Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Determined trolling of Refdesks

There have been a number of trolling posts made lately by a user and an IP that are obviously the same person. I have been removing the posts, and the troll has been putting them back. Can he be stopped? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath is trying to inappropriately eliminate an opposing perspective by labeling me a troll and then harassing me through vandalism by acting on that label. It is Milkbreath's inappropriate labeling and wrongful vandalism which needs to be stopped rather than the opportunity for others to offer comment and to provide references for the research I am doing. Thanks. Multimillionaire (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Multimillionaire really does seem to be trolling, with irrelevant flame-starters like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did.". It's lame. --Sean 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the claimed trolling. Do not leave it to every reader of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to individually research all the edits by the user you are complaining about. I looked at some of Multimillionaire's edits and saw probable violations of the Ref Desk's rule "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" in the form of discussion of white women "compensating" for past oppression of black men by bearing their children. But this is clearly far from a vandalism only account, since many posts were fine such as [1]. . A caution against inflammatory soapboxing might be in order, if there are additional such posts. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topics with very loaded questions recently started by Multimilionier or someone in the ip range 71.100.*.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201045940&oldid=201045659

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200832624&oldid=200831282

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=200000256

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=200421664&oldid=200415415

These are usually followed by a number of minor edits fixing style punctuation, etc.

Reinstatement of deleted question : (Edit tagged as "minor")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200996573&oldid=200994795

Recreation of a deleted question : (Notice how the political catch-phrase he's trying to push has been moved to the title, probably in the hopes that only the question text would be deleted.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201171693&oldid=201171673

I'm pretty sure that this is not all of them. They are a pain to locate with all the traffic the ref desks get and his dynamic IP.

Note that he appears to fully acknowledge that (some or all) of the 71.100.*.* posts are him, as he responds to criticism as though he were the original poster. APL (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:::FWIW, along with the IPs, User:Millionaire now redirects to User:Pedist There was a name change in October, 2006, but not many edits, if any, since then, at User:Pedist. User came back to WP as User:Millionaire several days ago, and now has moved Millionaire's User and Talk pages to User:Pedist. It doesn't appear that Millionaire's conrtibutions have been moved however, as I can't find any of the awkward Ref Desk questions in User:Pedist's contributions. Is this the norm? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) OOOPs~ Apologies to User:Millionaire and User:Pedist, and thanks to User:FiggyBee. It's very reassuring to know that I can count on at least one Wikipedian who can read. Once again, apologies for the disruption. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bielle, the user at issue is User:Multimillionaire, not User:Millionaire, who appears to be completely unrelated. FiggyBee (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also his bizarre answers in this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Changing_fortunes_of_the_Nazi_Party APL (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For another diff, now there is this. This is also user:Barringa and user:Leasing Agent. The history goes back over a year, see 1), 2), and 3), and see also threads 7, 15, 17, and 18 at the reference desk's current talk page version. I don't know what can be done. It's a tedious nuisance, is all. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an edit which makes it clear that User:Multimillionaire is also User:71.100.164.179. If (as has been alleged several times) 71.100.*.* is in fact banned user Barringa, I'd say it makes sense to block User:Multimillionaire, and as many of the 71.100.*.* IP's as we care to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mimus polyglottos appears to be a new sock of the same user, posting "questions" about interracial marriage and editing posts signed 71.100.*.* FiggyBee (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to substantiate my repeated allegations, here is some circumstantial evidence pointing to a connection between the 71.100... address and the indefinitely blocked accounts of user:Barringa / user:Leasing Agent:

(1) and (2): 71.100.171.80 signs his post with "[[User:Barringa|-- Barringa]]"

(3) and (4): 71.100.0.252 signs his post with "[[User:Barringa|-- Barringa]]"

(5): Leasing Agent redirects User talk:71.100.166.228 to User talk:Leasing Agent after having this time-wasting discussion on the IP adress's talk page.

The modus operandi of disruption is basically always the same. In a nutshell: Pick a minority (Jews, African Americans, gays) and post inflammatory comments (often disguised as questions, follow-ups and answers) at the reference desk. Provoke heated and time-wasting discussions that don't belong at the reference desk, and either involve good faith users into more rambling discussions when confronted, or scream "Censorship!" and retaliate when the posts get removed. Then, repeat ad nauseam. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is all pointless time-wasting. This kind of trolling happens frequently on Wikipedia, in my near-six-years of experience. I have no patience for it; I'll delete/revert when I can and block if necessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. In fact, having reviewed all the contributions of both, I am blocking both now, the IP for a month as it may be reassigned and the account indefinitely pending an undertaking never to even think about doing that again. Neither has a single edit to the encyclopaedia, and that's the clincher for me. This is almost certainly not a new user and extremely unlikely ever to be of benefit, on the evidence of edits to date. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanctions

Note - copied from User_talk:Bkonrad#Wikistalkers_by_erstwhile_administrators_deserve_severe_sanction.. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek. The dispute arose because I had put in a link to a Central Michigan University timeline on lighthouses in Michigan in an article on Marquette, Michigan the link was perfectly appropriate, and was not a commercial site or spam. I received a note from Barek saying he had deleted the link on the Discussion page. I told him it was a perfectly fine link and that his action was ill-advised. The next thing I knew, Hu12 intervened. The two of them started Wikistalking me together, removing not just the link, but removing the link from every page where I had put it. Additionally, they started doing blind "Undos" and obliterating large portions of articles that I had contributed. There was no reason for any of this. When I protested their course of action, they suspended my editing privileges. This was done precipitously. BK Conrad has investigated this matter, and deems the blind edits to be 'unfortunate.'

I complained to BK Conrad, an administrator. He undid the suspension, but did not deal with my substantive complaint about this administrator. He suggested that I could contact you.

I would also add that Hu12 deleted my complaints to him from his talk page (I put them back), and has now (conveniently) archived the pages.

Additionally, one of my correspondents, Asher196, had noted in the history section of an article that the deletion was unwarranted. I contacted him and reported the Wikistalking.

Indeed, what you will uncover, should you choose to look, is that Hu12 and Barker were engaged in wholesale eradication of my contribution from articles, sometimes to the point where the article virtually disappeared. There was no excuse for this. It is the very definition of Wikistalking.

As I said, when I protested this, I was suspended.

I have done a whole lot of editing here. -- Many thousands of edits. I have never before been accused of spamming the system. I wasn't doing this here, either.

While I agree with BK that it would be best if I could just avoid these bullies, the matter is not so easily resolved. They sought me out. They attacked me. They abused their administrative privileges.

While I could turn a blind eye to this, it will only encourage this untoward behavior. When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind. Someone needs to report this and stop this untoward and unspeakable behavior. Based on my reading of Hu12's talk page (before it disappeared), the man has attitude problems that have surfaced before.

Wikistalking by administrators will frustrate the contributors, and cause them to quit Wikipedia. They've already done that to me. Let there not be a repetition. The very lifeblood of your organization is at stake.

I have attacked copies of my correspondence to and from BK Conrad and Asher196.

If you need further information, please advise.

I will send this to Asher196 and BKConrad, so they are informed of my complaint. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

BK:

Thank you.

However, this has soured me, and I will cure myself of my wikiaholic behavior. I quit. They've achieved their victory, and Wiki will lose my modest contributions.

That being said, I think you should look close at what they edited, and come to your own conclusion. They gutted whole articles. This was WIKISTALKING and they went FAR beyond what they complained about. This was search and destroy, pure, simple and unvarnished. It was a clear abuse of power. I will not abide an abuse of power, and will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies, and this was wrong.

I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars.

Moreover, their actions showed an intent (and attempt) to bully me into silence about their misconduct. It was a cover up.

Accountability in this system is important. Those who abuse their powers do not deserve to be trusted to hold the reins. They deserve the severest sanctions, and should be stripped of administrative privileges.

What they did here was very destructive of the goals of an organization that depends on the good will and volunteer efforts of contributors.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Coincidentally, Hu12‎ chose this interregnum of completely delete (archive) his user talk. This is after he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

I would just like to make a stand with 7&6=thirteen. I can't believe these "admins" treated him this way. He is a dedicated and prolific Wikipedia editor, and has done tremendous work on many articles. Trying to add a link which provides valuable information, he is labeled a spammer. Trying to defend his actions, he is blocked. What are we doing here if this is how the good guys are treated?----Asher196 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry about the situation. If you'd like to file a complaint about Hu12, the place to do that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hu12's block of you was precipitous and the blind reverts unwarranted. However you did accuse him of being a sock puppet and make what could be interpreted as a vague threat. I might note that Hu12 consistently archives talk page messages -- although this is an annoying practice, it is not prohibited and it is not necessarily evidence that the user was trying to cover up anything. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including editors with limited social skills. Unless their behavior clearly crosses the line and becomes disruptive, it is best to simply avoid engaging with such persons. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<---Outdent. I think the rollback performed by hu12 was a bit much. Especially since the link added was in reference to the lighthouses (and most of the articles the link was added to were Michigan Lighthouses). The bigger issue to me was the rollback wiped out a hell of a lot of information from Charity Island Lighthouse. Blind reverts should not be used period. Especially since 7&6 is a good editor that adds information to esoteric topics. I don't condone the wording used by 7&6 but for someone who doesn't interact with others much as they edit in very low traffic topics, seeing all their worked wiped out by two people that appear to be tag teaming would not provoke a positive reaction in most cases. spryde | talk 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Is this supposed to be reasoned discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. However hu12 wiping it off the page without talking to him (and templating someone with more than a 6000 edits) is not a reasoned course either. spryde | talk 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Hu12 seems to make a habit of this sort of thing; I've butted heads with him over the same thing before (and the block I collected over it is one of the proudest moments of my WP career). I think the problem is one of instruction-creep: the people over at the Spam-fighting project seem to have made up their own definition of spam, which doesn't match any reasonable criteria, and go about enforcing it as if it were Divine Law. It seems to me that they've taken some signs which are indeed good indicators that something might be spam, and should be looked at closely, and have turned them into definitions of spam, so that when they find something that matches the pattern they feel no need to investigate any further, because by their definition it is spam, and the editor who added it is by their definition a spammer, all of whose edits are to be presumed invalid, and who is to be templated and hounded off Wikipedia, for the good of the project. That certainly saves the spam-hunters valuable time and effort, but it isn't right. They're not doing this with any malice in their hearts; they've just let their enthusiasm run away with them, and they've turned spam-hunting from a necessary chore in maintaining an encyclopaedia into an end in itself. But, malice or not, valuable contributions are being lost to WP, and people are getting their feelings hurt, and sooner or later something needs to be done about it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zsero's observations. The definition of "spam" seems to be drifting in the direction of being entirely disconnected from the content of the links in question - whereas content should be the criteria by which links are evaluated. If a link is to a site that is a quality site which is relevant to the subject of the article the link is posted on, then it's irrelevant who placed the link, and under what circumstances, because the link adds value to the encyclopedia, and that's supposedly what we're here for. If a good link is removed for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the link, then the encyclopedia is poorer for that, and that action has harmed the project.

Spam fighters can certainly use the kinds of tools you're referring to, but they really must pay primary attention to the content of the links, and not disrupt the project by elevating technical means over our ultimate ends. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

List of the articles where improper editing is alleged

Lest you think it was only the Charity Island Light, here is a more complete list.

Extended content

This is from my Watchlist. * (diff) (hist) . . Manistee County, Michigan‎; 19:07 . . (+6) . . 24.231.235.202 (Talk) (→Townships) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Hu12‎; 18:50 . . (+302) . . Corvus cornix (Talk | contribs) ({{ANI-notice}}) * (diff) (hist) . . Paul Bunyan‎; 18:41 . . (+2) . . 74.75.55.40 (Talk) (→Tourist attractions) * (diff) (hist) . . Lumber‎; 18:25 . . (+431) . . Pradtke (Talk | contribs) (expanded "timber" definition) * (diff) (hist) . . Jackson, Michigan‎; 18:11 . . (0) . . 76.20.155.1 (Talk) (→External links) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Asher196‎; 17:39 . . (+6,011) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (complaint about wikistalkers) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Bkonrad‎; 17:38 . . (+6,011) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Wikistalkers complaint) * (diff) (hist) . . Yankee Air Museum‎; 17:36 . . (+5) . . 209.212.28.50 (Talk) (→Collection) * (diff) (hist) . . m User:Barek‎; 17:14 . . (+37) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add link to edit counters) * (diff) (hist) . . Flint, Michigan‎; 17:08 . . (+4) . . 68.188.254.50 (Talk) (→Track and Field) * (diff) (hist) . . Michigan‎; 17:04 . . (0) . . Thomas Paine1776 (Talk | contribs) (→Important cities and townships) * (diff) (hist) . . m Charity Island Light‎; 17:03 . . (-29) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add ref and cleanup text) * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Huron Lightship‎; 16:22 . . (+50) . . Rodw (Talk | contribs) ({{WikiProject Museums}}) * (diff) (hist) . . N Talk:Carnegie Center -- Port Huron Museum‎; 16:22 . . (+49) . . Rodw (Talk | contribs) ({{WikiProject Museums}}) * (diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Barek‎; 15:59 . . (-5) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (fix link) * (diff) (hist) . . Battle Creek, Michigan‎; 15:08 . . (-44) . . Vertigo315 (Talk | contribs) (→High schools (private): removed bad links) * (diff) (hist) . . mb Flint/Tri-Cities‎; 14:22 . . (+52) . . DumZiBoT (Talk | contribs) (Bot: Converting bare references, see FAQ) * (diff) (hist) . . m Osceola County, Michigan‎; 12:59 . . (+32) . . Bkonrad (Talk | contribs) (update) * (diff) (hist) . . Port Huron, Michigan‎; 12:43 . . (-108) . . 76.112.80.246 (Talk) * (diff) (hist) . . b User talk:Carptrash‎; 12:28 . . (+1,423) . . BJBot (Talk | contribs) (BJBot, Image:SDG2.jpg is going to be deleted) * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:M (1931 film)‎; 10:14 . . (+716) . . Ex con87 (Talk | contribs) (→Film noir) * (diff) (hist) . . Latrine‎; 07:33 . . (+41) . . Debu ce buet (Talk | contribs) (add - →Reed Odourless Earth Closet (ROEC)) * (diff) (hist) . . m Escanaba, Michigan‎; 03:48 . . (-161) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (→External links: remove EL that's only marginally related to subject article) * (diff) (hist) . . m The Thumb‎; 03:47 . . (-161) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (→External links: link already exists in individual lighthouse articles, which is more appropriate location) * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Clarence Darrow‎; 01:57 . . (+2) . . 75.75.104.223 (Talk) (→Intro Revision) * (diff) (hist) . . Salt‎; 01:41 . . (-25) . . 76.215.200.217 (Talk) (→Health effects) * (diff) (hist) . . Warren, Michigan‎; 00:41 . . (0) . . Machine24 (Talk | contribs) (→Demographics) * (diff) (hist) . . User:Hu12‎; 00:39 . . (0) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) * (diff) (hist) . . m Harbor Beach Light‎; 00:37 . . (+160) . . Asher196 (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408791 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . m Forty Mile Point Light‎; 00:32 . . (+161) . . Asher196 (Talk | contribs) (There is nothing wrong with this link. Why was it removed?) 27 March 2008 * (diff) (hist) . . Northern Michigan‎; 23:12 . . (+229) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409711 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Saginaw River Light‎; 23:11 . . (+1,851) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408810 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Old Presque Isle Light‎; 23:09 . . (+550) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408862 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Upper Peninsula of Michigan‎; 23:09 . . (+161) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409722 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . South Manitou Island Light‎; 23:07 . . (+187) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408834 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Nb Talk:Joseph H. Albers‎; 23:05 . . (+33) . . SoxBot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging (Plugin++) Added {{OH-Project}}. using AWB) * (diff) (hist) . . Point Betsie Light‎; 23:02 . . (-283) . . Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (no need for address .. WP:SOAPBOX) * (diff) (hist) . . Port Austin Lighthouse‎; 23:00 . . (+883) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408798 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . m Alpena, Michigan‎; 22:56 . . (-313) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201437354 by 7&6=thirteen (talk) linkspam) * (diff) (hist) . . Tawas Point Light‎; 22:55 . . (+1,258) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408850 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Fort Gratiot Light‎; 22:54 . . (+1,109) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408785 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . b Talk:Toledo War‎; 22:54 . . (+34) . . SoxBot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging (Plugin++) Added {{OH-Project}}. using AWB) * (diff) (hist) . . Lighthouses in the United States‎; 22:52 . . (+792) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409692 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . List of museums in Michigan‎; 22:51 . . (+412) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409918 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . New Presque Isle Light‎; 22:48 . . (+392) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) * (diff) (hist) . . m Talk:Charity Island Light‎; 22:36 . . (-482) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add project tag) * (diff) (hist) . . Leelanau County, Michigan‎; 21:40 . . (+50) . . 24.247.132.68 (Talk) * (diff) (hist) . . m Lake Huron‎; 21:12 . . (-20) . . VoABot II (Talk | contribs) (BOT - Reverted edits by 216.113.43.109 {possible vandalism} to last version by VoABot II.) * (diff) (hist) . . m Sturgeon Point Light Station‎; 20:59 . . (+161) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201412860 by Barek (talk) rv my own edit on this one) * (diff) (hist) . . m Southeast Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-232) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Western Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-197) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Grosse Ile Township, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Bkonrad) * (diff) (hist) . . m Monroe, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Les woodland) * (diff) (hist) . . m Traverse City, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Iulus Ascanius) * (diff) (hist) . . m Ludington, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Bkonrad) * (diff) (hist) . . m Muskegon, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-162) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Broadbot) * (diff) (hist) . . m Cheboygan, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-316) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Trekphiler) * (diff) (hist) . . m Rogers City, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 199.67.140.154) * (diff) (hist) . . m Lower Peninsula of Michigan‎; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Manistee, Michigan‎; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by DumZiBoT) * (diff) (hist) . . m Charlevoix, Michigan‎; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Frankfort, Michigan‎; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Pentwater, Michigan‎; 20:43 . . (-847) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Zeagler) * (diff) (hist) . . m Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore‎; 20:41 . . (-161) . . Hu12

If there is a big number put in by me, it is because these gentlemen had taken it out. You can go to the article histories and see for yourselves. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

7&6, temper your language. I know you are upset but calling them 'goons' does not help anyone out here. The lighthouse articles was an appropriate place for them and possibly a few others. If there is a content dispute, you need to talk to them instead of reverting and readding. spryde | talk 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Luckilly, I have this page on my watchlist or I wouldn't have known I was being discussed. One thing that I would like to clarify; the initial complaint implies that I am an admin, which is incorrect. I am not an admin, nor have I ever claimed to be one on Wikipedia.

I would like to add a few facts to the discussion. I encountered 7&6=thirteen on the Marquette, Michigan article, where he had added a link documenting the years that lighthouses throughout the state of Michigan had been built or rebuilt; as I stated on that article's talk page, it's a valuable link in appropriate articles; I just didn't see where a brief mention of various cities justified linkspamming it to what appeared to me to be roughly 100 city/township articles (note: as I explained to 7&6=thirteen on that talk page, my use of the term "spam" refered to the behavior of inserting it to a large number of only marginally related articles, not that the link itself is spam). I informed him that I was reporting it to WP:WPSPAM (here's the link, this appears to be where Hu12 became involved) I also asked 7&6=thirteen to look at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY to understand why I saw the link as inapropriate on city and township articles.

I was aware that Hu12 had removed the links from a large number of articles - although I did not know until now that he had used a blanket revert that appears to have reverted multiple edits by 7&6=thirteen on articles beyond just the link addition; nor did I know until now that 7&6=thirteen had been banned. As I was not involved in either of those actions, I will not comment other than to say that Hu12 likely should have asked for a 3rd party admin to get involved rather than applying the ban himself.

Afterwards, I also removed the link from a handful of additional city/township articles which I spotted via Special:Linksearch. Via that same tool, I also stumbled accross the Charity Island Light article that someone commented on above. I found it in a bit of a mess, and cleaned it up to its current state. I would like to point out that the link which initially started this chain of events still exists within that article, only I used it within a ref tag rather than listed as an EL.

If you have any additional questions or concerns on my actions in this issue, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the only action I would fault you with is the report to the spam project. If it is a new contributor and the link is of dubious origin, I would have reported it. However, in the context used (all MI stuff, mostly coastal lighthouse areas) and the contributor has a extensive history of MI lighthouse/history work, I would have discussed it with him first. 7&6 can be interesting to work with to say the least. He does a lot of good things but personal interaction is not in his top ten :) spryde | talk 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some good advice to people coming to this page to complain about other editors: Avoid over-labelling your adversaries and their behaviour. The more you refer to "goons" and "wikistalking", the less seriously people will take you. Comparing them to Nazis ("When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind.") is right out. Bovlb (talk)

I added a collapsing box above for usability, and made this section a sub-section of the original. Bovlb (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Barek's explanation does not hold up. This is from the List of Museums in Michigan, which was deleted.

Go take a look for yourselves. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Another collapsing box, and another fix to heading level. Bovlb (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever looked at that article, the edit history shows that I have never been involved with editing it. My comments above were to explain my actions, not those of yourself, Hu12, or anyone else for that matter. There is no contradiction to the explaination of my actions that I provided. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that list needs serious pruning. Wikipedia isn't a directory, it's fine to have redlinks for notable museums that don't yet have articles, but almost everything in that list is a redlink and the weblinks smell strongly to me of the fine comestibles purveyed by Messrs. Hormel Foods. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First, adding hundreds of links, without discussion fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. But it seems the multiple attemps at reasoned discussion by others to communicate this fact, resulted in some serious wholsale violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS by 7&6=thirteen.

• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. "
• "Wikistalkers, I'm being wikistalked by Barek and HU12."
• "Hu12‎ and Barek engaged in a deliberate and willful concerted and personal attack on me"
• "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune"
• "Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanction"
• "I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars."
• "...will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies..."
• "This was WIKISTALKING "
• "he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up."

• Its called removing WP:HARASSment, "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. ", "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune"

• "I want these peoples' administrative privileges removed "
• " have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek"
• "It is the very definition of Wikistalking"
• "When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind"
• "Here is a list of the articles these goons hatcheted"

...Wikistalking, ...sockpupptry, ...Watergate, ..."Goons", ...Nazis, ..."Jews disappearing into the railroad cars"?? is this reasoned discussion? --Hu12 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh cry me a river. All that and all you can do is complain that he called you semi-uncivil names? Your actions are not justified by what he called you afterwards, and they're completely inexcusable. I'm losing faith in this place daily, how on Earth could such an editor become an admin to begin with? Krawndawg (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been here less than a month (20 days ^[2]), perhaps reading WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS would familiarize you with how wikipedia operates. Hateful anti-semetic comments about nazi war crimes, and making baseless arguments and threats against other wikipedians is compleately unacceptaple and completely inexcusable. you should pay particular attention to WP:CIVIL. Also see What wikipedia is not--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Judge them for what they did

The accusation is wikistalking. There is no contrary evidence. There being none, judgment should be entered against the Defendants. Their argument ad hominem is not evidence. They have not answered the charges. They have not offered an explanation. Period. The hearsay of Barek does not establish the facts asserted by Hu12. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Guy, the "contrary evidence" has already been listed above, and all that's happened is that a greater light has been shone on your own behavior. You've dug yourself a hole, and the First Law of Holes is that if you find yourself in one, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix yet another header. When adding to a section, please don't add new level-two headers. Consider not adding a new header at all, especially if it's going to be snarky. Bovlb (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a trial. No one is a "defendant" of any sort. We're not here to pass "judgment" of any sort. I find your accusations of their posts being ad hominem attacks to be rather ironic if this is how you're treating the issue. In any case, please continue the discussion in a civil manner. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and the only judgement we recognise is the one where everybody tries in good faith to get along. This is all getting a bit silly. Orderinchaos 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Hu12 acted wrongly in posting this to my page: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is considered vandalism WP:VAND --Hu12 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) The above appears to be deliberate disinformation by Hu12 about Wikipedia policy. It was also a failure by Hu12 to WP:AGF when he chose to enter (why?) a discussion concerning inter alia WP:RPA.

Administrator Hu12 acted wrongly in editing Straw man see [[3]] This minor change of a heading "Examples" from singular to plural was meaningless at the time. That suggests a bad careless attitude to editing a Wikipedia article. (The mistake was handled after it was mentioned on both the Talk page and Hu12's own page, without any "help" from Hu12.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuddlyyable3 is right. It is not against any policy to remove warnings from one's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if you're trying to hide evidence of misbehavior, as common sense ought to tell you. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not against policy regardless of reason for removing 'em. Removing them does constitute evidence that the user has read the warnings in question, however. Jtrainor (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Regardless of reason? An important exception is when an unblock request is declined. The decline notice should not be removed while the block is active, to prevent abuse of the unblock request system by continually re-adding new unblock requests. Another exception is suspected or confirmed sockpuppetry notices. That would be a "no". --Calton | Talk 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And neither of those are warnings, so you're still wrong. Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Neither of those count as warnings? My, you draw your distinctions very, very finely. --Calton | Talk 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Jtrainor and Calton, as common sense tells me that an ordinary editor cannot hide anything. A warning may be prompted by an editing action and it is the record of the action that is the source of evidence, not the warning.

Hu12 described his actions on my talk page as follows.

• 22:22, 21 August 2007 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (13,610 bytes) (?Blocked: please stop attempting to hide warnings)

• 07:33, 23 August 2007 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (7,640 bytes) (archiving obvious attempts to hide warnings)

I found the second accusation by Hu12 quite offensive. I state my policy at the top of my talk page.

Administrator Pascal Tesson has expressed a request which contains some logic(?). I should like to hear whether it represents policy:

• 18:56, 29 August 2007 Pascal.Tesson (Talk | contribs) (8,861 bytes) (revert. Please leave the block notice visible until the block has expired. This is valuable info for others.)

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ

Resolved

 – Correctly archived without action; should now be rearchived, again without action ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(This complaint should not have been archived without action by the MiszaBot II bot without action. As it concerns inappropriate behavior by an admn, I think it bears closer look. Towards that end, I am resubmitting the complaint from the recent archival action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.

Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.

Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".

I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).

As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I also ignored the patently false claims of 3RR violations: 24-hour window? No. Same edit? No. More than 3 reverts even outside of the 24-hours window? No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the noting of the 3RR claim isn't false, as the multiple reverts occurred in the same article (repeatedly altering discussions and archves- which are still a part of the article - count towards that total).

I think that to simplify matters, allow me to demonstrate why they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:

1. You did not add the section header into the article;

2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and

3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.

4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.

Ergo, not maintenance edits. I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving without action generally means that nobody could see, wanted to or thought necessary any action. Looking at the above, I agree. This is neither a matter for administrators nor an incident. If anything, it's a content dispute and provision of a mop doesn't give you any extra or any less rights in one of those. Perhaps you were looking for dispute resolution? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No action is necessary here. No need to continue this discussion. Seek dispute resolution via WP:RFC or WP:MEDIATION or WP:3O instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note WP:3O and WP:MEDIATION are for content disputes, the issue here seems to be user conduct, WP:RFCU would seem to make more sense but is probably way overkill and unlikely anyone other than Arcayne would certify it, maybe WP:WQA would be helpful. Generally anything more than fixing a typo to which there has yet to be a reply is unacceptable refactoring (use strike out and underscore for anything else) and tinkering with an archived page is really not cool and at least gives a bad appearance; but it sounds like Arcayne has over-reacted as the effect sounds minimal here. It certainly doesn't sound like it actually affected the editing of the article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by an Admin on St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine

The admin JzG has vandalized the article St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine by removing large sections of verifiable and sourced facts from the article and recently deleted material that was added from a government database that was verifiable and sourced. Something needs to be done about this rogue admin and his disregard for core Wikipedia policy. 67.177.149.119 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, JzG (Guy)'s removal was a pretty good one [4]. The material he removed was mostly from primary sources, and a lot of the info smelled like original research. As he said in an intermediate edit summary, we should stick to secondary sources (most of te time, anyway). Primary sources aren't accompanied by any third-party analysis, so by themselves they can't demonstrate any true meaning or indicate what is worth noting. You should also consider asking him about it before coming here to cry ADMIN ABUSE; many editors are liable to think you're wrong just from reading the section title. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The only fault I will admit to here is not doing it a long time ago. The whole article was a mess from the start, and this request should be viewed in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher Guy (Help!) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User Dbachmann‎

(snip) duplicated here. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

and below. dab (𒁳) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to block an admitted I.P. sock of a indefinitely blocked user?

User:24.215.173.132 is an admitted sockpuppet of User:Jvolkblum, an indefinitely blocked user. For background and evidence, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum. This IP has returned after a month-long block and is once again wreaking havoc on Sarah Lawrence College-related articles and other pet interests. Although Volkblum makes some constructive edits, he does not seem to have addressed any of the concerns (edit warring, wanton disregard of MOS even after polite warnings, sockpuppetry) that ultimately led to his being blocked. I would appreciate the opinion of an uninvolved admin on whether another IP block is warranted.

I also believe the IP is creating more sockpuppets, but evidence is somewhat scanty at this point. Would a CheckUser request be appropriate, or do they need very stong evidence before even checking?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an extended block for the IP, seeing as I was the initial blocker of all those involved with this case. The IP is heavily engaged in COI work, random example. 1 year maybe? I'm still wondering whether the IP is stale though, past editing patterns appear to indicate that, and if so, a longer block can be implemented. Rudget. 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, left a message on their talk. Review would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks from previously blocked user.

User:Shabiha has once again consistently made personal attacks on myself in liue of an open discussion over a simple editing dispute. She has already recently been warned by site admins about edit warring, and was previously issued a temporary block for blatantly insulting me with religious slurs on my talk page without provocation.

Most recently, this user is again engaging in disruptive editing on the Barelwi article, which is a religious sect within Islam that this user subscribes to. It's a simple editing dispute that normally wouldn't belong here, however after consistent warnings from myself regarding personal attacks and insults in Shabiha's edit summaries and talk pages comments, and after being reverted by several other users due to his/her consistent disruptive edit warring, I feel that there is nothing more I can do. I would suggest this user is dealt with a little more sternly this time, as the same edit warring, personal attacks and disregard for user consensus is what led to his/her block last time. I would like to call User:Scythian1, User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz, and User:Abureem as witnesses to the same disruptions and edit warring I speak of. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I Shabiha replies that User Mezzo is Salafi or more particulalry Wahabi in belief and is editing Wikipedia Just either to Show Other Movements in bad Light or just to prove that Salafi Doctrine in bestt Light see Salafi article receives a tag of Non Neutrality and by his editing Deobandi Article got a large Section for Criticism section[5].He has habits of writing and Inserting Offensive words in other's Movement here.He has tried hard to get delete almost all the Articles of Scholars on the Barelwi page See [6] but was failed badly when Other Editors removed them. one recent Example when his Prod's were removed are here[7] ,[8],[9],[10].In all the discussion he accuse me not following site policies When I revert any of his POV and disruptive editing on any Article. The Article belonging to barelwi Sunni Movement are facing real threat from him see also history and Discussion of Dawat-e-Islami where Several Users have Complained his behaviour and accuse him of editing with Malafide Intention See here.The Intention is Clear by his actions .The Continous recent Insertion of Non Neutral Biased material must be dealt with stern action.All the editors in his List are either salafi or have pro Wahabi attitude by their edits.The User:Hassanfarooqi, User:Msoamu , User:AA ,User:MuhammadYusufAttari, User:Saq_mso are witness to his Inappropriate actions.Please Stop him .Shabiha ^(t 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Wahhabi? You realize that calling me that was what got you blocked in the first place? I really don't think I need to say any more, I come here to report personal attacks and she literally just did it again right here. And then called to witness users I have gotten along just fine with in the past...that's just confusing, but regardless, something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

'Wahhabi' is considered by most to be a derogatory term and not one that should be used in a collaborative environment. This guy appears to have been given a final warning a few days ago about his edit warring. Contribution history is full of him accusing people of being liars. -- Naerii 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Derogatory term? wahab is the name of Allah in Islam and the terminology Wahabi was Popularized after the name of founder of this Movement Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab in Saudi Arabia.The Modern follower of him recognize themselves more with Salafi but How Wahabi became derogatory and When ,we dont know and I think most of the scholars on the Earth uses this terminology for Saudi Islam.what is wrong with that?
• You changed your name yourself and trying to Start accuse Others.You still have Same Ideology and Movements are recognized by their Ideologies and by the name of its Founders Which are same.
• Moreover Wikipedia has Page Over it .It is a faith this is fact and I wrote nothing new but by my experiences I told that either You are Salafi or ....

If You are Correct then I must accuse you of Personal attack by saying that AhleSunnah of South asia never Used this terminology Barelwi Which was Used by You in Your arguments .Traditional Sunnis Who follow Sufism in South asia dont Like this term Barelwi but People like You Uses it.

• The editing dispute is due to the Insertion of POV and Biased Content sourced to Unverifiable Sites which are Non Neutral .

I am always ready to accept all form of Criticism and editing but It must be from Neutral Sources .Am I wrong? Shabiha ^(t 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of PHG Arbcom ruling by User:Elonka

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

---

This is either a vexatious request or the wrong venue. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to inform Administrators and the Arbitration Commity that User:Elonka has been abusing the Arbcom ruling against me, to try to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [11]. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [12]

Although I dispute the Arbcom ruling against me, I have stated repeatedly that I intend to follow it, out of respect for Wikipedia.

I hereby wish to document the facts of this harassment, as well as the numerous complaints by other others that this generated. I would like to ask Administrators and the Arbitration Commity to protect me from such abuse, and warn Elonka against repeating such actions, and restrict her from harassing me in such a manner.

Complaints by other users

Numerous users have already complained of such abuse. As explained by User:Abd, she is using the ruling "as a weapon" against me [13]:

• "Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him", "have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned?" User:Abd [14]
• "PHG is going to go on creating and editing articles that are technically not covered by it, and those opposed to him will jump on any reason, no matter how tiny, to block him, until he is blocked for good. Is that the goal here? Or is everyone trying to make him so frustrated that he leaves on his own?" [15], "The Renaissance period is not covered by the ban imposed by ArbComm and so should not be used against PHG. Let's keep to the letter of the ruling." User:Adam Bishop [16]
• "After reviewing the unblock request, Elonka's comment on my talk page and AGK's reply above, I cannot agree with the block based on most of the reasons that are currently given for it" User:Sandstein [17]

False accusations

Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:

• Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [18]
  

This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.

• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [19]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([20], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [21], or totally legitimate [22] as they had not been discussed in detail yet (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney: "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." [23]

Stretching of restriction perimeter

• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [24]
  

However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.

• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, inappropriately calling for blocks at the same time: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [25].

Stalking

• Elonka has been systematically following me around, either by tagging without specific cause articles I am creating ([26], [27]) or posting comments after my Talk Page posts to other users ([28]), or opposes my "Do you know" nomimations of articles I am allowed to create and edit [29].
• Elonka creates and keeps Wiki:Attack pages against me, a practice which I believe is discouraged by Wikipedia (see User:Elonka/Work2).

General methodology

Elonka typically mounts extremely well-constructed accusations against a specific user. She typically provides hundred of diffs that give her cases a look of trustworthyness, and in effect swamps other users or reviewers of the case. When scrutinized however, individual accusations usually are not decisive at all, and either consist in misrepresentation, deformations or exagerations.

Requested remedy

As clearly shown in the case above, Elonka typically makes false statements, misrepresents the reality of Arbcom sanctions, harasses users who are subjected to Arbcom restrictions, in order to push for ever-increasing blocks and obtain total banishment from Wikipedia. She uses such inadequate case-building to push for the harshest penalties. In her own words: "it is my opinion that he [PHG] needs to be permanently blocked" [30], "It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out"." [31].

I request a fair treatment from the Administrators and the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be warned against harassing me or misrepresenting my contributions. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably do better to go back to ArbCom and ask about this. There's little that administrators can legitimately do here. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really hate it when you drag me back in to this, take my one statement completely out of context again (even after having been repeatedly asked not to) and generally make such a shambles of what's really happening to just make this all wrong. It is genuinely amazing how far you will try to twist things -- for just one small example you didn't "recreate" the entire page, you "recreated" a link to the entire page and completely violated the spirit of the MfD and I was the one who noticed and deleted it, not Elonka -- this level of wikilawyering and a return to attacking Elonka is just absurd. I am not arguing any of these points with you again, however, I will say that the "attack page" claim is new and I'd be willing to bet Elonka forgot it was there after the ArbCom. If you ask nicely, I imagine she'll delete it. Shell ^babelfish 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And can I just add that this is so incredibly disappointing - you had been working productively and collaboratively with other editors on other articles for several days :( I really thought you were turning over a new leaf. Shell ^babelfish 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I know you have been supporting Elonka systematically, and you even support her when she makes false accusations against me. I am only defending myself against current (and future) abuse, and I am clearly not the only one who is seeing her behaviour as abusive here (comments by other users above). Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm so against you that I posted your DRV, made changes for you to articles you aren't allowed to edit and suggested for the umpteenth time that people give you a little space and another chance. I think Redvers suggestion is the most on point here; you're going to want to take this to the ArbCom if you think that something needs to be done about their findings/remedies. Shell ^babelfish 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you might want to stop with your stick on the dead horse. Elonka doesn't really harass you. While the Franco-Japanese history page is not in the medieval scope, it can be used against you if you're misinterpreting sources there. And she's got every right to prepare an AC case if your on-wiki behaviour is worrying her, and every right to warn DYK regulars that you may be misinterpreting sources, as you have before (AC FOF #2). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read through PHG's ramble above, most of it is a rehash of stuff he's said before, and I wish he'd stop doing this kind of thing. It's my honest opinion that when I leave PHG alone for long enough (as I have for the last few days), he starts to miss me, and comes to ANI to try and stir things up again. He did the same thing a few months ago. I was offline for Christmas holidays, and even though I hadn't done anything PHG-related since December 22,[32] when I got back online I saw that on New Year's Day he'd posted a new "Elonka is harassing me" complaint, heh.[33] Anyone that wants more details on this is welcome to review my Evidence section in the case, which has a full timeline up through February.

BTW, PHG, the User:Elonka/Work2 page, as Shell Kinney pointed out, was old. I hadn't changed it since early February, and it was left over from when I was preparing evidence. As Shell correctly guessed, I just forgot it was there. I have since deleted it. If you were concerned about it, I think a one-line note to my talkpage would have been easier than a full out ANI complaint. --Elonka 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Just as a note, PHG just re copy/pasted the above (or his part at least) at WP:AE#Abuse of PHG Arbcom restrictions by User:Elonka. --Elonka 08:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User Dbachmann‎ Part 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ. Thatcher 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Note--> This user dbachmann took out my comment that was intially posted here without informing me --DWhiskaZ (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have worked relly hard on an article i was working on its called Mahamada and I actually went to my local Library and picked up an Holy Book that is related to my artcile and added information that contains material meant for the article. and that user:Dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada. The article was created to post views from all Holy Books and user:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with information i am providing. whats a user to do? --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note --> This is my review [34] and that user:dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada.(see [35]) to Bhavishya Purana an article that is another holy book that contains information about Mahamad. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to stop putting your original research into the article as you've been asked. This would be a really good time to read the policies so that you don't run in to further problems. Shell ^babelfish 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

suspected sock puppets of user Dbachmann user:Abecedare Who is also interfering and doing same edits as user:Dbachmann. also check User:Rudrasharman

The text i put up is straight out of the Holy Book, i cant change the wording. and if that doesnt seem to be a proper ref than if i take photos of it would that?

And user Dbachmann is putting up an case on me for contributing as you already know Mahamad page was made for views from all Holy Books not only the Bhavishya Purana where this user keep redirecting. It seems fair enough to use Mahamad because hes mentioned in serveral holy books and that User:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with it. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

user's contributions are blatant (WP:SNOW) nonsense. He is also crossposting to the main board. Suggest warning or right away block, since appeals to reason do not appear to work. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This user:Dbachmann also put up an case on me see (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ) and the link [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ]] i dont think i did anything wrong by contribuing to article that contains information about Mahamad from other holy books. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Urgent blocks needed

The recently confirmed sockpupeteer ( with 50+ sock accounts) is now on a vandalism spree. Can someone block him and his sock accounts and rollback the recent edits ? Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All done, I believe, between a group of us. Also, I consider DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks to be community banned and to be reverted on sight from here on in. Objections? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the ban. He is back as User:Contributerbylaw, by the way. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Seconded. Don't see any point wasting further time on this one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Third. 56 socks is quite excessive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, ya, that is a lot of socks. I could not fit that many socks in my sock drawer. Support ban. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) 50+ socks? No, there is no place here for such an account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap ... 60 socks in less than a week? Shown the door, this one must be. Blueboy96 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and someone please get ahold of UTSC. Blueboy96 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the ban as well.   jj137 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the fact that DWhiskaZ chose sock IDs Blngyen (talk · contribs) and Utcurzch (talk · contribs), confusingly similar to admins Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and Utcursch (talk · contribs), suggests that this is a reincarnation of some older sock-puppeteer. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the CheckUser was pretty comprehensive, so we can assume the trail was cold and we're not going to find out who it was until (and I do mean until) they choose to out themselves. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I only went as far back as the beginning of March. It is possible that a recursive search will find even more. I'll take a peep later tonight. Thatcher 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All socks currently listed at the CU case appear to be blocked. By the time somebody creates a sock army that expansive, they tend to get revert, block, ignore treatment on sight, anyway; this character is as good as banned, on that basis, at least for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant newbie admin question here ... when was the last time somebody created a sockfarm that big in such a short period of time. Looking at the main account's history, he's only been here a week. Blueboy96 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If I knew - which I don't - do you think I would tell how on a public viewed high traffic page? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He actually asked when it was done, not how it was done. As for the most rapidly created sockfarm, at one point we had to block a large part of Chicago because of one vandal who was generating dozens of sockpuppets per day, but that was over a prolonged period of time so I'm not sure it's what he was after either. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 Note: This is the same editor as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan, and I found a bunch more sleepers to check. As to how it was done, I'd rather not say. No need to help him avoid detection. Thatcher 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came out wrong--I was just amazed that someone could assemble that many socks in only a week. Blueboy96 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 110+ 130+ known socks! I don't know if it takes much skills to do this, but it certainly takes much time. Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's got to be a time consuming task - all the more pointless when a skilled admin can take a swing with the banhammer and render all that work for naught. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, at the risk of violating NPA, I must say it seems to be quite a obsessive and brainless hobby.

I have tagged the latest 23 socks; they are not blocked yet - in case it matters. Abecedare (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...All of which have now been blocked by Me or others. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So does this merit inclusion on WP:100? I feel like we could get 100+ editors to agree to the statement "I am a sockpuppet of DWhiskaZ," no? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image deletion

Black Kite has been single-handedly deleting non-free images from List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series and similar articles without discussion or explanation, citing "policy" every time, and completely ignoring the concerns and comments of other editors. The editors of this and similar pages have attempted to reach consensus on the issue numerous times (here, for example), but Black Kite does not participate in consensus-building, rather acts in an unapologetically autonomous manner. Management of this particular article (List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series) is rapidly degenerating into an edit war because of this, and tempers are beginning to flare. Eganio^Talk 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus between editors of a page or group of pages doesn't trump policy. Non-free images must be used sparingly, in context and only where relevant to the text. Your discussion appears to have decided that, for the purposes of these articles, these requirements do not apply. You're collectively wrong. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And, unless I'm going blind, I can't see where on Black Kite's talk page you have engaged on the subject nor can I see where you have informed of this thread - both being something you should do, one before coming here, one after. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not going blind, just not looking in the right place: Talk:List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series. I asked this editor several times to engage in discussion, to which he/she was seemingly adverse, rather seeking to position him/herself as an unequivocal authority. Eganio^Talk 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's still not addressing Black Kite directly nor informing them of this thread, and you're not addressing the substantive point: consensus between editors of a page or group of pages doesn't trump policy. Non-free images must be used sparingly, in context and only where relevant to the text. Your discussion appears to have decided that, for the purposes of these articles, these requirements do not apply. You're collectively wrong. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except in some very rare cases (countable on two hands), usage of non-free images in lists isn't allowed as it violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and we are trying to limit non-free image use. This is one of the issues creating such animosity toward Black Kite, namely this apparent assumption that the editors of the article are completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy. If someone respectfully comes to us with a breach of policy issue, we are more than happy to make the appropriate changes. But when someone comes along and treats us all like children, and slaps our collective hand saying, "No, you can't use those images because I said so", it becomes more an issue of repect (or lack thereof). Eganio^Talk 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly and civilly pointed the editors involved towards WP:NFCC, but they appear to believe that is doesn't apply to this article. Working with non-free images I do encournter this a lot; perhaps NFCC should be made clearer. Black Kite 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, I'm not sure what discussion needs to be had, Black Kite is getting rid of non-free images that are being used in violation of wikipedia policy. Perhaps he could have been clearer, but he appears to be doing the correct thing. Redrocket (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a consensus building exercise -- non-free content must comply with the policy. Shell ^babelfish 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. Go ahead and hide behind the admonishments of your lawyers...they're probably right anyway. The problem, though, is that a poorly worded, poorly formulated, and (consequently) widely interpreted piece of policy is being strictly enforced...am I the only one cognizant of the serious problems this forecasts? Either formulate a more concrete policy on non-free image use or be more lenient with its enforcement. As it stands, I can't see why any editor would even want to attempt to include non-free contenct, as it will almost certainly be summarily deleted. Eganio^Talk 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be petulant. The policy isn't poorly worded, it isn't poorly formulated and it isn't widely interpreted. It's just a policy that some of our (usually younger, usually pop-culture-based) editors disagree with and try to look for loopholes in. As you've discovered, the policy is so well worded and so well formulated, there aren't many loopholes. And the number of complaints here and elsewhere because an exception can't be made for one article that would look really, really cool plastered with copyright images for no reason is now well into the thousands. But complaints (like your talk page consensus) don't trump policy. And the policy is there to protect the world's most popular not-for-profit website (the one without the money to go to court, unlike YouTube et al). ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Petulance is my prerogative, as is it yours to tell me what is and what isn't policy...let's just agree to disagree. Eganio^Talk 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is needed here, instead of arguing, is to find a single non-free image that adequately illustrates the article. For example, Image:Simpsons cast.png, as used on List of characters in The Simpsons. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion, but we've already tried that. The consensus among the editors of the page in question is that images for only the 5 or 6 major entities listed are justifiable. However, one image cannot suffice to capture the distinctions, cultural allusions, and notability of the topic in question. But as it has been said numerous times under this heading, editor consensus does not trump policy. So that leaves us at the mercy of policy, nay, at the mercy of those that define policy. Eganio^Talk 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series? I'm surprised that image policies are such a major source of trouble. An entire article about a subject that virtually defines trivia, derived nearly entirely from primary sourcing. You have one (ONE!) source that looks like it might be a real-world article (http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=360746&page=0, about Haitian's protesting their image in the games), and it's been aged off their server. You should concern yourself with the meat-and-potatoes policies, like WP:NOTABILITY.Kww (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in this specific case, but it should be noted that many articles demonstrate notability with no more than one good source. The solution is to find better sources to demonstrate notability. Notability proponents often emphasise quantity of sources over quality of sources, and that is not always helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not wedded to the "delete all non-free images" idea, but this particular article was an egregrious violation - you've seen one screenshot of some badly-rendered people standing on a street corner, you've seen them all. Even leaving one of those images in the article was technically breaking NFCC. Black Kite 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)"Meat-and-potatoes" and "egregious violations" aside, my concern was and still is with the manner in which policy is interpreted and enforced by admin. It seems painfully clear to me, even by some of the posts in here, that this issue is by no means solidified in the minds of Wikipedia admin or editors to the extent to which it has been suggested. I still contend that non-free use policy is poorly defined and is consequently being interpreted in numerous divergent ways. But that aside, what really irks me is when admin editors cite policy as a reason to autonomously make drastic changes to an article when such policy is inevitably up to interpretation, and when such changes will inevitably precipitate the heated debate we have been having. My point is this: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? Well, then as administrators, please try to see things such as this from the point of view of the editors to whom a particular article is important, and try to enforce policy accordingly. Be fellow editors, not overseers. Eganio^Talk 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the first removal of the fair use images was sudden (I did this on the 18 February), but given that this [36] was the Talk page for that article on 20th February, the second removal should surely have been expected; basically all the images which failed NFCC were removed, but many were then re-inserted despite the editors who did this surely realising from the discussion linked above that the new images failed NFCC as well. Do we need to radically overhaul the wording of NFCC so that it can't be misinterpreted, or perhaps link a simple "FAQ" version to the image upload page? Black Kite 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical point of interest here: removing those images from the article is not an administrative action. Any editor who edits with NFCC compliance in mind can (and ought to) remove these images. Please note, for example, that one of the images in question includes in its FU rationale: This image is a screenshot and thus immediately falls in fair use. That is patently false, fair use depends on the use of the image, not just what it is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While the policy is clear, having watched stuff like this, and having seen the zillions of completely ignored BetacommandBot messages plastering virtually every talk page in article space, I think I can say with certainty that the communication of the policy to the interested parties has been done in about the poorest possible manner. Virtually nobody reading a betacommandbot message is going to be able to figure out what they have to do to fix the usage of the image, even though clear directions can be stated in one sentence. It seems from conversations like the above, that even groups of editors can't in general come to the right conclusion on how an image can be used, and nobody seems to understand why the policy exists and just assumes some unknown lawyer made an arbitrary decision one morning without asking anyone, and everyone else immedially said 'yessa bossman' and implemented it. This probably transcends adminhood, but somebody at the foundation ought to try to think up a good clear way of explaining the policy and perhaps even the reasoning behind it. And maybe try to get Betacommand to reword those verbose but basically useless warning/threat messages it posts everywhere.

I think this really could be fairly simple if it had ever been communicated in some clear manner. (Or maybe it was, once, years ago, outside the memory of newer editors; but it seems to me this is a fairly recent policy change.) But as it is, you have loads of confused editors on one side of what they see as a fight with draconian and unreasonable image deleters on the other side, who just like deleting really good images just because. Just my third cent on the matter, feel free to ignore it. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to think myself exceedingly more intelligent than other Wikipedians, but I find BCBot's messages perfectly comprehensible, and adding a FU Rationale is pretty easy really. Furthermore, when presented with policy and a real, live user (admin no less) to explain that policy, I don't see how being resistant (on WP:CONS grounds, no less) is going to help anything. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the visibility of BCBot's warnings and suchlike has caused even more problems, in that people spend time jumping through hoops adding FURs to non-free images, and then assume - not entirely unsurprisingly - that they can use as many of the images where they want. That's why I've been tagging articles with {{NFimageoveruse}} recently, so that at least editors have a chance to read WP:NFCC (and then argue with it, usually, but you can't have everything). Black Kite 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments...they are beginning to be helpful. Loren, thanks for bringing up the communication issue...I think much of my consternation has been the result of poor communication from admin, other editors, and myself. The Bot messages are cryptic in many senses, but I and I'm sure many other editors certainly understand their content and the reason they were posted. Violating copyrights is by no means my intent in editing Wikipedia pages. I started this thread due mainly to intense frustration because the process invovled in ameliorating non-free use issues seems highly esoteric from the standpoint of a non-admin editor such as myself. We responded to the Bot messages and other warnings regarding image use by not only eliminating many of the images on certain articles, but also by writing non-free use rationales to support inclusion of the remaining images. But that apparently wasn't enough. So my question is this: who decides how, where, and when non-free content is allowable? So far, it seems to me that limitation is defined by reason, which is why I say the policy is so freely interpreted, hence the impetus to create non-free use rationales. So who decides in the end what's reasonable and what's unacceptable? And why bother writing non-free use rationales if no one is going to pay them any heed? Eganio^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bromley (Jamaica)

Resolved

I just came across this article, and it looks like some eyes here would be good. It looks like someone(s) have been having fun with libel and the/a person with that name doesn't care for it. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a Mark Bromley complaining, not the Mark Bromley in question. I revert the article and checked the references (they're fine). A referenced article about the Mark Bromley cannot be libellous (or "liable" as the IP put it) of a Mark Bromley. And a fully-referenced article, based on police reports from a police website, about the Mark Bromley cannot be libellous of a Mark Bromley. We'll see if Doc Glasgow's {{prod}} gets anywhere. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning SPA RTFA from Don Murphy

I've no particular interest in this article. But whilst there's been disagreement on whether to keep this article or not, we should all agree what has to happen as long as we have it. With any BLP, and especially one where we know the subject is (rightly or wrongly) unhappy, we need to make sure our WP:BLP policy is enforced in letter and spirit and the article is at all times neutral and fair. We need our best writers collaboratively on it, and not people with agendas and obsessions.

RTFA (talk · contribs) is a self-admitted two-week old single purpose account (and probable sock) with an obsession with this article (all his edits are to it). He's continually been inserting negative content [37] [38] etc. This is exactly the type of user we don't need near an article like this. Earlier today, he restored a pile of his edits that had been challenged by other users under the BLP policy. (See here for edit summary). His mentality was he saw no harm in them, he thought they were neutral, and so it was for others to show him what was not. Looking at his other contributions, he's perhaps not an overt trouble maker, but he's certainly not helping us keeping things neutral.

I propose a topic ban for this SPA. Indeed, as this is the only topic he ever edits, perhaps we should simply block this account and leave the user free to resume editing with whatever main account he uses to edit elsewhere.--Doc^g 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. Topic bans for obsessive editors of problematic articles are a good idea and supported by numerous arbitration cases. It seems to be the emergent standard for dealing with tendentious editors; they can then either redeem their reputation through good work or wander off - and we win either way. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Viridae^Talk 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Totally support. We do not need this sort of problem user messing around with BLPs for whatever personal reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seems prudent to me. Just as we would similarly ban those intent on editing in the other direction. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Sock stirring up trouble. Obsessive focus on controversial BLP. The Hand says "block". Relata refero (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• This is a little strong, don't you think? He's edited the article once since the DRV, to implement a version of the article he felt was well-sourced and not in contravention of our guidelines. When he was reverted, instead of throwing a hissy fit and embarking upon an edit war, he brought it to the talk pages of the involved editors, the BLP noticeboard, and the talk page of the article itself, and has not touched the article itself since. Classic WP:BRD. Please, no knee-jerk reactions. Steve ^{T • C} 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1)BRD does NOT apply to material he was aware was already disputed under the BLP. 2) This isn't a question of what's "fair" this is a question of "is this user's presence helping us keep this bio dispassionate and NPOV". This is about what's best for the article, not the rights of an anonymous user who's editing from a sock with nothing to lose.--Doc^g 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Would such a ban include the Murphy talk page or not? I would point out that the article has been locked again after erupting again after RTFA editing again. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The request for protection I put up was due to edits like this and not the content dispute of RTFA. The protection is unrelated.

I would encourage the talk page be banned as well. This is becoming problematic, so if this editor wants to contribute, and I encourage good contributions, it won't be in the very most sensitive area of this BLP, at least not in the near future. Support topic ban. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'll only point out that before RTFA's edit, numerous meatpuppets from the DM messageboard have been editing the article in an attempt to remove as much as can be got away with. See the messageboard itself for proof of this. RTFA appears to be acting in good faith. In his own words, "I am only an SPA because DM has harassed editors in the past when it comes to editing his article." I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Steve ^{T • C} 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Absolutely.--Doc^g 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I support this move - SPA socks with self-admitted agendas should not be editing BLPs. FCYTravis (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• In the past, veteran editors have been harassed by Don Murphy and people that he recruits from his website. You can see this taking place here. As I explained to Rjd0060, who questioned my use of a SPA, I disclosed the reasons at Talk:Don Murphy/Archive2 as well as at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Don Murphy. I do not wish to be harassed on my veteran account because I have personal information in my page histories. Per Doc glasgow's recommendation, I brought up my revision on the film producer's talk page to discuss what elements can be included. Discussion is underway to determine how to implement my revision, and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith by Doc glasgow. The content I added was how it was reported, and Don Murphy has acknowledged his own reputation. I tried to substantiate this by quoting him twice. I have not caused any trouble -- I reverted a sockpuppet that had reverted my expansion (and the sockpuppet was eventually blocked). I participated in the deletion review to inform editors about the film producer's notability. I followed WP:BRD, though in retrospect, this approach was not compatible with WP:BLP. If anything, would be permitted to participate in discussion on the talk page? RTFA (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with your using a sockpuppet per se in this case because of the reasons you outline, it seems it is the way you are editing the article that is, well probl;ematic enough to see you discussed here (and as a fellow editor on the article I am going to opine myself on the rightness of wrongness of a topic ban but will fully respect what is decided here). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's not editing the article. Since that one edit, he's brought this up purely in talkspace. Why would that be problematic? Steve ^{T • C} 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

strong supporthe made changes to a highly explosive topic TODAY- reverting to his own writing that caused one DRV and one AFD. He is a probably enemy IRL of the topic's. He is pushing a non NPOV agenda.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The DM meatpuppets have been strongly advised to insert as much nonsense as possible into the article (as per the messageboard). Why are they not the subject of an AN/I thread? Steve ^{T • C} 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They were not considered worth a thread here and were just indef blocked. RTFA is actually being treated with far more respect. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good answer; thanks for the clarification. Steve ^{T • C} 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

••indeed said puppets are deleted as they appear. Fact is Steve YOU left the project supposedly because of Murphy, going so far as to post the F Murphy expletive on your talk page. Then you show up supporting this attack account. Methinks thou doth protest too much.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• If everyone wants, I can keep my hands off the article itself and solely participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I just wanted to make others aware of additional content to shape the article. RTFA (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't have to make that offer; you've already refrained from editing the article in order to engage other editors in talkspace, all in the interests of improving the article. Steve ^{T • C} 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

a bit late IMO- you showed up today a week after things quieted down and started again. We don't know who you are and all you do is obsess about Murphy. You tried to insert a REPUTATION section in a BLP article as if you were qualified to assess such a thing. I think you should go back to your real account and if you want to attack Murphy do so as a man.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I only added the "Reputation" heading in addition with the "Transformers involvement" heading because both were major subtopics under the overall topic of his career. If there is a different way to separate the information, then we can structure it differently. The content under both headings is valid. My revision of Murphy was not purposely negative -- I wrote about how his foresight and his drive were considered admirable. RTFA (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

you have tried for two weeks on multiple talk pages (including the discussion page for the AFD) to get someone to post YOUR version of Murphy with whom you are obsessed. Today a week after you failed you posted it anyway. TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, during the deletion review, I could not post my revision because the admin had deleted the article and its page history. The AFD was withdrawn because of overwhelming consensus that Don Murphy was notable. Unfortunately, after the brief gatherings at the deletion review and the AFD, editors went elsewhere. Discussion wasn't able to continue, but at the present, it seems to be going on. We can see what progress will be made. RTFA (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WILL be made? I repeat Doc's question from your talk page- what is your obsession with Murphy? Why must YOUR version of the article be included?TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that "TheUnknownCitizen" is another probable SPA sent to aid Murphy's agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an obsession with Don Murphy. All my edits have been focused on the film producer because Murphy's supporters have frequently harassed editors that get involved with this article. Doesn't mean I don't work on articles about other people. I was aware of the harassment and used a SPA to be able to add content without fear. I'm not trying to push for my entire version of the article. The version consisted of verifiable information from reliable sources, and I asked editors in the past and today to evaluate what content can be included to give readers a better idea of the personal life and professional career of this public figure. RTFA (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean notable figure since public figure is a legal term and would definitely not apply to Murphy. I also note that since you have come along there have been renewed attacks on the article, DRVs and AfDs and now this. If you ARE not obsessed I would hate to see what you do obsess about.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "renewed attacks" are as a result of incitements here to vandalise the page in order to have it "locked" in a state of permanent blandness. Steve ^{T • C} 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, Steve that link goes no where. Nice try.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by MB admin. Luckily, I have a copy of the page saved, should it be required. Steve ^{T • C} 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thread has been moved by Murphy; check the same forum, it's still there but under a different name. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant "notable figure". In addition, I have no involvement with any acts of vandalism on the article. Why would I vandalize the article? It would encourage more of a lockdown and not enable me to share content about the film producer. In addition, the DRV was the result of the admin being convinced at Wikipedia-Review.com to delete the article unilaterally after there was traffic on it. I never intended for any deletion processes to happen. The ensuing AFD was not my intent, either. I actually obsess about fly-fishing and Robert Jordan's books, but that's beside the point. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per Steve. Looking at his contrib history, the only problematic edit he made to the article was his last one on March 29, in which he reverted to a pre-DRV version without discussing it first. In light of this, a topic ban seems overwrought. Blueboy96 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Totally support this. The situation was sparked off by this editor and will continue to be an issue as long as this editor and SPA are active on the topic. Powwowjoe (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC) — Powwowjoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Interesting, a little SPA sent by Murphy no doubt wants a productive editor banned from a topic. Can we just get Murphy's "stooges" to go away? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Josh, it was Doc glasgow who made this proposal not an SPA or Murphy stooge. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• oppose per Steve and Blueboy. RTFA has been established to be an editor in good standing who is legitmately afraid of harassment. We need to allow such users to be able to do good work without being subject to attacks. No edit by this user has been problematic and I see no good reason to topicban this editor. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • ignoring the incivility of sockpuppet user JoshuaZ, he states RTFA has been established to be an editor in good standing. IS THIS TRUE? Just because he says so don't make it so. And no Joshua, I neither know nor like Mr. Murphy especially. I just see this RTFA thing as something wrong and bad for the project. As do several admins I see.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't engage in uncivil behavior but if you want me to I'll say simply that your accusations demonstrate that you have no idea what the bloody clusterfuck you're talking about. And given your above miraculously finding this issue as a new editor demonstrates that you are not only another Murphy but a liar also. Go away. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess I would have to resort to profanity if youtube had videos that looked like that too. Personal attacks aside, I would like an answer to the question WHO said that RTFA was actually an established user except RTFA himself?TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • He has confirmed his identity to a number of trusted editors including a checkuser. Now go away. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. BLP requires that the content adder needs to prove the validity, not the content remover, as this account should know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Incredibly irrelevant. All his additions were sourced. And he has made only one edit to which any serious objection was made. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything added was cited to reliabe sources, as far as I can see. Since the reversion, the user has taken this up purely in talkspace; as such, a topic ban is surely a knee-jerk reaction. Steve ^{T • C} 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doc glasgow has instructed me to discuss before editing, so I have done so. I was unwise to follow WP:BRD in this instance. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• support, considering he helped trigger the whole drv mess in the first place. if you're too scared to edit the article from your main account, please don't edit it at all. -- Naerii 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but the admin who unilaterally deleted the article triggered this. Don't pin the blame on me, and editors like H have suffered because of their involvement with this article. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well suffered relatively, don't confuse Murphy with the GNAA, I am another victim of the Murphy forum, believe me. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:SOCK#LEGIT reckons RTFA's usage of a sock account to be perfectly legitimate. Steve ^{T • C} 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• If he were an abusive sock he would have been blocked banned indefinitely without this tread, the SPA isn't the problem but it is a description of the circumstances. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As RTFA has pointed out above, reinserting the controversial material wasn't a very wise thing to do, and he stated that he won't do so again. His edits to the Don Murphy talk page seem rather sane to me, too, so I see no real need for a topic ban yet. --Conti|✉ 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per FT2's findings that this is "an alternate account used by a legitimate Wikipedian in apparent good standing, who is separating their edits in relation to this article from their other edits." In the circumstances, I can understand why someone might not wish to edit from their main account. No evidence has been provided that this accounts constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts or is otherwise editing in bad faith. WjBscribe 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt any of that. The faith of the editor isn't my problem, my problem is that it simply is not helpful to allow a wikipedian who's obsessed with this article on a living person, and not editing neutrally, to continue to do so. It isn't fair to allow an anonymous SPA to target an article and use his position to fight against the subject's wishes. If someone isn't even willing to stake their wiki-reputation on their edits, they should not be editing an article that the subject is concerned with. It is cowardly. (And before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy since I'm anonymous - I don't insert critical material into BLPs and certainly never work against the wishes of the subject.) Editors who choose (and no-once forces them) to work on BLPs should be open and accountable for their edits and biases. He says he fears Murphy? Understandable perhaps. But in that case, how neutral is he? Editing in fear? And what's motivating him in this obsession? I'm not about to guess or assume the motive for any of it, but I am going to assume (on the evidence) that this isn't good for the article.--Doc^g 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Obsession" - I'm not seeing where you get this from. That someone (a) wants to edit the Murphy article and (b) would rather not use their regular account does not mean they are obsessed. His edits related to the topic are fairly light if he has an account that makes a "considerable number" (to quote Thatcher below) of edits to other topics. You seem to actually be arguing that those who edit BLPs (at least if they are adding rather than removing material) should not be able to do so anonymously at all - that's going pretty far against the current grain and I don't think you'd find much support for such a policy. I do actually think that if someone deliberately inserts defamatory material into a BLP, they should be deemed to have waived their rights to anonymity and it should be appropriate for the Foundation to assist the defamed subject in identifying them. This is a long way from that scenario though as the material added by RTFAs is sourced and appears accurate - its addition may not constitute balanced coverage, but I see nothing defamatory there. WjBscribe 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

SPA Blocked

Despite strong objections from a minority, I am reading a clear consensus to end RTFAs editing of the Murphy article. Since that's the only purpose of the SPA, I have blocked the account, but not the IP. The user can return to editing whatever other articles from his main account. There's a sockfest of other SPAs here, and I'd support blocking the lot (on both sides). If consensus overturn my block later, so be it. But right now I see clear consensus support. I do this without prejudice to the intentions or civility of RTFA who seems a reasonable person, over-obsessed with the wrong article. And let's ban all SPAs from it too. --Doc^g 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is strongly against what SOCK says. You are a highly involved editor given your previous reverting of his edits. I strongly object to both this block and your blocking. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we have any grounds for criticising Doc glasgiow for his involvement in this articvle. Thanks, SqueakBox

I support a topic ban and I don't see a consensus at all. Especially not for blocking. -- Naerii 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope sorry, unless I am missing something very obvious I do not see any consensus for a topic ban, let alone a block. Please overturn. Viridae^Talk 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in the contents of this article. I have never reviewed them. I reverted once when the edit summary indicated that RTFA was aware that he was inserting material that others had challenged under the BLP. I regard myself as a wholly neutral party here, I sought and obtained consensus before acting.--Doc^g 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have strong opinions about BLP-penumbra issues which is precisely what this discussion and block has to do with. This discussion was only here for a few hours. This is a SOCK compliant account we are talking about. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As do you. So what? If having strong views on BLPs in general stopped admins taking BLP related action, we'd really be sunk.--Doc^g 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Doc's judgment here. This is a sensitive BLP, and past arbitration precedent supports being sensitive towards BLP subjects when socks are involved. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being an uninvolved admin, Doc. As an editor to the article really all I am interested in is content, and you seem to have acted in an exemplary admin fashion (I am not saying you are right or wrong per se, but that's another matter, your actions in themselves are right). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sensitivity" is being adhered to; RTFA has not edited the article since the revert, preferring instead to take it up in talkspace. There is no ill-behaviour to prevent; therefore a block is unnecessary. Steve ^{T • C} 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course we all know what the RTFA Stands for and as such it should be banned anyway as an inappropriate usernameTheUnknownCitizen (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RTFA says this. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, RTFA is a redirect to RTFM which is within Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable user names. Now, if we want to talk about someone who should be blocked how about the edit right above SqueakBox who is a clear SPA from the Murphy boards. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you support blocking people just for being sockpuppets I expect you also support the block on RTFA then? You can't have it both ways. -- Naerii 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The block was carried out way too fast, IMHO. 1,5 hours just isn't enough to form a real consensus. There was no real need to be quick, either, since User:RTFA stated he won't edit the article anymore for now. --Conti|✉ 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RTFA unblocked, no consensus for a block in this very short discussion. No continuing rverts of controversial material - he engaged on the talk page after the initial one, legitimate and understandable use of a sock per the sockpuppetry policy as long as he sticks to the talk page. Viridae^Talk 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternate proposal

I honestly think that this action by Doc was overwrought. As I mentioned earlier, we're looking at an editor who has made only ONE problematic edit so far to this article. I looked at his contribs, and it seemed that most of them were reverting edits by Murphy's meatpuppet army. In light of this, I propose that RTFA be restricted to suggesting any changes he wants to make on Talk:Don Murphy for two weeks. Thoughts? Blueboy96 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An obsessed editor is still precisely what this article does not need.--Doc^g 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I can't see how you've concluded that this editor is "obsessed" about the article. They weren't involved in editing the article for several days after the DRV closed. Unless you know what volume of edits this person's main account is making and to what articles, I have trouble following your conclusions on this matter. WjBscribe 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point. I thought a block would be OK, but given the number of people who disagree, going ahead and blocking is the worst idea possible. Doc has been really, really cavalier recently, and I think he should reconsider his approach. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's a consensus for the talkpage restriction instead, I suppose it could work. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. This article is at current, a sensitive one. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Note: The main account of RTFA (talk · contribs) has never edited Don Murphy and has a clean block log and a considerable number of edits. User TheUnknownCitizen (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of HydeDoctor (talk · contribs). Thatcher 12:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. If RTFA is a good faith user who has decided not to tie his main account to Don Murphy (something with which I can readily sympathise), that does put a slightly different complexion on it, but only slightly. I don't think that article needs SPAs, and trying to work out which ones are sleeper socks and which are editors avoiding the shitstorm Murphy tends ot unleash on anyone whose edits he dislikes is probably going to give us a weakness that will be ruthlessly exploited. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

IP trying to "out" user

Can someone have a chat with a <ip removed>, preferably in the form of a short block. They've been trolling <username removed> and revealing his RL identity all week. I gave the user a warning earlier this week to stop revealing <username removed> RL identity and at the time they said they wouldn't do it again, but they persist in doing so. I sent a couple of emails off to the oversight email list to get the outing's oversighted, but so far there hasn't been a response. It also looks like the user has a dynamic IP address (they've just made edits as <ip removed>, so if <username removed> user and talk pages could get a semi protect, that'd be great. thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've semi-prot both pages for a week and blocked the ip for 24 hours. I've also blanked the relevant names and ips to prevent further damage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User: A Link to the Past

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

---

Take it to the article talkpage, please. Black Kite 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past has ignored consensus on the redirect of an article name from EarthBound (series) to Mother (series), and has increasingly been attacking other users whose views do not coincide with his own. I have politely suggested that he take a Wikibreak and requested that he refrain from attacks, only for him to revert the redirect for a third time, and create Mother (series) as a redirect to prevent anybody else from undoing his redirect. Judging from his Talk page, I can see that I am not the only user he has shown this incivility to. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also been in numerous disputes with this user, and I completely agree with you. Check out this link for reference. The Prince (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The opposition had been dead. The people opposing the move to EarthBound (series) stopped discussing - if they abandon the argument, their opposition is no longer noteworthy. I attacked you because you have continuously ignored me every single time I point out documentation of Nintendo calling the series EarthBound, which you requested. It has nothing to do with your "position". The fact that you have been stalling and ignoring every piece of evidence I've provided that establishes what the series name in English-speaking countries does nothing but stall the discussion for your own benefit. The old discussion had ended with opposition to the move not responding for several days, and no one even bothering to oppose the move until weeks later. If they no longer wish to participate in the discussion, even when there had been no indication by either parties that it was finished, then they can no longer cling to their position. Peanut, all you did was create a new discussion. It is YOUR sole responsibility to prove your case at this point. Just because you posted it in an old discussion doesn't mean the discussion has been ongoing.

I will not accept your opposition to the merge until you respond to my argument that SSBB calls the series EarthBound. So until then, your opposition may as well not even exist. You cannot just ignore what you choose to ignore and think that you can get past consensus (remember that the discussion ended with the Mother supporters ceasing to discuss the move).

I also don't appreciate that you did not tell me that you opened an incident report against me, despite the fact that you are required to. I don't see any merit in an AN/I discussion that was opened to force the argument your way and to get me punished. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that the "consensus" at EB (series) was between four people, only two of which didn't abandon the discussion - namely, me and my fellow EarthBound supporter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ALttP, I do not appreciate plenty of things that you did, but at no point did I make threats or personal attacks toward you in the course of the discussion. I have provided more than adequate proof of reason for the redirect staying as it was, and despite my protests and that of the other users, you still proceeded to make the change. As noted above, I am also not the only person who has noted that you have been uncivil and combative; The Prince has noted where you have proven yourself to be uncompromising and difficult to work with, and a third uninvolved user has also noted on your Talk page that you are antagonistic. In addition to the above, you have also violated WP:3RR to keep "your" version of the article active, salted the original Mother (series) page, and apparently resorted to Wikistalking as well. I have suggested that you take a Wikibreak, and honor the "retirement" message listed on your user page, but my suggestions went completely ignored. I have no further recourse, and I am supported in my action. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, must be the apocalypse, you continue to refuse to explain why my evidence is bad and your evidence is good. Apparently, the producer of SSBB's word is good on the SSBB web site, but when it has to do with the video game, he's just totally and completely wrong. If the producer is right on the web site, he's right in the video game. By that fact, EarthBound is the official English series title by a matter of fact.

And I don't care. You created tension by refusing to respond to my arguments. If you don't like being disrespected, respect others, thanks.

By the way, you reverted five times. I reverted four times. The only thing worse than my 3RR (which I hate doing) is people 3RRing WORSE than me and then pointing out my violation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wearing people down until they give up and edit elsewhere is not the same as having a consensus. And it's always a bad idea to create an article on an old redirect just so that someone can't revert your move - gaming the software to get your way in a content dispute is never a good idea. -- Naerii 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wearing people down? How is anything I've done "wearing people down"? I'm sorry that they decided to quit the discussion, but what, am I supposed to say "okay, since I can't counter the arguments of the people opposing this move if they aren't here, I'll have to give up", but I never would let people quit a discussion and hope that their opinions are still counted. That's bullcrap. I gave adequate evidence - I countered every argument - I provided PROOF that Nintendo uses EarthBound as the official English name - your statement applies to PeanutCheeseBar much more than it does me. I'm feeling worn down by PeanutCheeseBar having not acknowledged the one proven example of Nintendo calling the series EarthBound. I have asked him constantly to respond, but he refuses to answer. What I did in the first discussion was as much "wearing them down" as anyone "wears people down". It's called debating, and that's how people do it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I must ask, why in the world has PeanutCheeseBar NOT been the one trying to wear me down? Want some evidence?

"ALttP, I am afraid you have not provided adequate documentation" - Response to me saying I did provide adequate documentation, not actually explaining - in any way whatsoever - why it wasn't adequate documentation.

"You did not provide evidence, only hyperbole" - And of course, this. Calling my argument hyperbole without EVER explaining why. All PeanutCheeseBar has done is say "well, everything you said is wrong, so I win". He's never explained why my evidence is wrong, only giving blanket words to dodge the question, being intentionally vague, something that any rational human being would understand would make anyone irate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any proof; you merely used hyperbole to try to establish your opinion as fact, and you did so quite condescendingly. Your edits were reverted because they went against consensus (in which case, they could be treated as vandalism) This is also not the first time I've been subjected to your incivility, and you are not ashamed or remorseful of it at all; in the Talk:Mario page, you stated the following in an edit summary:

"You can't remove someone's statement because they're condenscending. I didn't insult the user. I have the right to DECLARE myself superior, let alone imply it."

Making comments like that within an Edit Summary is uncalled for, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Even now, you argue with anyone who does not share your viewpoint on the matter, and you are exacerbating the issue even more than before. Given that this is the second time you've been reported on this noticeboard in a two week period, doesn't that tell you that maybe you need to tone down your rhetoric? If you posted the proof before (which I did not see any evidence of), then it would not have been extenuating on your part to repost that, or link to the specific edit; however, you did no such thing, and you continue to clutch at straws to try to find ways to exonerate yourself). Regardless of that, no matter how irate someone makes you, you should not engage in personal attacks and use Edit Summaries to "make a statement". PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain why SSBB is hyperbole, or my opinion. Now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to feel inclined to cooperate when you take that tone with me; instead of constantly turning the spotlight back on me, why don't you explain why you have taken the action that you did, starting with the incivility and the inappropriate edit summaries? PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is about EarthBound. This is not about your witch hunt, trying to get enough content dug up to get me blocked. This is about EarthBound, and ONLY EarthBound. You've never acknowledged my argument throughout the ENTIRE DISCUSSION, which anyone would recognize as a blatant attempt at disrupting the discussion.

My tone has nothing to do with your not responding. You've NEVER responded to that argument. A response from you about that argument can be filed under "fiction". The closest thing you've given is making a blanket "everything you said was opinion, hyperbole, etc.". If my arguments are opinion and hyperbole, why has your attempt to prove this been literally nonexistent?

Here's a thought - maybe I called you a troll because I did all this work gathering all this evidence, and all you did was ignore everything you couldn't even attempt to shoot down? I show no regret for acting the way I did. You basically acted disrespectfully in the same breath as when you showed me disrespect. You've refused to acknowledge my key argument, my one argument that you yourself said would prove me right, and when you keep acting like you've won just because you think you can magically wish what you don't like away is a bit irritating.

You lost the argument. Ignoring an argument doesn't make it go away. Because my key argument has literally no hyperbole or opinion in it, I cannot view anything said by you as anything but disruption of the discussion. I wanted to have a serious discussion, you wanted to fight for en.wiki to be moved to ja.wiki, and you ignored anything that proved me right.

This discussion is over. I refuse to respond to you. I shall bring it up at WT:VG, and in all likelihood, people will notice that since Nintendo established EB as the English name, it's the English name. - A Link to the Past [[User talk:A Link to the

Past|(talk)]] 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, something as simple as having EarthBound redirect to Mother and thus rendering this entire wikidrama moot never occured to you.

Oy... HalfShadow (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It did initially redirect, though ALttP kept redirecting it (against a consensus, at that). However, my issue is not merely with the article redirect; it is more his attitude, his "my way or the highway" attitude, and his incessant arrogance and bullying. I've requested more than once that he repost his evidence, but he has yet to even post viable evidence that Nintendo explicitly stated that the series is called "EarthBound". I feel less inclined to edit, especially if he is going to follow me around and revert any changes I made (which he has done in the past, across multiple articles). As Naerii (a complete outsider to this situation) also pointed out, his actions were unwarranted. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the love of...

Why have naming conventions in the first place, if redirection is good enough? We could move it to "Gregory Jameson (series)", and as long as Mother (series) and EarthBound (series) redirect to that, it's fine, right? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if Peanut happens to want my evidence, I guess I could give it to him.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl puts all EB/Mother content under EarthBound (Mother) or EarthBound. Similarly, he argues that the Smash Dojo uses Mother once (and only once). If the Dojo can establish the series' name as Mother without explicitly declaring the series name to be Mother, then the video game can establish the series' name as EarthBound without explicitly declaring the series name to be EarthBound. He established that he does not follow his own conditions for evidence - he never provided Nintendo explicitly stating the series to be Mother, yet says that the Dojo calling it the Mother series is good enough. Why isn't the game calling it EarthBound not good enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My apathy on the subject would probably deeply frighten you once you understood it. Please bitch and/or moan elsewhere. That goes for both sides, just to be fair. HalfShadow (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're being fair. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone who keeps refusing to acknowledge me or my statements, you continue to do just that... Regardless, that Gregory Jameson bit just reinforces what I was saying; in addition, I stated that I wanted you to find in print (referring to a source accessible on the internet) or some other reliable source that Nintendo specifically calls the series "EarthBound" (despite that being the name of the second game in the series). So far, you have failed to do so, and yet you shoot down what is provided on The Dojo, despite the fact that it is the official Smash Bros. site, and the developer ALSO worked on the Mother games. If it's coming from the developer and the publisher (in this case, Nintendo) does not disavow it, it is safe to assume that this is an endorsement by both companies. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[39] "(EarthBound-related music is the exception to this rule.)" I don't see Mother-related music on that page. In fact, in my looking, the most I've found is "Mother: Porky's Theme", which is much further from calling the series "Mother" than my link is. And please, take this discussion to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion will remain here, because your attitude and immoral tactics are what I have taken issue with, and given that this is not the first time you have acted like this, I do not believe that you feel any remorse for your actions or your attitude and you will repeat them in the future. You were even petty enough to put this in the Edit Summary for EarthBound (series) after YOU salted the Mother (series) page and created the redirect:

The discussion had ended, and the only two people left in the discussion, the supporters, got an admin to move it. Your opposition is new discussion - EBers won the first discussion.

Not only did you inappropriately use an Edit Summary, you also lied and tried to pass off your action as something an admin did just to try and make yourself look innocent. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the freaking EarthBound page. Your sole purpose in posting here is trying to get me blocked because I offended you. If you won't discuss it where it's meant to be discussed and refuse to actually say "hey, let's talk about what we're supposed to be talking about", then this argument is over. You may oppose it, but I doubt that'll make enough of a difference. Oh, and may I add that an ADMIN moved the page initially? Yeah, I'm really capable of unsalting EarthBound (series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Review my block of The Blizzard King (talk · contribs)

One of the first things I was confronted with upon logging in and viewing my watchlist this evening was yet another incivil comment by this user. I blocked him for a week back in January for making one personal attack too many. Thinking that perhaps I'd just issue him a final, *final* warning, I checked his contributions - only to discover that his first edit in over a month was this. Blocked indef (certainly not merely because he faked a block notice with my username on it - I'd have blocked him if he'd faked a block notice with his own username on it) - it now seems pretty clear to me that the negatives outweigh positives when it comes to this user.

I welcome your opinions on this matter. I can understand how this might look like 'he got pissed off because someone faked a message from him and wielded the banhammer' from the outside, so I invite your scrutiny. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Editor has persistently failed to grasp, or follow, policy despite many warnings and previous blocks. Overall, a net negative contribution to the encyclopedia, with attitude to match. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a good block to me, as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility to the next level, removing cited material, stalking. Looks like this guy needs to find somewhere else to have fun. Blueboy96 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance = good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, guys - much appreciated. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Urgent action requested

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes, the anon IP 149.68.31.146 (talk · contribs) belongs to the banned User:Azad chai, which is the same as banned User:Azerbaboon. I posted this info at WP:AE, but my report has not been reviewed yet. However urgent action is needed right now, as the IP continues edit warring in defiance of the ban. In addition, a couple of new SPA IPs emerged that follow me and undo my edits. These are 85.211.2.204 (talk · contribs) and 85.211.4.163 (talk · contribs). Also according to the same cu, User:Erkusukes is the same as User:Merjanov and User:Cn111, and all 3 are likely to be socks of banned User:Verjakette. However, Erkusukes continues edit warring in violation of wiki rules, since no action is taken as result of the cu. I remind that Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles are covered by the latest ruling of the arbcom, see [40] Urgent action is requested to stop disruption by banned users. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged the accounts/IPs listed in the Checkuser report ... can someone keep a watch on the IPs? Blueboy96 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The only ones that are left are SPA IPs 85.211.2.204 (talk · contribs) and 85.211.4.163 (talk · contribs). I believe they are open proxies. What could be done about them? Grandmaster (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Report it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added both IPs to the same cu, waiting for the results. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added both to WP:OP as well. Grandmaster (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one: 85.211.4.116 (talk · contribs). 3 rvs, no comment or edit summary. Looks like someone tries to bait users restricted by the arbcom parole, as most of editors editing Armenia - Azerbaijan area are restricted to 1 rv per week parole. Grandmaster (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and edits rolled back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. Grandmaster (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP outing editor

Resolved

 – IP blocked, Sonics page semi-protected, Coz 11's page already semi-protected.

Can someone semi-protect Seattle SuperSonics and User:Coz 11 and their talk page for a few days and delete the edits of 76.193.81.39 (talk · contribs)? I reported the user earlier today and Seraphim Whip was nice enough to block the IP addresses that were outing the person earlier today, but they are back with a different IP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked ... seriously thinking about emailing AT&T about the IPs (both are DSL accounts from Tulsa on AT&T's network). Looks like most of the other pages in question have been fixed already. Blueboy96 05:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep — I semiprotected the pages and deleted the relevant BLP-violating edits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

A user (User:Meachly) is harrassing me and changing literally every single word that I type in an article (Abigail Taylor). What to do? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Bring it up on his talk page and try to sort it out. If that doesn't work, WP:RFC or WP:ANI will work. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. You again? In the meantime, edits like this one and this one show your true role in things. Why don't you be honest and just say "I want people who disagree with me to be punished" instead? JuJube (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit is also troublesome and could be perceived as a threat. JuJube (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is enough: [41] and [42] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite a couple of useful edits, Joseph A. Spadaro is an extremely rude, aggressive, and disruptive editor. His talkpage seems to indicate that a short block might give him time to cool down and reconsider how he interacts with other editors. Doc Tropics 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:3RR against the editor for his ownership of Abigail Taylor, but after seeing what he's done tonight, I think that's the least of the problem. Edits like these [43] [44] [45] seem to show he's just here to make a few changes and start a fight, then revel in the attention. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciate here, as he's being very disruptive. Redrocket (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "cooling down" blocks. I have indef blocked the editor as a disruptive influence on the encyclopedia, commenting that they need to change their behaviour if they wish to be unblocked. They may or may not get angry, but I am not concerned about that - too much time has already been wasted trying to persuade the editor to act appropriately already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, pending user's indication that he gets it (something his behaviour to date indicates has not yet happened). Guy (Help!) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Phasereal

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked, page protected.

Hi! Although I have the buttons, I haven't really kept up on what we do to with brand-new accounts that act wildly outside our norms. Could an admin with more experience please take a look? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned them and will block if they continue. There is no evidence this user is here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and I invite review of that. --John (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Were their comments on a talk page, I'd delete them. What's the current custom with inflammatory edit summaries on reverted edits? Leave, or prune the edits? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a lot of work to prune the edits; someone would have to delete and selectively restore all but the offending edits. I think a developer could do it? Not sure if this really requires that kind of attention though. --John (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've wanted to try a delete and restore, so I may do it just for the experience. William Pietri (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi wikistalking again

Resolved

 – Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming

Since this last AN/I report a couple of days ago, User:Sennen goroshi has not changed his/her behaviour. This user has now moved on to following me to the Kamau Kambon article, in order to expand the dispute. He/she is also making personal attacks again (as he/she just called me a "racist." [46] Yahel Guhan 08:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? I did not wikistalk you, I purposely did NOT revert your edit, even though I consider your edit to be wrong. I left a message on a talk page in order to discuss the edit, without entering into an edit-war. If me discussing your edits in a civil manner offends you, I apologise.

Perhaps if you re-read the message I left, you will see that I actually called Kamau Kambon racist, not you - because of good faith, I will assume that was an honest mistake on your part - however it would seem obvious, the discussion on that talk page was regarding the use of the word "racist" in the article, I also said "His statements were obviously racist, and when something is that obvious, citations are not required." - the fact that I mentioned citations showed that I was talking about the article, if I was talking about you, then citations would have nothing to do with it.

On the subject of stalking, I was a little suprised that on an article that you have not edited for four days, you managed to revert my edit within 5 minutes of me editing, I guess that was pure luck on your part. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, I nearly forgot - next time you make an ANI report about me, could you please have the manners to inform me of the report? It was lucky that I decided to read ANI today, or your complaint would not have been noticed by me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Wolzen

Can an admin please take a look at this speedy deletion? Nick Wolzen appears to be nothing but a hoax and a serious vandal magnet besides. It appears as if it's a page being written by a kid and two or three other enemies (or friends) are rewriting it every few minutes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're dealing with someone with a proxy or a group on this. The page has been re-created by a new user User:Pedro Fernandez. Before it was deleted User:Nicholas Wolzen made a note on the talk page about having a proxy. I'm going to report this as a sock and keep an eye on this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have salted the article from recreation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The sock was confirmed, I think salting was a good call.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hanvanloon

User:Hanvanloon is a self-proclaimed expert published author in the field of Quality Management. Since joining Wikipedia two months ago he has been a major contributor to Quality management, PDCA, ISO 15504, Process capability. He has almost tripled the Quality management article [47], increased PDCA by almost 50% [48], ISO 15504 by about 50% [49], and Process capability by about 20% [50]. These diffs include some edits by other users, but most of the changes are by Hanvanloon.

As a relatively new user he has made mistakes, including lack of references, which gave the appearance of OR. I've been showing him how to add inline citations. One mistake he made was to add links to a product that he created. It is clear from context that this was not an attempt to promote his product, but because he thought it would be a useful addition to the article. Nonetheless it was an apparent conflict of interest and that is the reason he is in trouble today.

Hanvanloon is under an indef block for a username violation. There is, in fact, no problem with his username per se, and he has offered to change to a different username. Ordinarily with a username block, changing name would be the cure and he would be unblocked quickly. But the block is not due to a username problem, despite the message block on his talk page that says username is the problem. The real reason for the block is COI.

My connection is through WP:EAR. He asked for help and I've been trying to teach him our ways. I asked the blocking admin User:Rudget what action Hanvanloon might take to be unblocked. Rudget suggested that I take it to ANI.

I submit that Hanvanloon has made useful contributions, that his few edits that might have been COI were not efforts to promote his product, but were simply good faith attempts to improve the articles by adding what he thought was relevant information. It was a beginner mistake and he should not be bitten with an undef block.

Especially with beginning editors, I think we should make an attempt to clearly explain problems and cures on the user's talk page. The message that he was blocked for a username violation was misleading to me and I assume especially to him, a beginner. Because the real problem was COI, there was no explanation of what action he should take to be unblocked. Also for beginners we should start with short blocks, escalating if needed, not start out with an indef block.

I request that Hanvanloon be unblocked. I will continue as a semi-mentor to him. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, he's a self-proclaimed expert. Anyone else proclaiming him such? (genuine question, I don't know the guy). He also created an article on his methodology, STARS methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Who's watching for insidious POV? Guy (Help!) 13:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, he is a published author on the subject.

  More to the point - look at his edits. They are not promotional. And the STARS article he created was a typical newbie mistake. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a quick review of the contrib history... yours, not Hanvanloon - and if you are prepared to semi-mentor the editor I see no reason why the block should not be lifted; I'm certain you will be a good influence. I would raise a couple of points - NPOV is core to the building of the encyclopedia and COI is not something that fades during a block duration. The understanding of the risks of COI effecting POV and undertaking to minimise that risk is the requirement for the lifting of any block, and therefore an indef block (although seemingly harsh) was appropriate. I would also suggest that Hanvanloon does change their username, as there was obviously some concern in that regard. I would hope that Hanvanloon recognises the need for the actions taken and required. That said;

• Support unblock on basis of Sbowers3 (semi)mentoring editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock at this time. I am little inclined to endorse the above request by Sbowers3 (talk · contribs) to 'mentor him' as surely one contributor is better than none. Just make sure (to Sbowers3) to watch out for COI and NPOV violations as per the reasoning mentioned above by LHvU. I'd also suggest an extended period of time for the mentoring to take place, due to the limited understanding of the encyclopedia by Hanvanloon. I'd also ask him (if that is desired) to, before reposting the STARS methodology page, edit a sub-section at User:Rudget/STARS methodology to remove any promotional material and to fix the various grammar mistakes etc. Rudget. 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• OK, unblocked then, taking all the above at face value. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I hope I don't regret taking on the extra workload. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

I see I inadvertently left an error on the mainpage in the DYK section where it says in the first hook that the Hofkirche was built as a mausoleum for Ferdinand's grandfather, Maximilian I. Actually, it wasn't, because his grandfather requested to be buried somewhere else and his request was granted, so the Hofkirche is only a memorial to Maximilian, not a "mausoleum" since it doesn't contain his remains (see article ref for confirmation).

I was going to leave this note at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors but it's currently protected, so I am mentioning it here instead. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem now. Though these really should go at WP:ERROR which isn't protected from editing, it is only move protected. Thanks Woody (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question—why did you think it was protected from editing? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually this has introduced, not corrected a mistake - the article explains that Maximilian oversaw the design of his mausoleum, for another location, but it would not fit there, so was built in the Hofkirche. By the time of completion, 50 years later, no one bothered to move the body. I would say "built as a mausoleum" is more correct - certainly it was designed as one. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the article says, but I read a couple of the sources and they clearly state that Maximilian did not want to be buried in the original location, so they buried him according to his wishes and then constructed a smaller building than originally planned - the Hofkirche - to house all the statues and paraphernalia that had been created for the original mausoleum. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And actually the article says the mausoleum was originally planned for Wiener Neustadt, where Maximilian is buried, but it proved impractical to build it there so his grandson built a memorial for him at Innsbruck instead. So either way, seems pretty clear to me the Hofskirch was never intended to be a mausoleum, but a memorial. Hope that clarifies things :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And just to confirm, from the Hofkirche website:

After the idea to place Maximilian's tomb in the castle chapel in Wiener Neustadt, as Maximilian had proposed in his testament, proved to be impracticable, King Ferdinand I and the executor of the will planned the construction of a new convent with church and monastery in Innsbruck for the memorial. So the Hofkirche was never intended as a mausoleum, but as a memorial. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor spamming sockfarm?

I have just indef blocked Pneukal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for spamming, per an AIV report. When attempting to rollback the spam, which was part of a {{welcome}} to various "new" accounts I couldn't as it was the only edit to the page. Upon a quick review I note that most/all these accounts are inactive. Either this is someone who just wants to identify a sockfarm, or found the list of recently created accounts and is spamming them in an effort to increase google hits for their interest, or something else...

Question is, what to do? Simply blank out that part of the welcome message and leave alone, or take it to SSP and have my suspicions confirmed (or otherwise), or...? Any thoughts/options? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're giving the linkspammer to much credit. I stumbled across the link-spamming welcome messages when User:SB0202022 created a hoax page, and there are others who have also edited, so it's likely just a sampling of new accounts rather than an attempt to identify a sooper-sekret sockpuppet army. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This also seems to be every account created in a specific time range - and that couldn't be a sock farm. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whuff... I suppose I will have to remove the spam manually. Triff! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and thanks!)

It seems to be an attempt at inserting ekopedia.org see ekopedia.org search results
89 is the current count... delete....--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 89...? It seemed so much more... all replaced now, anyway... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Resolved

 – Vandalism not serious enough to warrant protection

Could someone review the history of Portal:Science and semi-protect it. Already placed a request, but it was rejected by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on the grounds

“ It is important that we do everything possible to ensure that "shopfront" pages such as this remain editable by as wide a user base as practicality allows. Except in the face of an acute burst of concentrated, persistent, vandalism, I do not think that pages such as this should ever be semi-protected. ”

despite the fact that from what I can see nothing in the Wikipedia:Protection policy mandates that we have to leave certain pages unprotected. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars. (i've watchlisted it.) -- Naerii 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've marked this resolved. The page isn't vandalised that often. No need for protection at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cake for everyone!

What? HalfShadow (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I went ahead and protected the noticeboard, originally for 3 hours but then User:Zzuuzz reminded me that it should never have an expiration (cause of the move protection and all), so if some would un protect in a few hours that would be appreciated. Tiptoety ^talk 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should ask the devs to change the interface to allow edit-protection and move-protection to be used simultaneously but with different expiry times. — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now unprotected the page since 3 hours have passed since its protection. Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent addition of copy vio content to Peucinian Society

For some days I will say a small gang of editors are adding copy vio content to the article Peucinian Society. The article is already up for AFD(2nd time) because first time the same editors filled the AFD with lengthy justifications. So can someone look at this. --SMS ^Talk 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tally-ho messed up

I'd change it myself if I knew how. User:Dgrebb has moved Tally-ho (the English expression) to Tally-Ho (Band) and turned it into an article about a punk band. The whole thing is now completely messed up and I can't get the original Tally-ho back.  Channel ®    20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You just had to move it back, nothing needed to be deleted as is the case with some moves. El_C 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tried, but got a "this page already exists, alert administrator" warning. Any WP: page where I can read/learn more about this? Thanks for the help.  Channel ®    21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, IC. Looks like the procedure has changed, whereby moving over redirect does not involve deletion but still limited to admins. El_C 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Beautiful Formosa

Beautiful Formosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive on several Republic of China-Taiwan related articles for the last couple of weeks. More specifically, this individual has been violating our policies WP:NPOV, and WP:EW, and has been also moving pages without consensus. There are multiple warnings on his talk page, and has been warned by different people to change his conduct when editing articles and leaving comments on talk pages. As that is the case, I recommend that the community consider the following:

• Topic Ban
  1. User:Beautiful Formosa shall not edit or move any articles within the view of the WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject China and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan for a period of 14 days. Failure to follow these conditions will result in a block of 24 hours and an increase of the topic ban by 2 days. Subsequent failures to follow conditions will result in the doubling of hours in the previous block and an increase of the topic ban by 2 days.

I believe this is necessary as we need to deter any further disruption. nat.utoronto 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot of page moves! El_C 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is that is why these conditions need to be implemented, but only after the community has reached consensus so that we can go through with this. nat.utoronto 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the amount of warnings that he's already been given, I'd say he needs to be blocked the next time he does it anyway. But failing that, a topic ban seems fair enough. Someone needs to have a serious word with him too.-- Naerii 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll block now. Pretty much, from the getgo, this user has been edit warring on the topic. Plus, his username is intended to provoke such a response from our community member. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV comment templates now available.

There is now a set of useful templates when reviewing AIV reports, per the link in the header, following this discussion at Talk:AIV. As ever, comments and improvements welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this really have gone to AN?--Phoenix-wiki 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It did, so I got 2 ticks on my edit count instead of just one... (that makes 3!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on AN/I it will be archived faster and hopefully not catch on — though we all know that in project space, everything catches on, so you can wish in one hand and... nevermind! Three cheers for pointless bureaucracy! Can I be appointed as an official AIV clerk or do we have to vote on that? — CharlotteWebb 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That templates are patent bureacracy and serves no purpose. We've got enough cracy without the need for a set of templates for every noticeboard. Next, we'll got the {{support}} on the AfD. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't AIV listings just get removed once resolved? When would these templates ever be used? Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

12-year old girl

Resolved

The one and only JESSICA (talk · contribs), a 12-year old girl, has just added her name and e-mail address to her talk page. What is the standard procedure in such cases? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanked talk page, administrator needs to delete the page and it's history soon. Rgoodermote  22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly you could explain to her this isn't Facebook, while you're at it. 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the history is blanked I will do that. Rgoodermote  22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

DoneRgoodermote  22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the page, and after many edit conflicts, left the user as note about personal info. El_C 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...sorry about that. Rgoodermote  22:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandahl in the new DakotaKahn

Resolved

Not sure what Sandahl in the new DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) is trying to accomplish, but their User page indicates that they're up to no good. Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked them for the username being too close to User:Sandahl. Anyone feel free to upgrade to a hard block if you wish.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that its Catgnat. Block upgraded, matter resolved...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)