here for reasons of privacy and etiquette. User:Pam55 never did try to contact me after having been blocked - Alison ☺ 08:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser filing [118] in this case was based on recommendation [119] made at suspected sockpuppets by another admin. My concern was primarily about the fact that unexperienced User:Pam55, who had 14 edits prior to initial report, was likely meatpuppeting and participating in an edit warring together with a disruptive editor User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani and had a previous experience doing the same with User:Behmod and even blocked for suspected sockpuppetry before [120].

I would also like to note, that unlike User:Alex Bakharev's report above about neither of User:Pam55's reverts being to User:Behmod, there was at least one full revert [121] and one partial [122] to User:Behmod, which were also reported in Checkuser filing.

I have further had a very positive exchange with User:Behmod - [123], [124], right before the checkuser results. So at least we made an attempt to mutually assume good faith, and I will further try doing the same. But provided the history of the incident, I guess we will also have to now entrust User:Alex Bakharev with an assumed responsibility for editors' avoidance to engage in edit warring and meatpuppeting. Thanks. Atabek 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiruba Shankar 2

I have objection of the closing of above AFD. The reason is the subject is highly specific and an expert in related field only can judge the importance. The Administrator who closed is according to his UserPage information is only 23 years old and with interests in Chemistry. One Achitnis noted

The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)

To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".

Please Administration close the AFD properly.Madrass Express 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:DRV. Second corridor, on your left. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Billion Tree Campaign - UNEP blocked

Normally I would agree that "role" accounts should be blocked. But this one had OTRS confirmation of ownership, its contribution history was not abusive at all, and it's the friggin United Nations. We don't need the kind of bad press blocking this account could lead to. I strongly encourage unblocking this account. -N 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to not unblock, but to educate them on the fact that they are free to register a personal account, but that an account that might give the impression it is an official PR account for an organization is not permited, and explain them our conflict of interest policy. These are just quick thoughts, I just looked at their talk page and their contribs. Did they request an unblock? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Republicofwiki

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

Seems a bit suspicious for a newbie, and a possible username violation even. Goes around adding {{fact}} to articles, even dating the additions (I don't even remember to do that, and I've been on WP two years!). Then they oppose my RfA. Sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though I don't know exactly who matches Republic's MO. Can an experienced admin check up on the situation? —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Whiteonrice04 and Wikipedia:No legal threats

User has threatened to take legal action should we fail to credit him on every article his images are used. He also altered the license. As well known, GFDL is non-revocable. -- Cat ^chi? 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and censorship by User:Desiphral

Desiphral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly accused me of being a racist and spreading racist propaganda on Wikipedia. I have left several polite warnings asking him not to continue with these attacks and to assume good faith [125][126], but he has persisted in this behaviour:

• "Probably the intent of [Psychonaut's article] is Romani bashing."
• "after creating a POV racist article about the 'Gypsy' image, now you imagine yourself also as civilizer of the 'Gypsies'"
• "Again on civilizing mission?… Now this user is stalking me, who knows, probably already imagining me as a wiki criminal. The fact is that your 'attention' on my talk page resembles the usual negative 'attention' of the racist non-Roma", etc.
• "You are playing the intimidation card… I don't see other purpose for these warnings, they are not motivated technically. Plus, by creating that article, you already have a history of stereotyping the Romani people…"
• "this is anti-Romani propaganda, active enforcement of stereotypes"

Others have also chastised Desiphral for making accusations of racism and for violating WP:AGF (e.g., [127][128]).

The allegations stem from my creation (several years ago) of the article on Margita Bangová, an article about a criminal and alleged con artist who happens to be a gypsy. Desiphral recently nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that it reinforces negative stereotypes against gypsies. However, Desiphral is not content to let the AfD run its course but is actively removing references to the article from Wikipedia, again on the basis that the article is racist and that he doesn't wish Bangová to be associated with her ethnicity (see, for example, Talk:List of Roma, Sinti and Mixed People#Margita Bangova's article addition).

I ask that Desiphra be asked to stop making personal attacks and directed to confine his objection to the Bangová article to one place (namely, the ongoing AfD) rather than pre-emptively removing it from Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)