Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dominic (talk | contribs) at 06:29, 23 June 2007 (→Suspected sockpuppet block for review: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ARGH that was me. Anyway, the company has about 3,200 employees. --Charlene 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    So any admins sending that email? Hypnosadist 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely not, because it won't achieve anything and it's horrible public relations. --MichaelLinnear 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "because it won't achieve anything" Now you don't know if you don't try, do you. "horrible public relations" No its protecting our investment and work like a proper company should do. There is no reason we should take this crap from vandals and the company is not paying them to do it so everyone except the vandal wins. Hypnosadist 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Why rock the boat? If Wikipedia can't rid itself of the people who pushed H out, why would they worry about outside wiki? ThuranX 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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) [1] [2]. 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)[reply]
    Both parties are good contributors. There is no doubt about that. The thing is, as i explained at one of the disputed articles' talk page, that there is a lack of assuming good faith toward eachother. I urge both of them to AGF. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait...who are we talking about now? Me and Biru? Biru and Anonimu? I am confused....K. Lásztocska 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Pages stuck in bureaucratic, wheel-warring purgatory

    On May 24, Shanel deleted several categories, like [3], [4], and [5] 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.[6] 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: [7]. The listing was then rightfully removed again (though not archived) as forum shopping, since they belonged at deletion review.[8]

    A week later, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) undeleted them all, this time with dozens of other categories as well, without any discussion [9] 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.[10] 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 [11], 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[12] 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)[reply]

    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. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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[13], and dmcdevit's reply[14] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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. ViridaeTalk 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    and also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Monarchist_Wikipedians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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:
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    • Jc owes no one any apologies. What Dmcdevit did was an abuse of power. sj's comment above ("I think the moral should be: don't do anything en masse without discussion.") is the common courtesy we owe all of our compatriots, at least as it pertains to deletions. BHG's decision to revert was also absolutely the right thing to do; I particularly like that she was willing to do it despite the fact that she on balance agreed with Dmcdevit's position, but not those methods. We have consensus as a mandate, not a guideline, and Dmcdevit forgot that. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Could you remove the one remaining personal attack? Corvus cornix 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Gracias, didn't notice that the first time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Its become a BADSITE and so should be removed from wikipedia, eg [15], SqueakBox 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a good idea to let Bastique know what's going on here. Corvus cornix 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – Blacklisted on Shadowbot

    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)[reply]

    I see no discussion of this situation on either User's Talk page. Corvus cornix 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter. Using socks (as in this case) to avoid 3RR is prohibited, period. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has either User ever been informed of WP:3RR? Corvus cornix 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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: [16]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I've added the rule to Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption via multiple accounts

    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)[reply]

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

    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:

    Wikima has done the following lately:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. J Milburn 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse." - Indeed; and I haven't. Andy Mabbett 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop putting words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ah, sockpuppetry. Andy Mabbett 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether that user is a sock-puppet or not, what they say is entirely accurate. J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I'm not going to block anyone for deleting shit like that. Not even Pigs. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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 – reply• contribs – 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    You're mistaking cause and effect. There is no evidence to support your claim. Andy Mabbett 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    And I suppose you'll want to blame me for your ad hominem outburst as well? Andy Mabbett 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've just proved the point, Mabbett. Moreschi Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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 – reply• contribs – 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Since he's continued with his WP:DE, and thumbed his nose at the various parties who were trying to work with him, I have changed the block duration to 72 hours and protected his talk page for the block's duration to keep him from readding the information. SirFozzie 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "article"-ban proposal

    • Proposal - I would just do this, but the conversation here involves many... this user is under revert-parol from his arbcom case in 2006. I recommend a simultaneous "article" ban and deletion of his userpage enforceable with lengthening blocks per the remedy demanded by the arbcom rulling. "Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator." - I am uninvolved and I am determining that he has violated his revert limitation. I am requesting support for this remedy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supported. Entirely appropriate. Regardless of justifications, PoTW has been engaging in highly disruptive editing. --Durin 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an involved non-admin, I support this. People should be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as Pigsonthewing has basically admitted circumventing his previous 1-year ban. Fireplace 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if Leonig Mig (talk · contribs) faces heavy sanctions for continually baiting PoTW. I looked at PoTW's unblock request this morning and Leonig Mig's block log and my response was "Why the fuck is Leonig not banned". I think someone has taken their eye off the ball here, so I would be looking for Leonig Mig to be banned from interacting with PoTW (and vice-versa) with a further ban on either party reverting each other (using their own accounts or by proxy) anywhere in the article namespace with blocks of increasing length for both parties. Nick 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you just clarify here please, Nick? I've looked at Leonig Mig's block log and as far as I can see there isn't a single item in it [17]. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? NB: I have no doubt it's a good idea to keep that statement off Leonig Mig's user page as well. It's currently removed anyway. --Folantin 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely the problem, if action had been taken against Leonig Mig, we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. Nick 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left Leonig Mig a note: if he makes one more PoTW-related edit, I will not be best pleased. He should realise he's not helping here. What ban exactly are we proposing here, BTW? Moreschi Talk 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. I sincerely doubt that. Mig hasn't exactly been a model of civility but the two serious PAs on Mabbett date back to 2005. Mig has hardly edited Wikipedia at all in 2006 and 2007. More importantly, it's worth noting that Mabbett was found guilty of harrassing Leonig Mig by ArbCom (vote 8-0) [18]. But, yeah, we should use sanctions against both users if need be to put an end to this two-year old dispute. --Folantin 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, I'd echo Moreschi by asking what ban are we proposing here exactly? --Folantin 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed banning PoTW and Leonig Mig from each others talk and user pages, plus banning either party from reverting (either directly, or by proxy (as far as is possible)). I'm not convinced allowing either party to interact at all is a good idea but I'm fine with permitting civil conversation between both parties on article talk pages only. Any breaches of these parole conditions would be met with blocking of extending durations. Nick 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "article ban" in question means not adding that section any more. I'm hesitant to delete the user page, because of that one section,that's like 5% of the user page. Basically, he knows that that if he continues to insert that paragraph anywhere (user page, talk page or any subpages), he's going to get a lengthy block anyway (because of the tendentious nature of his editwar). (and yes, Leonig will have to remove anything similar from his user/talk page as well) SirFozzie 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:H is gone

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The horse is dead, Jim.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    *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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    :( --Masamage ♫ 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that. This is revolting. (The internet: you no longer have to have a shred of humanity to interact with people.) GracenotesT § 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Oh no. Someone typed mean things at him. Sheesh... HalfShadow 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well, I hope something is worked out ... but I'll desist from posting ideas here. Abecedare 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    FYI, it's not Don Murphy who's to blame this time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[19] 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.[20] The vast majority of the community wanted him permabanned, but this was overidden by purportedly wiser voices, who had solicited several meatpuppets through IRC.[21] These wiser voices bear some measure of responsibility for this outcome.Proabivouac 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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."[22]Proabivouac 07:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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,[23] [24] as it was on WP:ANI.[25]]Proabivouac 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]
    This mayby fun and games with middle class americans threatning each other but this could result in real deaths if it is allowed to slide. I work mostly on terrorism related articles, "outing" there could have fatal consequences. The same is true for our editors who don't have the luxury of living in a decmocracy that protects there rights, what happens if they are outed and the government doesn't like their edits? 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Hypnosadist 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What needs to happen now!
    1) Community ban for ColScott.
    2) Policy writing that makes "outing" a wikipedia editors an automatic community ban on a first offence.
    3) H and the wikipedia foundation should take ColScott to civil court for endangering H's family and anything else the best/nastiest lawyers money can buy can come up with. This is a proposition to the admins and foundation and not a threat. Hypnosadist 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to ColScott, then I don't think JzG is a "middle class American", nor do I find that comment particularly germane. Corvus cornix 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was refering to ColScott and GNAA not JzG. Just deal with the points i've raised Corvus. Hypnosadist 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not entirely sure how much weight my opinion carries as a non-admin--but from what I'm reading here, I am absolutely appalled by what has happened. We shouldn't be debating what to do about whoever's responsible for this outrage. We should be calling the police. The user or users responsible for this should be banned, and reported to their ISPs--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Blueboy96 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm almost dead positive it wasn't ColScott. He may be a dick (IMO), but I don't think he would go to the lengths of threatening someone's family. I agree with the outing thing though. However, one must also consider that H did have his name available on his page, at least at one point in the past. Saturday Contribs 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to keep open the discussion about blocking or unblocking and protecting and unprotecting, because I don't know much about the background to this, and I'm getting the impression that those who do know are trying to deal with this discreetly and do not appreciate further fuel being added. However, I will point out that people who give personal details when they join Wikipedia and then discover that it's not a good idea should not in any way be held responsible for the consequences of their earlier innocence. Also, if someone feels it's necessary to unblock someone who has engaged in harassment, in the hope that this will stop the harassment, at the very least they should word their entry in the block log very carefully, keeping in mind the feelings of those who may be affected. ElinorD (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter whether or not it's ColScott--whoever's responsible for this should be headed for jail, pronto. From what little I'm gettign, the Office thought they had things in hand and couldn't have known this would blow up the way it did (though if they had enough info that they should have known, that's another matter. However, I would hope measures are being taken to ensure there isn't a next time for this sort of thing. Ever. Nobody should have to worry about being bullied here. And I honestly don't think a discussion on ColScott is necessary ... given the situation, no one in his right mind would unblock him. Blueboy96 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was said last time. He was allowed back. Give it a little time, and it will happen again. Notice the OFFICE has said nothing here. ThuranX 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ColScott did publish information on his forum which allowed his dittoheads to track down the home and work addresses of JzG. I don't know what he hoped to accomplish from that other than real-life harrassment, but at least he has removed that stuff from his forum. Still, it's closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Corvus cornix 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The foundation has a duty of care towards its editors dispite our work being voluntary. Hypnosadist 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why you all are blaming ColScott. This is quite clearly the work of the GNAA, and they are even taking responsibility for it. (see their website) --Gibs0n 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone in #wikipedia just said: "I just saw on the news that some guy was raided by the FBI for threatening to kill a user of wikipedia" --TonySt 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I just saw that on KVBC 3 in my hotel room here. They didn't say who anybody involved was, but it seems likely (to me)it was ColScott/HighInBC. Glad to see justice being done. --72.70.144.228 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Can anyone find a news source for this? I can't, and having one here would be excellent. ThuranX 05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Just let it go. There's currently no evidence to support this so it's just speculation right now & yeah, I asked on IRC. And also - KVBC = Vegas, etc, etc. I saw the image (hey - I deleted it). Nothing to see here, folks, move along .... - Alison ☺ 05:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) There's nothing about this or anything related to Wikipedia on KVBC's website, or on any other Las Vegas news media websites. I presume it's more trolls doing what they do best - making a bad situation worse - especially when they don't present any proof of their claims. --Coredesat 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DreamGuy edit wars further

    DreamGuy continues to edit war, by reverting the same edit without proper discussion.[26] (previous reverts: [27][28]) in the article on Mythology. I had complained about this in a 12 May WP:ANI, and he was reprimanded by User:Zero1328,[29][30], and again more recently,[31]

    Subsequently, DreamGuy has also accused me of "deception and bad faith", and that anything I add will be removed on sight."[32]. Conversely, I have made the effort to discuss the matter,[33], and more recently,[34], 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,[35], and behaviour identified in the previous WP:ANI, does not help. --84.9.191.165 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Mangojuicetalk 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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. Mangojuicetalk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [36]. 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)[reply]

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

    User:FatherTree Violating WP:Canvas policy

    This user was making false accusations of DPeterson being a sockpuppet [[37]], 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: [[38]] in response to an active mediation case at [[39]] 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 RalphLendertalk 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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). RalphLendertalk 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually all he's really said so far is that AT is pseudoscience, and you agreed with him! Yechiel is not an admin by the way and said so on the ANI you copied.[40] Fainites 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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. DPetersontalk 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He wrote to one person. That doesn't really constitute canvassing. shotwell 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the policy on canvasing it does. DPetersontalk 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you already did that DP. On the 13th May 07. See diffs provided below. Fainites 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    There have been ample exploration of the "sockpuppet" issue (see: [[41]] [[42]] )

    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. DPetersontalk 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Fainites seems to be diverting from the real issue since he has no response to that point. DPetersontalk 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, the primary issue is that FatherTree violated wikipedia Canvas policy because it is a biased and partisan call. I suggest that Fainities read the policy before commenting. This is the issue in this AN/I...all other smoke put out by others is merely a diversion from this primary point that an administrator needs to evaluate. RalphLendertalk 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the previous comment. JohnsonRon 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the policy and I do not believe asking one editor if they want to help edit on a topic is canvassing. Now this is canvassing. [43], [44], [45][46] [47]Fainites 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestions to keep this focused on the primary issues and not be diverted by red herrings as Fainites seems to be doing is a good one. As previously stated, the primary issue is FatherTree's canvasing and FatherTrees making false accusations, which he knows are false, of sockpuppetry. DPetersontalk 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat myself here, since it seems these charges were made in several places (which in and of itself could be construed as inappropriate). About canvassing, an arbitrator said: Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. How can calling on one other editor to give his opinion be considered "aggressive propaganda"? It seems crystal clear to me that this falls into the "reasonable amount of communication about issues" category. Also, the purported sockpuppetry accusation was made in reply to a very similar accusation "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now.", and the "accusation" is more to me like a musing: "How does anyone know that you are not Becker?" Nobody accused anybody of anything directly. These are flimsy, I would dare say inappropriate grounds for any block whatsoever. And, specifically to User:DPeterson: I believe Fainites already showed ample proof that yourself were definitely canvassing. This is starting to look more and more to me like someone is forum shopping in order to get some reprimand dished out on Father Tree.--Ramdrake 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. Forgot to mention it. There's a third ANI here - very similar. [48] Fainites 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I filed one ANI. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPetersontalk 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I stress that the entire interaction, including priors on either side, should be the appropriate primary focus. That means your insinuations of "gang" action and your previous history of canvassing should also enter the equation, lest we get an incomplete picture of the situation.--Ramdrake 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The focus should be on the ANI issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating wiki WP:CANVAS. If an admin finds this baseless, so be it. If other want to raise other issues, they should do so in a separte filing. DPetersontalk 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I submit that keeping THREE (virtually identical) threads open, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, and updating them all at once with similar posts: here, here and here It sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Wait, wouldn't keeping multiple threads open across multiple boards be .. sort of like CANVASING? How about if an admin closes at least two of these, thanks! Lsi john 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I respond to other editors...I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPetersontalk 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson (below) AKA CANVASSING

    That pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. Thank you. Lsi john 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the other is closed, we can focus on the issue of knowingly making false accusations.

    *All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    DPetersontalk 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the diff link you provided at the start of this report, User:FatherTree never really accused you of being a sockpuppet; rather, he asked for some sign that you were different people indeed (" How does anyone know that you are not Becker?"") . That's totally different. Besides, your previous retort was: "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now." which is basically an accusation of meatpuppeteering (which is the same as sockpuppeteering for WP's purposes). So, I would respectfully suggest you reconsider your complaint, or an admin may indeed deem that your offenses are more serious than FatherTree's. I know that's certainly what it looks like from here.--Ramdrake 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley

    User:William M. Connolley removed some comments of mine (and another editor), en masse from someone's talk page.[49] I politely commented on Connolley's talk page, that I thought this was not allowed.[50][Diff]. He stated that the reason was "obvious"[51], but since it was not obvious to me, I politely asked again for an explanation,[52], but was refused.[53]

    Another editor has also contributed that he thought that "Editing or removing another editor's comments is a NO-NO"[54]. Withholding his reasons, and removing my comments meant for another editor, are not helpful. --Iantresman 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your removed comments ([55], [56]) 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)[reply]
    I'm strongly considering blocking Iantresman for his baiting and attempt here to cause more trouble WMC... Raul654 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Lest anyone think Iantresman is being blindsided here, I suggested earlier that withdrawing his remarks toward User:ScienceApologist would be to his own benefit.[57] Raymond Arritt 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.[58] 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".[59] Specifically he was found to have used repeated ad hominem attacks me,[60], 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 [61] , whose actions are continually "justified" --Iantresman 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
    • Sandbox 50 has many deleted revisions that are substantially similar to Doug's contribution to Eidos (philosophy) ([62]). Doug tried to include similar material in idea ([63]) and theory of forms ([64]). Doug's changes have been objected to on the talk pages of those articles (e.g. [65], [66]), and some have been reverted. After most of the material that Doug contributed to Eidos (philosophy) was removed [67], 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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.)[68]
    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). [69]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is strong language, and I was testy when I posted it; but, upon consideration, I cannot call any of the words here wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    In other words, you don't edit cooperatively. This is a wiki; the product of several minds is usually better than one. And when your "improvement" is justly criticized, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, youi create another article with the same information and the same sources, and lie about it. The temptation to do so must be strong; that is a lot of work to waste; but it would be better to edit cooperatively from the beginning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say I edit in a very cooperative manner and try to please as many other Wikipedians as I can. Ultimately I won't be able to please all, however most times I can please most others. I have noticed that certain areas are however more sensitive than others, in particular religion and philosophy. One example, in these other fields, where recently an editor felt I wrote up an article that looked like an advertisement for a historical society. That was not intentional when I wrote up the article, since I have no connections to the society (therefore no motive). Anyway I rewrote the article (in cooperation with other editor requests) so that it didn't look like an advertisement, which completely satisfied all the other editors. That article is Mason County Historical Society. Other articles that I have started that have been expanded and improved much, that I contributed again to in cooperation with other Wikipedians, that ultimately produced a quality article are:

    Other articles that I work on often in full cooperation with other Wikipedians are:

    There are several more articles I work on in full cooperation with several other Wikipedians, however the list would get too long if put here.--Doug talk 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case, you may get a more productive result out of a request for comment than out of the Admin noticeboard, as there does not seem to be a clear-cut policy violation. I would recommend listing it there and seeing what sort of comments come out of the woodwork. Pastordavid 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, does seem to be turning into one, doesn't it? I will be busy for a few days; if someone else write one, please post here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism

    How about copying right out of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Compare the earliest revision of Genealogia deorum gentilium (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogia_deorum_gentilium&oldid=106348439)--"Boccaccio's on the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." and the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Humanism: "His De genealogia deorum gentilium (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." That's a direct quote, copied into Wikipedia without attribution; given Doug's seeming unfamiliarity with research standards I believe he was unaware that was he was doing was incorrect, but it is plagiarism and copyright violation nonetheless. I have to wonder if the same problem is present in other articles he's written. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text from Encyclopedia Britannica that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the article Street Light Interference I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as to What seems most likely to be happening in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--Doug talk 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Public Domain status doesn't mean it's not plagarism. You still must attribute the words of Thomas Paine or Shakespeare to their authors. I suggest, quite seriously, you research plagarism as it applies ot the writing of papers and such. You've probably got an old high school/college copy of Strunk & White's somewhere, might be worth keeping it at hand as you continue to edit Wikipedia. ThuranX 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Britannica", in this case, did not mean the 1911 Britannica; the text was copied from this page, which is copyright 2007. There's little doubt that the text was copied from that page, because it was one of the external links in the original version of Genealogia deorum gentilium. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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))[reply]
    • "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))[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Lummee, "Ultranationalists... It's a mad, MAD world! LessHeard vanU 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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, Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Riana! Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AIV next time, since we know his MO... saves time :) Riana (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Anwar, Rama's left, you can start letting go. Riana (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    He ignored the message as well that it was obvious Rama's arrow has left. Majorly (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter is obviously connected to the ongoing arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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 [70], [71] and [72]. 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)[reply]

    Warned. Will block if he persists. Thatcher131 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just noticed that this issue was already being discussed above. Abecedare 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Block this Danny Daniel sock

    Resolved

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

    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)[reply]

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

    "Low lives"...

    [73] 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 TruthTM" 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):

    The articles concerned were:

    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)[reply]

    Update: The discussion there continues unobstructed [74], 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)[reply]

    Uh, ugly. Nationalist web forums as a place for coordinating POV-pushing campaigns. We've seen it before. Nothing good can ever be expected from editors who come to Wikipedia from such sites. Of course, it's probably happening all the time anyway, be it on open or private forums. Such activities should be nipped in the bud, where possible. Would support good long blocks on the ringleaders at least. -- Can anyone translate those nice plans they were making? "Ajde da napravime tekst koj sto ke si go cuvame lokalno na nasite PC-a i celo vreme za INAT na grckite i blgarskite nazi kopilinja ke im go prepravame .... copy / paste ? Hmm ?? Ili mislite deka ne vredi ?" Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Translated: "Let us make a local copy of some text on our PCs and just out of SPITE to the Greek and Bulgarian bastards modify the articles - copy /paste? Hmm? Or you think it is not useful?" Mr. Neutron 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FatherTree making false accusations of sockpuppetry and other problems

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


    User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [[75]] Heis knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([[76]]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:

    1. [[77]]
    2. [[78]]

    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. DPetersontalk 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Thank you. I'd appreciate that. DPetersontalk 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[79]] DPetersontalk 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. DPetersontalk 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    DPeterson has called those who disagree with him meatpuppets [80]and a 'gang'. [81] He constantly makes personal attacks on other editors, accusing them of having a financial interest and the like.[82] [83]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 [84], [85], [86][87], (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! [88][89]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)[reply]

    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. DPetersontalk 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    " 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

    Typically if a discussion gets deleted with only one editor voicing any support, it indicates that the post did not get sufficient support to warrant action. By reposting virtually the same complaint again in two active discussions on this same board, it's starting to look to me like you are improperly using the litigation process to remove editors with opposing views. Lsi john 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is that FatherTree knowingly made a false accusation of sockpuppetry. He'd been warned about this and directed to the appropriate page to show that the accusation was unfounded. Yet he continued to make the accusations and so there is a valid basis for this filing. Then there is the second issue of FatherTree violating WP:CANVAS. All other diversions by editors here are just that; diversions from the two salient points: FatherTree violated wikipedia policy and that issue must be addressed by an Administrator. RalphLendertalk 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually FatherTree is asking DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman. There would be nothing wrong as such in Becker-Weidman editing under a different name. Fainites 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry is a personal attack and violates Wikipedia policy and practice. It is disruptive. That is the issue.The issue is that FatherTree knowingly made a false accusation of sockpuppetry. He'd been warned about this and directed to the appropriate page to show that the accusation was unfounded. Yet he continued to make the accusations and so there is a valid basis for this filing. Then there is the second issue of FatherTree violating WP:CANVAS. All other diversions by editors here are just that; diversions from the two salient points: FatherTree violated wikipedia policy and that issue must be addressed by an Administrator.RalphLendertalk 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if DPeterson is Becker-Weidman, wouldn't that be a fairly significant issue related to undisclosed COI? It seems to me that continuing to open AN/I threads about the same user and the same issue, is doing exactly what you claim that other editors are doing? That is: trying to distract and derail the mediation process either by making issues where none exist, or by making them seem bigger than they are.
    Based on some comments made on a current thread at the community sanctions board, it would not be a stretch to suggest that anyone who works (or volunteers) in a particular field should be community banned from editing articles in their respective field, due to Conflict of Interest. (For the record, I think that is a bit of a stretch, but it is in line with some of the comments there). However, I do feel that inquiring as to whether or not you (or DPeterson) are a practicing professional in the field is a very reasonable question. I believe there have been some questions raised about an IP that edited one of the articles (without logging in) that was similar to a professional's company website? Lsi john 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Lsi john's accusing DPeterson and Becker-Weidman being sockpuppets of each other (your question really is a not so subtle accusation) is uncalled for and in the same league as FatherTree's: it is a false accusation and since you know that there have been previous investigations of that accusation that resulted in their being unfounded, you are knowingly making a false accusation.
    I agree with RalphLender that diversions, such as the one by Lsi john are just that, diversions from the focal issue: FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy there big feller, put your horses back in the barn. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not even asking the question. I said that I felt it was was a reasonable question to ask. DPeterson seems to have a decidedly similar (identical?) POV regarding the issue to Becker-Weidman. As I understand it, Becker-Weidman is a doctor? who would have a real conflict of interest in editing articles here on the subject. Has it been established that the wiki-user Becker-Weidman and the real person the same? I've only been casually following the situation. It certainly seems as if there is a close knit group of professionals? who share the same opinion, and who seem to be fighting pretty hard to maintain the articles in a preferred version, against another group who seems to be claiming they have sources to back up their edits but aren't being allowed to make them. If the wiki-user Becker-Weidman is the person, I would assume that he has not been editing the articles. If that's the case, has DPeterson ever made a single edit which disagreed with Becker-Weidman's position? I'm not aware of any two people who universally agree on any single subject. Lsi john 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The promotion of Becker-Weidman and his therapy across a range of articles is an issue within the mediation that has been accepted by the mediators. Both of the diffs from FatherTree that you provided involve asking DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman. A not unreasonable question to ask. Fainites 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must agree with the other editors who say to keep the discussion focused on the issues of FatherTree's alleged canvasing and personal attacks. The '"innocent"' question is clearly meant to provoke and is clearly an accusation. As said by others, anything else is just distracting from the real issues. JohnsonRon 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: JohnsonRon seems to have a considerable number of edits in the involved articles. Lsi john 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering three distinct threads were started by the same individual about the same dispute, considering the flimsy grounds of the complaint, and also considering the complainant himself is guilty of the very same issues he accuses another editor, I suggest that User:DPeterson be the one blocked for harrassment, incivility, canvassing and all around general bad faith.--Ramdrake 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPetersontalk 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Interesting, I had seen the two threads here on AN/I but had not noticed the third copy on AN. With THREE (virtually identical) threads open, and, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, DPeterson is updating them all at once with the same posts: here, here and here It sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Wait, wouldn't keeping multiple threads open across multiple boards be .. sort of like CANVASING? Lsi john 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open. I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPetersontalk 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson AKA CANVASSING

    That pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. Thank you. Lsi john 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is responded to by this administrator:

    *All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    DPetersontalk 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooook - you copied this here, did you intend to respond to my query? Shell babelfish 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DPeterson, can I be more clear? Repeatedly posting the same comments in multiple Admin threads on this board and AN is CANVASING and SHOPPING. Knock it off. Lsi john 02:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Personal attack by Shot info

    [90]

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ViridaeTalk 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Never ever heard them called anything but Lava lamps. ViridaeTalk 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find the OTRS ticket number either. Maybe it was copy/pasted wrong? In any case there is no trademark issue as far as I can tell from my understanding of trademark issues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    It's in the legal queue, which is why you can't see it. We've received a legal complaint from an attorney regarding this. The issue goes directly down to the words Lava lamp. Thus, I blanked the article completely: any use of the word lava lamp is disputed in the claim. REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, please let us proceed through this to resolution before reinserting the information. The world will not end because this article is blanked for a little bit. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There has got to be a better way to handle it than this... hatcheting articles on demand and maybe fixing them at some point is an insult to people who work hard on articles. --W.marsh 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you have some misconception of what's going on here. It's not hatcheted on demand: it's a preventative response to a potential lawsuit. And we're not "maybe fixing them" at some point: it's under active investigation, and it WILL be fixed as soon as that ends. There's no insult there. Until that point, you need to trust that OTRS is doing their job. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get some trust when I actually see OTRS fix an article they've hatcheted. I haven't seen that in a while... at one point they were quite good at fixing actual problems quietly. Now all I see are farces like Lava lamp. --W.marsh 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fix the article? --W.marsh 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It will happen, as soon as we finish resolving things with the party. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, in order to keep a trademark good, doesn't one have to show a history of enforcing its use? I can recall past examples of various companies (Caterpillar is one that comes to mind) publishing notices in periodicals like Writer's Digest about their trademarks, but I have never seen any notices about "Lava lamp". And I can assure you that I would remember that -- because that would be like attempting to trademark "Acapulco Gold". -- llywrch 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go. This should explain to you why the entire article is blanked, as opposed to a 2 sentence stub or so. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vd by 198.189.162.220

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

    • (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Well, can you implement a year-long block or something? There's been more vandalism from this IP since I last posted.C1k3 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours, maybe. But not a year. The IP is dynamic. —Kurykh 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [91]. 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 [92]. 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. [93]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    One – [94], [95]. Two – [96], [97]. However, I completely agree with your edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, the first two are consequent edits and not reversions. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    You felt it necessary to mock him in response to the first diff you posted?[98] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Justin, when you accuse someone of attacking you in person, you must at least avoid to do just the same. Now, this is i think the third time you post a thread here. Isn't that too much? The situation had been pretty calm when you were blocked indef and now it is becoming to be heated again. Do you think it has something to do w/ your coming back? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lies, etc. The first post is now in mediation, as well it should be. The second post has yet to get anyone's attention, other than Francis, with whom I originally spoke. It should be investigated. The third post has essentially resolved itself, as Collounsbury and I have since posted with one another (relatively) cordially. The articles were quiet to the extent that Wikima and Jalil got their way while no one else was looking; I don't exactly think that's ideal. As for Jalil's behavior, he basically watches my contributions and posts almost everywhere I do to slander me; including Wikipedia namespace and other users' talk. Now, he's making accusations about lying when I never did lie. I've never been as disrespectful or pedantic to Collounsbury as he has to me. That's a fact. In point of fact, I was acknowledging in that post that he was correct and I agreed that he brought up a good point. All this is immaterial, of course, as Jalil is taking yet another opportunity to say something unflattering about me in regards to something that doesn't directly involve him. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff of where you "asked him politely to 1.) not curse at" you. –Gunslinger47 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Alternate Account infringement

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

    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? selfwormTalk) 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ah, better article. Here you go: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. –Gunslinger47 04:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. selfwormTalk) 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. [99] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I asked for checkuser of Pam55 long ago, since it was a highly suspicious account: [100] 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)[reply]
    Why you guys do not stop accusing others? From timing of edits, style of edits and pages that she edits are obvious that we are different people. Two different people are free to edit freely. Have I ever accused Grandmaster, Atabek and Dacy about having the share interests in editing? Do you guys have any willing toward avoiding new tensions?--behmod talk 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Pam is a newbe, we have many inactive users in Wikipedia. Nobody is blocked because has not a good contribution. There are many of your idiological friends in Wiki who do not have great contributions and jsut edits once in a while. Should admins block them?--behmod talk 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The checkuser filing [101] in this case was based on recommendation [102] 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 [103].
    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 [104] and one partial [105] to User:Behmod, which were also reported in Checkuser filing.
    I have further had a very positive exchange with User:Behmod - [106], [107], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Someone in the OTRS group should contact them. I think the block is justified, per m:Role account, but m:Role account could be changed if the office approves this account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, the Foundation should definitely be contacted. How does one do that? -N 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of role accounts, the Meta talk page has a notification from April about the account Freedompress (talk · contribs), which seems to be someone's publishing company. This isn't really acceptable, is it? --Calton | Talk 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Hey, they are even dating the fact tag! That is obviously a WP:SPA, but I don't think they are disruptive by themselves (yet?). I'd suggest keeping an eye on him to see if an agenda appears. -- lucasbfr talk 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta be someone who's been here before, and obviously hitting "Random article" and added the fact tags. The only sock I can recall with a similar M.O. was User:MsHyde (a sock of the banned User:Cindery), who added unreferenced tags to a few hundred random articles to build up her first 300 edits or so. But I think we'll have to wait and see. MastCell Talk 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by Ryúlông per WP:HARASS. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    User has threatened to take legal action should we fail to credit him on every article his images are used. He went ahead and removed images on articles he isn't credited or added a credit to himself. I think this is self promotion not in the spirit of this project. He also altered the license. As well known, GFDL is non-revocable. -- Cat chi? 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked with a note about WP:NLT and our blocking policy. -- Merope 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Left him a note about the image decription page. Merope if you have any problem with me unblocking if he indicates he understands gimme a yell. ViridaeTalk 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [108][109], but he has persisted in this behaviour:

    Others have also chastised Desiphral for making accusations of racism and for violating WP:AGF in this matter (e.g., [110][111]).

    The allegations stem from my creation (several years ago) of the article on Margita Bangová, 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)[reply]

    Yes, I contend that this user seem to have a problem with the Romani peole (just note the naming, "gypsies" and also my last comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Novoselsky Valery). Also I do not understand why I am considered for 3RR at User_talk:Desiphral#Personal_attacks_and_civility, while this user surpassed it already. Double standards? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Psychonaut should also receive a warning for WP:3RR. That will be done shortly. -- Merope 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought the matter here to WP:ANI before either one of us had violated WP:3RR. —Psychonaut 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to bring this up again so soon, but Desiphral has continued engaging in personal attacks not two minutes after receiving your warning, Merope. I've just been accused of antiziganism, and further attention has been drawn to the allegedly racist Bangova article. [112] —Psychonaut 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that, but I don't feel that enough time elapsed between the warning and the comments -- likely that was being posted at the same time as my warning. I'm sorting through all these articles and deletion discussions now. Psychonaut, Desiphral, please feel free to contact me on my talk page for quicker attention. -- Merope 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mission (band)

    Resolved

    I'm seriously getting annoyed with the fact that I am being repeatedly treated like a common troll and vandal because I remove violations of Fair Use on this article. [113] [114] [115] [116] Please, an admin, review the Fair Use policy and tell me if the discography section of this article is violating Fair Use or not. If it does, then remove them and re-tag Image:MissionAura.jpg, Image:MissionAura.jpg, Image:MissionNeverland.jpg, Image:MissionBlue.jpg and Image:MissionNoSnowNoShow.jpg for being orphaned. — Moe ε 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious giant violation of WP:NONFREE. The images have been removed again. The page will be protected if this nonsense is kept up. Riana (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the page has been protected... Riana (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the attacks continue [117] — Moe ε 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've warned him. Shadow1 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the "new message prank" from the warned user's talk page. --After Midnight 0001 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, is that policy now? Because I friggin' hate those prank bars so very hard. -- Merope 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's policy if you want it to be :) Riana (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't get to "invent your own policy" Riana. That is not how Wikipedia works, abusing administrative powers however is a violation; Wikipedia is not an experiment in fascism. I like the bar, if a certain person doesn't have a sense of humour, then he doesn't have to go on my talk; its not violating any policies, so I'll keep it thanks. - The Daddy 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daddy Kindsoul, if you are spoofing the interface and making things difficult for other contributors, I will absolutely remove the bar. I'm sure we both want the same thing, which is a navigable, enjoyable experience for our editors. Riana (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the rule of thumb was that it was frowned upon in the userpage guideline, but even that was removed for having "weasel words". I'm sorta kicking myself for starting that whole fake "you have new messages" trend to begin with. Now it's just annoying. — Moe ε 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't like it being removed, and he doesn't like "spam" (i.e. warnings of copyright policy violations) from bots either. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up, didn't realize I was a bot :) — Moe ε 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like any spam, it has no place on Wikipedia period; hense why I warn against it. Perhaps you should read what the note actually says and take it for what it is, instead of creating your own little "opinions" for me, eh? The Daddy 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Daddy Kindsoul, formerly known as Deathrocker (block log), is on ArbCom revert parole and has been blocked for personal attacks and fair use violations in the past. Prolog 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today. -- Merope 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a second..

    Besides the fact that Deathrocker (Daddy Kindsoul) he committed 3RR by rvt warring with me and Riana today [118] [119] [120] [121] He is under ArbCom restriction. He isn't allowed to revert more than 3 times in a 30-day period under any account name according to this. The Enforcement is to block, and after 5 times, it becomes year-long. He's already been blocked six times since then, with the last being a one-week block. I'm not trying to inflame anything, but shouldn't he technically be blocked for a year because of this? — Moe ε 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the fact that I was removing simple vandalism (blanking) and stated that I was removing vandalism clearly in the edit summary [122] [123] [124] [125] (removing clear defacement does not count as a "revert" as per WP:3RR)... I haven't been on parole since May, as it was for a year. - The Daddy 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is not simple vandalism, no matter how many times you state it is in the edit summary. — Moe ε 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You blanked images which have correct licencing and complete fair use rationale's from an article in which they were giving information that could not otherwise be given. That is vandalism of work, hense why I removed it. - The Daddy 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not matter if you have rationales and correct licensing, the Images were not being used correctly per WP:NONFREE, specifically #3a and #8. That is not vandalism, it's enforcement of policy, as many have explained to you today. Indeed you are not under ArbCom sanction anymore, but you're reverting still violated 3RR, I believe. — Moe ε 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert parole is sometimes limited to one year but I do not see that in this case. It appears the revert parole is still in effect, unless you can show me the specific limitation that I have missed. Thatcher131 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I went ahead and blocked him for a month for violating that -- it doesn't say that he's on parole for any length of time. Of course, I might be (and often am) wrong. -- Merope 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even if it's for a year, doesn't he still have, um, five days left since the ruling? -- Merope 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter, a lengthy block was perfectly justifiable in any case. If the fair use fanboys are being evil, major thwacks need to be handed out. This is not a matter for compromise. Moreschi Talk 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that I was just played for a fool for assuming good faith and assuming he was telling the truth about his ArbCom ruling ending. That's what you get for thinking positive :( — Moe ε 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm marking this as resolved. The editor in question has been blocked for a month for violating the terms of his revert parole. Another administrator has confirmed this was the correct action. He can tilt at windmills all he likes in the interim; I'm not going to bother protecting the page. I hope to see everyone in a month, when he seeks to have me desysopped! -- Merope 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Never fear, I'll be here in a month's time, there will be no desysopping :) — Moe ε 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone decline the unblock request, this is a perfectly good block. Moreschi Talk 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the unblock request, re-read the arbcom finding, and examined the edits in question. I declined request and determined that the block was proper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop

    Can someone please have a look at the behaviour of this editor- they seem obsessed with Bob Dylan and his current religious status. This user has already been blocked many times for incivility and reverting and now the consensus has clearly gone against them they have resorted to accusing edtors of being anti-semites [126] and part of a "hate group" [127]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm already in the process of filing an WP:ArbCom report against the individual, so this might be a little superfluous. Drumpler 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, looking over this editor's history, I'm kind of flummoxed. It appears his primary mission on Wikipedia is to save Bob Dylan from the slings and arrows of outrageous editors who cite sources indicating that, at one point, Bob Dylan was a Christian. Reasoning with him hasn't worked; explaining the concepts of consensus and civility haven't worked; three blocks (two for 3RR, one for disruption) haven't worked. At this point, I'm not sure that another warning will do anything; let the ArbCom case run its course. -- Merope 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this ArbCom case? —Psychonaut 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bus_stop -- Merope 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a little unclear if I specifically and solely was being accused of being part of a hate group or if this group is supposed to include the editors who have been involved in that discussion (I largely have not been; my involvement includes a couple of page protections and a disruption block against Bus stop (talk · contribs) a while back. Personally, I don't see this as a big deal. Let the ARBCOM go forward.--Isotope23 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pascack

    I would like to block User:Pascack for the vandalism on the infoboxes of baseball players, changing all the colors--Yankees10 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

    (Non admin comment) Seems he's already been previously blocked for this, in the future you can take this to AIV. All the best. The Sunshine Man 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edtropolis and AfDs

    Edtropolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user editing since 11 June 2007. Since then, he has made 380 edits, none of which are in the mainspace (except to post {{afd}} templates). Nearly all the rest have been to create or participate in AfD discussions. Many of his !votes have nonsensical or inappropriate rationales; in some cases it appears he doesn't know or understand Wikipedia policy, and in other cases it seems he didn't bother to read (or even skim) the article nominated for deletion. Examples:

    At this point I'm still assuming good faith and have contacted him a few times to politely point out that !votes should be supported by Wikipedia policies, and should be relevant to the article, but this behaviour has continued. I think it would be helpful if some other editors were to help keep an eye on him. —Psychonaut 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a note on his/her talk page. I don't want to be cynical, so I'll assume they're just new and have chosen to spend all their time at AfD but don't understand its workings yet. Bears further close observation. MastCell Talk 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alkivar just blocked Edtropolis, who has already posted an unblock request. I'm beginning to think Edtropolis isn't really a new user. —Psychonaut 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had one encounter with Edtropolis on an AfD, where I questioned his meaningless reasoning on an AfD, and he went back and changed it to something meaningful. I don't know what that means, but I just thought I'd throw that out. Corvus cornix 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed that his talk page is full of editors questioning his AfD reasoning. FTR, since being blocked he's made personal attacks on his talk page. —Psychonaut 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    News flash - I just noticed this. Which had escaped my notice earlier. Explanation? PeaceNT? Please? MastCell Talk 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very worrisome, and needs an immediate explanation. Corvus cornix 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is even more worrisome. Corvus cornix 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that her RfA concluded successfully a few days before the account creation spree. MastCell Talk 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That said, there are some potential explanations here, and I don't want to be too hasty. I'll wait to hear from User:PeaceNT. MastCell Talk 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked her to comment here. Corvus cornix 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with PeaceNT. They were merely fulfilling an account request now archived at Wikipedia:Request an account/June 2007. And that's why all the other accounts have been created too. --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yeah, thanks Steve. I created the account in question (and the other accounts for that matter) per the requests posted at WP:ACC. Peacent 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I don't know what to say. I feel really bad about jumping to wrong conclusion here. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Request an account - the thought occurred to me that User:PeaceNT had created them on behalf of IP-blocked users, but I didn't see anything in WP:REGISTER to that effect and wasn't aware of the request-an-account page. I guess with recent events (established users and admins sockpuppeteering, etc) and the fact that Edtropolis didn't seem new, I was paranoid and jumped to the totally wrong conclusion out of my own ignorance. A big, king-size apology to User:PeaceNT, thanks to User:Stephen for educating me here, and I'll get to working on getting my foot out of my mouth. Damn, that's embarassing. I'm really sorry about that, PeaceNT. MastCell Talk 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I need to apologize, too, I never heard of that account request page before, either. Corvus cornix 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right on top of the user creation log: In the instance of someone creating several new accounts, bear in mind they may be acting in good faith on behalf of Wikipedia:Request an account. :p Also people who help out with the unblock mailing list create accounts all the time (I help occasionally). Riana (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy request

    It's too much effort to put speedy tags on 20 articles so i would like to nominate on the year in Ireland articles in Category:All articles lacking sources for speedy deletion under A3. Of the ones I've checked (and have speedied) they consist on markup and perhaps the odd date and that's it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, while we're at it, I'd like to nominate every year on this list up to 1737. Dunno who's creating them, but they really aren't readable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't A3 deletions... the ones I looked at all contained at least one entry. --W.marsh 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, maybe the ones I saw were flukes. Ah well, a-prodding I will go... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they have content... I'd object to a PROD too (on ones with entries) as there's apparently useful content spread out across these pages. Merge it somewhere, or let it sit around and see if people expand it. --W.marsh 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at 1789 in Ireland, picked at random, there are two entries, and the information about the people is obviously going to be on the linked page. I am not think sure is a valid interpretation of "not sourced;" And, w.marsh, how can you merge the content on a Year in Someplace page? DGG 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe to a timeline article of some sort. I think I've seen ones like that at some point, that cover multiple years. --W.marsh 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; you are clever than I--such does seem a reasonable way to go. Now that I've started thinking again I have seen them too at various places, especially for the earlier years of something. DGG 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked on the WP:COUNCIL page, because there are obscene numbers of these blah in year/year in blah articles, but one doesn;t seem to exist and they keep proliferating. Where would it be possible to start a discussion on what to do with these? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Major fault in fair use rationales

    I dont know whether anyone has noticed or not but look at Category:Screenshots of television for example, many of the images there are missing fair use rationales but are not tagged, this is one out hundreds of categories, these should really be tagged but is it worth it as it'll probably get you a bad name? The Sunshine Man 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. I've written Betacommand telling him that he may want to read this thread. Will (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I Know there are still images that BCbot needs to tag, But per the FURG discussion and the suspension of I6, I am give users until july 1st to fix what they can before I restart BCbot. per a prelim check Ive identified 169,000 images that have problems with their rationale. check the recent archives of AN for my plan of action and time line of advancement. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier this year I began combing through fair-use album covers one at a time. I looked at each image in depth. That is, I looked to see if the image was actually being used per WP:FUC. Out of the first few thousand images I reviewed, I found a few hundred that were not being used properly (maybe 10-20%). My review took me alphabetically up through files beginning with "4".... To me, this indicates a very significant problem that will take a lot of manual hours to sort out. Common problems included using album covers as navigational aids and as portraits for the artist's biography page. Rklawton 01:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    can this admin be thoroughly reviewed to see if he's out of control?

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive85#strange behavior from an admin?

    I have had my own unpleasant experience with kukini and I think he is power hungry and out of control. I looked back at his archives and I have seen repeated complaints about him. His usual defense for his own bad behavior is "you're attacking me", which is a very aggressive thing to accuse someone of; it's actually an attack of it's own. 71.155.212.206 18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No general complaints please. If you have a diff you want us to look at, fine. If not, go to dispute resolution or let it go. Chick Bowen 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Estein9

    Yes, hello, I'd like to request a block on Estein9, a user who constantly makes and remakes pages about a doctor named Edward Stein (aka himself) who is completely not-notable. Please block him or warn him in order to prevent more time from being wasted by admins deleting the pages and Newpage patrollers finding them. Thank you. Doo-dle-doo 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If he continues, make sure to mark his user talk page with the appropriate warning. If after a last warning he STILL insists on creating the page, after it is deleted repeatedly, you may want to report him to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note with some suggestions and re-deleted the page. MastCell Talk 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attacks & Incivility

    User:ThuranX started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me.
    The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in the Catwoman, wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidenced here and here (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming:
    In the Catwoman article:

    In another editor's talk page:

    • 4 (including my response to the initial attack, which I self-reverted, wanting the attacks to simply stop)
    • 5

    His own talk page had more personal attacks.

    The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feeling burnt out and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actually respected the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:[128]
    You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey. ThuranX 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <ref/> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –Gunslinger47 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While he might be interpreting the usage correctly, it doesn't need to come with 10 pounds of Angry in a 5-pound bag, which is what the complaint is about (and not whether he is right about how 'citation needed' tags are to be used). It's one thing to point out when someone does something a little bit wrong; its quite another to turn it into a series of personal attacks. I would ask that you maybe look a little bit deeper? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we fulfill requests for enforced Wikibreak blocks?

    Do we block people when they ask nicely to help us enforce a Wikibreak? I seem to remember this being discussed here with arguments on each side, but don't recall what the latest thinking is. Specifically, I have a request for an 11 day ban from User:Freedomlinux - any opinions from other admins? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, we typically do not due to potential collateral damage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is available: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_EnforcerSancho 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non admin comment) Arnon Chaffin was blocked once for a Wikibreak on his request but unblocked afer when he couldn't resist editing, technically it does go against the blocking policy though. The Sunshine Man 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the advances in software isn't collateral damage a thing of the past? --W.marsh 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Provided you enable account creation and disable the autoblock, why not block on request? Moreschi Talk 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because if someone is so addicted that they need a block to force a break will edit anonimously or with a new account. Really we are not nannies, if they need forcing they should get a family member to take away thier computer. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it sounds like they've admitted they have a problem, and that they need the help of a power greater than themselves to handle it... that's two steps in the right direction... MastCell Talk 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, now, we are not higher powers. We just have some buttons that aren't handed out to everyone for security and technical reasons. (And no, we should not start blocking on request--the blocking policy is the one least subject to IAR.) Chick Bowen 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    69.201.146.55 deleting material (redux).

    User:Boris 1991

    Check out some of his userboxen. Is slyly calling for the death of a head of state appropriate for Wikipedia?


    This page was actually just on Misc for deletion and (apparently) was kept, so I don't think there's a problem here. He's also not calling for the death of a head of state; he's saying that if he had to choose between Israel and the Iranian President being wiped off the map, he'd choose the Iranian President. --Haemo 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm saying this because [130] was recently deleted and it had very similar content.--Flamgirlant 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, and it looks like the MfD never resolved that issue. --Haemo 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Found the mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Boris_1991.--Flamgirlant 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Well then, I guess he can get back to constructive edits like this one. I'm hoping there will be more to his participation in Wikipedia than nostalgia for British colonialism and the occasional jingoistic outburst. MastCell Talk 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenharpoon

    Please check out User:Greenharpoon whose first activity after creating an account was to submit an RFA that was clearly a joke. If this was truly a new user, how in the world did they know how to find WP:RFA immediately? If not really a new user, then WTF? Looks to me like this account should just get blocked indefinitely. If you disagree, perhaps you could leave him/her a warning.

    --Richard 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the RFA and am watching to see what he does. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    toupee

    I am reporting User:Mattewdkaufman and IP user 199.68.81.105 for multiple reversions to a "list of known toupee wearers" that clearly violated WP:BLP as well as removing legitimate trivia warning tags and a general edit warring. I also reverted many times, but the more than 3 reverts were only to remove potentially libelous material that clearly violated BLP's "do no harm" admonishment. The list is now not in violation of BLP as they removed all the living people. Now it's just WP:TRIVIA. VanTucky 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Matters regarding BLP should be filed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which indeed you have done. Matters not regarding BLP are a content dispute, and you should pursue the matter using the WP:DR procedure. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    and three-revert rule violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iwazaki

    After an editor exposed my real identity in an ANI through an error I made in a sandbox, I have been harassed number of times with that information ever since. I have not dealt with incident of exposure of my real identity when I had made all efforts to conceal it including blanking the Sanbox number of times yet. That decision I am still grapling with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

    Question on NOR, Shaheenjim

    WP:NOR prevents original research. This seems to be what Shaheenjim (talk · contribs) is doing in edits like this one. Certainly, the only person pushing for this information to be added is this user, everyone else is against including this, most pointing out that it is a violation of WP:NOR. Clearly edits made against consensus are inappropriate but could I get some other eyes on this edit specifically to see if it violates WP:NOR? --Yamla 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like he's trying to draw a conclusion that favours his viewpoint, so yes looks like OR to me.--Crossmr 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TTN marking every single television episode for notability concerns

    TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using some kind of automated tool to mark every single TV episode ever for notability concerns. For 00:22 I counted 13 edits in a single minute. I looked at his talk page and he has complaints for this and for unilaterally merging masses of episodes to their parents. He appears to be indirectly canvassing for his Wikiproject [131] [132]. I see this as an incredible violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:POINT. Can anybody else weigh in on this? I'm tempted to start an RfC on this. I was going to, but There's already an incomplete RfC page for him complaining about him unilaterally merging scores of articles. -N 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh, I'm just using tabs to mark episodes for "review." I was doing it without discussion, but people didn't like that, so now I'm using tags and opening discussions that last a few weeks. People have time to get on it, so there should be no complaints. This is also in accordance with the updated WP:EPISODE and related projects/task forces. TTN 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing War of the Year: Last year state highways, this year television episodes, what's next? —Kurykh 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does TV episodes trump images with claimed fair use? Corvus cornix 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how that's related to this discussion, but I believe fair use images must universally follow the rules. -N 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TTN's talk page is riddled with complaints about his actions before a group of editors sat down to discuss the TV:EPISODE guideline, and before the template tag was created for the pages. That tag is used is an alert of the editors of that page, and a tool for other editors to find all the problem articles quickly. It isn't going to delete the article anymore than a {{plot}} tag will delete a plot section. It's just a more efficient tag for the articles, which helps direct people to the guidelines of what should be on that page, and comprise a list that can be easily accessed by others (as opposed to thumbing through thousands of articles from every single television show on Wikipedia...yes, thousands. When you count how many shows there are, and the average number of eps per series, it isn't that hard to imagine).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does this have to do with the current situation? —Kurykh 03:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, people believe that TTN is violating CANVASS and POINT, which he isn't. First, CANVASS is about contacting lots of editors for their opinions. He hasn't done that. He's alerting the editors of pages of the clean-up duty that is necessary for the article. He hasn't requested anyone's opinion on anything. Every form of mass posting isn't CANVASS; if you are applying clean-up tags to articles that is completely different then going to people's talk page and requesting the come join some petition. As for POINT, I think everyone knows the majority of episode articles are in poor shape. The tag provides links to helpful guidelines that allow editors to learn how to improve their articles, and also provides a link in a category for others to review the progress of all the problem articles, without having to search through list after list of article for every episode name. So, POINT is subjective and I think TTN has had plenty of people actually praise his efforts as well as dismiss them as disruptive. I was simply explaining what the tag he was placing on pages was. It's equivalent to a clean-up tag, except that it has a date stamp that puts link to every article in a category so that they can be reviewed later. There is a severe problem with television episode articles, just like there was a severe problem with non-free image usage on Wikipedia. The tag is a more fair way of saying "please clean this up, it will be reviewed after so many days by a community of editors, who may decide on the best course of action for this page". His actions are based on the consensus reached by others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. —Kurykh 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Corvus cornix, I was being sarcastic. —Kurykh 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC
    I know, so was I.  :) Corvus cornix 05:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that going off in tangents was a form of sarcasm. :) —Kurykh 06:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonating another user

    Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken text I wrote on one talk page and posted it on another talk page, effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the [133] talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bogus image upload rationale

    Hi - User:Jeandre noticed on IRC that User:TopGUN71691 has been uploading images, claiming to be the author. We're both convinced that this is totally bogus - you can see his logs here Special:Contributions/TopGUN71691. For example:

    • this image was uploaded despite the fact a copyright is clearly visible.

    Many other images are highly suspect, like:

    Both appear to be observatory photos, and are unlikely to be his work. Also, these historical images, which he claims to be the author of:

    Are all clearly found from other, copyrighted, sources via a Google Image search for the subjects name. There are more, but I just thought this should be brought to someone's attention. --Haemo 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are blatant copyright violations, thanks for catching it. All of this user's uploads are suspect based on these dishonestly-tagged images, so I'll be deleting them all to be on the safe side. Picaroon (Talk) 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Image:Crossfield scott 3.jpg. TopGUN71691 initially uploaded it to en.wikipedia with no copyright info, and then it was moved to Commons by another User. The image is probably public domain, but it needs to be proven. And note that the Commons page claims that the en page gives copyright info, but there is no copyright info on the en page. Corvus cornix 03:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate speech

    Please take a look at this comment, titled "Editors a Cock-Swallowing Sinners". 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just normal vandalism. WP:RBI. —Kurykh 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Nonsense trolling—not worthy of notice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, that's why I didn't say anything to them. Thank you for your input. Joie de Vivre T 04:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputes with User:TREYWiki

    I am having a dispute with User:TREYWiki. This user has made personal attacks against me here, here, and this. I am really getting tired of this. Miranda 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also see this and

    this. Miranda 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute resolution is down the hall, second door on the left. —Kurykh 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't agree with Miranda's actions on that RfA, but Trey is taking his disapproval too far, methinks. How about you both go to your respective favourite articles and do some work on them, just try and keep out of each other's hair? And agreed with Kurykh... administrators aren't magical problem solvers... try dispute resolution, although I think if you guys just avoid each other for a little while, you should be right... Riana (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Miranda is calling everyone she sees a troll. I tried to mediate on IRC with User:Sean_William, Miranda, refused. And Riana, I am working very hard on Erie, PA my favorite article, but I am being constantly distracted by Miranda. She seems to be taking this too far after. IRC has nothing to do with wikipedia, where this started.--trey 05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see the refactoring of RfA comments, [134] wikipedia is not censored last time I checked. Calling gracenotes a troll is worse than what I "did" saying I feel sorry for a user to have to endure Miranda's attacks on his RfA.--trey 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, one of the "personal attacks" [135] was actually apologetic, nothing to do with a personal attack. Someone likes to hold grudges...--trey 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other user in question seems to have "Retired"--trey 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I have not retired. Second, I would appreciate you not making personal attacks on my userpage, as well as on the RFA. Third, what happens on IRC does not effect the encyclopedia. What you are currently doing is disrupting the encyclopedia. I would appreciate you not saying my name in any bad context, because that is called libel. I would also appreciate if you not leave blatant and uncalled for warnings on my page. I would also appreciate if you would kindly leave me alone, as well as cease doing this to me. End of conversation. Miranda 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty broad interpretation of libel, Miranda! I think everyone just needs to switch off their computers for a while... Riana (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User OttomanReference

    User OttomanReference adds made up and misinterpreted quotes, and adds original research on articles.[136]. He has also engaged in edit warring and continues to remove tags without reaching consensus. [137]. Please block user or protect page, as he does not seem to understand English very well and continues to vandalize pages.

    Seems he is intent on only referting me. Just look at grammar of this article [138] and he still removes copyedit and all other tags. Hetoum I 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for continued edit warring. You might want to look in to dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is blocked?Hetoum I 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected sockpuppet block for review

    I've blocked Illegal editor (talk · contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of the ArbCom-banned sockpuppeteer Billy Ego (talk · contribs) (see list of other confirmed and suspected socks). This editor initially raised my suspicion by immediately jumping into a discussion at Talk:Benjamin Tucker, which Billy's prior sock had been involved in just prior to being nabbed. The target articles and POV are an exact match, as is the tendentious and argumentative editing style.

    I filed a checkuser request, which failed to detect an IP relationship. However, it should be noted that Billy uses a dynamic IP and open proxies, which is one reason he's been a persistent problem (see here for his own description of his methods of evading checkuser). I decided to watch this account. Since then, I've noticed several very distinctive habits (which I'd be happy to discuss via email) which, combined with the above evidence, have convinced me that this is a clear-cut Billy Ego sock.

    I've therefore blocked the account indefinitely; I'm submitting the block here for review and a sanity check. MastCell Talk 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't tell you what it looked like when Jpgordon looked at this earlier, but it is clear from the IP now that it is Billy Ego. I found some other socks: Free gifts (talk · contribs), VersaWorka (talk · contribs), Calvaire (talk · contribs), Bloodmania (talk · contribs), Mais o menos (talk · contribs), Planese (talk · contribs), Abolisher (talk · contribs), Dasadais (talk · contribs), Iceaholic (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Witch5000

    Witch5000 (talk · contribs) has multiple warnings about copyright violations of image uploads on his/her Talk page, has yet to reply to a single warning. Is repeatedly adding album covers to the article Reveille (band), even though I have repeatedly explained to them how this is not a good thing, but they won't respond and won't stop. At one point, started using 75.153.165.138 (talk · contribs) to do the same thing, but still wouldn't respond to warnings. Corvus cornix 06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=140065163"