Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seicer (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 26 September 2007 (→JzG gone again: +Comment; section brea). 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.

    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

    User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

    Reposted report

    The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

    • added many inline external links to the TMMK website
    • added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘officers’
    • removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
    • removed citations
    • removed the references section

    He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

    A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

    Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronology

    (User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

    During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara ✉ 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The persistent reversion to WP:NOT is a problem. It stopped while this report was first on ANI, resumed after it was archived, and stopped again when it was reposted. Will the user again revert after this second discussion is archived?

    The subject itself may be the larger problem: extremely thin results of searches for reliable sources ("Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" gets 127 hits; ‘"Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" -wikipedia’ yields 10)—very brief comments in a few newspapers in India—suggest that its notability is marginal or worse. Should it be on AFD? — Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The TMMK is notable, that is really not the problem. The problem is that Anwar seems to not want their obvious links to Islamic terror groups noted, which is generally how the TMMK is known. IT is known as a subsidiary group of al-Umma, a terrorist Islamist group in Tamil Nadu.16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs)
    Maybe so, but reliable sources of information about it are the proverbial needles in haystacks. I worked on it a bit today for WP:NPOV. — Athaenara ✉ 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree, your work has done quite a bit for the page. However I do believe you are a little too pessimistic about the notability. On a google search I ran, I found no less than 10 mainstream articles mentioning the TMMK in detail, both some charity work and its ties to islamist groups.Bakaman 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User ‘Anwar saadat’ again reverted to his preferred version — references gone, references section gone, instead a wholly WP:NOT WP:NPOV mouthpiece for the organization once again— and this time he didn't wait until the discussion was gone from this rapidly archived board.

    My sole aim here (I first heard of the article from a listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion early this month) is the neutral point of view. Admin attention, please: may Special:Contributions/Anwar saadat be blocked from editing the article at least for awhile? — Athaenara ✉ 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a report on WP:AIV. — Athaenara ✉ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (As per "To report persistent vandalism or spamming" pointer in this project page header.) — Athaenara ✉ 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    I have fully protected the article. However, it seems Anwar has a lengthy history of disruptive editing, not only on this article but on many others. People have been trying to engage him in discussion for months, but he continues to revert without discussion. I would advocate for a block in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also blocked Anwar saadat for 31 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too soft. It isn't only about one page. A pattern of disrutive editing, revert-warring and showing no interest in discussions on the talk page extends to a significant time period. A 31 hours block might not get the message across. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid, are you sure that you blocked this user? I checked his blocklog, & I'm not seeing that he has been blocked. In response to NHN's comment, this user has been blocked for longer periods up to one month for similar misbehavior in the past, so maybe a longer block is warranted. If he is blocked for more than 24 hours, perhaps the article could also be unlocked -- why make other editors suffer for his misdeeds? -- llywrch 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a longer block is warranted. If the block currently in effect lasts only 31 hours, page protection is helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His response on his talk page, in which he characteristically removed two messages from other editors (Hindu edits and Oh Anwar...), was to claim that edits like this one were "reverting vandalism." — Athaenara ✉ 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi

    I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi here on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]' and here on User talk:Eubulides, [7] and [8].

    I feel that this speculation (which is often wildly incorrect, and has involved named third parties) and commentary is an invasion of my privacy that I am not comfortable with, but, more importantly, is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and adds nothing to the discussion where it is posted. I wonder could somebody take a look and see what they think? --Zeraeph 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing much more than a not particularly decorous discussion, but without any further history I cannot say I see anything bad or actionable. Have you discussed with A Kiwi (on his talkpage) how the debate is making you uncomfortable? LessHeard vanU 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My greatest problem is with the degree to which this is sidelining the real discussion of the article Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome into total irrelevancies. It will be a contentious and complex enough discussion without that.
    I'm not too bothered by the personal references yet, but, on the other hand, I have a gut feeling that it CANNOT possibly be ok for A Kiwi to speculate (wrongly), from among article sources, about who my personal physician is (or how familiar he is with my home), while informing the world that she has just got off the phone with him, from thousands of miles away. I will try discussing it on her talk page. --Zeraeph 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zeraeph, you opened the door by discussing those personal details on the article talk page and using personal info as part of the article discussion with respect to the featured article review. Discussion of your personal diagnoses and physicians were less than inappropriate on the article talk page, and verged into Essjay controversy territory anyway. I suggest that both you and A Kiwi could benefit from reading and understanding Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (not only with respect to not using article talk pages as a chat forum, but also with respect to proper threading of conversations and NOT HOLLERING and better use of edit summaries); you're a more experienced editor than A Kiwi is, and you should have known that discussing your personal diagnoses and physicians on an article talk page isn't wise. Because you made this info part of the article discussion, I can't say A Kiwi has committed any offense. I suppose you've let A Kiwi know that you're talking about her on AN/I, as a courtesy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, please try to be a little more accurate. I did not "discuss" anything of the kind, I simply, ill-advisedly, made a single passing reference ("I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" [9]) which A Kiwi has turned into speculation that Simon (presumeably) Baron-Cohen (who I have never met) diagnosed me and is familiar with my home, and then that Michael Fitzgerald is my personal physician. --Zeraeph 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. You still haven't explained how so many personal references and speculations about myself are relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? --Zeraeph 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't relavant on the article talk page discussion either, where you first brought them up. A Kiwi has retracted and apologized everywhere for her mixup of Drs Baron-Cohen and Fitzgerald (two physicians with the same specialty operating in relatively close geographic proximity), so that's done. The best thing for both of you to do is to stop discussing personal matters on article talk pages (remember your two Yorkies, your recent car wreck, and so on), and instead focus on reliable sources, and learning to properly thread comments and use talk pages for discussing article improvement. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; if you use article talk pages and your diagnoses to throw weight into a discussion, you can't expect that info not to resurface later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to "micro manage" and dictate my editing. It is not appropriate for you to do so. It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion here of User:A Kiwi persistent discussion of what she imagines to be personal detail of my life on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Though I am flattered that you have found the time to trawl through weeks of edit histories to find so many personal references to my life to post here. However, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember to discuss content, not personalities in future please? --Zeraeph 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it easy there, Zeraeph. I don't need to trawl through anything; I remember the posts as they were inappropriate on talk pages, where article improvement is discussed. Reminding you that both of you can avoid taking admin time on these kinds of issues and make talk page discussion easier for everyone by reading WP:TALK, a Wiki guideline, is not micromanaging. It was your mistake to make personal info part of an article discussion; I wish both of you would focus on article content more. Take the last word if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I am afraid I have never been interested enough in you to return the favor and keep ongoing mental notes about you in that way.
    I honestly do not think it is for you to dictate what use is made of admin time any more than it is for you to try and dictate and micromanage my editing and discussion style.
    Back to the real point, I am concerned by A Kiwi's personal speculations about and references to myself are monopolising Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. When I do come to WP:AN/I to seek advice I prefer not to lead, but rather to leave anyone kind enough to take an interest to view the situation with an open mind. It had occurred to me that an open mind might see some advantage in archiving the personal references and speculations in the name of simplifying the discussion, but I am not sure, because that seems like "gagging" User:A Kiwi's opinions on the article and I would be uncomfortable with that. I am not sure, that is why I ask.
    I am also concerned as to whether the more personal speculations are crossing any lines. She is not doing me any harm, yet, but, on the other hand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA clearly specify that content should be discussed, not personalities, and besides, so far her speculations have often been wildly inaccurate, leaving me with a choice between cluttering up an FAR with refutations that are irrelevant to it, or being misrepresented. --Zeraeph 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I could not fully understand the references in her response [10] (she states she is unwell elsewhere and may be a little muddled), User:A Kiwi does seem willing to desist from the personal references and speculation that I felt were inappropriate and uncomfortable. She has also made a seperate, far more objective comment [11], and may well now be amenable to the personal speculations being archived to simplify the discussion if anyone thinks that is appropriate? --Zeraeph 17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Kiwi was happy to consent to the archival of personally speculative text [12] which was done, ultimately subject to her approval [13] , and "all's well that ends well" or should be, except that User:SandyGeorgia took it upon herself to object and revert, in spite of having voiced no objection to the archival here. [14]. I give up! --Zeraeph 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the missing diff, where A Kiwi asked you to please put it back. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She did NOT ask me to "put it back" AT ALL she simply said that I took out more than she wished [16] and before we could resolve that, you interfered. [17], and if you had not, this would all have been resolved to eberybody's satisfaction hours ago.
    I am still wondering why on earth you did not raise any objection to the personal speculation being archived, here earlier (too busy posting about my Yorkshire Terriers maybe?), and also why you feel that erroneous speculation over who my personal physician is and how well he knows my house is so vitally important to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome that you must insist I be forced to replace it?--Zeraeph 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Personal Commentary

    I am now at a genuine loss what to do. After yesterday's creditable resolution User:A Kiwi posted this [18] . She says she is ill and confused but, even so, that is just a blatant personal attack. Any ideas what I should do? --Zeraeph 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    looking at this talk p. for the first time, I am distressed by several people using arguments from their personal case histories and that of their family. None of it is rational argumentation with respect to the topic. And when it comes to family, this is really an invasion of their privacy without any reason otherwise, and I urge that the material be at least deleted. DGG (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG gone again

    Trolls have families too, and are delightfully entertaining as illustrations to children's books, but let's be sparing about using the word toward other human beings.

    See [19] :( 86.137.127.139 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. Judging from changes to his essay, something's happened that pushed him over again, and he's asked for desysopping at this point. (Can't figure out if he's received that yet or not.) Sorry to see him go again, but perhaps some time will help him with his concerns, and he'll be back in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's PO'd about the same things that many of the rest of us are PO'd about. Especially the community's insistence on giving disruptive users a second third fourth fifth chance because they might, eventually, someday become constructive users, while holding people who are constructive users to the most exacting standards. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm not the only one tired of the Wikiredemption and Reclamation Project? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's waste a bunch of time on jackass editors, and push away the good ones. Jim, I'm very tired of it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am all for tightening the screws here. Should we allow trolls to make us lose the most committed editors we have? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I am deeply saddened at the loss of Guy. He's been a sane voice and a great member of the project, especially when dealing with trolls who others were willing to give a slap on the wrist. I am tired of people interpreting AGF to mean, "beat us, and the project, with a stick and we'll keep smiling about it because, really, lots of people with personality disorders straighten up and become productive contributors if you let them get away with acting like monsters for long enough." I will miss Guy a great deal, and hope he comes back. *shakes head sadly* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't take me as insensitive to the difficulties our sysops face, but why do we need to have an announcement here every time someone deletes his or her userpage? If they have something they would like to say to the community, they can say it themselves. Broadcasting their departure here seems unlikely to be helpful. Can anyone inform me as to the benefits it could have? Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because JzG did not suck. A bunch of pathetic POV-losers pushed him out the door. So what do you have? A crappy encyclopedia. I'm going to fight back. This pisses me off.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can start by helping change the rules at WP:CSN so that the decision to ban a user is made by a consensus of uninvolved parties. WP:CSN gets tons of flak, but it's a very useful way to show long-term disruptive users the door. Unfortunately, by allowing the disruptors to participate in establishing a consensus, it often fails. We really need to be more effective at dealing with bad faith users. - Jehochman Talk 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman's proposal is under discussion here. Everyone is welcome to opine. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the way that we recompense committed editors? What a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah no! JzG is such a great guy...a rock of impartiality. I like knowing that an email to JzG will not yield a reply, but rather a fair result. --Zeraeph 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that essay linked to above, he writes, "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else." Is all of that true? If so, that is extremely unsettling. How much dangerous is it editing this site? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OM: Me too. I tire of the overuse of the AGF nonsense that forces us to extend some semblence of good faith to a user who has shown himself/herself repeatedly to be nothing more than a tendentious, troublesome, user, or a POV-pusher or a troll. Bah.
    Jossi: Apparently it is.
    Jehochman: whatever it takes, but see my comment to OM. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, hardly a day passes on this noticeboard without an incident of this sort. The current practice of infinitely extending good faith to most odious disruptors at the expense of established editors is a sad testimony to low qualifications of our sysops. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another option would be to start fighting back against POV-pushers by adopting the remedies at User:Moreschi/The Plague. That's about nationalism, but most of it applies to all POV-pushing types. Shameless spam, yes. I hope JzG has not given up on WP entirely. There's always the good old right-to-return-via-the-back-door. Moreschi Talk 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to interrupt your love-fest, but my experience with JzG hasn't been particularly great; in fact, over in the attack sites ArbCom workshop he was saying that I ought to be banned. In my opinion, labeling dissident voices as "trolls" does more damage than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Except for the fact that JzG's one of the large number of people who dislike (or at the least disagree with) you Dan T. That doesn't make JzG's forcing out any less reprehensible. I'm not saying you're one of the trolls, but don't give them the credit of being "dissidents." Stalking fails to impress me as a "dissident." ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think dan was suggesting that stalking JzG was a good idea. Personally I think that if Guy was more tactful with his language, and restricted himself from calling people names in the first place he might not have got himself into the position of pissing off people so much they felt compelled to harras him in real life. (at no point am I condoning that harassment) In at least some cases like this it appears that the abused wikipedian has been frequently less than civil (ie MONGO), and that pisses some more insane people off to the point of turning to real life harrasment to exact their revenge. Guess what people, Wikipedia is high visibility and therefore attracts some less than savoury people. We can't change that, we just have to deal with it. However if you stop calling people names it makes the wikipedia environment a lot easier for everyone to work in, and you are less likely to attract unwanted attention to yourself. ViridaeTalk 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly not acceptable to drive people away by harassment. But think about it. If I had gotten the treatment that some trolls have gotten from Guy, I would have been pretty annoyed. So before we start blaming everything on the evil trolls, consider if it's all their fault. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, no, it's not that simple. People repeatedly (and, even in my opinion, sometimes justifiably) excused HIS behavior on the grounds that trolls were annoying him. If we're saying "everyone is responsible for their own behavior", then we can't turn around and ignore that when it comes to some people. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not talking about stalkers, who I don't condone... but I'm talking about how everybody who dares to oppose a few favored people gets tarred with the same brush as the worst of the stalkers, and demonized, and this is used to justify ridiculous policies like banning links to entire sites that meet the disapproval of the clique. *Dan T.* 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Everybody? Dan, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I started Category:Eguor admins afterward to promote self-regulation among sysops. I was perfectly serious about that warning and took some heat for it, but the only folks who tarred me with that great brush are the ones who populate the attack sites you defend. This hyperbole of yours is getting tiresome. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No such block on his block log...? Thanks for the cat, added. ViridaeTalk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that particular axe sharp enough by now? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. The real problem is not being nice enough to the trolls? Pathetic. Raymond Arritt 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You insult trolls they will become more troll like - what part are you missing? Follow the civility guidlines (like every admin should) and you are less likely to be come a target.. what is so hard about that? Just because someone trolls you doesnt mean you have to stoop to their level and return the favour - that makes YOU a troll too. ViridaeTalk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Labeling people as "trolls" when you disagree with them is a way of dehumanizing the opposition and getting your way in whatever dispute you're in. People who throw around "troll" accusations are the ones causing the toxic atmosphere here. *Dan T.* 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please, this community demands that people speak in the tones Guy uses. I know I'm better off on Wikipedia now that I assume bad faith--it makes it easier for me. Guy's had a few nasty comments to me in inappropriate situations (on his part, not mine, no matter how hotheaded I've been), but it didn't make me interested in him personally in any way--sure as hell not his home life. And when I needed a quick solution to a problematic BLP, I knew he'd do it. I've opposed the Wikipedia favorite stars, and I still do, and I think there are many problematic admins on Wikipedia because other admins are lazy at dealing with problems with other administrators. And I've been called a troll by various administrators, but I can't really be demonized because I'm here to edit--one silly little editor takes a moment to always come up with some nasty comment about me, but nobody takes it seriously, least of all me. She just looks as silly as she's behaving. I'm not a demon, just a hothead--and I contribute well. If you're being demonized successfully you might not be spending enough time editing articles and doing useful tasks on Wikipedia. You might be spending too much time on intrigue. And there are plenty of real demons to be found among the intriguing little intrigues all over Wikipedia. I've never had an interesting troll on my page. KP Botany 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I want to say how sorry I am to see that Guy has left. He was one of our best admins, and people with Guy's common sense and intelligence are thin on the ground. I know that the silent majority on Wikipedia don't support the harassment and toxic atmosphere that causes admins like Guy to leave, and I hope you'll start to speak out against it. Write to Jimbo, no matter how pointless you feel it is. Write to Anthere, the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please make your voices heard. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as someone who has had epic battles with Guy, can I just suggest we close this thread and let him be? He's stated his unhappiness with how things are here, let's just respect that and let him decide what is best for himself. This kind of thread can serve no good purpose: those who hated Guy come out of the woodwork to reopen wounds, while those who liked him get all worked up into a frenzy and beg him to stay - neither of which helps Guy or the project. ATren 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's simple. Wikipedia's OFFICE doesn't do enough to protect good editors, and bad editors demand we AGF beyond credulity on a weekly, if not daily or hourly, basis. We get absurd POV warriors demanding things no civilized human would demand, and when they don't get their way, they offer to attack our children. We lost H to that, and no one stopped the hostile parties involved; in fact, we welcomed them back with special concessions to their POV. In return, they've bullied all over the place. IT gets ridiculous to AGF when people ignore discussions, notifications, requests and warnings. IF it's on their talk page, they demand it be kept on the article talk, where they can ignore it in the name of WP:BOLD. Guy's loss is a big one to the project. THe threats he's recieved need to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales, and frankly, he ought to DO something. The 'This is the internet, it's not REAL LIFE' meme only lasts till some troll takes it to the real world, posting names, addresses and phone numbers, along with exhortations to rape their wives and children, which at least a few offended parties here have done or attempted. Until the OFFICE shows that they will support the good over the bad, this will continue. Wales needs to make discipline a presence here, it's not here now. When the pro-pedophilia tribes coem on demanding we never address Pedophilia as a disease of the mind, or as a crime, and PJ comes on offering to 'out', to the police, and the jobs, of any editor who doesn't cave to their demands, no one except those two dares touch the articles related to that topic. and so on, across many of the religion articles, gun articles, and so on. If it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time till some editor is hunted down and killed for defending core principles of NPOV and Citation on Wikipedia, by some deranged extremist(s). The OFFICE and the Bureaucrats can do more, but don't, instead insisting 'the community can handle this'. No, when editors are harrassed off jobs, leave the project, and find harrassments continuing despite their abdication of the project, what else can be done? This is becoming an untenable situation. I hope soemthing can be done to resolve the attacks on Guy that led him to this; he's a strong admin, and a much-needed one, as he's long been willing to take on hard topics here. ThuranX 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But ThuranX, surely you should know that if someone threatens harm, it's only because they were driven to it because someone called them a troll. Anyone can see it's the so-called victim's fault.</end sarcasm mode>. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. Don't get me started on the similar abuse of the CIVILITY policy. CIVIL and AGF get invoked by the biggest trolls with a frequency appraoching a Godwin proportion, that it, as one can perceive, if not factually derive an algorithm regarding the parallels of Naziism invocation and futility of further discussion, so can one find a relationship between the frequency and immediacy in any conversation of AGF/CIVIL and the trollish nature of the invoker. CIV and AGF are good principles to keep in the back of one's mind, but the difference between bluntly calling a fool or jerk what he is, and calling anyone you don't like the ideology of a troll are different, and the project and community both would do well to have a far stricter policy on both. Possibly a policy called WP:CRYWOLF, which can be invoked during incident reports, mediations and arbitrations to ban someone who repeatedly brings frivolous 'violations' to admin attention. Even Good Faith reporters who are just too sensitive should be subject to the brief blocks CRYWOLF would demand, thus ensuring that people too milquetoast to be here leave, and that those who still want to be here start thinking twice. 'Fuck You, [minority slur]' is a violation, 'you're too liberal/conservative to understand what I'm saying and can't look at this from any view but your own' is 99% of the time here a fact, not an insult. (well, maybe both, but deserved). Such a 'don't waste our time' policy might help us all. ThuranX 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, has anyone actually said that everything here is his fault for not being nice? -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for crying out loud, noone is suggesting that it was all Guys fault. We are suggesting he and certain other people who have been harassed have exacerbated the situation to the point it got to by being extremely incivil. Nor is anyone suggesting good faith should be taken with regard to these said trolls - if they clearly are here to do ahrm, so be it abandon good faith. However civility should NEVER be abandoned regardless who you are dealing with. ViridaeTalk 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The loss of civility is the loss of effective communication that can possibly lead to a resolution of dispute etc.. Remember that, even when dealing with trolls. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Raymond Arritt, your use of sarcasm above plainly demonstrates the problem here. Never consider an balanced response, simply heed your emotions and witty sarcasm to remedy all situations. HydroMagi 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm sorry; believe it or not, that was out of character for me. I'm just getting more and more disgusted at the insistence on giving near-limitless chances to trolls, POV-pushers, abusive sockpuppeteers and outright lunatics while refusing to stand up for the highly constructive (if imperfect) editors who are their targets. Raymond Arritt 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lunatics are definitely running the asylum these days.--MONGO 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to the fullest. People who research and continuously add information to the project should not be driven off or harassed by people who come here to disrupt the encyclopedia or do naught for the encyclopedia. It's a waste of time for all parties involved. M.(er) 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are hundreds of admins and experienced users who have put their careers, their reputations and good names, in some cases their personal safety and privacy on the line fighting for and defending this Project. When has this Project ever defended us? The arbcom is out of touch, the board is a joke, the foundation, toothless and inept. This is endemic of much larger issues, mainly that the hippie peace and love bullshit Jimbo espouses DOES NOT WORK, that AGF is broken, and that maybe, just maybe, letting anons edit, and putting so many restrictions on administrative discretion is not a good thing. This project treats us like shit, yet we fight for it tooth and nail. We are lucky we haven't lost more like Guy, and unless something is done, we will lose more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly the project needs more admins like me, who have absolutely no career, reputation or good name. Edison 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to help! Secretlondon 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jeffrey's every word here, including "and" and "the". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the choice to leave or attempt to change it. ViridaeTalk 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A rock and a hard place? You're too kind! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well making a choice is better than just bitching about it. ViridaeTalk 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the problem is that punitive actions against editors are often based on specific actions rather than intentions. A seemingly well-meaning editor who accidentally goes over 3RR shouldn't be treated the same way as a POV-pusher doing the same. Policy doesn't seem to make any distinction at all. Perhaps if those who spend the majority of their time on Wikipedia distruptively editing a specific point of view into a single group of articles were treated more harshly, the program JzG describes would not be as big as it is now. If someone comes to Wikipedia to push a specific POV, they should not be treated the same as someone who comes to improve the encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dark Shikari has got to the heart of the problem. We're fine at dealing with vandals and drive-by trolls but the persistent POV-pushers and other determinedly obnoxious characters take ages to remove - and they're the very people who are the biggest threat to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical situation: I find a COI, POV pushing or spam-only account. It's never made a productive edit. It's purpose is mischief and nothing else. I ask for a perma-block at one of our boards, and get the typical, "we need four separate warnings in a week" response. Long ago I learned to go to specific admins who understand how to deal with persistent troublemakers. We need to educate our admins how to deal with these situations, because a majority of them don't understand, and that's extremely frustrating to ordinary editors on the front lines. - Jehochman Talk 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an administrator, well I am not even a good editor though I try my best to do the best I can with my disabilities but has anyone tried to contact JzG via email to see what is going on in his mind about things? I have been following this thread from the beginning and find it quite disturbing to see people blaming this administrator about things including his behavior. For the record, as far as I can remember I have not had any contact with this administrator. I just feel I needed to comment because of the back and forth of trying place blame. Would, could someone email this person and see what is going on? I think the least we can all do is let him/her know that this discussion is going on. But more important, I think everyone first should see if he blanking his page means he left (maybe he plans a redo?) and then maybe see what is going on and see if he can be helped to resolve the situation (s). If my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to remove. I just feel that something is missing here in the details of things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no point calling a troll anything other than a troll. It solves plenty of problems. I agree with both Folantin and Dark Shikari. We are not flexible enough when dealing with POV-pushers. Single-purpose accounts who are also obvious socks, like MatthewHoffman below, need to be kicked into touch permanently, and straight away. Single-purpose accounts who are not socks (just morons recruited off forums, and yes, this does happen) need to be brutally topic-banned to within an inch of their lives and told in no uncertain terms to get away from their area of manic obsession ASAP. Good content contributors who do the invaluable work on the ground, and who are not POV-pushing, need to be rewarded with sysop buttons. Nationalist, pseudoscience, whatever - the two are often linked - the plague needs to be eradicated. If we do not adequately protect Wikipedia and those who seek to maintain it, we will pay a bitter price. Moreschi Talk 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot help sympathizing with JzG's predicament. It is no secret that I have lately been more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, and the reason is that apathy sets in when you see the same fights persisting for two or three years without any prospect of resolution. Two days ago, I was called "a troll without a specific gender" and the same person demanded on this noticeboard to have me blocked from editing indefinitely. Once an admin reproached him for abusing the noticeboard, all the hell broke loose on him for not extending good faith to the block shopper. A week earlier, an unfamiliar editor referred to me as a "paranoid goon" but, once I asked for an explanation from him, my message was deleted from the talk page and replaced with a Piotrus-presented barnstar for "good deeds". I don't want to continue this screed here, but all the signs are not encouraging, to put it mildly. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The general rule of nature is that the larger that population, the less time one can afford to give people to disrupt the whole. I think we need to continue to assume good faith, but take a very hard line when it becomes unreasonable to do so. People think "Assume good faith" means to give someone with bad motives another chance. That is not what it means. It means to assume good motives till it is unreasonable to do so, it has nothing to do with "second chances", only with judging motivations. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does judging people's motivations fit in with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? *Dan T.* 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are disruptive due to inexperience or accident are not a problem, these people can be reformed and help out, no harm done. People who are disruptive due to malice are unlikely to be reformable. The failure to distinguish between the two is why we put up way too much with jackasses who are only here to be shit disturbers. WilyD 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi, our RfA process doesn't seem to favor good editors, nor those who fight to protect Wikipedia. Instead, it favors those who go along with the group and don't make waves. Elonka was denied adminship because she took positions on contentious issues and made enemies who harbored grudges. One of them is stalking the articles about her family members right now. People, we need to understand that honorable folks can have lively disagreements, but that's not a valid reason to deny sysop rights, nor is it a reason to persecute an administrator. - Jehochman Talk 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I share the ethos of this comment, truth be told, I feel that Elonka is herself engaged in a campaign against such a productive editor as User:PHG, unjustly accusing him of original research and fringecruft across multiple venues. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the first step here is to propose a rewording of policy. Perhaps a bit of the spirit of WP:DUCK should be combined with WP:AGF. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sheer tediousness and waste of time / digital ink involved in getting obvious troublemakers banned means that we need productive editors like Guy, and to keep them a bit less tolerance of disruptive editing is needed. One improvement might be redefining WP:TROLL – by stating that "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts" we have to be a mind reader to use the designation, when actions make it obvious per WP:SPADE. Trolling is behaviour, not a state of mind. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, once again, as a user who JzG recently said ought to be banned, I need to object to any such proposal as a possible target of it, once policy no longer distinguishes between intentional troublemakers and people like me who hold strong views and stand up for them. *Dan T.* 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Someone who has not established themselves as a Wikipedian here to help Wikipedia who pushed against BADSITES the way *Dan T.* has would have been banned by now, and that is how it must be given our extreme openness to anon editing. But even an established editor like Jon Awbrey was able to get himself banned by pushing too hard too fast too unsuccessfully even after repeated warnings; and that too is how it should be. Good faith gained by lots of effort should require lots of effort to dissipate. WAS 4.250 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another staunch defender of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been lost. Their ranks are shrinking by the day. I no longer have much hope for this project. FCYTravis 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. He was a great editor and administrator, and his roles in defending the quality of Wikipedia users and articles was greatly appreciated. It's a shame that it has had to turn out this way, much like many others, and it gives me little faith in the administrative roles when they are be-whittled in this manner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not find User:JzG on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. He seemed to often stick his nose into conflicts with an us/them attitude rather than looking for reconciliation (that seems to be what got him on Mr. Brandt's list). His comments were often banal. My advice: do not give him sysop bit back. Let him go through another RfA if he wants it. Really, he should just start a new account, start fresh and create some featured-quality articles and keep his nose out of other people's disagreements. He was a busybody and he should strive for change within himself. My prediction is that he will be back, but when he does come back, he should focus on creating quality content, on his lonesome if he cannot collaborate. There are still plenty of dead British nobles from centuries ago that deserve FA articles. Emsworth did not get them all. Let the man be non-political and productive for a while and see how he fares then.--RidinHood25 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow... It's like field of dreams... if you open a section, trolls will come. JzG is/was an invaluable mem ber of this project. those that think otherwise seem mostly to be of the sour grapes variety, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is more articles about the English Noble relatives of editors, like all those Arbuthnot articles. really. We need more FA's on varied topics. ThuranX 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, we need more FA's in a variety of subjects. But what did JzG accomplish in his tenure? He deleted some stuff and blocked some users. Anybody can do that. Did he create anything? Did he write policy? What did he do? It is a sincere question. BTW: I do not personally value specialized vandal fighters because everybody is a vandal fighter after a certain point. Did he just pal around with you guys and that made you feel good? That does not count. What did he produce? Where is his name on some text that is valuable and relevant?--RidinHood25 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, you have not been here very long. And judging by your extremely short contribution history and tenure, I am correct on that. Unless you had some prior socks or IPs engaging in some edit war with Guy, which your first comments seemed to indicate, you really have no idea what kind of contributions that Guy produced. He was invaluable to Wikipedia, and did much more than "deleted some stuff and blocked some users." An administrator has many roles that expand far outside of that, and often go unnoticed or unappreciated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your enumberations of JzG's scholarly legacy to Wikipedia to be vague to the point of being insufficienct and unacceptable.--RidinHood25 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as Guy not being involved in policy you may want to reconsider that remark. Guy did all the things you and I would never do. He took the flack when he had to so that we wouldn't have to worry about it, he spent a considerable amount of time dealing with spammers over e-mail etc. - stuff you really can't tell from his edit history alone. I for one can easily understand why he lost his temper sometimes. EconomicsGuy 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious, what have been your contacts RidinHood25 to be so down on JzG? --CrohnieGalTalk 10:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else."
    This sort of garbage is why I don't do much involving disputes other than newpages patrol. You never know when someone's going to contact their internet h4x0r friendz and have them call your job saying you do all sorts of nasty things on the clock, or 5000 people ordering you pizzas, hookers, and hookers holding pizzas 24 hours a day, harassing you at your house, plastering your personal information all over the internet, over something that happened on a website. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    =user:RidinHood25

    User:JzG is the real-life operator of http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ and is living out loud on the Internet. His real name is and will be well-known on this Earth for the rest of his life. He has created for himself an ample public forum for his opinions. If he has a wife and kids who perceive that they suffer because of the level of publicity he garners for himself both on the Internet and via Wikipedia, then he should find the correct balance of publicity vs. privacy by discussing the matter with them. If he is concerned about making new enemies via his Wikipedia admin actions, then he should follow the advice I gave earlier: start a new Wikipedia account and remain anonymous. Anyone who has examined the Usenet activities of Mr. Wales and David Gerard (who have done a large amount of flicking of the "OFF" switch on others) and such (see Mr. Brandt's list if nothing else) knows that the Internet is populated by a lot of teenaged-minded people: optimistic but immature. The occasional idle death threat simply comes with the territory. It is akin to a video game. Verbally blast away, game over and start again. Here is a recent example: User:Husnock, US Naval officer and historian gets frustrated with User:Morwen and types in something. Morwen contacts the US Navy's equivalent of the FBI (http://www.ncis.navy.mil/). See his RfAr. JzG pipes in and labels the matter "farcical". My opinion: Morwen is not a nice person and JzG should mind his own business. JzG and Morwen have stopped participating in Wikipedia. Let them both come back via new accounts. As far as Husnock is concerned, I would rather he come back via a new account, but I expect that he is so burned by the matter that there is no chance of him ever returning (at least while he remains married). He is a officer of the U.S. Navy and has more important matters to deal with. The rest of us who remain should focus our ample disposable time and energy on creating quality content in the encyclopedia.--RidinHood25 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find Ridinhood25's comments in general, and his total restatement of everything that pushed JzG off to be more than just sour grapes, he's into full on harrassing troll territory now, and I for one would like to see him blocked for restating the very same information that helped intimidate JzG off the project. His casual dismissal of the threats and attacks suffered by Wikieditors shows him to sympathize with, if not fully be complicit in the attackers actions. This sort of 'JzG got what he deserved' attitude, dismissal of his contributions, and selfish justification attitude are bad enough, restating all JzG's info for all to find is way past the line. ThuranX 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that assessment, and concur with the course of action proposed by ThuranX. Some people say the word troll is overused and often deployed in situations unecessarily - not in this case. He's crossed over the border from the Republic of Polite Criticism via Sourgrapeville into Troll Country. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know the adage: Give somebody a hammer, and suddenly everything that sticks out starts looking like a nail. Give admins the ability to block others and... Geez, look at JzG's input on that Husnock thing. He starts out by deprecating what Husnock and Morwen were probably feeling and then goes straight into suggesting that blocks will solve the problem. Mature people understand what happened: human feelings happened. Husnock is GONE is and he is NEVER coming back. Morwen pulled some huge and unecessary power moves. When was the last time any of you suggested "Let's just let this guy have his turn to provide input to the collaboration process." I just ignore idle death threats. Blocks also. You should try it sometime and liberate yourself from self-defeating patterns of thought.--RidinHood25 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Please note that Wizardman closed this, but upon request for a resolution to RidinHood25's behavior, self-reverted the archiving. He stated on my talk that he believed that the user had already been blocked, and had mis-read the last couple lines. He opted not to enforce the block himself, but I infer from his re-opening that he felt it's worth review and follow up. ThuranX 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also endorse this weak trolling attempt and weak wikistalking attempt. The user, RidinHood25, has relatively few edits for his short tenure, and it makes me wonder if this user is evading another block elsewhere, perhaps from an IP address. For such a new user to come thrusting out with comments regarding Guy/JzG is quite unusual. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ConoscoTutto

    Resolved

    I have had a couple of editors asking me about ConoscoTutto (talk · contribs), who they believe to be blocked user SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs). I think this very plausible, and suspect The FinalWord (talk · contribs) (also blocked) is the same user as well-- they have had near identical personal descriptions on their user pages ([20]), edited the same articles, used similar phrases, etc. The two blocked accounts both had long willful disregard of Wikipedia practices despite such being explained to them repeatedly and their edits otherwise demonstrating intelligence and good reading comprehension, made false image source claims and blatant copyright violations, sometimes with absurd claims which they defend indignantly when questioned on it (wacky example: Image talk:Petula Clark Grammy.jpg). All the editors seem to have made valuable contributions to articles, although sometimes being rather difficult for other editors to deal with. The final straw which led me to block User:SFTVLGUY2 indefinitely regarded Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG, which SFTVLGUY2 uploaded claiming to be his own work. The apparent actual creator and copyright holder came to Wikipedia and called SFTVLGUY2 out on it, with collaborating link. SFTVLGUY2 refused to discuss it and deleted discussion. I've recently been asked if the block on SFTVLGUY2 should extend to ConoscoTutto. I'd like some feedback on that question. -- Infrogmation 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If ConoscoTutto = SFTVLGUY2, it's indef on sockpuppet and extension of block (if it weren't indef) on the main account. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SFTVLGUY2 used to routinely delete plot synopses in musical theatre articles and try to prevent the expansion of articles (see my talk page at [[21]] for a list), and ConoscoTutto (know it all) continues to try to prevent the expansion of articles in the same way. See for example [[22]]. ConoscoTutto created his account on October 31, 2006, made only 5 edits (mostly to back up other arguments that he had been making as SFTVLGUY2 (see this) and to support an SFTVLGUY2 argument about an AfD regarding Petula Clark, and then he never used the account again until he resumed active editing on June 13, 2007. SFTVLGUY2 stopped using his account on June 5, 2007 (after a series of image/copyright problems) and was blocked indefinitely for copyright infringement on June 22, 2007. All three usernames above have a particular interest in Petula Clark. See http://www.mind42.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films Also, their edit summaries are similar, and their talk page arguments are the same. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the logs, they all seemed to be connected by photos - one would upload a photo, the others would use it or remove warnings about it. Blocked 'em both. Adam Cuerden talk 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work. -- Infrogmation 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random

    Mrs random (talk · contribs), Yeshivish (talk · contribs), Truest blue (talk · contribs), LAZY 1L (talk · contribs), Miamite (talk · contribs), AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs), and Macallan 12 (talk · contribs) are all the same, demonstrated by CheckUser. All have have at some time of another been used for double voting and/or reverting to each other. Administrator action is requested. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban proposed. MER-C 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't fork discussions, again, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mrs random has admitted in an e-mail to me that he/she is behind all of those usernames, and "[He/she doesn't] really have a problem being banned because [he/she is] wasting too much time on WP." The only thing is that he/she has requested that the userpages be deleted, but I don't think that is the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Request is in to ArbCom for ruling. -- Avi 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm. I've been e-mailed by one of the above (LAZY 1L) claiming that he/she is not involved. I'm not sure what to think - on my RfA this user did vote in the opposite way to two of the other suspected socks. I guess it is possible for it to be a shared IP address, such as at a Yeshiva or Kollel. Anyway, just thought I should bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mrs random said that they were all her.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre. Oh well, I shall report if I hear any more from LAZY. Number 57 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor correction with a partial quote from a recently received e-mail: "[Mrs random], personally, have sockpuppeted, but there is an actual person behind each username. The other usernames may be guilty of, at the most, meatpuppetry." I'm not sure how checkuser evidence showing the same person is behind the accounts counts for that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Sinhala freedom

    Resolved

    This user repeatedly removes, references from the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, he/she is of the opinion they are not reliable, I have requested the person to discuss in the article talk page and build consensus before removing the contents again, but it doesn't seem to be working. Could an admin look at this. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What the accuser forgets to mention is that another user is of the same opinion as me in that the sources are unreliable to say the least. The Accuser is repeatedly adding references to known partisan blog type websites from both sides of a bloody ethnic conflict. I have left one of his references behind, since although I am suspicious I will give benefit of the doubt. Also I have supported another user in adding original research tag, since none of the details can be properly referenced to reliable sources such as respected books, journals, news media such as BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Sinhala freedom 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since then, some other user has added some references to NY Times and Boston Globe. So I am satisfied there is some reliable sources now. Sinhala freedom 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But this no way indicates that the incident mentioned in the article deserves to be an article. Sinhala freedom 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody please block 156.34.210.48 ???

    He is STILL deleting me discussion threads. why is he not banned? do i need to call wikipedia myself? this is absurd. Shutup999 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You should probably go to WP:AIV instead of here, but you don't appear to have warned the IP at all, so they may have an issue with things. Admins, note that this is related to this report above as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, calm down and keep cool please. Now, what exactly is he doing? I couldn't quite make out what you mean. If what he is doing is simple and obvious vandalism (blanking articles, removing content, repeatedly adding nonsense and whatnot), then you'd be better off reporting him to WP:AIAV, but I can't be sure based on your description alone. You Can't See Me! 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked the contributions page. Apparently, our IP friend takes you to be a sockpuppet of a banned user based on the three digits at the end of your username and considers your posts to be trolling (to his credit, though, I can see why your thread title may have seemed a bit blunt). Rather than getting the IP blocked (IPs cannot get banned or indefblocked), you might want to talk this over with him and come up with an alternative thread title. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the IP for an explanation, and got this reply on my talk page (reproduced in full below) —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    == reply to your question from earlier today ==
    Re: Identifying the sock. It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of Shutup999 (talk · contribs). Then look at the edit history of Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... then look at the edit history of Zubt555 (talk · contribs), Pie76 (talk · contribs), Duff man2007 (talk · contribs)... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of Zabrak (talk · contribs). Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of Dragong4 (talk · contribs). Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Wikipedia as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.158 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    This might be worth further investigation - just because the accusation comes from an IP doesn't mean it has no merit. —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that his only reply? This guy has absolutely no life. Seriously this man is pathetic, and would be generally accepted as so.

    Anyway, just because he thinks I'm a sock of somebody does not mean that he can remove my information if it's not vandalism. Please do something about this, please. Shutup999 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    multiply-blocked editor using new IP to evade block

    Resolved

    This user has been blocked multiple times under his user name and as an IP. He is now active again, edit warring and vandalizing, while evading a current block.

    New IP being used to evade current block:

    User name and associated IP's:

    Diff showing newly posted comment by the IP, signed with name of user in the text: [23]

    Prior report at WP:AN/3RR earlier today for multiple article 3RR violations and edit warring: [24]

    Result of 3RR report: (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )

    This user was also blocked and warned on Sept 19, here: [25]

    Just prior to that, his rather extreme three-word response to my uw-3RR warning and WP:CONSENSUS explanation on his talk page: [26]

    I thought I should report this here as his edit-warring vandalism is continuing. --Parsifal Hello 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    additional info... Although the two IP numbers look quite different, they resolve to the same area:

    Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 81.158.90.219.in-addr.arpa PTR 219-90-158-81.ip.adam.com.au.
    Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 210.175.49.122.in-addr.arpa PTR 122-49-175-210.ip.adam.com.au.

    --Parsifal Hello 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A new IP now added to his list, and he's claimed it by adding a new signature on his prior post at this diff: [27]

    --Parsifal Hello 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This incident report seems to be resolved for now. The block on the user has been extended to one week for IP block-evasion by the initial blocking administrator. The IP edit-warring seem inactive currently. --Parsifal Hello 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Rescue Squadron/Template:Rescue demands, and Fosnez

    I stumbled across the {{rescue}} template after it showed up on an AFD I nominated. I noticed within it the line "Please do not remove this template until after the AFD has finished." I removed that, as it is absurd: The Article Rescue Squadron is a wikiproject, not a policy, they do not have the right to demand that a template stay on until an AFD has finished.

    I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before. Fosnez reverted without discussion, and then had the gall to drop a level 2 warning template on my talk page: even though I left an edit summary clearly stating why it was that I removed that line. He suggested that I might have some sort of "conflict of interest" in that I have an article on AFD that I nominated that has that same template. I should note that WP:COI applies to mainspace edits, not templates, and is intended to prevent "outside influences", not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia.

    Now first of all, this "Article Rescue Squadron" already has the whole "militaristic" thing against it that "Counter-vandalism unit" had. To take that and make a statement on a template that implies that you MUST leave the template in place, and to do so would be against some sort of rule, is absurd. It's a wikiproject. There's no sort of enforcement to that.

    To compound this attempt to make it seem like you cannot leave the template, he moved the "rescue" template ABOVE the "End of AFD" comment, further implying that you cannot delete this. (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.

    This whole thing has gone too far. I'm requesting an outside source come knock some good faith and clue back into Fosnez over this. This template is finding its way onto more and more articles, and more and more articles are displaying this false implication that the template has some sort of enforcement power. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've listed {{rescue}} at TFD. I've seen this template a couple of times, and it really seems unnecessary, particularly if people have begun edit warring over its inclusion or its eminence on articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'm allowed to post here, but I would like to mount my own defence. Swatjester is correct that this template is "finding" its way onto more and more articles, because more and more articles are being deleted without a valid reason - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is about fixing articles - we are not a militaristic group. I have attempted to assume good faith throught this proceeding, but my patience has a limit. The rescue template has been on many articles, yet it was only when it appeared on Swatjester's articles that they decided it needed editing. Numerous admins have seen the template and yet no one else has commented on it. The ARS itself contains quite a number of admins: User:Dsmdgold, User:TimVickers, User:Zanimum, User:Gnangarra, User:Jossi, User:bibliomaniac15, User:Morven, User:Fuzheado, User:CatherineMunro, User:DGG, User:Sjc, none of which have commented on its wording. My reference to the Conflict of Interest above was regarding Swatjester's nominating an article for deletion, the article was flagged then for rescue (meaning someone thought it was encyclopedic, and that the ARS should attempt to save it). Swatjester then edited the template to remove the (at that point) demand asking other editors not to remove the said template. I left a standard template asking Swatjester not to do it again, with their responce being I don't know who you think you are.... I then reworded the template to remove the demand out of it and replace it with a request. I matintained my civilitary and asked Swatjester please discuss it on the template page (which he has now done). I have attempted to maintain good faith, civility and patience throught these proceedings, but Swatjester comments and edits were abrupt and severely lacking in policy - as I said in my final revert of the template, show me where a policy says I can't ask users not to remove my the template and I will remove the wording myself. - Fosnez 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as it's not your template I suspect that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that my response cited WP:TEMPLAR which, while an essay, is a particularly strong one, supported by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have changed the one word in my above post that made it "my" template. Fosnez 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh. mai. gawd. You got templated. That gives you license to lash Fosnez like he's never been lashed before. Tell him, "I don't know who you think you are". Tell others, "I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before". Sound absolutely incredulous. Get incredibly angry. That helps everyone so much. It might even improve the community. Who knows, it might even cause an article to be created! Ya know, the encyclopedia? What we are here to do? What the template helps improve by getting experienced editors to edit an article? </end sarcasm> --Iamunknown 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sarcasm appears to have been less-well accepted. Well, I offered a more tempered, and perhaps more relevant, comment on my talk page, if anyone who reads this is interested (diff). I place this message here because I do not wish to always be considered as sarcastic as above. Cheers, --Iamunknown 05:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.) - It takes more clicks to push through an edit conflict than it would have to remove the template again and hit save. In that situation, I'd have also wondered why you made that choice, and maybe even *gasp* dared to suspect you were deliberately being difficult. When you choose to push through an edit conflict, you have a responsibility to clean up the resulting mess, and it's rather odd to make that choice in the first place rather than just resolve it with the provided form, when your intended edit is a single-line edit to the lead section of a page. —Random832 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a position that serves no apparent purpose but to prevent others from coordinating to improve an article may be in good faith in so far as it is an honestly held position, but it is no kind of attempt to improve the encyclopedia. —Random832 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want to be on record saying that I agree fully with Swatjester above and do not like this whole ARS mess at all. – Steel 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This template would have some credibility if it wasn't repeatedly attached to articles like this piece of detritus. ELIMINATORJR 12:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think, per Eliminator, that this is a well-intentioned effort that's doomed to failure. The list of articles that have been tagged by the project don't inspire confidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bit long but this response on the Template for Deletion entry seems to convey a reasoned explanation for the project, its template and its users actions. Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. Far too many of the arguments for why it should be on talk pages rely on the illogical application of categorical rules ("tags related to Wikiprojects always go on talk pages") ("this template is intended to be an article tag") without any apparent analysis as to whether those categorical rules apply, or should apply, in this circumstance. Indeed, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that those seeking the deletion of this tag (and those seeking the deletion of the Article Rescue Squadron itself) are doing so because they view it as an impediment to the rapid deletion of content from Wikipedia which they do not approve of. These people have forgotten that writing an encyclopedia is a process that requires time, thought, and deliberation, and that developing consensus even more so. Roadblocks to doing anything rapidly in Wikipedia are a good thing, and as such this particular roadblock serves an important purpose and should therefore be kept notwithstanding the (mostly bankrupt) arguments for not keeping it. Also, allegations that this is a "votestacking" device are without any question made in bad faith and are made without regard to the fact that the project responsible for it explicitly disavows any sort of votestacking and also the complete lack of any evidence for such accusations; "delete" recommendations on that basis should therefore be ignored and those making them chastised severely. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Benjiboi 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disuptive editing on Children Overboard Affair and talkpage by User:Skyring

    In the past few hours, User:Skyring has:

    • Performed two non-consensual edits in succession that removed factual and relevant details without clear talkpage substantiation (here & here),
    • Sought to justify those edits by misrepresenting my block history and engaging in hand-waving exercises on his, MastCell's and the article's talkpages
    • Selectively deleted my reasonable response to the aforementioned on his talkpage (which asked for honesty, good faith and a focus on content)
    • Disruptively and repeatedly renamed the talkpage subsection I created and had linked to elsewhere, thus breaking the links (here, here, here, here, here,

    here & here.

    All the while, I have politely asked him to not misrepresent my actions and stick to debating content and the actual matter under dispute, which he has yet to do, despite ample opportunity. He calls for calm whilst continuing to repeat actions that he knows are the cause of the disruption and discontent. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brendan.lloyd made an edit, without first obtaining consensus, here, which had the effect of casting doubt on facts that were not in dispute. On reviewing the article today, I noticed this and chose a more objective wording. Since then, Brendan has cracked a wobbly and evades my argument here. I cannot characterise his summary above as honest or accurate. --Pete 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyring/Pete, no requirement for consensus was asserted when I made that edit nearly a month ago. The article had been witnessed by other editors without complaint since. It had withstood a certain test of time until you changed it to remove granularity/detail. My summary above, and the Wikipedia record, speaks for itself. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "A certain test of time". By jingo, that's rich. The material to which you objected first appeared in 2004, see here, my friend, as an amplification of one of the very first edits I ever made on Wikipedia. How about we discuss your edit of long-standing material so as to put a personal political spin on it? --Pete 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brendan, could you help us understand why you've brought this here instead of pursuing our many avenues for dispute resolution? I'm wondering if perhaps you missed them. Thanks, William Pietri 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this not the place to report disruptive editing? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One Night In Hackney

    I would like to formally complain about this user's abusive comments toward me and evasiveness towards talking to me and generally violating the wikipedia civility policy. The user has deleted any attempt I have made to communicate directly by deleting posts on their talk page seen here: [28][29]. THe user has also taken to going to other users to have them "watch" me as the user "won't be around much longer" the user is also claiming that I am trying to change wikipedia content under Wiki I don't like without providing evidence. The uer is also continually evasive and unnecessarily personal in comments by criticising word use and spelling, which is done in an uncivil way. I would request that action be taken to prevent this user form continuing to hurl abuse at me just because they dislike me. I have tried to end this but have obviously been ignored. the talk page comments can be viewed here [30] [31] The G8 talk page is located here [32] --Lucy-marie 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the instructions at the top of this page. You can make an informal complaint here about misuse of administrative power, not a formal complaint about a non-admin (especially since the instances you link to don't seem any too egregious). The places to go for that are mediation and/or requests for comment. It's up to you whether you think it's worth going through either of these processes with regard to a user who seems intent on leaving as soon as the "Troubles" ArbCom case is closed (though it's true that one can never be sure whether intentions to leave will be carried out). Please note that he can delete comments on his talkpage if he wants to. Being ignored doesn't feel nice, but we all have to put up with it sometimes. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    In addition, I should note that there is fairly compelling evidence that User:Lucy-marie has been operating a "bad-hand" sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie. I've asked her for a response. MastCell Talk 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment What does that have to do with anything?--Lucy-marie 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're playing good hand/bad hand, that can be a reason to temporarily block you or (at the least) bludgeon you with the cluex4 for the disruption caused by the bad hand account. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look through reveals that One Night in Hackney was removing abusing talk page message from his/her talk page; I probably wouldn't have paid any attention to those comments either. Lucy, if you want to communicate with someone, taking jabs at them is not going to do the job. All this said, despite Lucy's inappropriate behavior, I think she may actually be right in the edit dispute: the EU is only an informal party to the G8, and it certainly wasn't a party in 1978. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Photography edit war on model Ana Beatriz Barros

    Resolved
     – user agreed to change the restrictions on the usage of his images

    We have a photographer who has uploaded quite a few good photos, but he is also putting in his byline on all the pages. For those pages without photos, I figure let him do so until we can have a byline-free photo. But on Ana Beatriz Barros he has violated the 3RR rule with his photo, replacing my (byline-free) image. His photo is not of superior quality, and typically on model pages, since they are paid for their bodies, we should have full-body shots (even physical measurements are given in the infoxbox). I've tried to discuss it with him, but he is edit-warring to keep his by-lined photograph in the lead. If that's okay, I'd like to start including my byline as well. --David Shankbone 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These aren't freely licensed photographs. User:Sacredhands puts these stipulations on the photographs:
    Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

    1. Use of photo must include a link to my website: http://christopherpeterson.com

    2. Use of photo must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson"

    3. Use of photo must include informing me of your use of the photo

    4. Use of the photo must be placed in writing and sent to me detailing your exact use of the photo
    --David Shankbone 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since he is uploading his own photos, he can check "what links here" any time he wants. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that his images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. If he is unwilling to modify his licensing requirement then I suggest treating the images as unfree. Thatcher131 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Following a discussion on his talk page, the user agreed to license his content with the following message:
    1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.
    2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.
    Sounds good to me. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue in this case is that we already have a freely licensed, high quality image that doesn't require a byline. It is also licensed under the GFDL license, which allows commercial reproduction without permission or notice. His is none of these, and thus goes against our principles. --David Shankbone 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His revised terms don't require permission or notice for commercial use either. east.718 at 18:22, September 24, 2007
    I think there are self-promotion issues here, as well. All of his photographs include his byline, something I don't do. This isn't about my photo being the lead; anyone can see my Sean Combs photo was recently switched out of the lead and I was fine with the replacement. More, I have an issue with "Photography by Christopher Peterson" plastered all over the articles. I don't have a website, all my work is done for Wikipedia, and I don't include bylines. My issue is with his insistence on self-promotion on multiple articles. --David Shankbone 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His proposal is to have his link on the picture page, not on the article. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then should we remove his byline on all the articles? --David Shankbone 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would leave them for now, no point in removing, but check to see he doesn't add them from this point on. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point in removing them is that we aren't here as a vehicle for self-promotion. --David Shankbone 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to assume good faith. You place your name in every image you upload, no one is accusing you of the same. By all means do as you please, I have no power to stop you. The issue seems resolved and can end here, if you are willing to leave everything as agreed, the decision is yours. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no comparison between having a User name in a file and putting a name in the byline of an article, and that issue has been discussed to death. I'm not going to chase down his name off the articles, but it sets a precedent. --David Shankbone 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it will. If you ever find others doing it and citing his as a reason you can point them to the above resolution and that situation can easily be resolved I guess. As I said I cannot stop you, nor would I bother to. Also a file name would appear in Google Images, much like yours does en masse, so its debatable, a debate I am not going to participate in. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google Image search is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One can also find my images on the Commons via Google Image search. The issue is what is on our articles, not whether there is no way, no how that a photographer's images can be found via the site, so I think your comment is irrelevant as it regards me. There is a fine line between discouraging contributions and preventing self-promotion on mainspace. The issue has been well-settled, over and over. I'm in no violation; Christopher is. That's all. I won't be doing anything about the other pages, but your arguments above deserved an answer since they are "old news." --David Shankbone 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy all is resolved. I have no clue of your past battles, so I am sorry if I stirred up some past issues. I think you both do good work and take amazing shots, and hope you both continue to do so. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    David, he should not be credited in the caption of the article, only on the image description page. He seems to have agreed to this. Rather than fix them yourself, which might be taken the wrong way (and as you are well aware, Wikipedia has a shortage of good photographers and should not do anything to gratuitously drive them away) why don't you compile a list and ask him nicely to fix them, and give him a reasonable time frame to do so. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    marked as resolved. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright issues - Thegoodson

    User Thegoodson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added a long partisan screed to the already very long New antisemitism page. User:Malik Shabazz deleted it and reposted it to the talk page for discussion, where I expressed my view that it was comprised almost totally of "original research, highly tendentious and POV claims and overreliance on partisan sources."

    However, I became suspicious that it might contain some copyvio material. A google search quickly revealed that the entire edit is a word-for-word copyvio from a partisan website (see section entitled Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004).

    I posted a message regarding the copyvio to the offender's talk page, but while there I noticed he has about ten warnings for uploading images of unknown copyright status to Wiki, including eight since February this year. Along with the copyvio, he also added a couple of new inflammatory images to the New antisemitism article which I suspect are also of questionable status.

    It appears that rather than learning from previous warnings, this user is becoming more brazen and diversifying his borrowings to including large chunks of other people's writing to boot. I haven't checked his edit history for further copyvio's but it appears to me there is an established pattern here that is not improving over time. Gatoclass 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology

    A spammy article. Lots of edits by IPs. Please watch it for the next few days. -- Cat chi? 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'll make sure the folks at WP:COIN are aware. Shalom Hello 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton

    This AfD has attracted an unusual number of anonymous editors, apparent sock puppets, and single purpose accounts. Nathan Hamilton is a deceased, gay porn star who allegedly had an involvement with Tom Cruise. There are sources to back this up (such as MSNBC), but the claims are controversial. It looks like this AfD may be subject to a reputation management campaign by those would like to spin Wikipedia for their own purposes. - Jehochman Talk 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You reason is here: [33]. The Evil Spartan 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy hell that page is unreadable. I thought The Sun in the UK was bad. That page is a wet dream of conspiracy theories and other cruft. Spryde 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan Hamilton is not deceased, according to WP:OTRS. MSNBC's gossip column makes no mention of Hamilton or "Big Red," only indicates that someone claimed an encounter with this famous person. There is no reliable source to connect Hamilton to the "Big Red" who alleged the encounter, and no statement directly from "Big Red" or Hamilton of the encounter. There is only an individual Paul Barresi who claims to have talked to "Big Red," and plans to publish a book about it. -Jmh123 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Since I did this for an investigation, a synopsis of the article's history: The article was started by the newly registered User:Robin Redford on May 30 with the edit comment, "I have researched sites on Nathan Hamilton, Paul Barresi, Anthony Pelicano and have called Westminster Abbey and intereviewed Nathan Hamilton personally."

    Editors started to revise and remove unsourced material, and on June 1, 2007 there was this diff [34] with the edit comment from Redford, "If you give me a change to document all the sources and references this is the story that should stand otherwise I will provide you a list of over 700 other stories with problems that I will legally h." Redford also stated here [35], "I can produce the Real Nathan Hamilton and all the documentation to prove this article -- why are you harassing us?" An anon IP from France, 86.217.198.239, began to add Wikilinks and in-line refs. User:DESiegel tried repeatedly to remove the "inline links that look like refs but aren't," Redford edit warred, and was blocked. An anon IP in France, 90.5.208.226, reverted one of DES's revision, commenting on this diff [36] that, "The 'edited down' story is untruthful and Nathan Hamilton will sue Wikipedia if it is posted again!" According to earlier versions of the bio, Hamilton was living in France. After one more reversion by User:Cquan, there was a break of nearly 2 months.

    On July 21, a French IP 90.45.142.43 added in the notice of Hamilton's death and began to edit the entry. The French IP added in various elaborations to the "edited down" version, again not sourced properly or just not sourced: such as television appearances, a conversion to Judaism, more on the Pellicano/Barresi story, and an upcoming memorial video.

    This continued until the OTRS was informed that Hamilton is not dead, the article was edited accordingly by Somitho on July 31 and the article was protected. Remarkably, while the reference to his death was removed from the lead, it was never removed from the body of the article. Robin Redford then added prod tags and removed them several times, settling for a not verified tag.

    User:Phil Sandifer deleted some unreliable material on August 11, and semi-protected the article til August 31.

    On Sept. 1 209.244.42.67 deleted reference to the death notice being published in Europe, but not the death, and then started adding in the unreliable sources again. Deleting, adding, deleting. Added a prod tag and the obit tag, exactly as previously deleted. Added a bit more about the sex with famous actor allegations. 71.127.234.96 deleted the prod tags. Redford added a speedy delete tag. User:Haemo removed it as it was an incorrect tag.

    Later in September 209.244.42.67 started adding categories, lots of categories. 76.86.105.146 and Redford started building the article again just a little. I did a clean-up, removed the unsourced material, Redford asked for the deletion, and I nominated the article for deletion. -Jmh123 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I dare say the false claims of death further support the hypothesis that somebody is doing a spin job on, or via, this article. - Jehochman Talk 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected sockpuppet manipulation of this AFD, six month block on sockfarm

    • LaniMakani
      • first two edits are to this AFD.[37][38][39]
      • Next edit is to agree with Robin Redford at a talk page.[40]
      • Adds a citation flag on fourth edit, which is quite rare for a new user but characteristic of Robin Redford and Roz Lipschitz.[41]
      • Agrees with 76.86.105.146 on fifth edit (another suspected sock from the same drawer).[42]
      • Adds a spam template on sixth edit.[43]
      • Removes a link with a deceptive edit summary.[44]
      • Argues for another article removal on a talk page. Note overuse of capitaliation and punctuation, which is characteristic of other suspected socks.[45]
      • Agrees with Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford two other talk pages.[46][47]
    • Roz Lipschitz
      • Votes to the AFD nine minutes after LaniMakani.[48]
      • A sample comment at a talk page where the others cluster, using the same prose style and voicing agreement.[49]
    • Robin Redford
      • Votes to the AFD.[50][51]
      • Posts a very serious personal attack against an article subject. Note similar prose prose style with excessive punctuation and capitalization. There are other similar examples, but this extreme one should make the case. I later blanked it.[52]
    • 209.244.42.65
      • Votes at AFD.[53][54][55]
      • Posts to a different talk page in the same prose style as the rest. Different DNS location, but I have reason to suspect that's irrelevant in this case. Interested editors can contact me offline for an explanation.[56]

    Also note how several of these !voted at other pornography bios recently.

    A few other throwaway accounts and roving (but similar) IP addresses round out this sockfarm, but that ought to be enough to establish the case. I'm blocking all registered accounts in this family for six months. Salient factors include persistency over several months, manipulation of multiple AFD discussions, and the extreme nature of the worst BLP violation (this editor habitually violates WP:BLP). DurovaCharge! 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forked content?

    Someone mind looking at Wikipedia blocked by China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. I am not seeing much difference. People have tried to redirect this but it seems that the creator has other plans. Spryde 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, the creator is a sock of ClueBot: [67] ;). The Evil Spartan 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good ole' ClueBot. Sometimes savior, othertimes, protector of the wrong version Spryde 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [68]: According to one of the edit summaries, the latter article is blocked by the Chinese government. Or at least was censored.
    Are copy-and-paste "copies" treated the same way as cut-and-paste "moves"? Because even if some part of it is censored, the edit history is not preserved.
    Also, the easiest way to get the bytesizes of the articles to be similar seems to be a revert of [69] and previous similar edits - and User:SummerThunder is being mentioned in a couple of them. LegitimateSock 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the summary that says "the other version is protected by the chinese communist party members, many sensitive information were deleted. read and compare.", I think the user is claiming that the other version isn't NPOV. Even if the claim is true, we still don't do POV forks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeffed the account that created the page as a probable SummerThunder sock.[70] DurovaCharge! 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    racist & threatening language is in this article below

    Resolved

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_(soccer)_players

    sorry, I'm new to this so don't know what to do about it so hope someone who knows what they're doing will pick it up!

    respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simian crease (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just simple vandalism that's been reverted, nothing to see here. east.718 at 18:58, September 24, 2007

    COBot gone wild

    COBot just blanked User talk:M.V.E.i.! He's not happy about it. --Orange Mike 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Blocked, operator notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Wikihermit disappeared. Spryde 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The operator of that bot is still active and should respond to notification of malfunctions. — madman bum and angel 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It can be unblocked, I think I have fixed the problem, but can't tell until I run it again :). I'll watch the next few edits for any errors. CO2 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - unblocked - see how it goes - Alison ❤ 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistant vandalism by user 75.112.133.254

    See history Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. Request IP block user 75.112.133.254 or semi-protection of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SooperJoo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not overuse the V word. This looks more like an edit war of some kind than vandalism. WP:AN3 perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not seem to be as straightforward as the initial post makes out. The edits in question are arguably good faith attempts at removing BLP violations, unsourced or unreliably-sourced text from the article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message on their talk page. They're dialoging by edit summary and have gone way over 3RR. I've basically final-warned them now and asked them to state their case on that talk page - Alison ❤ 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BigGabriel555 Violation of numerous policies

    Resolved

    User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [71]

    Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [72]

    [73]

    [74]

    [75]

    Removes tags [76]

    and has ignored requests to discuss [77] UnclePaco 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't see anything in the diffs you provided that can be called "violations of policy". The image you mentioned doesn't have a caption, so there's no way to tell what it is and why it belongs in the article. Also, you left your message for the user less than a day ago, so there's a strong chance they haven't seen it yet.

    I have two suggestions for you:

    1. If you add the picture back in, make sure to include a caption explaining its significance.
    2. Bring up the matter at Talk:Dominican Republic. User:BigGabriel555 has been active at that page, so there's a good chance to get their attention there. Other contributors may help you to resolve the dispute and build consensus there.

    I hope this helps you out. Caknuck 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat

    Resolved

    [78] - Corvus cornix 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - by User:Satori Son. Silly vandals - Alison ❤ 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all sorts of nonsense was poured on to that talk page. I wouldn't make too much of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx2)Looks like a moron, not a real threat. If you really want to jam the kid up, report his post to the feds, but otherwise, he got blocked for 72 hours. I suspect he will immediately begin attacking pages again though, so perhaps a far longer block will be needed. ThuranX 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick protection of the talk page too next time. Don't want him to say anything he'll really regret down the line. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Briankwest Numerous WP violations

    User is the major contributor to an open source project AND the WP article FreeSWITCH (he is listed as the maintainer of the official FreeSWITCH website) and has joined wikipedia a week ago to promote this project. He is now using multiple identities (in same discussion page) and abusive personal attacks as well. Issues involve sockpuppetry, WP:COI and WP:PA. His contributions and attacks (aside from the actual FreeSWITCH article) are found here:

    Identities include (all are WP:SPAs):

    I believe an admin warning would suffice. He is a definite newbie, but has an attitude and is on a mission to promote FreeSWITCH and attack anyone who opposes him. Calltech 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest WP:COI/N at this point. The Evil Spartan 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    [79]. Corvus cornix 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just delete it, it's crap. Crap with a legal threat = acount ban, in my mind. ThuranX 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{db-nonsense}}. :P — madman bum and angel 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. - indef. Silly vandals (yet again) - Alison ❤ 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Month long edit war on Quicken Loans

    I think I would have asked for administrative attention on this before except for the extreme slowness of this edit war. It has been occuring over a variety of issues with the page, first over the inclusion/noninclusion of questionable critisism and details of a class-action lawsuit against the company, and has now gravitated to unreferenced employment information. Those involved include apparent inclusionist 68.40.113.91 (talk · contribs), apparent deletionist 12.165.188.130 (talk · contribs) who is registered to Quicken Loans corporation, 130's apparent sock/meatpuppet Clayc313 (talk · contribs), and Rockfinancial (talk · contribs) who has been on both sides of this extended edit war. I mostly have no opinion over what is being deleted/included except for the now well-sourced info on the lawsuit (which is no longer being warred over). Why I bring this here is all involved parties' abject refusal to respond to repeated warnings and requests to take their issues to the article's talk page. I even requested and received a weeklong protection three weeks ago, yet the edit warring continued almost immediately. I have lost any patience I may have had remaining for these users. The reason I am placing this here instead of requesting protection of the article is that these users have proven their unwillingness to even begin to discuss the issue, except maybe 68.40.113.91 [80]. Someguy1221 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Much edit warring, with a conflict of interest to boot. I suggest WP:AN/COI and WP:RPP for this case. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over Reliability

    Resolved

    I need several admins to clarify something so that there's no confusion over the issue, as there seems to be a few people abusing their admin duties. Where exactly in Wikipedia's TOS does it state (with no confusion) that a site which happens to contain pornographic images and/or links to pornographic websites is automatically deemed unreliable as a reference for content? TMZ.com owns the rights to the infamous "Kramer" video, they've watermarked it, and its used as a source on Wikipedia. A site that I'd like to use as a reference has legal fight videos, the site owns all rights to the videos and has also watermarked them with additional details. According to Alexa.com the site in question ranks in the top 5,000 most visited websites in the world. So where in Wikipedia's rules does it state that this site is unreliable as a reference whereas TMZ.com (a celebrity gossip site) is reliable? Playboy.com contains pornography, why can various wiki articles (including those not related to the magazine) use pages of that site as a reference if pornographic sites are thus "unreliable" in the eyes of Wikipedia? It seems that some contributors and admins are creating their own liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Can someone just show me a rule? KimboSlice 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're looking for the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. --Haemo 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio image uploads

    Wriggsey (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of copyvio photos under apparent fraudulent free license - would someone mind cleaning this up? Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the notice, I'll go through and check out the images. -Andrew c [talk] 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

    It seems that another edit war has broken out at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have tried to mediate and "arbitrate" in some of the previous disputes, but I've given up the hope that I can be of assistance. The article's protection log is massive, and neither side seems willing to compromise. Please review, advise, intervene or anything else you deem necessary. Have we reached the stage of RfC or perhaps even RfArb here? AecisBrievenbus 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I propose we give it a little more time. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars, but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A nasty grudge holder

    I made a mistake accusing Shot info of bieng a Cabal. I try to apologize. But he keeps on telling me to go away. What more can I do?--Angel David 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just leave him alone and hope it all blows over. Corvus cornix 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah just forget about it. I've seen this personality wars where people just get mad over nothing. Just let it go. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hamroll3

    Could somebody who is knowledgeable about rugby please take a look at the edits of Hamroll3 (talk · contribs)? Every single one of them seems suspicious -- like he's creating articles about his school friends and adding them to rugby articles. No reliable sources or Google hits for rugby players with the names he's creating. Corvus cornix 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edit history of Hungarian rugby league, which itself is made up of nonsense and a few WP:BLP issues, it seems he isn't the only user who has participated in this nonsense. Resolute 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't even worth cleaning up. The article is pretty blatantly a hoax at best, and vandalism at worst. I've AfDed it, but really, it could qualify as a G3 speedy candidate. Resolute 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:talk self delete undid...Looks like a bug in the 'bot.

    Well, someone vandalized a page, and got called on it. He erased his own user:talk page....and got called on it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.5.235.52&action=history

    Interesting. Perhaps a user should be permitted unquestioned edits of their own user:talk page? Or do I misunderstand its purpose? Sean.Roach 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page doctoring (changing what others have said without their consent) or personal attacks are usually not put up with. Talk page blanking, though discouraged, can be allowed although archiving is preferred. In the case of that IP talk page, its the first type of talk page editing I mentioned not the second. In which case its absolutely acceptable to revert and not allow.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that reading. The way I read it was the user, whose talk page was in dispute, answered the criticism with an apology...then turned right around and gave a pointed attack at the very same people he or she was apologizing to. I did find one "edit", where a letter was cut out, but it looked accidental. More a matter of where the cursor fell than anything else. I say this because while the resulting word is in fact a word, it isn't a rude one. That would have required the addition of another letter.
    However, why the user turned around and blanked everything, replacing the whole with a single pointedly rude comment, I can only speculate. When I posted this, I figured "Tiptoety" for a 'bot that mis-parsed the changes, not a human. I suppose on the grounds of it being a personal attack, (although somewhat scattershot in application,) it would merit the editing, as you stated it. I still can't see it as one person putting words in the mouth of another.
    In any case, not a 'bot, thus not a bug. My original concern was unfounded. Sean.Roach 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

    I find this slightly odd... an administrator that puts an oppose comment on my RfA 24 hours after is closed. He also hasn't edited since august 6th, and that was his first edit since. Could this be a comprimised account? — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm...seems like a coincidence to me. I suppose he just started editing after a long vacation or something similar. Plus, it just seems like an accident, as the comment was added three minutes after the RfA was closed. Perhaps the user didn't notice this? Also, if someone compromised an admin account, they would be doing much more dangerous things. In any event, I don't think this is a compromised account. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually 24 hours and three minutes. — Edokter • Talk • 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, didn't notice that Still, I think we should AGF on this one unless the account starts doing something very serious. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left him a note. I just wonder how he would end up on an old RfA. — Edokter • Talk • 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be compromised... this strikes me as strange... a sysop should know such basic policy... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unnoteworthiness and a disambiguation page

    After some debate over the deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie, it was decided unnoteworthy and deleted. This has been taken to mean that the disambiguation page should also include no mention of the film, not even so much as a line to distinguish it from the other documentary film of similar name produced a year earlier. Another user is making me discuss this here in order to add this single line. what can I do? Brinerustle 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguation pages should only include links to Wikipedia articles. If there's no article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. Corvus cornix 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also been fairly aggressive in removing external links to the non-notable movie. Even to the point of archiving the ongoing discussion at both Talk:Zeitgeist and Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation) as the discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the article pages in question. I also and semi-protected both, Zeitgeist (disambiguation), Zeitgeist. I don't think that external links need to be on either page when it refers to a non-notable movie, especially the Zeitgeist article. The movie was also taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 19. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. The constant disruption over this film is getting ridiculous. If people want to write a well-referenced article about it, more power to them. However, no one has stepped up and instead there's been a months-long campaign of general annoyance promoting it. --Haemo 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a tad extreme . . . do you think it'd help if we full protected both pages and semi protect the talk pages? I don't think it would create too big a problem. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tareq 50cent (talk · contribs)

    Resolved
     – indef block + deletions — Scientizzle 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user apparently does nothing for Wikipedia but upload copyvio pornography (except for a previous short vandalism career for which he got a short block). Could someone please delete the uploads and handle the situation appropriately? Videmus Omnia Talk 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely by User:Scientizzle. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image deletions with no warning

    I don't think it's fair for an admin to delete an image without explanation, and then threaten me with blocking when I upload it again due to the lack of any such explanation. Specifically, User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, whose attitude when I questioned him about that courtesy was "Deal with it". His viewpoint (now archived or deleted from his talk page) is that unless I get all the facts exactly right the first time, he has the right to zap it without explanation. I'm used to attitudes like that from users, but not from admins. It's as if User:Tecmobowl had been reincarnated as an admin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. If you still feel the image should remain despite the policy points I kindly pointed out to you, you may go to deletion review. The content from my talk page is of course not deleted: here it is. In the history. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My complaint is not about whether it meets or fails to meet deletion criteria, it's about deletion with no warning or explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about the specifics of this particular situation, but all across Wikipedia, there has been a sudden increase in NF image zapping going on due to concerns over what constitutes fair/minimal use. This might be a part of that. You Can't See Me! 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, I'm glad Jeffrey provided a link to the discussion of the deletion. Your claim of his high handed, rude behavior would have been hard to believe, otherwise. I am amazed that such arbitrary, peremptory behavior is acceptable from an admin, when it would be considered incivility on the part of any other user. And it amazes me he actually told you to reconsider your participation in the project if you don't like the way he dealt with this situation. Jeffrey owes you an apology, at the very least. Jeffpw 06:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell at Image:Wrigley1945composite.JPG, it is a collage of three images. The first license chosen was related to US Stamps. The third image is a stamp, but the first two images were a problem. They came from Google Images and they didn't identify what URL they came from. So, it was deleted for not identifying the source. Then, the user who started the topic restored the image and added a pd-self tag and now we are here. I suggest a deletion review, but until the other two images are cited with an source or author, let's not restore the image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first image is equivalent to a picture in a 1951 book that I have. I don't recall if I used the scan or if I used an equivalent Google image, as it was a year and half ago or more. The second was definitely a Google image. The third was a scan I made of a postage stamp. The point here is not whether it's a valid fair use, but that it was twice deleted without comment (by who knows who?), and the third time with a vague comment, plus the admin's claim that he has the right to delete anything that he interprets as a rule violation without first discussing it with the one who uploaded it. My complaint is about his autocratic and threatening behavior in the matter, not about whether the image qualifies as fair use. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have deleted it too. Google Images isn't a source, it's a search engine. There's no indication as to where two of the three images in the composite are from. --Carnildo 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you miss the point. It's not about whether the image is valid. It's about deleting it without having the courtesy to say "we're about to delete your image". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually with copyright violations, we delete on sight. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Every fair use photo is, by definition, technically a copyright violation. And in this case you're talking a picture that's 60 years old or more, and I'm claiming fair use for a specific article, for specific reasons, as per the fair use criteria. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. A valid fair use of a copyrighted work is not a copyright violation, at least not in the US. It is using a copyrighted work, but it is emphatically not a copyright violation or copyright infringement. Natalie 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two issues here, Baseball Bugs. First off, Jeffrey is right. It is clearly fair use replaceable and its source was unidentified. You shouldn't have just kept uploading it. The other issue is Jeffreys' attitude: Jefferey, you need to be more polite. Baseball is right: you do have a "screw you" attitude, and being courteous is not an option. I notice you have lost your adminship over similar issues in the past (including talk page blankings). I suggest you pay attention to what ArbCom had to say to you. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, if someone had bothered, the first time, to tell me what the issue was, instead of blindly deleting it, I would have taken a different course of action than blindly uploading it again. Second, I thought my fair use explanation was adequate, and no one bothered to comment on that, either. Also, I would like to hear someone explain just how these images are "replaceable". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer to your last question: "replaceable" means there could theoretically be a free alternative. Natalie 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    POV forks, Dokdo and East Sea

    A suspected sockpuppet of Fixersfixers is creating POV forks for Dokdo and East Sea. They are using multiple accounts, to vandalize these articles.--Endroit 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the culprits so far:

    --Endroit 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them all as obvious sockpuppets used to evade the original Fixersfixers block. — TKD::Talk 06:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your swift action.--Endroit 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethanol Rules

    A several times banned user is operating again under a previously temp blocked username after another indef block last night. Here is a list of all socks so far:

    As you can see from their edits, they are clearly the same person, consistenly adding racist rubbish about jobs and "foriegners" and using false edit summaries. They regularly edit articles such as Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat, Outsourcing etc--Jac16888 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed the links (now I can see... ;)). Use the {{vandal|username}} template Spryde 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    oh sorry, i used the template on my sandbox, and just copy and pasted the code from there to here, didn't realise it wouldn't work--Jac16888 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing sock puppetry from indef blocked AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs)

    Hello. I'm enquiring about the advantages of putting a range block in place on this user's IP address. They have been indefinately blocked for using a multiple of socks (see here for history, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd) and there are a variety of other cases with this user under different names).

    I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. I have collected all of the IP's he has used so that something can be done.

    Seraphim Whipp 10:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how much collateral damage a range block will incur. 

     inetnum:        87.160.0.0 - 87.186.159.255 
 netname:        DTAG-DIAL21 
 descr:          Deutsche Telekom AG 
 country:        DE 
 admin-c:        DTIP 
 tech-c:         DTST 
 status:         ASSIGNED PA

    Navou banter 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to only block the 87.167... range? He only seems to be assigned IPs with that particular prefix.
    Seraphim Whipp 14:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's still 65,536 IP's, or /16 rangeblock; the largest we can give IIRC. -- Avi 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow... how about if it was narrowed further to 87.167.200... to 87.167.255...? He has only been assigned IPs in that range. The earliest IP address he used was in February so the range hasn't changed since then. I'm seeing now the gravity of a range block, but at the same time I really don't know what other measures could be put in place.
    Seraphim Whipp 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing Harassment by Matt57

    Some time ago Matt57 and Elonka got into a dispute over images of Muhammad. Matt57 hasn't been able to let go. After Elonka's unsuccessful Rfa (which I supported, and he opposed), Matt57 has been harassing Elonka by attempting to delete articles about her family members. He's editing tendentiously, in spite the fact that several uninvolved editors and administrators have asked him to find something else to do. This eventually led to a recent exchange on Durova's talk page where Matt57 was disrupting, badgering and generally being incivil. I warned him very politely, as did Durova, and his response was this ugly rudeness. RfA blackballing is a disgusting tactic that should not be tolerated. "Agree with me, or I'll vote against you," has a chilling effect on editors and harms the encyclopedia. - Jehochman Talk 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, please leave your bad faith accusations of harrassment and incivility aside. I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again. Whats the big deal now? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through that exchange, I don't think "I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again" really adequately describes what you were actually doing there. I have zero involvement here, but from reading that link it sure looks like you are fishing for a reaction from Durova (essentially demanding she AFD an article) rather than asking a good faith question. Your response to Jehochman (talk · contribs) was fairly inappropriate as well. Perhaps it is time for you to disengage. Beyond that I'll simply add that asking others to assume good faith is predicated on you yourself actually trying to do that as well.--Isotope23 talk 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disengaged already. Jehochman and Durova raised a fuss over nothing. I was threatened two times again with a block all over this. I had already said there that I wont ask Durova again to evaluate the article since she didnt want to, so I did disengage. They responded very nicely with threatening blocks. So again, I dont get the fuss. I should have been the one to complain of them harrassing me because being threatened with blocks like this over nothing, is harrassment. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. What precipitated this exchange was a complaint Matt had posted to Jimbo's talk page, essentially in the same vein that a variety of impartial and experienced Wikipedians have been asking him to stop for months. I shouldn't have to say no three times, followed by a warning to complain to ANI, for Matt to lay off. And he didn't lay off - he just went over to Jehochman and tried to intimidate an excellent editor because Jehochman had supported me. If it weren't for the fact that the action could be construed as bias, I would have blocked Matt57 for WP:POINT long ago. I was one of Elonka's conominators at RFA. Really this has gone too far and it's time to use the tools. Requesting a block on Matt57 by an uninvolved sysop. DurovaCharge! 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A block for what again? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Severe harrassment and disrupting wikipedia to make a point. You are very very close to a block so proceed with caution. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, talking about the Jan Czarnowski article wasnt a disruption as Jehochman pointed out. It was simply another non-notable family spam article. These are all bad faith accusations that Durova and Jehochman are making on me.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on for ages now, that's why it's getting serious. Each individual thing that has come to this board in recent months regarding your behaviour could be considered minor, but added up, they ammount to a serious campaign of harrassment that no wikipedian should have to put up with. Please Matt, just drop all this. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am far too jaded by far too may encounters with Matt57 and reading the tone of dialogue with others to even suggest that I could venture an impartial opinion here. I will however express my highly partisan views of Matt57. He is an aggressive and disruptive editor with a focus on middle east and Islamic topics where he demontrates a strong POV and hostility to those who do not share it. Indeed that even seem to extend to resentment of those who suggest compromises or try to mediate disputes in that area. His response to those who disagree with him are various pointY activities designed to harass and disrupt. For example, when he dislike the support rationale of User:A.Z., he opposed all RfA that editor had supported in protest. He uses the potential of opposing people at RfA as a stick with which to beat them [81] and shows a disturbing obsession with those he has had disagreements with. His feud with Elonka is one sided and petty - instead of trusting to the community's ability to impartially solve notability and OR issues with articles she (by her own admission) improperly edited or created a year ago, he decided to make that his personal crusade. He removed sourced material from those articles (refusing to accept the counsel of more experienced editors that inline citation are not required by police) and goaded her on her talkpage on multiple occasions. Despite being asked numerous times to stop by at least 8 separate admins (including those who have been strong opponents of Elonka in the past) he continued and responded by making wild accusations against those who criticised him, rather than heading their concern. His only supporter has been revealed to be a sanction evading sockpuppet. His forum shopping has included a post to the help desk making unfounded challenges to Elonka's editorial technique, and recently an abusrd appeal on Jimbo's talkpage. His conduct is nasty, disruptive and small minded - his obsession with Elonka entirely personal and inappropriate. Matt57's attitude to this project is disruptive and totally at odds with trying to create a collegial and co-operative environment. WjBscribe 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not an uninvolved party here. All the things you said are disputes that all of us have in our history. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I seems clear to me (an uninvolved admin) that Matt is in need a break from Wikipedia (or rather Wikipedia is in need of a break from Matt). I'd say a month or two would be a good start before we went indef. Thoughts? -- John Reaves 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly support 1 month to start with and any future harassment escalating accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with John... it might be time for a break, be it voluntary or involuntary.--Isotope23 talk 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly is the alleged 'harrassment'? This is really intimidation of the highest degree. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok I'll repeat it here: Please show me specifically the alleged criminal behavior from me that is being complained about. Whats the evidence? What did I do, other than engage in disputes that all of us do at one point or the other anyway? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At one point or the other, yes, but I think one view might be that you seem to be permanently in a state of dispute in multiple locations. I should also note that I, like you, strongly opposed Elonka's RfA and as far as I can remember have never personally been in a dispute with you (just watched from a distance, mainly during the DavidYork business where you were restoring edits by socks of a banned user). Orderinchaos 16:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The same banned editor who I myself later supported for an indef ban and even marked some of his sock puppets due to his continued swastika trolling etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked Matt57 for one month per this discussion. The comments on Jehockman's talk page are clearly a threat and I'm getting tired of all the disruption that seems to be connected to this user. As always, any other admin is welcome to unblock or vary the block to reflect any change to consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll endorse this block, as Matt57 is clearly editing in a highly tendentious manner (more so than usual, at any rate). Vassyana has declined the unblock request. A month of peace and quiet beckons, hopefully. Moreschi Talk 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. It's nice to see that the system works. - Jehochman Talk 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an univolved observer, I endorse this action regarding Matt57. I suggest that if it continues after his enforced break, that WP:CSN would be the place for a discussion of future sanctions. --Rocksanddirt 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (undent) As another uninvolved (except only for supporting Elonka's RfA) nonadmin observer, I also fully endorse this block. This editor's tendentious stalking, POV pushing and countering demonstrations of his troubling edit patterns with the equivalent of "show me that demonstrations of my troubling edit patterns demonstrate my troublesome editing patterns" is exhausting the patience of many, many good editors, as well as me, and making me lurkingly wonder what on earth he has to do to get blocked (til now). If he entertains the idea of falling back to similar insistence on his own righteousness, I offer him two suggestions: if you genuinely think you are in the right, consider this discussion and block action to be proof you are wrong; on the other hand, if you indeed know better, then please instead get yourself a blog or something—both you and wikipedia will be better off for it.

    There has been a lot of heat generated lately by discussion of how impotent wikipedia seems to be in handling editors who game the system. Hopefully this will resort to a little bit of light. I am not usually this adamant about disputes, and indeed have seen worse, but for the sake of defense from future wikigamers, this type of exploitation of process cannot be merely wristslapped. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tend to endorse. I will go on record saying that I'm not unbiased here — I like Matt, and my interactions with him endeared him to me; he's a dedicated editor with a strong opinion. However, the pattern of behavior which I've seen from him over the past several months has not been productive; dare I say it, even disruptive. "Tendentious" is perhaps the best word. --Haemo 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a difference though between an editor with a strong opinion and tendentiously trying to pick fights with editors that one has conflicted with. There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion; but Matt seems to have crossed over into the latter territory, and not just in this specific situation.--Isotope23 talk 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - Indeed, this isn't the first time, nor the first time that he has been warned (our last Elonka related discussion and this. Honestly, I'm surprised at how long the community had put up with this disruptive wikistalking - he was supposed to let go of the Elonka articles after the last ANI discussion, and that was kind considering that he'd already been warned for such behavior. We've given him enough chances to change and show more respect, but he just never let go. The Behnam 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. DurovaCharge! 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why Durova is permitted to flood wikipedia with articles about her family, when that family does not pass the notability threshold. One of these silly articles is the subject of a current AfD which has about a dozen delete votes: [82]. A month block for upholding wikipedia guidelines is another reflection on the current crop of admins. Arrow740 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a long block, based on the LAST time we all went through the 'Matt57 going after Elonka' thing. Wasn't that just a month ago? two months? this sort of thing just goes back to the JzG section above about long term tendentious editing not being stopped due to ridiculous warning:time ratios. Block him long term. Let him find a new hobby or new perspective on things. ThuranX 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurrop

    The "new" user (I hope is not a sockpuppet) Kurrop (talk · contribs) is making many controversial changes as [83], [84] and the subsequent reversions without having discussed a word in articles' talk pages. I have told her [85] that such changes must be discussed first and even having started a discussion (User talk:Kurrop and User talk:Xtv#Controversial changes), (s)he continued making some edit warring [86]). Her last contribution in my talk page could be clearly qualified as trolling (just read how the discussion follows, they are just a couple of lines).

    Therefore, since (s)he is "new" (again, I wonder how new is (s)he), I still don't ask for a block, but I ask to an administrator to warn her that this is not the way to make such controversial changes and talk pages should be used. Then I hope (s)he starts discussing. If not, then I'll ask for a block. Thank you! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find complitely astonishing that I have been advised about the three revert rule because I reverted controversial actions made without any explanation in articles' talk pages. The subject is enough controversial -as you can see in the recently closed arbitration- so that any contribution which is likely to be polemical should be discussed first in the talk page. Moreover if some of the contributions made by this user are complitely non-sense. I want to remark I was not the only user reverting the contributions from Kurrop but there was at least two other users reverting his/her contributions. (S)he was pushing for his/her versions without discussing and I asked him/her to discuss first and since (s)he didn't, I came to the administrators noticeboard to ask you to tell him/her exactly to discuss first the changes in the talk page. And then an administrator comes and leaves me a message asking me to use the talk page. Is it a joke?
    Anyway, I won't revert anymore any of his/her contributions, but in that case I beg the administrators to look carefuly his/her contributions so that only well discussed changes may be accepted. Thank you very much.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you the standard warning issued to editors involved in an edit dispute. You both reverted the article three times; you both get the warning. "I'm right and s/he's wrong" isn't an exception to 3RR. I will, of course, monitor the edits made by the user. -- Merope 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Xtv: please tell us, citing official written Wikipedia policy pages with references, which policy you believe allows Wikipedia administrators to block, or threaten to block, a user for making what you describe as "controversial changes". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have broken some Wikipedia policy I apologize but I only want to neutralize that articles, because I think they have no neutral point of view. Kind Regards.--Kurrop 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Make any sense?

    Resolved
     – with little or no bloodshed. --barneca (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you express your opinion whether the following sentense make any sense? If not? why not?

    The space passengers alighted from the space vehicle and were taking in the surroundings with much enthusiasm.Check My Simple English 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know where this belongs, but it isn't WP:ANI. My best guess (if I understand your question) is you want to ask here. That said, the sentence makes sense to me, but I don't think it's worded well, and I don't think it's "simple English", which may or may not be what you're asking. --barneca (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.Check My Simple English 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Both IPs are anon-blocked. Talk pages tagged with {{anonblock}}. Vassyana 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two anons that appear to be the reincarnation of Stevewk (talk · contribs · logs) / Gwilmont (talk · contribs · logs) who was blocked multiple times for edit-warring and sock-puppetry over this family of articles, have turned up to restore his/her prefered version of these articles. – ornis⚙ 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletions of comments and !votes from an AFD

    Resolved
     – Material restored CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants, some comments and !votes were removed, apparently inadvertently, by User:ILike2BeAnonymous [87]. Since that deletion, other !votes have been added, so a simple undo or rollback does not restore all deleted text. What is the fix? Cut and paste from a version where the deleted material still existed, or some other technique with the admin buttons? What both gets all comments and votes restored and is in accord with all GFDL attribution rules? Edison 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism by anonymous IP

    Resolved
     – IP and a sock both blocked. Please use WP:AIV next time. --barneca (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 24.224.174.170 has been participating in continuous vandalsim, most recently to Borat. The last post on his talk page is a final pre-block warning. Please block him. Bonus Onus 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Usually, a quicker way to get action is to report repeated vandalism to WP:AIV. However, at the time of your original post, their final warning was 4 days old, and they hadn't vandalized for almost four hours, so (depending on which admin took the report) it's likely they wouldn't have been blocked. However, they've just now started up again, so I've given a final final final warning, and will report to WP:AIV if it continues. --barneca (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Viran and the theory of relativity

    Resolved

    Viran is insiting on treating Wikipedia like a bulliten board. He has tried multiple times to impose this edit on the article and had it reverted each time. The edit is discussed at Talk:Theory_of_relativity#Explaining_Second_Postulate_of_SR and is universally panned. None the less, in his latest post on that talk page he says that

    I want my explainatory post in article.

    Viran has been told on his talk page that Wikipedia is not a discussion group, but he refuses to listen.

    BTW - He also is taking on the persona of Neo from The Matrix film series. Perhaps it is time to "unplug" Viran from our encyclopedia matrix? Thanks much, --EMS | Talk 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse the above. He has made it clear that he won't listen to any regular 'peon' users, just someone with authority (maybe an admin -the nonsense is spreading). R. Baley 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User notified about this thread (diff). R. Baley 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note Virian/neo, please do not delete my comment as you did here on this board. R. Baley 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am just explaining second postulate of SR. Vandalism is something which goes against meaning of article, unsourced. I am supporter of second postulate of SR.

    These people don't want to improve quality of article. May be these people are anti-Einstein.

    Science is not democracy where opinion of majority matters. What matters is reason.

    This is neo !!! 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wish to present an explanatory example, please provide one from a reliable reference. A basic physics textbook should suffice. We are not permitted to insert our own interpretations and explanatory examples. Vassyana 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Viram's post is almost a classic example of a response for a rigidly dogmatic editor. I see this not only from cranks but also from respected professors who in theory should know better. The overall gist of this is "I am right. Please get out of my way and let me do my thing". However, only Viram thinks that he is right, or that his proposed edit would at all improve the article. --EMS | Talk 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself as well. I have tried working with him as seen on his talk page. It is not going well :-( Spryde 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, I filed two requests for admin intervention with template Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The first was dismissed as a clear case of wp:bite - which i.m.o. was exactly what he was trying to provoke.
    The second was declared "not-another-case" of wp:3rr and was delisted by C.Fred, who probably didn't recognize Ems57fcva's first early warning as such. EMS did indeed not use the formal warning templates, perhaps to avoid biting the newcomer.
    DVdm 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Unbelievably, Viran/neo persists (link diff) in making the same edit. R. Baley 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More to the point, he just did it three times as shown in the article history and it the face of warnings in the edit summaries. I think that he has stopped for the day due to WP:3RR. IMO, he his just going to continue to push on us like this until an admin ahows that we are serious by blocking him. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    and again. . .with a request, I might add. R. Baley 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked him for 31 hours for edit warring. I don't care whether or not he violated the 3rr. Friday (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See everyone here again in 31 then? ('100 names', "Blocking is trivial" "Don't talk. Go ahead.Do it.") R. Baley 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. He will be back - with a vengeance. DVdm 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I think you will be right. At least we have tried to show him how to do it. Spryde 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You made a truly remarkable effort. I lift my hat to you. DVdm 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After consulting with Friday, I have indefinitely blocked the account. His only edits have been useless and/or disruptive, and his threat to futher disrupt the project by means of sockpuppets means that he doesn't care about improving the project. -- Merope 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank you for this. We most likely will be battling the sockpuppets next, but that is always a losing battle for the sock-puppeteer. --EMS | Talk 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just say how unnerving it was when he stopped communicating with me in favor of quoting the Matrix? It was pretty freaking unnerving. --Masamage ♫ 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Merope's indef block. Forget about his insistence on his, er, idiosyncratic explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity, or throwing the word "vandalism" about: this user has been reverting to his own version of the article for two days straight. Should have been blocked for 3RR alone. -- llywrch 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.

    note: the above is a section title, not a comment. --—Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yidisheryid

    Yidisheryid (talk · contribs)

    Unfortunately, I have been involved in some heated content discussions with the above user. Concurrently, the user's civility has been further and further lacking. Now we are getting to the point where the user has been changing my edits, as well as being, shall I say, childish on his talk page in terms of name calling.

    I would request that an admin review, at the very least, the user's talk page history, and perhaps take appropriate action (or am I really a prankster? [ -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ][reply]

    Note: He is not calling you a prankster, he is calling the AFD nom a prankster. This is clear from context. —Random832 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to my involvement, I will not take direct action against the user, notwithstanding multiple disregards of what I feel were both valid and civil warnings.

    Personally, I believe the user has exhibited a history of unilateral edits against consensus, potentially POV pushing edits, a distinct lack of civility, misunderstanding, or willfully ignoring, basic wikipedia policies, guidelines, and definitions, and am beginning to think that perhaps the user may find it difficult to edit gainfully and in accord with other wikipedians. I also may be wrong and be influenced by my interactions with said user.

    Besides comment about these last particular actions, I am requesting feedback on my understanding of the situation here, and whether or not some further measures (WP:RFC, a longer term block, etc.) are in order, or are uncalled for. Thank you. -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. the link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sockpuppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples of changing others' edits from this very page

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=160275313
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=160275313
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=160275554
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=160275630

    Need I add more? -- Avi 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Those were all explained, and i apologized long before you brought those examples will never do it again.--יודל 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Those were the edits you JUST made, to WP:ANI, changing the headings of the section I added here to WP:ANI, AFTER you had been informed it was improper and AFTER you commented to Yossi about what you did on your talk page. -- Avi 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    U r right i already made those edit into a separate header and i will never do it again in this form as well.--יודל 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other diffs/evidence

    OK. user:The Evil Spartan suggested that there may not have been enough diffs. I hope the following will suffice. -- Avi 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous evidence of sock/meatpuppetry

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid (note last edit by YY)

    Changing other users' text

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yidisheryid&diff=next&oldid=160261806
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yidisheryid&diff=next&oldid=160262059 (this includes calling somebody a prankster.
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yidisheryid&diff=next&oldid=160262146
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yidisheryid&diff=next&oldid=160263264

    Removing discussion-specific templates (such as AfD) when discussions are ongoing

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Jewish_outreach&diff=prev&oldid=160252776
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baal_teshuva&diff=prev&oldid=160287881

    Unilateral edits and moves without consensus

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baal_teshuva&diff=prev&oldid=159431957
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haredim_and_Zionism&diff=160256728&oldid=158231103
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haredim_and_Zionism&diff=160268732&oldid=160268126

    Incivil edits and edit summaries

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yisroel_Dovid_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=160058504
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Jewish_outreach&diff=prev&oldid=160243748
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baal_teshuva&diff=prev&oldid=160253016

    User:Avraham for Disruptive editing

    Avraham (talk · contribs)


    He abuses this page to beg other unsuspecting Admins to block a user who has expressed concern to him he should behave according to consensus, see the discussion of what triggered this page: [[88]] with a third user, so consensus of non-blocked users should be in his favor. Although my history with Avi is not only on that page.

    While he was using this page to block another user, he did not even hide his clear contempt for conflict of interest, he was at that same instant probably not even in 15 minutes, heavily involved to edit 5 ongoing separate issues according to his wish against that users wish; 1. Zionism 2. Baal Tshuva 3. Orthodox Jews about Zionism 4. Jewish Outreach, of my defense which he has all edited within the 15 minutes before this request, which he would have won them all on false and abusive consensus. if the unsuspecting admins would have acted upon those vicious unruly notice from Avi here.

    First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. and for him to bring this as his only link to show incident of my uncivilly is saying what kind of games he is up to to get other users blocked.


    The link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sock puppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks i may not like the outcome bu believe me Avi gives me no other chance, i do not want to see him blocked i want him to stop editing in a disruptive way, that's all, i cannot be selfish here, if Avi does this while dealing with me rest assured he is doing it with other as well, and he must stop acting like this, because the price i pay will never be enough to have such a beautiful encyclopedic medium.--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't see anywhere Avraham where has been less than civil towards you even though some of your edits are questionable. Indeed he has been pretty damn courteous to you, he could quite easily have blocked you personally without any trouble, and he didn't need to tell you about this incident report. You should know that the chances are high that of the two of you, you're gonna come out of this worse off than he does, if i were you i'd drop it, do some helpful edits and hope you don't get too long a ban--Jac16888 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen this medium is not about me nor about avi, Avi cannot block me and has said so himself that he is not allowed to block although he wishes to get rid of me, which i do understand him and i forgive him, this is about an incident which i believe a user is breaking policy and requires the attention of other admin in an emergency way, Avi tries to win discussions now by blocking me and he should be stopped. a normal user can not stop him so this is the only page where to bring this incident--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I am only not allowed to block you to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I am allowed to block you if you are in violation of any policy/guideline. I have chosen not to block you at this point to ensure that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety. I reserve the right to act in the best interests of wikipedia if the situation so demands it. -- Avi 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - after a brief look through this, Avi hasn't provided a lot of diffs, but the one's he has provided are pretty damning. And YY, your responses leave much to be desired (apparently his unhappiness that you changed his comments was "out of context") - and Avi can call you a sockpuppet all he wants, if he suspects it, and hasn't blocked you. Like Yossiea said, you might not want to keep playing this game - you're losing. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK i say to guys wait until i gather all my links. you will all be astound, perhaps my not bringing any links makes the case that i am more guilty here then Avi, so i urge all you guys to wait and not pass judgment until i can gather all the links showing Avi's pattern here of blocking me to win his edit fights with me. this is a long pain staking work and i wish not to start working on it but if avi does not retract his request to block me i must do it for the good of wikipedia and forsake my own good in the process.--יודל 17:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- A review of Yidisheryid's contributions shows a trend of willful disruption. (The claim that he's never edited another person's comments made at the same time as he's doing it is rather amusing, though.) I'm certainly inclined to block. -- Merope 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All but one of the diffs provided for him changing things on this board have been section titles, which are NOT accepted to be as "inviolable" as signed comments (though he perhaps should have given a visible indication that he retitled it), one additionally added more informational links to the top of the section, before the comments, and the one remaining (which really shouldn't have been cited) was a technical fix to a template he himself had added. Saying someone is in the wrong for "changing other users edits", when the edits being changed are NOT signed comments, is treading very closely to WP:OWN. —Random832 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see what you base this on; heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits. Changing it makes it look like someone wrote something he didn't. Besides, this is not the sole cause of concern; his pattern of behavior shows he's intent on disruption. The discussion I've been having with him since his block shows that he has no understanding of some of our core policies. I didn't block based on this one thing alone. -- Merope 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course "heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits." All text on all pages are part of the text that another user edits. But insisting that someone not change text you put in, other than for signed comments (a section header is not part of a comment) violates WP:OWN. —Random832 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In general, when making changes to someone else's text makes it look as if that person's edits were more attacking, less neutral, or changes the intended meaning, then it is an issue, I believe. -- Avi 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. What I'm saying is: the section header is not "your text"; it belongs to everyone. It is not part of your comment. It would be no more reasonable for someone to blame you for what it says (without having a diff to see if you were the one who wrote it), which seems to be what you're worried about happening, than it is for you to attempt to control what it says. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) For example, when he changed this section header to say you were also being uncivil, he was not trying to make it look like you accused yourself of incivility (as that would be absurd), he was trying to indicate that the discussion found underneath the header is (or, that he wants it to be) about both your behavior. —Random832 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:OWN is more for not letting others edit articles you "own." That is not the same as editing someone else's writings. Yossiea (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How is a section header different? —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can edit the page, but I can't do this: "Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How the hell, you stupid idiot, is a section header different? You're stupid and Wikipedia has no place for you. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" There's a difference between editing an article and editing someone else's talkpage entries. Yossiea (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And his most recent edits to this have pushed me over the edge. Maybe it's Guy's leaving, but I don't want to have to make Avi go through an RFC when one editor is clearly being disruptive. I've blocked for 24 hours for civility and disruption (constantly removing maintenance notices really grates my cheese) and left a message on his talk page explaining how he can become more civil. I'll continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tend to endorse. His behavior is has been willfully disruptive here, and I don't see any evidence he respects or cares about the opinions of other editors. --Haemo 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly endorse the block. I was actually on my over to block YY myself when I saw Merope had gotten there first. User:Yidisheryid is clearly being disruptive; the counter-accusation against User:Avraham only highlights the fact that Avi has remained remarkably civil while dealing with YY's provocation and disruption. Avi is also to be commended for bringing this to AN/I. I strongly endorse the block as preventing further disruption and as being a net positive to the encyclopedia. If YY doesn't make some significant behavioral changes when the block expires, I'd have a low threshold for extending it. MastCell Talk 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this structured as an "RFAR lite"? —Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because user:The Evil Spartan commented that there were not that many diffs. Thus, I added more, and I placed them in subheadings for clarity purposes. -- Avi 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyways, I think this is resolved; YY contacted me by email. He seems contrite about his behavior, and knows he's made a mistake. I don't think we need anymore action here for now; I hope this will be a new beginning for all involved. --Haemo 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Block for user:Kucu4cocopufzz

    Resolved

    There is reason to believe that this user, Kucu4cocopufzz, is an account for vandalism only. Looking at this user's Edit History you can see that the user has only vandalized wikipedia since their account was created yesterday. It would be a good idea to block this user from wikipedia. Thank you. Icestorm815 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked. Next! -- Merope 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Bromagon multiple instances

    Resolved

    Came across user bromagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Appears to be a new account. Just about all of his entries are vandalism of one form or another - some subtle some not. In any event all of his entries seem designed to be disruptive.--Lepeu1999 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked. Next. -- Merope 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks!--Lepeu1999 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blog reviews in Film Noir

    I found over 70 links to a blog, http://noiroftheweek.blogspot.com in various film noir articles. The vast majority were added by Steve Eifert and a couple of IPs that only added these links. I removed them all as spam. Now, RedSpruce has decided to readd them all after calling me a dick repeatedly [89] [90]. I have explained that blogs aren't reliable sources and they fail WP:EL. RedSpruce found a couple of the entries that were ostensibly penned by valid authors. The problem is, those entries are taken from published materials and added to the blog with no assertion of permission to do so...and while I explained this to RedSource, he doesn't seem to care. The other entries are all simply reviews from people on the blog owner's message board. Nothing of note. IN the course of his blind reverts, he is adding in other spam that was removed. IrishGuy talk 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After posting this...he decided to reiterate that I am a relentless dick. IrishGuy talk 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, maybe I'm just on a blocking roll, but I'm inclined to block for incivility and edit warring. The links clearly don't fall under WP:EL; it's a blog that violates copyright. Removing them was the correct decision; restoring them and calling you a dick isn't. I'll issue a final warning. -- Merope 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning posted and will monitor. *sigh* -- Merope 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't like your warning [91] :) Thanks for talking to him, though. IrishGuy talk 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't deny that I was uncivil to IrishGuy. However, his actions with regard to these links he removed were unjustified and in my view incorrect. The links may have been added in a "spam like" manner by someone hoping to increase traffic to his web site, but if there's a policy for removing links because of an editor's motivation in adding them, I'm not aware of any such policy, nor has IrishGuy cited one. Instead he cited WP:RS which doesn't apply because these were external links, not sources used for attribution, and WP:EL. WP:EL discourages, but does not prohibit, links to blogs "except those written by a recognized authority." I pointed out to IrishGuy that many of the articles whose links he deleted were in fact written by published authors and recognized authorities. He then raised the issue that these links might be copyright violations.
    In fact, until IrishGuy mentioned it, the issue of copyright violation hadn't occurred to me. I guess I was distracted by IrishGuy's arrogant attitude and his obvious ignorance of the WP policies that he repeatedly recommended that I read up on. However, IrishGuy has no evidence that any of the linked articles are copyright violations. In one case, the editor of the website speaks of interviewing the author of the book being excerpted ("I asked Dr. Mayer to tell us a little about the book...) [92] -- that certainly implies the original author's involvement in the website article. In another, the article is said to come from a yet-to-be-published book [93]. That too strongly suggests the original author's involvement. If there is a WP policy against linking to articles that might contain copyright violations, I'm not aware of it.
    I apologize to the WP community for my insulting language. I believe IrishGuy owes the community an apology for his unjustified wholesale deletions of valid content. RedSpruce 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No policy against spamming? How about WP:SPAM. Again, I don't have to prove that they are copyright violations...the blog itself doesn't give any reason to believe otherwise. What you quote could be a simply cut and paste from another source. Even if it isn't, interviewing soemone doesn't give you the right to copy a book to a blog. Even within your answer you are incivil. Once again, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy talk 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IrishGuy, your endless and inappropriate repetitions of "please read..." are insulting and a form of personal attack. Please desist or I will be forced to post a warning on your Talk page. Thanks. RedSpruce 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you clearly do need to read the civility guidelines...as well as WP:SPAM, WP:EL, etc. Two other editors have agreed and warned you. IrishGuy talk 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James Hansen / sock puppets

    James Hansen has seen a lot of red-user edits recently. User:Obedium has got a 3RR block. Based on edit pattern, I've blocked User:Slaphappie and User:Scibaby as socks of same evading the block. Just letting you know in case anyone wants to review William M. Connolley 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure "red-user" is a productive term to use. After all, anyone can create a userpage, and some of our most established users choose not to. —Random832 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding, I think you got it right. I'm not sure why anyone would set up sockpuppets in quite this fashion, but the editing patterns by all three accounts - each about a year old, with 30-50 edits including 10+ to Nanotechnology - indicate a common origin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack. Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Scibaby ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass-removing links to an article

    User 77.102.181.182 is mass-removing links to the article Psychedelic art from where it is linked, without reasoning. Possible biased sabotage needed to be dealt with. ssr 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we just revert? I mean, s/he didn't give a reason. So, it's along the bounds of "revertable material." --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably should, but I'm unaware of any admin measures for tracking possible further moves by this particular remover (and I don't feel courageous enough myself to mass-revert) so I decided to notify. --ssr 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Digwuren blocked

    Digwuren continues to edit war despite several blocks in the past. He has recently been edit warring at Denial of Soviet occupation. Therefore, I've blocked for two weeks (his most recent block was for one). As Digwuren is involved in a current Arbcom case, there may need to be arrangements to unblock him for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Any particular reason why you chose to block only him and not also Anonimu (talk · contribs) with 4 reverts in 24h ([94], [95], [96], [97]) and a far longer block log? -- Sander Säde 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1.The first diff is my first edit on the page and my {{or}} was brand new (no rv) 2. The second is a rv indeed. 3. Since H2O said in his summary that "No, a referenced article that has every right to be kept", i decided to drop the OR and ask for a reference that, judging by H2O's tone, wasn't hard to get. Not a revert, in my opinion. The two tags have different meanings. (no rv) 4.The fourth can be considered a partial revert. Thus I have one revert and a half, plus some suggestion of compromise.Anonimu 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block of 74.247.200.254

    There is reason to believe that 74.247.200.254 is an account for vandalism only. Looking at this user's Edit History you can see that the user has only made one edit which seems to be using religious intolerance towards an editor. It would be a good idea to block this user from wikipedia. Not sure if it warrants Checkuser as well since they obviously are responding to some comment I made somewhere so they may also be a sockpuppet. Thank you. Benjiboi 20:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A single edit isn't blockworthy. It appears to be an editor using an IP to evade recognition, but for now blocks are preventative and not punative. IrishGuy talk 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, OK, so we think its a sockpuppet who's abusing an editor and we won't block because why again? They have to do it again so we can verify the body count? Benjiboi 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure your reply over there was very helpful. Just leave a {{uw-npa1}} on their talk but don't feed 'em. -- Satori Son 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivil? Maybe. Abusive...not really. And as noted above, replying with ...It's hard for me to see your pointing out some mystery error as anything but you promoting your twisted mythological Biblical views. As far as I know Jesus was a butch homo who believed in New Testament healing and said something along the lines that love is the only drug. makes it difficult for you to point the finger. You were clearly goading the IP right back. IrishGuy talk 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An anon IP used solely for the purpose to spread religious-based homophobia - Your comment showed your ignorance regarding the moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Your response acted as if they are on the same plane morally, but the Judeo-Christian belief, upon which the United States was founded, states clearly that anyone who practices homosexuality is going against God's plan for humanity came to my talk page making a vague reference to some comment I made somewhere is clearly abusive, see perhaps spiritual abuse. That aside, you're telling me that if they do it again it's blockable but not until, right? To me it seems they are abusing the rules and it's evident they are a sock of someone and I wish abuse against myself and any other editors who operate in good faith would be stopped in its tracks. I responded to an attack and I know the difference between well-intentioned believers and "Christians" who want to preach that gays are evil. Thank you Satori Son for the template suggestion, I have left it on the IP's talk page. Benjiboi 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't indefinitely block IP's anyways, so any injunction would be temporary. --Haemo 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie, article Bhutan Times and others

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:24.61.222.132

    • Excessive reversions violation on

    Bhutan Times by Bramlet Abercrombie Time reported: 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    plus another 50 more in the same article...

    User has a long history of reversion abuse (>50 in Bhutan Times itself plus many others). User did not respond to requests for discussion and deleted warnings place on his user talk page. Bramlet Abercrombie has been blocked before for reversion abuse. --24.61.222.132 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On one hand, he is not giving any sort of rationale in his reversions. On the other, it seems if you look early in the history for the article that he explained that it needs some sort of sourcing and such. He is pretty much treating it as vandalism right now. I suggest finding some sort of reliable sources surrounding the dispute and/or the dot com and post the info with the correct cites. Spryde 00:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just reverting spam. That user has been trying for a year, with a variety of IPs and usernames, to insert links to a non-notable website Bhutantimes.com (Alexa rank 2,153,294) into various articles, including Bhutan Times which is about an unrelated notable newspaper. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bramlet, we just posted simultaneously here. Thank you for responding. As I said, yesterday was my first post to the article. I can see that you have been involved in a protracted edit war with some guy from the web site you mentioned. If you are willing to discuss my edit, then lets do so on the discussion page, okay? --24.61.222.132 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    My [first edit] to the article was yesterday and Bramlet has made no edit summary comments in any of his posts since then. There was no discussion page when I made my first edit, I had to create it when he reverted my edit. In the absense of any discussion on his part, it doesn't make much sense to trial-and-error the form of my edits hoping to find a form he likes -- he seems to revert any edit made to the article. --24.61.222.132 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi - could someone step in and explain to editor Luigifan that spamming multiple articles with this off-site fanfiction has nothing at all to do with improving articles - I have tried twice with no result and would prefer not to get into an edit war. --Fredrick day 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note. A review of his contribs suggest that there are problems there. If he proceeds further, I'd think a short block would be in order. MastCell Talk 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Might want to keep an eye on this guy:

    User_talk:Luigifan#Please_do_not_make_test_edits_to_articles

    That sounds an awful lot like a threat to me... 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Reading his talk page, this guy looks like one of those long term users, who do just enough good edits to keep from being blocked, but overall has a negative effect on wikipedia--Jac16888 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing the good edits. I see lots of talk page abuse, and nearly all of the edits marked as "minor". MastCell Talk 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the same user as the report right above this entry. As he chooses to ignore warnings and continue screwing around, he now has a 24 hour block. IrishGuy talk 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Profg

    Profg was recently blocked by William Connolley [98]. I declined the unblock, but the user claims that I am too involved to make the unblock call. I'm therefore bringing the matter up here for other admins to review. JoshuaZ 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    vandalism in progress

    Resolved

    Anonymous IP User talk:71.86.185.137 was on his last warning and vandalized Eutropius. Please block this IP. Bonus Onus 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That final warning was from last August. I left a {{uw-test}} on the talk page. In the future, if someone's vandalizing past a recent final warning, you can report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers, WODUP 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block of 137.71.23.54

    After several warnings they have continued to vandalize the Discssion and article page at *Stoughton and reverted back to their vandalized versions.

    The have continued to alter the discussion page after being warned to stop.

    Ratboy37 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP seems to have stopped for now. Please report at WP:AIV if it continues. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user 206.213.40.100 and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I

    Resolved

    An anonymous user keeps on reverting the article for no given reason after listed genealogical relationships were corrected. When a reason was finally given, it hinged on one overlooked error (even though he or she reverted the whole list continually) and the user inserted his or her own opinions or notes in capital letters in the middle of the article. The user will not stop reverting or adding commentary to the article. Here are some diffs:

    I feel that this should be dealt with promptly in order to maintain the integrity of the article. I have already posted a terse message at the anonymous user's talk page regarding the matter. Charles 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:71.60.63.183

    I have "BOLDly" (recklessly, illicitly?) semi-protected this page. My comments on it explain. Somebody else may wish either to confirm or to undo my good (or not) work. -- Hoary 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong on #2 - no impersonation. However, I say, let him rot. Static IP been vandalizing for ages. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems perfectly fine to me. Sometimes showing people the door doesn't work, and it's time to drunk-toss. Natalie 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The only potential problems I saw were that:

    1. While anal homosex seems to be his greatest obsession, I seem to be his second or third greatest; preventative action might look like punitive action, and punitive action might look personal.
    2. Semi-protecting an IP's talk page is a bad idea; it prevents innocent, unrelated would-be users from speaking up.
    3. I had a feeling that all this was explained on some howto page somewhere, but I was connected expensively and slowly via modem and was in a rush to get out of the house.

    -- Hoary 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hesperianos is on a copyvio spree

    Resolved

    We have a user, possibly a bot, adding HUGE chunks of copyrighted material about self-help and healthcare books totally without regard to warnings. Can an admin step in on this? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 00:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: He/she is still at it. I've corrected the username as well. It's "Hesperianos." --PMDrive1061 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by Natalie Erin IrishGuy talk 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding unsourced content in clay

    I and a changing IP address have been in an edit war in the article clay. I have challenged an unsourced definition of clay per WP:V and replaced it with a reliably and authoritatively sourced definition. The editor continues to re-add the unsourced definition. The editor has refused to provide any sourcing or provide details on why he/she prefers that definition. I have tried discussing the relevant policies and reasons for needing verification with the editor on my talk page, but the editor will not listen. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Halo 4 (Game)

    Resolved

    Someone made this as a prank, posted at GameFAQs, and now there's a ton of vandalism. I'm edit warring with an anon because he keeps removing the speedy tag. Please delete and WP:SALT. hbdragon88 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted it G1, not salted - usually 2 re-creations is not enough for salting. Best not to edit war, also, just bring it here - if someone deletes a speedy tag, you should warn them on their talk pages. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that after the third revert and then reported them to AIV after that. Also warned the article creator. Good call on not salting – I forgot that only registered users can create articles, not anons. hbdragon88 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=160401705"