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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/AprilFools2007

WP:HARASS by User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (posted here as requested by User:Jersey Devil)

I believe that, for Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tendentious editing crossed a clear line into harassment just before I went on a wikibreak last week. Before I left I reported the escalation of the harassment to wikistalking to an admin, User:Jersey Devil (JD), that had previously warned Smee about this selfsame activity. Smee disregarded that warning (below) and continued to follow me around to a degree that eventually reached the level of stalking:

Do not come to my talk page to continue your fight with Justanother. Do not follow the user around wikipedia to begin fights, it is disruption and your fights have already taken up large amounts of space on AN/I. I suggest you avoid the user because if you follow him around to start fights as you did on my talk page I will enforce policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I returned yesterday and saw that JD had asked me to take this complaint here so here it is. My desired outcome is that User:Smee respect me as an editor and respect my edits. I have in the past allowed myself to take an inappropriate tone with tendentious and harassing editors when their offensive activity was directed at me. That is a fault that I: 1) took a 24-hour block for from JD (while User:Smee saw no censure of her disruptive editing) and 2) prior to that had vowed to address. I specifically addressed the issue with User:Smee immediately prior to her wiki-stalking me so that shows me that simple discussion of the issue is to avail. I suggest an appropriate block to ensure that User:Smee "gets it". Thank you. Below are the particulars (mostly copied from User talk:Jersey Devil):

18 March - Smee is warned by JD to not follow me "around wikipedia to begin fights".

20 March - Smee votes to delete a category I just created that I had put up for suggestions on a rename: Diff

21 March - Smee warns me of WP:BITE for my replying in a pretty friendly sarcasm to a sarcastic remark by someone that, despite being a little new, is clearly a mature editor. Diff

• Interjecting here. I was not being sarcastic in my first comment ever to an active Wikipedia discussion, and appreciated Smee's support. Maturity, however, is not something I am usually accused of, so I must express my thanks, Justanother :) ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps sardonic then is the better word? Or you tell me please. Point being that I simply responded in kind and there was no intention to bite. Did I scare you? --Justanother 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Re-affirming without re-engaging Justanother that I was not being sarcastic nor sardonic in my Strong Keep for the Tilman Hausherr article. It was legitimate enthusiasm. I truly appreciated Smee's WP:BITE comment. ClaudeReigns 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah. Then I enthusiastically replied. --Justanother 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Justanother's enthusiasm was why I felt Smee's WP:BITE comment was warranted. ClaudeReigns 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, CR, I won't press you on that any further. Though I repeat that your history and style show you be a much more robust editor (add that to "mature") than might need such protection as one would provide a "weak sister". Would you not agree? The main point is that Smee should have not been the one to warn me if warning was warranted, IMO, given his history with me and the recent warning for him to back off. And it got worse from there and clearly shows a pattern of WP:HARASS. --Justanother 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't. WP:BITE isn't about my protection or my lunch money. It's about your etiquette. ClaudeReigns 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All due respect Claude (and I do like your style) but no, WP:CIVIL is for etiquette; WP:BITE is for protection. While I am sure that you appreciate etiquette, I suspect that you have as little need for protection from the "spoken" word as I do. Best regards. --Justanother 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The two above did not really set off my radar that Smee had no intention of following JD's advice but it got worse.

21 March - I respond to the BITE "warning" and then I remember that Smee has been warned against picking fights and I mention that. Smee deletes that bit of news, claiming "personal attack". Diff

21 March - Smee follows me to User:Sm1969's talk page to try to sow discord between us, IMO while outrightly accusing us if conspiring. Talk about picking fights!. Diff

23 March - I will just copy my posts from JD's page.

It gets worse - WP:STALK

Please see the edit history of these two articles [1] and [2] starting with my edits today March 23 and my comment below as posted in article talk which sums up my problem. And it is a problem. Now I cannot even go to a completely uninvolved article and make good edits without instant reversion and subsequent edit-warring by Smee. And this is just after I thought that Smee and I had come to some sort of agreement with Smee promising to reform. Just more of the usual smoke and mirrors on her part, I guess.

Ms. Smee. I am obviously angry that you followed me over to these articles to edit-war and fight with me. I think that it would have shown good grace and good faith on your part had you simply let my edits stand. You should have just waited; not raced over here because I made an edit. That is abusive. I do not care how many articles you have on your watchlist. The point is that these two are not articles that you have any real history in; I made an edits; you raced over to revert them. This is about you, Ms. Smee, not me and I think I have done an admirable job of controlling my anger and simply stating the offenses in the edit summaries for ease of locating them later. --Justanother 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help. Thanks. --Justanother 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure to what extent I'm supposed to further comment on this ANI, being mentioned and all, but should my perspective on conflicts between these two editors be desired, please contact by email. ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another perspective

I've noticed that Justanother is accusing Smee of stalking him based somewhat on his interpretation of Jersey Devil's comments. When I look at the comments to both editors from him, the impression I get is that Jersey Devil doesn't want to be involved in this kind of dispute. He told Smee not to post about it on his talk page anymore, he didn't say to stop posting about it period. He asked Justanother to post his concerns here rather than on his talk page too.

Moreover Justanother's accusations of stalking and harassment are not exactly accurate. He may feel harassed but that is because Smee has been trying to hold him accountable for some of Justanother's nad nehavior, which Justanother does not want to do.

Actually if anyone is being stalked and harassed, it's Smee by Justanother. I self nominated for admin on WP:RFA where Smee voted. Justanother added his vote too, which is fair enough since all are welcome to do so. He however chose to harass Smee as well by leaving a questionable comment under her vote: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Anynobody.

For a person who says he's tired of arguing with Smee, he does strange things, Anynobody 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I don't see enough on either side to warrant a block or immediate intervention. This looks like a case of two editors who don't get along, and would probably be best handled by pursuing the steps ennumerated in WP:Dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's previous disruptive history

1. Justanother has been previously warned for disrupting the WP:ANI process:, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block.
2. Justanother was recently blocked for "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA". DIFF
3. The articles in question above that the user complains about were previously on my watchlist. This is clearly simply another attempt by this user to obfuscate and disrupt the encyclopedia project. Thank you for your time. Smee 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

   User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE), don't you get tired of trotting those out every time I call you on your inappropriate behaviour. See, I have let my temper run away with me in the past when confronted with inappropriate behaviour by editors such as yourself. That is old news; your inappropraite behaviour goes on and on and continues at this very instant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology. --Justanother 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE), - I refer to her history of tendentious editing as shown in incidents such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger. --Justanother 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, which part of the arbcom case you refrenced proves WP:TE? The part where Smeelgova said this?:

I personally resent the negative-faith attacks that Jcoonrod has made against me in the past month. I do apologize for copying a comment from a prior editor back into the article, stating that "The Hunger Project regularly edits Wikipedia." However, I have attempted to utilize reputable sources for all of the historical documentation, and to cite said sources with endnote references and blockquote citations. In this manner, I have tried to let the language used by the sources speak for themselves, rather than paraphrasing my own POV into the mix. As to the relevance of the history of the organization and legality of sources I refer to comment above. Recent debated sourced citations have come from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, by David Weir and Dan Noyes, published by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and not from The London Times.Smeelgova 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

or this part where the committee says:

3) It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the arbcom didn't find any wrongdoing on Smeelgova's part, why are you citing this as evidence of bad faith on her part (the accusations made by the subject are irrelevant obviously because the arbcom didn't find them true)? Anynobody 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

'Fraid we don't read it quite the same, Anynobody. The ArbCom is indicative of her long history of POV-pushing tendentious editing. That is what Jcoonrod is objecting to. Smee is new there and has not yet proved her pattern. Jcoonrod just came in to handle the issue and is not an experienced editor. The ArbCom was not on Smee, it was on the inclusion of the POV-pushing non-RS data which looks to have been disallowed. I simply cite it to show that my earlier statement, "User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE)", was not made lightly. I read that ArbCom and look at the article history, I see Smee's normal pattern, nothing more, nothing less. But there is no point in going round and round on that. I simply used it in passing to support my main point that Smee trots out old news but her pattern goes on and on. See Large Group Awareness Training where she was running over a couple of other editors with her inappropriate inclusions of non-RS POV-pushing material. There is your answer. --Justanother 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but citing an arbcom case where A) Smeelgova's involvement was peripheral and B) the arbcom stated that Smeelgova can continue to edit is not very good evidence of Smee doing anything close to what is outlined in the essay WP:TE. Anynobody 01:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A) Smeelgova's involvement was peripheral - Huh? You might want to take another read there. That ArbCom was brought by Jcoonrod with an intro that was all about Smee.

I have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe."--Jcoonrod 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

His statement is all about the inappropriate editing of Smee that we have since seen time and time again.

For the past month, user Smeelgova has daily inserted large amounts of negative material to The Hunger Project (THP) and related pages such as Joan Holmes, Robert W. Fuller and others. All of this material has been presented in ways to imply an improper relationship between THP and one of its founders, Werner Erhard. Most of the material consists of references to anti-cult websites which, in itself, casts aspersions on our integrity. We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but Smeelgova insists that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance." The Hunger Project has always been an independent organization which has never used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger, as verified by independent auditors every year of our existence. To state or imply otherwise is false and libelous, and could do material harm to The Hunger Project by raising doubts in the minds of current or potential donors. This issue was litigated in the courts from 1986-1989 (see | press release). The court found the allegations to be false and unfounded and awarded damages to The Hunger Project.

Peripheral?? --Justanother 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom case was about the article, The Hunger Project. If the arbcom was about only accusations and discussions regarding Smeelgova wouldn't it have her username in the title? (Like BabyDweezil's did). Anynobody 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Kirbytime

Although it has been 2 weeks since User Kirbytime attacked me here by telling me to "GTFO" (get the fuck out) and writing a message of "WP:DICK" as a subject and in the message body, telling another user that "You dont fucking own the template", could an administrator please block him for atleast 24 hours or something to show that this abuse is not tolerated on Wikipedia? thanks. This is also the same user who has denied the holocaust and is requesting pictures of Child Porn and other lewd pictures in Wikipedia which I have reported 3 sections above where he has accused me of stalking. Many users ([3], [4]) are finding his behavior disturbing. I'm sorry I had to bother the administrators but seeing his latest reactions I could not help but report this abusive user. --Matt57 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this about Kirby as well, but have you considered WP:DR? The Behnam 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had tried to contact the user himself but he denied he had done anything wrong. --Matt57 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe one of the more authoritative types of DR than simply contacting. It is important to build a leveled documentation trail, if that makes any sense. The Behnam 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought those two instances of abuse I gave above should be enough to warrant a warning by an administrator, if not a block. If he abuses again, I will go through the DR as you mentioned. --Matt57 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps they should, and it is easy to find similar examples of abuse just by going through his contribs and looking at his handling of disagreement with other editors. In fact I recall him leaving a rude post on my own talk page. But I'm just telling you that DR is probably the best way to go. Or you could propose ban at CN. The Behnam 04:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him. He's a troll. If he trolls anymore I'll block him. DR is not useful for trolls. Herostratus 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what is really disturbing here is not just the trolling, but the fact that Kirbytime keeps requesting images that are not appropriate at all. I think this needs to be monitored. MetsFan76 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further objectionable activity by Kirbytime. Its very disturbing to see his requests all over Wikipedia for child sex related pictures. He's testing Wikipedia's policies and pushing buttons.--Matt57 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year now, and you accuse me of trolling? So tell me, how is that helpful? Look, just because you are afraid of having pictures on an article which are directly related to the article (oh no someone is asking to improve an article by adding relevant pictures in order to make more WP:GA, better accuse him of trolling and threaten to block him). I'm sorry, wasn't there a guideline that specifically addresses this? Oh that's right assume bad faith. I have never asked for anything illegal. I have said, articles must have pictures in order to improve their quality. Please find me a single featured article which contains no pictures. And also, I have NEVER asked for photographs of rape or anything illegal. If I was doing that, it would be justified to call me a troll. But I have never asked for such a thing! I have said pictures depicting the subject, which could be anything that's even vaguely related. My own suggestion on the rape article was a picture of alcohol with a description of it being a popular date rape drug. Matt is once again making a big deal out of nothing, and repeating the same old lies.

אָחֹ֥ות לָ֙נוּ֙ קְטַנָּ֔ה וְשָׁדַ֖יִם אֵ֣ין לָ֑הּ מַֽה־נַּעֲשֶׂה֙ לַאֲחֹתֵ֔נוּ בַּיֹּ֖ום שֶׁיְּדֻבַּר־בָּֽהּ׃

???--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder of staying cool for you, Kirbytime. Sarcasm will not solve problems but make them worse. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but when a user follows you around to every fucking article you edit and slanders you, and then if you make the tiniest grunt of irritation, threatens to have you blocked, I, as an average human being, cannot help but make rather cynical responses. I'm here to improve Wikipedia. This whole thing is a waste of my time. Instead of writing up all this shit, I could have spell-checked an article, or answered someone's question at a ref desk, or help translate an article at babel. Unlike certain users who have nothing better to do than to follow another editor around (in flagrant violation of WP:HARASS, I want to be left alone. Nobody complained when I first asked for pictures to be added to the Child pornography article, over 4 months ago Talk:Child_pornography#This_article_needs_more_pictures. I had a good discussion with some users regarding the issue; some agreed, some didn't, and each person offered his/her own opinion. But then someone can along and ruined the whole thing, and now I have to waste my time responding to frivolous accusations. And with this, I am no longer responding to this, and I will no longer speak with anyone regarding these issues. Matt, go ahead and notify every user that I have denied the holocaust, requested pictures of rape, gave a blow job to Ahmadinejad, masturbate to pictures of American soldiers dying, or whatever you can think of. I simply don't care anymore.

Der gives Folk, der i den Grad omgaaes letsindigt og skammeligt med Andres Ideer, de snappe op, at de burde tiltales for ulovlig Omgang med Hittegods.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please post in English. Corvus cornix 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, please watch the language. The original poster complained about your language, & you're not helping your case by dropping an f-bomb. If anything, by doing so you're only convincing the disinterested to agree that you should be blocked for incivil language. -- llywrch 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule against swearing? I don't remember one...? I thought we were all adults here -_---Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's covered by WP:CIVIL. But if I'm wrong, consider this: a lot of people (like me) are coming to this discussion without any knowledge about you. Dropping f-bombs allows us to make the snap conclusion that you are a troublemaker -- or a crank -- but clearly someone who we don't want on Wikipedia. (BTW, it's an unwritten rule in customer service: the minute the customer starts to swear, they can -- & will -- hang up, no matter what complaint the customer has -- or who she/he is.) Sure, you can insist on being allowed to use any choice of words you want -- but is winning that battle worth losing this one? Do yourself a favor, & try a little harder to express yourself in a less "adult" manner. -- llywrch 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context

OK, this is weird. A while back I got angry at User:Anynobody making an issue of my religion in his every objection or disagreement that we had over editing and wikipedia policy. I blew my stack and let loose with some choice words, diff. I jokingly asked for some personal data on him so I could "return the favor". As in, "You are misapplying WP:V because you are a [fill in the blank]" as he had been doing with me. Obviously I did not expect him to give me any personal info. Anyway, now he has the quote up on his user page with my name redacted to poke fun at my words, here. I edited his page to add my name and a diff so that the context was clear. We had a discussion (see User talk:Justanother#Thought you'd be ashamed...) and the upshot was that he reverted it back to the way it was before, here. Before taking this to AN/I, I asked him nicely to remove the quote from his talk page if he will not provide proper attribution and context, here. He has been online there since but has not replied. I object to my words being used in this fashion without attribution or context but I do not know if I have the proverbial "leg to stand on" here. Any help/advice is appreciated. At best it is a little bit upsetting to me to have my words taken out of context and misrepresented on someone's user page. --Justanother 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to put this. Consider WP:RFC more suitable, since you and him seem to be having a dispute. No administrative action is necessary. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KZ ^{Talk • Contrib}. what about you Justanother? Anynobody 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been discussing the possibility with several other editors who have had difficulty with Justanother and have invited them here to comment. Anynobody 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and all due respect to User:Kzrulzuall but a User RfC would be just a tad premature on my part as another editor has not yet stepped up to help me address my issue with User:Anynobody of the use of my words out of context and without attribution. If no other admin has better advice for me then I will just go the normal WP:DR route; no hurry. I would like some further admin input though. Thanks. --Justanother 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not warranted and would be a waste of time. Anynobody has confessed that the text was put there for "entertaining" purposes. It is blatant trolling and baiting. Anynobody should simply remove the comments from his/her userpage and stop using Wikipedia for his/her own personal entertainment and game playing. Sarah 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text. I don't see that it improved the encyclopedia to have it there. FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Justanother 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded directly to Sarah, but I think it is worth a look to all involved here: User talk:Anynobody#Re: Misunderstanding. I really am trying to teach a lesson about not letting a PA get to you, so I'm going to put it back with a diff to Justanother's archive with the whole conversation like he asked.

Regarding an RfC, this is just the latest episode of disagreement between myself and Justanother that has been going on for about a month. In the beginning I suggested a RfC to resolve issues we disagreed with at that time. One was set up, and deleted thus not resolving anything. Now we're having disputes about previous disputes. I honestly believe that impartial editors will see Justanother's actions from the start of this dispute as unacceptable. I realize they may just as easily find my actions wrong, but at least I'd know for sure what the real facts are. Anynobody 02:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I have stated that I would accept the restoration of the quote with proper attribution and context (diff), I think the feeling here is that it is inappropriate use of your user page to have it there. For myself, I stand by those remarks as something that needed to be said to you at the time (and on my user page) and then to pass into history. For my part, I archived the relevant discussion early and out of sequence because I did not want such on my talk page even in its proper context. For you to want to enshrine it on your user page is a whole 'nother beast and I am not going to analyze your motives. I am simply going to request here, in front of all, that you do not put my words on your user page. Thank you. And please do not attempt to further query me on the subject; this is the entirety of my communication on that. And yes, I changed my mind and yes, I am saying something different now than I said earlier, after getting some input here. --Justanother 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not your place to decide what lessons other people need to be taught. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Sarah 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I must once again express that just because Justanother is embarrased about his statement should not be a reason to suppress it. As it was before he started editing on my user page nobody knew who said the quote. He chose to make evryone aware of the fact that it was he who said it. I guess he must've assumed the conversation it came from went differently than it did, because his evasion of WP:DR continued in that tone. When he first insisted on linking the quote I tried to refuse because I figured it would be more embarrassing than the quote itself. The fact is I'm trying to show how it's possible to maintain composure when somebody responds with a blatant WP:PA. please see the whole conversation and you tell me if it's really trolling to show this as an example to editors visiting my user page.

• Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
• I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
• Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
• I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
• He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
• It was deleted again after I attributed it.

Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.

• • Meanwhile he gets to mock my attempt at WP:DR openly here: JustaHulk.

Up until this point I've WP:AGF and assumed that everyone here has taken time to read up on the history here, but I'm starting to think perhaps nobody has. Please read my diffs, or read the entire conversation Justanother references in his. Anynobody 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[redacted] In case anyone missed it, how does any attribution or context make it ok to say to another editor? Anynobody 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's comment to you several weeks ago was unacceptable. If I'd known of it at the time I would have addressed it. At this time, however, quoting from the incident on your talkpage is bordering on harassing. I have reverted the quotation again; please let this drop and do not restore it. Newyorkbrad 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad I don't want to give you the impression that I'm being difficult, but could you please explain how it's harassment to point out on my user page bad behavior and how to handle it? If you're saying that I didn't, then I'd be happy to hear how you think I could improve. I could see it being harassment if I was posting it on his page or in an article where he edits. So that I don't make the same mistake again I'd like to ask you to point out where I'm wrong in this sequence of events. (Also if I've missed something please don't hesitate to point it out):

• Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
• I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
• Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
• I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
• He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
• It was deleted again after I attributed it.

Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.

• • Meanwhile he gets to mock my attempt at WP:DR openly here: JustaHulk.

Did you only read the addition about what the comment in question was? I don't blame you if you did, were I in your shoes I'd probably want to get this done and move on to the next issue. Seriously though, if you take time to address my concerns it would save me making another similar mistake and being back here wasting your time again. Anynobody 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, as far as the use of your words on User:JustaHulk. I do not mock your words, they are mocking me and I am laughingly agreeing that I did, in the past, allow myself to rage against offensive editors. I am not going to do that anymore. Your quote is correctly attributed and a link to context is provided. I do not imply that there is anything "wrong" with your words. All that said, I will extend to you the same courtesy that I ask of you and I will promptly remove your words if you but request it. Thank you. --Justanother 13:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war

It would appear that two users Paul venter (talk · contribs) and Berks105 (talk · contribs) are engaged in a sort of edit war over a bunch of articles related to South Africa. Some of the edits and reverts have started to get incivil, and one of the users has resorted to personal attacks. This probably needs further investigation. I make no statements yet over who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", but there are some serious issues going on here, especially regarding ownership of articles, excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to pass comments on a fellow editor, but my (and others') previous interaction with User:Paul venter mirrored nearly the exact same situation over the position of the infobox image image in Jonty Rhodes. I found Paul Venter at the time very aggressive, abusive, and generally very resistant to accepting others' views. He also engaged frequently in personal attacks towards individual editors. Further when efforts were made to build a consensus, he declined to abide by the consensus and merely increased his aggression and abuse. Rueben lys 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An argument over whether the image should be placed in the infobox? It seems that Paul venter seems to have acted very stubbornly in that issue... Well,Paul deserves a warning for 3RR, which he seems to have broken, looking at his contribs. As for the image placement, I have no opinion and it should be settled via WP:DR. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Paul is feeling stalked although Berks105's edits are actually constructive. Paul is reverting Berks's edits calling them vandalism which they are not. There is some WP:OWN here. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I request 48 hour block on User:Paul venter for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, persistent reverting, failure to discuss, excessive size of images, accusations of vandalism at Lionel Phillips. He needs time out to think about his approach. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure.User:Berks105 has disengaged, according to his userpage, so a block would be inappropriate. Aatomic1 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma at Four Great Inventions and Siege of XiangYang

I have a complaint raised against Gun Powder Ma. He doesn't seem to resort to middle ground and prefers to edit things according to his own sources/POV and throw away contradicting opinions with their own sources as well. He continually edits away any source I pointed out in Wikipedia when it comes to "Four Great Inventions". He does not answer the discussion section, and although he argued with me on the neutrality of his source in Siege of XiangYang he now only reverts the edits back to those of his own instead of discussing the neutrality of it with me. I pointed out that having minority sources is against Wikipedia's NPOV rule, but now he just stopped replying and only resorted to reverting. So I'm out of luck for better communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Xiangyang http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&action=history

[User:ImSoCool|ImSoCool]] 1:125, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and Personal attacks from User:Beit Or

Okay, so I realize that sometimes people take CFD's (and AFD's) a bit too seriously. Sometimes things get heated. Assuming good faith can be hard at times.
However, if you're going to accuse somebody of something, then you need to either be prepared to back it up, or be ready to take it back.

In a CFD for "Anti-Semitic people", Beit Or said, "In addition, you may consider not starting your posts with a brief piece of trolling." (you can find that here). Since he originally misplaced his comment (he later moved it right after one of mine), I didn't know if he was talking to me or BrownHairedGirl, and what 'trolling' he thought he saw, so I asked him (the intermediate revision not shown is because I forgot to use quotes to quote what he said).
Here is his reply. Note that it isn't very helpful.
(By now, I see that he's moved his comment to make it clear that he was addressing me)
Here is my reply to that. I think I was fair. It was a personal attack, since it was an unfounded accusation.
Here is his reply to me. Notice two things:

1. He still doesn't specify what part of my behaviour was supposedly wrong. If someone's going to accuse me of something, then they have an obligation to back it up. I can't start calling Bishonen a vandal without providing a single diff or explanation.

   Happens all the time, you'd be surprised. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

2. He actually warned me there. He's the only one who's verifiably guilty of grossly uncivil conduct, and yet, rather than admit that he's made a mistake, he instead has the nerve to warn me!

My reply didn't pull any punches. Nor should it have. The only way I can possibly defend myself from an accusation is if I at least know precisely what I'm being accused of!
Somewhere in the midst of this, I also told him not to make personal attacks in the CFD itself. You can see his diff here, as well as my statement that he was replying to right above it. Note that he's reaffirming his accusation of my 'trolling', and yet still he never once points to a single quote or diff that he actually believes to be trolling.
My reply to that nonsense may not have been with a cool head, and yet, all I did was demand that he either back up his accusation or retract it. And that really is a very reasonable position to take. By all logic, if you're going to keep accusing someone of something, then you should be specific and provide at least a sliver of evidence!
Anyways, he didn't even bother replying to me on his talk page.
At first, I didn't know if it was simply because he'd went offline or something. I didn't want to assume that he was ignoring me (that'd be acting in bad faith), so I waited. And waited. And waited. Until I noticed that he had made comments elsewhere. Still, just in case he was only one for a moment, I waited a bit longer, until I saw that he'd be in wikipedia again. By then, I knew that he was certainly ignoring me.
Then I posted on his talk page again. I didn't insult him. I didn't call him a meaniehead or anything like that. I just said that I knew he'd been on so he saw my messages to him, and that I wanted him to either back up his accusations, or retract them, as well as his "warning".
This was fair and reasonable. If you absolutely refuse to back an accusation up, then you should (obviously) retract it. And any warnings he gave me were certainly uncalled for. (You can't warn a person for conduct that you can't even prove they ever did)
His response was to remove my comment from his talk page! And the edit summary is the real kicker. "rm fresh attack" and "rm latest attack" (it took a couple edits for him to get rid of it all).
So, let me get this straight... Saying, "prove your accusations against me or retract them" is an attack?!? Screw that. He's made personal attacks. False accusations. Given invalid warnings. Put me down on both his talk page and a public CFD.
I want it all deleted, and him told that it won't be tolerated in the future. I don't care about things like 'blocks', because I'm not going to assume that he's disrupting wikipedia in any other way, but this sort of crap has to stop, definitively. Bladestorm 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While neither of you was as polite as you could have been, please try to avoid escalating a minor incident into a major war. Since you aren't asking for "things like blocks", it's not clear what you want us to do - delete his comments because you don't like them? Please, take a deep breath, and count to 1000. Backwards. In pig latin. While drinking a glass of chocolate milk. Then step away from the thoroughly soaked keyboard until it dries off, and the true relative importance of this incident soaks in. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering he made a direct personal attack/false accusation, I don't think I was unnecessarily rude. Most times, if a person is acting in good faith, and they're called a troll, they won't reply with an ice cream cone. :)

That said, there's still an accusation against me visible in the CFD. His comments are still visible there, and on his talk page. I hate being accused of things I never did.

It isn't simply a matter of me not liking them. They're outright false. They're directed at me. They're entirely unsubstantiated. He's accused me of trolling, and of attacks. He's warned me. I don't want any of that crap visible to anyone. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it. It's very much clear what I want to be done. I explicitly stated it. I won't personally remove comments from a CFD, even if they aren't votes. I won't personally remove someone else's comments from their own talk page (false or not, I have a personal interest in the matter). I haven't unnecessarily escalated things. I never said, "you aren't allowed to call me a troll!" I asked him which part he thought was trolling. I've done every single thing that could reasonably be expected of me. And telling me to take a deep breath is silly. I've patiently waited for two days, just to make sure that he had absolutely every single opportunity possible to correct his mistake. Bladestorm 18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments like these abound in CFD's where there are ethnoreligionationalist things that are being challenged. In the larger scheme of things being called a "troll" means absolutely nothing. Civility is an ideal, and as one experienced in controversial Ethnoreligionationalist pages, one has to be thick-skinned, or argue in a more flowery style so that one sees who is crasses.Bakaman 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I say this in all seriousness, the first comment is full of incivility. The tone of the comment and some statements such as "My reply to that nonsense", "Screw that", "this sort of crap", etc.. are entirely unacceptable. This is a place to report incidents, reports should be made solely on factual content. With that said I suggest you stop trying to confront this user on his talk page. Such confrontations only make matters worse.--Jersey Devil 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I'm rather disappointed. Referring to a warning for trolling from someone who won't even say where the trolling occurred as nonsense is "entirely unacceptable", but actually making an accusation, and repeatedly reaffirming that accusation, while repeatedly refusing to provide a single diff or even rationale, is something I should simply accept? There used to be higher standards here. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is time to drop it. Does it suck to be hit with vague, unsupported name calling? Yup. But at the end of the day, this is just escalating a situation long past the time it should have been put to bed. Pretty much every admin on here has been subjected to much worse name calling and accusations than this. Remind him of WP:CIVIL (which you already did) and move on.--Isotope23 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the 'consensus', but it certainly is a shame, isn't it? Being hit with the same accusation repeatedly... it's irritating to say the least. But the idea that personal attacks are simply accepted as part of the CFD process, well, that's even worse. I guess I'll just stay out of CFD and AFD from now on. At least that sort of conduct still isn't acceptable on normal article talk pages. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed that part of the argument that didn't seem to be about the category deletion, but more about the persons arguing. If it gets restored, I won't fight any more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I spoke too soon. You really did come through for me in the end. Thank you. Bladestorm 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting a response to someone who edits mainly Jewish subjects on CFD on Category:Antisemitic people with "Oi..."[5], as Bladestorm did, is a pretty obvious piece of trolling only meant to bait me and inflame passions. I'm surprised beyond measure that Bladestorm has managed to present my rather restrained response to his baiting as incivility. Bladestorm has been pushing the matter for several days now first on the CFD page, then on my talk page, and now on this board. This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue. Beit Or 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... That was what you meant by 'trolling'?!? I say 'Oi' all the time! (In real life) people make fun of me for it because I'm not jewish, but it's just a habit I've developed. (I also call people 'schmuck' and 'putz', if it matters. I also say, "holy snappin' crap" too often, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter.)

Heh... I guess since the topic was 'Anti-Semitic people', I can see you wondering... (the fact that you edit jewish articles is irrelevant, since I didn't research your background before commenting) but wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble if you'd just said that from the beginning?

We actually went through all of this just because I sometimes say 'oi'?

Um, in the future, you might want to Assume Good Faith. Simply saying 'oi' isn't an attack against you or anyone else. It's relatively normal speech. And try to look at this now from my perspective. Everything I was doing was in good faith. Then I was accused. And you actually expected me to guess that a single two-letter word was the cause of your offense? That's a stretch.

Incidentally, you've just made another false accusation, when you (once again) said, "This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue"... but, um, I don't think I'm going to get too offended this time... Now that I know the reason, well, it's hard not to laugh. Seriously though, AGF; it's a pretty important concept here, and would've prevented you from snapping at people acting in good faith. And discussion. Yup. Discussion would've been good. Because there's no bloody way I could've possibly figured out which part you were talking about. Bladestorm 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Bladestorm's incivility does not seem to stop, a brief block may not be unwarranted. Otherwise, this editor will keep flooding this forum with their incivil postings. Beit Or 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious??? You only now reveal that you made me struggle for two bloody days, just to find out that the reason you were insulting me was because I'd said, "oi", and you somehow assumed that was a personal attack... and when I (quite rightly) point out that this whole mess could've been avoided if you'd simply said so from the beginning (or better yet, not assumed that using common english somehow implies trolling), you think that warrants a block? Is this a twisted joke? Or are you suddenly realizing that you were wrong? Bladestorm 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've been harassing me for several days despite all my attempts to cut this incident short. When I stopped respoding to you on CFD, you switched to my talk page, when I stopped respoding there, you moved on this board. All the while you were making uncivil comments like For the last frigging time, My reply to that nonsense... Screw that... ...this sort of crap has to stop you made me struggle for two bloody days. Combined, this incivility and harassment definitely warrant a block. Beit Or 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of all the counterproductive attempts to cut an incident short... You refuse to explain what you mean and then talk superior about Bladestorm getting frustrated into using some vernacular expressions? You'll look better the sooner you stop talking, Beit Or. Don't troll WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Your comment was extremely insulting and uncivil. Beit Or 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Such quips are useless, Bunchofgrapes.

Beit Or is a serious editor from whom I have never seen anything remotely characterizable as "trolling;" if anything he is distinguished by his reluctance to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one. I have to assume that Beit Or's intepretation of Bladestorm's intentions was influenced - and understandably so - by Bladestorm's questioning whether Nazis and holocaust deniers are respectively characterizable as antisemitic (the initial argument about Category:Nazis makes sense, but read further)[6].I find it disturbing that several commenters here seem oblivious to the obvious.Proabivouac 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I can't believe people are still talking about this. However, if you insist on doing so, I think I can make it quick: I thought that calling people who tried to kill Hitler automatically antisemitic was a bad assumption to make. And I said that there were different possible reasons to deny the holocaust, including "poor education" and "ignorance". What's more, whether or not people assume good faith in me shouldn't depend on whether I tend to associate holocaust denial with antisemitism or simply ignorance. If it were true that he really was reluctant "to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one", then he would've simply explained his accusation or retracted it. Obviously, anybody who makes an accusation (or any claim, for that matter) in wikipedia is expected to be able to back it up.
As it is, since the original offending comment was removed from the CFD, and since I finally know the cause of the accusation (as peculiar as it was), I'm fine with letting it end here. If you still wish to discuss it, then you're welcome to take it up on my talk page, so the AN/I board can be freed up for more pressing matters. Bladestorm 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's interesting to see how people can take such different views on the same acts. You make me wait two days before I find out what you're accusing me of across pages, and you think that shows I'm harassing you for days. I repeatedly ask you to back up your allegations, and when I get upset after multiple refusals, you point out that I got upset. You accuse me of trolling just because I said 'oi' perfectly innocently, and yet you accuse me of incivility.

You know, I have to wonder how things would turn out if the roles were reversed. If I were to have seen someone start a reply with "Eh...", assumed bad faith, jumped to the conclusion that they were taking a jab at my being canadian, and then insulted and 'warned' them for their 'trolling'... would people take me seriously? And if he then pointed out just how wrong such actions were, could I then get away with demanding that he be blocked? For failing to accept that I can accuse people of whatever I like, without ever having to support those claims? Hmm... I suspect people wouldn't take that too seriously. Bladestorm 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:CIVIL by User:WassermannNYC

User:WassermannNYC has been attacking me for weeks now, with edit summaries and comments which persistently violate WP:CIVIL. These include reverting multiple articles with the justification that he is using "User:Jayjg's policy": [7] [8] [9] or a "'New policy' per User:Jayjg" or similar wordings: [10] [11] [12] [13]. He has also used edit summaries to refer to Jayjg's injustice(s), Jayjg's smear, User:Jayjg tactic. Most recently he posted a long diatribe to a talk page, with the edit summary for the sake of the entire project Jayjg, PLEASE end this madness and end your blatant censorship, and including this gem:

"Face it Jayjg: you are clearly practicing censorship in this case, and you practiced it in the case of the (former) List of Jewish American businesspeople article/list, and on numerous other occasions here on Wikipedia. Your behavior down this twisted path of censorship, irrationality, and utter ridiculousness is now spiraling out-of-control and only exposes you as the ruthless censor that you are. I believe that even now you are beginning to recognize your own administrative shortcomings and thus should take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak (if only to allow yourself some time to reflect upon you irrational actions, your inability to maintain a NPOV, and also to examine a possible Wiki-addiction on your part)."

He has also ranted about "admins" in general, in particular about their "censorship":

• END WIKI CENSORSHIP!
• End administraitor censorship!
• Fight Wiki-censorship
• GOOD G-D what monstrous, censorious, and blatant POV!
• it is censorious POV to keep deleting Toaff's name from this section and you censors know it -- how can you people live with yourselves?
• it is censorious POV to keep deleting Toaff's name from this section and you censors know it -- how can you censors live with yourselves?
• Please cease your blatant censorship
• Please cease your blatant censorship:
• you only prove my point that rampant censorship thrives here on Wikipedia
• you only prove my point that rampant censorship thrives here on Wikipedia
• END WIKI-CENSORSHIP!
• I'm truly sick of your censorious behavior
• I'm truly sick of your censorious behavior
• reverting Runcorn's blatant censorship
• you people aren't trying to censor the censorship page in order to prevent attempts to prevent censorship, are you? LOL--a new low!

His User page contains a long diatribe about admins and censorship, and when not insulting me or fulminating about "censorship", he is still prone to general rudeness (e.g. VANDALISM?! Are you tripping on acid or something?! What is the matter w/ you?, WHERE ARE THE ADMINS. WHEN YOU NEED THEM? Admins. -- please start adminstrating a bit more and stop spending all of your time on Jewish articles) He has been asked to stop acting this way many times, and warned that WP:CIVIL is policy, but he appears to believe he is not bound by it. I believe it is possible that User:WassermannNYC could contribute positively to Wikipedia, but his belligerent attitude and persistent rudeness make it extremely hard to work with him. I'm recommending a one week block, to allow him to cool down and re-consider the way he interacts with editors, and realize the importance of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a week block will demonstrate that civility is not optional here. This is well beyond the scope of productive behavior and the user has had plenty of notice to stop. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea... in today's nod to irony the editor has a WP:AGF userbox...--Isotope23 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time off to review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF may help. -- Avi 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor deserves perhaps a longer sentence for racist behavior.Bakaman 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for now, as he was not blocked before. If his behavior pattern persists, I would recommend longer periods, with at least a 1 week block next. Crum375 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, if the problem persists a longer block than a week may be justified. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't tolerate anything near this level of disruption. If his behaviour doesn't improve after the block, then a longer block would be in order, in my opinion. Guettarda 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing the block, in hope that this will contribute to improving the dwindling civility in our community. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pile-on endorse, and I'll add a note to his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block too. However, I think the issue goes beyond civility (not that I am belittling the importance of civility). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soap-box, and we have policies to enforce this. Someone needs to educate this user that having to comply with policies is not a matter of censorship, and that if s/he wants to spout his/her own opinions no one will get in the say - as long a s/he does it on his/her own web-page, not ours. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Khoikhoi 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block as well, way too much disruption and a very low roi. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS violation?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeithTyler, regarding the MfD for WP:AMA. Personally, I do not think this is really on, but I could be wrong. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Canvassing. --kingboyk 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the mass-notice suggests that AMA is being "threatened", I'd say this is definitely partisan canvassing, and definitely not on. Chris cheese whine 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not just an AFD about an article. This a termination of a whole project. Am I to take WP:CANVASS to mean that I can't notify the members of that project about a proposal to delete it? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to word it as "the project is being threatened with deletion". -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly agreed. A message that does not intend to galvanize the members would be much more appreciated; maybe, "AMA has been listed at mfd. Please consider offering your comments at the dicussion." And even then, I do not think that canvassing even with such a mild message is necessary; I assume AMA members regularly go to the main AMA page, no? If so, they'll just notice it and pop by. --Iamunknown 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no; I think they're more likely to go to the AMA requests for assistance page. Or be dealing with a current case. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, with that wording it's definitely canvassing. – Chacor 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing is working, too. --kingboyk 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Virkshatriya's article moves

This user first appeared on 23rd march, where he edited the Nambiar (Nair Subcaste) article. I undid the changes and posted a notice on his talk page. This user reappeared today (March 30th, 2007) and has made numerous moves which appear to be blatant acts of vandalism. I have moved all the pages back to their original locations and prod'ed the other pages. The account appears to be used for nothing more than vandalism. He has really messed up some moves (moving talk pages to article pages and such, look at Nambiar - I had to directly copy the page over since I wasn't able to move it. I have posted a request on the Requested Moves page) and I think I've sort of fixed everything temporarily. I'd post a list of diffs of his contributions but just looking at his contributions should be enough. It's all vandalism. --vi5in^[talk] 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - He seems to have stopped for now, but I am not sure if he will come back again or not. I forgot to add before, but the articles are "sub-caste names" from the Indian state of Kerala. I am not sure yet if they deserve to be article in their own right since they don't seem to be anything more than stubs. But that's another discussion; the problem is that he is moving them to improperly spelt articles, or names that simply do not make sense, or are offensive. Is this grounds (prolific, disruptive article moves) enough to block this user? --vi5in^[talk] 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is back and making numerous page moves again...including moving a user page to mainspace. I know absolutely nothing about the topics that are being moved, and have no opinion about whether or not they are correct. I just thought I'd point out the moves since I remembered seeing this section here. --Onorem 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has now moved the userpages of both the reporting editor and Rama's Arrow, who issued a warning when this was first posted, into mainspace articles. I don't know what the article titles mean, but I now have no doubt that this user is only being disruptive at this time. --Onorem 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Virkshatriya has been indefinitely blocked. I tried to clean up after the page move vandalism, but some of it will need an admin. Note that Virkshatriya moved Nair to Thiyyar but Nair was subsequently edited. They also moved Nadar (caste) to Parayans; a well-intentioned new user has pasted the original content into Nadar Caste and redirected Nadar (caste) there. —Celithemis 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thug incident(s)

Actions of Dr. Thug could've been understood under WP:TROLL. On User:Dr. Thug, he wrote (quote): "Dr. Thug is a wikipedia user known for great articals and brilliant comments, he is one of the best Wikipedia has." That made me immediately think that was a throwaway sock-puppet intent on Wikipedia:Disruption, but persistence showed otherwise.

On this article the user has introduced an Edit War (broke 3RR, despite being warned by me). His latest 21:14, 30 March 2007 edit he rv to his version and wrote in the Edit Summary: "i know you wan´t it 2 say "Orthodox Serb" so people think he was serb but that ain´t gonna work chetnik!" Note: The last sentence was used in the very same context as (white man) calling black people Niggers. He continues/continued the edit war despite I civilly invited him at his talk page to discuss the dispute in a peaceful manner. He removed all my posts from his talk page in silence.

Then he at 18:50, 30 March 2007 vandalized my own talk page by replacing it with "I am a Nazi". I gave him a formal warning not to vandalize and introduced to him several Wikipedia's policies. He immediately removed the warning.

If Special:Contributions/Dr._Thug is inspected, a series of personal attacks and disruption/incivility can be seen (which made me think the account was a simple troll at the beginning). Some of the Edit Summaries include "STOP SPREDING PROPAGANDA CHETNIKS!" (for the word refer to the up).

Professional intervention is needed to prevent further disruption. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn. That user's not here to contribute to the project. I have indefinitely blocked the user for edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, and vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Ryulong on this, as if anyone won't. Not only did this user respond by deleting the original complaint & Ryulong's notice that he was indef blocked, this user claimed to be "one of the best [editors] Wikipedia has" after misspelling the word "article" -- as his first contribution to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ProhibitOnions

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - deletion log except

Above user has now twice used the admin tools in the dispute over the title of the article Newcastle station, in which they are directly involved and taking a firm side. The dispute is not yet resolved, no consensus has emerged, and the discussion is superseded by a broader one. Chris cheese whine 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't blocked or protected any pages. The extent to which admin tools have been used is "deleted to make room for move" -- which wouldn't require admin tools to begin with, if you yourself weren't giving each redir a dummy edit. Move wars are silly and disruptive -- the both of you should cut it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for categorising redirects. I started categorising random redirects a while back, I wasn't aware that performing such a useful function was frowned upon. The fact remains that the admin tools were used by an admin to get their way in a dispute, particularly trying to move an article away from a title suggested by a guideline. The merits of the move are still under discussion, but not relevant to this matter. Chris cheese whine 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Chriscf appears to be acting in such bad faith, accusing me of "abusing admin tools" (I haven't) or being involved in a "dispute" (I'm not), or quickly adding an edit history to every redirect he creates to prevent it being written over.

As to the substance of his accusation, I simply reverted his attempts to change the name of Newcastle Central Station to something else: first it was "Newcastle Central station", then it was "Newcastle station", now it's "Newcastle station, Tyne and Wear". I opened discussion on the article name, but despite my offering plenty of evidence for the common and correct name of the station [14], he wouldn't budge, stating, rather ridiculously, that some of the sources I provided were "biased (being based at the station themselves)", as if that somehow disqualified sources such as the Royal Station Hotel (for the record, my list also included local government sources, the BBC, and a report drafted by the British government). User:Dbam pointed him to the plaque on the front of the 160-year-old building [15], which he also ignored. (I should point out that other than renames and minor edits connected to them, I have not worked on this article.)

The details are irrelevant. You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. End of story. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He also made a similar move on Glasgow Central Station (an article I have never edited) and then, when a motion was quickly made to move it back, he claimed "we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site", garnering several votes of agreement for the uncommon name he picked. Except that it wasn't true: There is no agreed-upon naming convention, and the disputed one that does exist states "The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous" - which hardly argues against "Glasgow Central Station".

You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A further questionable action involved his proposed deletion of graphic station names. Note the use of the royal we in this exchange with User:DrFrench. The dispute in this case involved his proposed deletion of a number of graphics depicting Metro station names in the Calvert font, which was designed for the Metro. Chriscf deleted these from the articles (along with a similar set for the London Underground) and then listed them on IfD [16] without mentioning this on the relevant pages, or even using an edit summary when removing them from the articles, that indicated he proposed to delete the images.

And what precisely is wrong here? I put forward the reasons for removing them, and nobody presented a solid reason for keeping them there. All of which is irrelevant: You were involved in a dispute, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that discussion with this user leads nowhere, and daring to revert him gets one reported here. WP:POINT, anyone? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There patently is a dispute, and you patently are involved in it. You also patently did use the admin tools during the course of the dispute. You have stretched by ability to WP:AGF too far. Chris cheese whine 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have trimmed the above, as it relates to the substance of the dispute, which is not at issue at ANI. The issue is that of an administrator making use of the extra buttons while engaged in a content dispute, and would be the same regardless of the actual dispute. Chris cheese whine 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All I see are deletion of redirects to ake way for a move; a move that was then reverted. Not exatly admin tool abuse. The only real action I see that possibly needs to be taken here is adding this name dispute about a single train station to WP:LAME.--Isotope23 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is all you see, then you are missing the fact that the user was actively involved in the dispute. I would not have moved the pages back to the until-recently-accepted form, had this user not insisted on using the "delete" button to enforce their position. Chris cheese whine 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Luna had it right above. Look, if Prohibit was blocking editors in a dispute or page protecting then we would have a problem... but this is much ado about nothing. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will not move the page a 3rd time until the discussion on the talkpage is complete. Other than that, there is nothing here that requires another admin to intervene.--Isotope23 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming conventions for discussion of what happens when disputes like this can't get settled in a reasonable fashion. Please find a way to resolve this issue several miles of there. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, was "stop using the tools to forcibly move the page until the discussion reaches conclusion" not a reasonable aim? Chris cheese whine 01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the specific dispute, but ordinarily that's considered a reasonable request. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So why am I being shouted down for trying to achieve that specific aim here? Chris cheese whine 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is shouting you down Chris. See what I said above. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will stop moving this page and continue discussion on the naming. Other than that, I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting here.--Isotope23 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My expectations were twofold - that the user stop using the tools while engaged in a dispute, and at least acknowledge the fact that they are in fact involved in the dispute (as opposed to turning up here and lying about it). Oh well ... Chris cheese whine 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion that WP:LAME applies here. I am accused, essentially, of disagreeing with the above user; I opened up discussion on his moves, and reverted them after a time, in agreement with other users, when he failed to provide substantial reasons for them. The renames were his only contributions to the articles in question. Note that while he bizarrely accuses me of a "personal attack" above, he has no problem calling me a "liar" in the paragraph above. He is still insisting I used "the tools" somehow against him, despite other users demonstrating that I did not. This, sadly, has been the tenor of previous discussions with him. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The move history suggests otherwise. According to the move history, you moved it to Newcastle Central Station. This "undiscussed" (as you put it) move was reversed. You then used the "delete" button twice to repeat your original move. As for personal attacks, I am not saying that you are a liar. I am saying that you have lied (verifiably) in this discussion, in saying you are not party to this dispute when the evidence clearly does not bear this out (I guess that can't be you editing the talk page, resolving to "just move it", and then doing so). Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not taking sides as I dont believe in move wars but I agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the name of the stations were correct as they were, for example, Newcastle Central Station is not Newcastle Station, Haymarket Metro Station is not Newcastle Haymarket as it was moved to, this is stupid this, the names were fine as they were and these users who keep moving the pages seem to be trying to cause trouble, I everyone including me needs to calm down here and leave them as they were, I mean who cares what the article title is? as long as it has sourced and factually accurate information like an encyclopedia article should have. Regards - Tellyaddict 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are taking sides, then. Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see a massive problem with admins reverting stuff when involved if they are on the "undoing" side of things, but PO was clearly not "undoing", but "doing". All I want here is some confirmation that (1) admins using the mop and bucket to resolve disputes they are directly involved in (whatever form that dispute may take, and whatever extra button they may have used) is wrong, (2) if an admin wants to perform a controversial obstructed move, they have to go to WP:RM like everyone else. Do I get this confirmation? Chris cheese whine 20:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am trying not to take sides but I do agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · count), I am not doubting or ignoring anyone elses opinion but I have to say I agree with him, Regards - Tellyaddict 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Psantora

Please do something about User:Psantora's edit on UW System. He has kept adding copyvio images to the article, deleting useful references and wikify unnecessary dates. I've talked to him. But he refused to stop. Miaers 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny, you said nothing about copyvios and I've tried to add more people to the discussion and you reverted all these changes (in violation of 3RR as well). Thanks for getting more attention on this. Paul^C/_T+ 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I indicated them in my edit comment, your talk page and added copyvio tag to these photos. 3RR doesn't apply to removing copyvio images and vandalism.Miaers 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the copyvio allegations to the images at the following times:

• 17:18, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:21630.jpg (top)
• 17:18, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:12b.jpg (top)
• 17:17, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Nh1.jpg (top)
• 17:16, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Camp9.jpg (top)
• 17:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Parksidefall.jpg (top)
• 17:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Dempsey 8.jpg (top)
• 17:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Hsc20outside.jpg (top)
• 17:13, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:111123156.jpg (→Licensing) (top)

Our discussions were previous to these edits (as early as 16:20), so I knew nothing of any possible copyright violations. In addition, your edit just before you made these copyright violation claims on these images explicitly says the images are "fine". To be honest I couldn't care less about the images, I was just working with what was on the page. You never said anything about copyright violations on my talk page and didn't mention copyright violations in edit comments until your most recent (4th) revert on the page at 17:21. I've already refuted your "deleting useful references" and "wikify unnecessary dates" allegations on my talk page. Paul^C/_T+ 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers was blocked for 2 weeks due to repeated violations of 3RR. Paul^C/_T+ 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appalling personal attack by Ned Scott

See here:

"Quack... what the fuck is wrong with you? No, really, what the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and stop making everything a damn problem. (and to everyone who wants to yell WP:CIVIL at me, shut up, it had to be said). I am surprised at how patient everyone has been with you, Quack, but don't you be surprised when other people start breaking down like I just did. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

Quack gets on my nerves sometimes, but honestly. - Denny 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... I was thinking something similar really loudly, but I held back from saying it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack has been trying hard to be collegial since many of us called him to task. He talks things now rather than edit wars, but when no one opposed things Quack proposed and then did them, i.e. removing a merge tag on an article, Ned Rv'd him and flipped. Ned is wildly hung up on the Wikipedia community article, and I believe mad at Quack from supporting the article when he previously opposed it. - - Denny 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some root of this here, where Ned Scott reverts essentially a good edit that QuackGuru had done. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to excuse Ned Scott's commentary but I'll be honest and say that my thinking follows User:HighInBC. User:QuackGuru's actions surrounding the Essjay controversy article have been trying, even you yourself Denny Colt have been on this board a number of times reporting about his behavior. (→Netscott) 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Scott, but jeez. Quack is as human as any of us. - Denny 00:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I snapped, I shouldn't have, but damn man, I'm not a machine. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=117642711&oldid=117614259 This editor has snapped before at me. - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm being completely honest here, that was my reaction to the article itself. I wasn't even thinking about who edited the article (I didn't know who was majority involved or not, nor did I care). Sorry Quack, you weren't even on my mind when I did that redirect and gave the edit summary.-- Ned Scott 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack has been bringing up the same issues day after day and week after week when he was soundly denied previously, and especially on the issue of whether Sanger is founder/cofounder/community manager/whatever-it-is-he-did that really doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the article in question at all, his actions have basically been a really lethargic form of revert warring against consensus. We don't allow people to revert constantly to their preferred version of the article normally, we shouldn't let them keep reverting against consensus just because they put a couple days in between insertations either. Can we say "Bad boy, Ned Scott" and be done with this incident report? --tjstrf talk 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed at length on the talk page. I was going with consensus with my good edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 Here was the compromised edit which was discussed at length on the talk page. Please check the talk page history for the consensus discussion. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, a dispute over a single letter is extremely juvenile and lame. Both of you, knock it off. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANed_Scott&diff=119203803&oldid=119201828 After editor made gross comments at me another editor is inciting him by saying, You're my hero. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please just post all the offending diffs in one post. No need to drag it on. To others, WP:LAME time? :-D --Iamunknown 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lame, yes. This thread is functionally equivalent to poking a dog with a sharp stick until it bites, and then complaining to the owner when it bites you. The solution is for Quack to just... calm down. A lot. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contraction Vandal

Recently, a vandal has been changing "do not", "will not", etc, into contractions, also removing spaces between the sentence punctuation and the beginning of the next sentence. 58.169.188.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Though all the damage has been undone, and this user has been warned, it turns out that another was doing the same thing up until the time he/she was warned: 124.185.157.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I ask that an administrator take appropriate action. (Currently checking to make sure 124.... edits were rv'd.) --Otheus 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely socks...similar vandal patterns and both traceroutes come from Brisbane. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandal started up again today. Thanks to user User:Rlevse for blocking. --Otheus 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Slander on Wiki

I have done my best to settle this little problem but I fear I do not have the power to affect this. I hope this is the right place for this. If not please let me know where I am to post it!

Curse of Fenric has made accusations back in September of 06 that Riot City Wrestling was "Drug Afflicted". In March 07, Mal Case accused High Risk Pro Wrestling of the same and added the "Sends Death Threats" accusations and continually makes edits on these accusations without providing any evidence except heresay. After several communications with the accused promotions (which are all poster on on this page, I was asked to post this paragraph which I have.

"today i met with HRPW management and we discussed the issues on WIKAPEDIA, i would like to make a statement on behalf of RCW, RCW is not drug afflicted, HRPW and RCW are only friendly competition not mortal enemies,to CURSE OF FENRIC and MAL CASE we do not know what you are going on about and wish you both to stop slandering SA wrestling as a whole and if you continue to RCW will be forced to take legal action"

Both promotions have read all the pages mentioned in my explanations and have come to that conclusion. The legal threat is to Curse of Fenic and Mal Case ONLY (apparently known to RCW and HRPW)

Could you please leave a warning on the talk pages of the above mentioned users about stopping their "slander attacks". Mal Case claims to have left Wiki but a check on his contributions will prove otherwise.

Thanks a lot. WackadooXanadu2 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind telling us what this edit was all about? --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also take some time to read WP:LEGAL.--Isotope23 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RCW

- i DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THIS BUT SINCE YU SEEM TO HAVE SOME INSIDE INFORMATION, ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK naming the drugged up wrestlers in a full investigation? Can you get me the evidence needed for this? If you can, I will present it to the proper authorities in a proper investigation! eg. Are the drugs Medical or Recreational? Since you know Joe, maybe you can approch him with his evidence and stamp out the drugs! WackadooXanadu2 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This is my attempt to get some hard evidence on the accusations so there would me no possibility of mis-understanding. Both promotions have opened their doors to "investigation". Proper authorities started out as the Wiki Admins and whoever they suggest as well the the administrations of the two accused promotions! WackadooXanadu2 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With you posting this message on their talk pages, I doubt they will reply. Making legal threats makes the situation much worse, as it is another reason why they're not responding. Try to talk to them in a civil manner please. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked WackadooXanadu2 indefinitely for legal threats. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note for admins - I have emailed Kzrulzuall with the details of the history of this issue. This includes the evidence that what both I and Mal Case said is true (except for the "death" threats - which was an interpretation issue on Mal's part which we still disagree on even now but he's agreed at least not to use the word death again on that point). I have asked that the Professional wrestling in Australia page be protected for a few weeks to stop this issue before it gets out of hand as the last two anon edits (clearly both RCW fans) prove. The legal threat posted by Wackadoo disproves the claim by RCW that they don't engage in threats. My actions and Mal's are merely to protect WP from an edit war and possible fed promotion which is also not allowed on WP. Once this issue is resolved I may ask Mal to remove the appropriate parts from the talk page - unless we are told otherwise of course. Thank you. Curse of Fenric 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbustoo has been repeatedly [17][18][19][20][21] leaving messages on my talk page, and following me to other talk pages [22]. He has been told to quit by both me [23] [24], and admin JzG [25]. JzG advised him to take the matter to AN/I, where he garnered no support and his complaint was dismissed by admin CambridgeBayWeather [26]. Now he has taken to reverting me on my own user talk page, restoring his comments [27]. He appears to have a history of edit warring judging from his block log, but I do not intend to get in an edit war on my own talk page. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the situation and have a word with him. Frise 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with you. This user has been repeatedly harrassing users because he suspects that they have violated WP:SOCK. When they denied such accusations, he immediately starts to spam them blindly, hoping that one of them actually did something wrong. Judging from his ignorance and continuance, despite the many warnings and suggestions, I would support a block. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arbustoo has a tendency to see socks where none exist, due to long experience with User:Jason Gastrich. He needs to be more moderate. On the other hand, it is usually in response to his eing attacked by yet another new user attempting to whitewash articles on unaccredited schools, so it's not too surprising that he gets a bit paranoid. I will have a chat with him. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I leave it in your hands, as he seems to respect your opinion. I want nothing more to do with this user. At all. Frise 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those tendencies and some others as well—I trust this matter to Guy's capable hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP issues with WP:BJAODN

Is BJAODN expected to follow the BLP policy, despite the disclaimers? I ask this because, upon reading the archives, I found at least one statement that clearly violates this policy. Since it wasn't even very funny, I removed it [28] There are probably more. If this is a concern, the BJAODN archives should be vetted for particularly problematic statements of this nature. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of BLP is that it applies across the project, not just articles. Weren't we talking about deleting all that at one point anyway? It might be a good idea if there's a lot of bad stuff. Frise 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was talked about and, IMO, examples such as this (and possibly other) BLP violations are examples suggesting that deletion is warranted. There appeared, however, to be consensus that culling the totally un-funny and policy-violating content and history merging it all into five-or-so archives would be appropriate. It probably should be done sometime. We need to be able to actually manage the content and monitor it for violations. --Iamunknown 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of junk in there. Sorting through it all looking for BLP vios probably isn't worth the effort. Frise 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The effort expended isn't worth protecting us the Wikimedia Foundation from claims of libel? I think that it is. --Iamunknown 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean it isn't worth sorting through when the whole mess can just be deleted. Frise 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IMO, yes without æquivocation. They should also be vetted of fair use images and images with patently false licensing. I currently have watchlisted every fair use image I found in all 61 main archives but, as my watchlist is rather large, they have been swallowed up. BJAODN has several complications that really need to be addressed and were brought up in the recent mfd. I originally meant to bring them to the forefront on the talk page and link there from the VPs, but have not mustered up the energy yet. Any help with removing the stuff that blatantly needs removal would be sorely appreciated. --Iamunknown 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is a LOT of stuff that needs to be removed, and most of it isn't even funny. A lot of "OMG HE IS GAY!!!" childish vandalism (aimed at living people) seems to have made it in for some reason, and it will have to be taken out. This ultimately should be gone over and culled, with only genuinely funny and non-defamatory info left in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, really, a lot of stuff in there simply are not funny. We do have the liberty of removing lame entries, right? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yes, I believe so. Grandmasterka 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed. --Iamunknown 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are full of violations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just delete it. Frise 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed about a dozen violations so far. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I might end up deleting over 2/3 of the content because they are exceedingly lame. Shall I proceed? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds about right to me. I'd enjoy the pages a lot more if the unfunny crap and vandalism was removed. And there is a lot of it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have removed some WP:BLP-offending content as well. I think before we proceed more we may wish to notify users on the main talk page of the BJAODN page cluster. --Iamunknown 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey. COME ON people. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't just go deleting stuff just because it's not funny... they're called Bad Jokes after all... --Edokter (Talk) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I wont argue that most of BJAODN isn't funny, the fact that its clearly labelled as humor, not serious articles, and in most cases can be classified as satire/parody/opinion (pick one, depending on case) would easily remove any libel/slander claim. Just make sure they actually are funny. I'd even reccomend reinstating the bush one only for the revert edit summary. That made me laugh. -M^ask 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay, some of this will no longer be relevant, as it's a partial repost from a week ago.

He had been going around and making bad-faith edits recently, like warning admins using TW and a template to warn vandals after reverting them. (See: [29], [30], [31], etc) Also, this edit which he tells the person they "will be blocked" for sockpuppeting when it's obvious the account he refers to is an attack account. And a similar edit to Qxz's page. Also, tagging this IP as a sock when it's only made one edit.

He recently also impersonated me on wikia, mediawiki and meta-wiki, and was warned by Angela for it, so one can't help but think this (tagging socks and asking others about impersonation accounts) was related.

---

Okay, to more recent stuff:

• Recreating User:BRSG and talk page in bad-faith, ages after it had been deleted.
• Harassing Qxz long after he's left with civility warnings over his RFA outbursts, going on to tell him he would be blocked if he continued
• Leaving {{vandalblock}} on pages of blocked users - as far as I am aware only admins should do this.

Yes, he has *some* good edits, but I'm starting to think his negative useless edits far outweigh any help he provides - we already have lots of vandalfighters as is. – Chacor 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a big problem with his bad faith edits, and lack of maturity, but apart from that, I doubt there's enough evidence for a block. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that his edits are in bad faith. I see no evidence to suggest that he intends to harass users (even to harass Qxz), harm the encyclopedia, or otherwise prove a WP:POINT. Misguided, yes; bad-faith, no. --Iamunknown 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain his warnings to the admins, or the recreation of User:BRSG and User talk:BRSG then? Look at his move log which proves he intentionally re-created BRSG: "# 21:10, March 30, 2007 Z.E.R.O. (Talk | contribs) moved User:BRSG to User talk:BRSG (Move warninigs to talk page)" - there is no utter need to recreate pages that have been deleted two months ago to "warn" when the indefblock was even longer ago. – Chacor 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is only weak circumstantial evidence that the contributor is attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia and suggests that, currently, this is only an editorial dispute. My remedies: assume good faith, be civil, work with Zero to encourage productive contributions and (IMO most importantly) have some warm chicken noodle soup and a laptop (if you own one) by the fire. ^^;; --Iamunknown 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What editorial dispute? ZERO is doing things he shouldn't. End of. Kinda hard to AGF when he knows what he's doing, don't you think? It would be easier to prove if an admin could take a look at the deleted revision and tell us what the recreation edit summary is, because I saw it but can't remember what it is. It also wouldn't be so bad if this was any random person, but the fact that he chose that account to do it to - which, as I've said, was used by me - and our recent spat where he used my account name illegally on other wikis - can only make me feel this is not done in good faith. – Chacor 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Zero knows what is and is not appropriate, it looks like he or she is happily reverting vandalism away (if that it is possible :-P) (c.f. Special:Contributions/Z.E.R.O.). It appears your message did the trick. I'm not sure anymore deliberation is currently necessary. I wasn't taking into account the impersonation. That is definitely serious. Any developments between Zero and Angela? --Iamunknown 05:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Angela blocked the accounts, and Zero claimed he didn't know that pretending to be other wasn't allowed. And I'm not sure if you got my point - BRSG was used by me. Therefore for him to arbitrarily choose to recreate specifically User:BRSG, and not any other random indefblocked sock, really caught me off-guard. – Chacor 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed the point. Who knows, maybe Zero really didn't know that pretending isn't allowed. People and esp. children play pretend occassionally. I freely admit, however, that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that. The edit summary (if one was used) and revision info would indeed be helpful. I can see how it would catch you off-guard. --Iamunknown 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he [32] claims to have left. But the last time he claimed such he was back within 36 hours, all the while making edits from his IP address. So, take it with a pinch of salt. – Chacor 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Derex? But Zero has indeed decided to retire. Sounds to me like a insincere departure in response to conflict. --Iamunknown 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad, wrong link – Chacor 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the last time he left (first indefinitely, then until Christmas, then until April, eventually for just 36 hours) it was because of the impersonation. So he clearly knows what he's doing. Why he's targetting me, specifically, I don't know. – Chacor 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero has unretired again. I left a warning on his talk page, because this is getting out of hand. --Coredesat 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass page moves

Please check out [33] and help out. Thanks, – Riana ^talk 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of.--cj | talk 10:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody vandal...All reverted now. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a couple...that seems to be the lot. Thanks, Riana. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}

No worries, Kuntan playing silly buggers again, I suspect. – Riana ^talk 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, but on the bright side, I deleted my first featured article! What a nightmare... – Riana ^talk 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the serious side, page-move vandalism is not really something we should put up with. If this keeps going, would range-blocking the relevant IP be a possibility? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't range-block IPs in the subcontinent, they tend to skip around a bit. Far too much chance for collateral damage, methinks. Of course, a ballsier admin might do it. – Riana ^talk 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if this becomes a persistent nuisance, obviously. One bored moron with time off pre April Fool's we can handle. Having said that, if collateral damage is a serious possibility then better not. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Virkshatriya

I've just come across a vandalistic page move by this editor; investigating, I found a huge number of such moves. I began to block th account before trying to clear up the mess, but found that it had alrready been blocked by Rama's Arrow (yet another case of the blocking admin not having the courtesy to let others know by leaving a notice, per the blocking instructions).

I then checked the string of page moves; some have been dealt with, but rather messily, many haven't. Could I ask for help in dealing with this please? In some cases, moves have been reverted, but not the associated Talk-pages (the redirects have been left in place and the redirected Talk pages speedily deleted). It would probably be a good idea to watch out for cut-and-paste reverts too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be the same person as above. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd keep it separate. If it is the same case, then there's een more work to be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back as User:Rajeevmenon, redoing some of the same page moves. —Celithemis 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Animeguy99?

Looks like Animeguy99 (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright infringement. Looks like they are back as Dog Man311 (talk · contribs). How do I know? Because they freely admit to it! Their contribs so far admittedly lack any copyright infringement, but should I block them for block evasion anyway? Bubba hotep 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, no copyright infringement except maybe the image they uploaded... Bubba hotep 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems this is just an error with a license template though. They should have used {{albumcover}}. Anyway, I'm off now. If another admin feels like blocking pending further investigation, be my guest. Or, of course, we could assume good faith... Bubba hotep 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - if Animeguy99 was blocked for copyvio infringements then why has his copyvios not been deleted? They still have the public domain tags on them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Either no one has cared to look, or they fall under a (not stated) logo Fair Use license. I've taken the liberty of tagging some for deletion or for no sources, but there are more if you feel like googling a bunch of image names. Logical2u_{Review me!} 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jennie Cooper (talk · contribs)

Note: the following was moved here from WP:RFCN.

This userpage (and account) is an attack on me. My name is Jennie Cooper, and I am an admin at Wookieepedia. A few months ago, I was one of several admins who had banned a serial vandal. Since then, he (and possibly a group of his friends as well) has been going around to various wikis and using both "StarNeptune" and "Jennie Cooper" as names for their vandalism sprees, and this account is just the latest in a long line of attack pages. I asked an admin on IRC about the issue, and he said to bring it to this page, which I have now done.

Compare my userpage here to the one listed above, then take a look at the following:

• Link 1 (Doppelganger account created on Wookieepedia by me to prevent my name being stolen by vandals)
• Link 2 (Edit summary referring to me as a "Canadian cheesehead")
• Link 3 (A friendly greeting from the Mario Wiki informing me of the troll using my name to vandalize their wiki)
• Link 4 (Where they got the Asperger box from)
• Link 5 (Recent vandalization of my userpage)
• There are also two evidence links I cannot post due to the fact that they trigger Wikipedia's spam filter; If you need to see them, or need any more background information, contact me on my talk page. Thank you. StarNeptune 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disallow. Seems clearly to be an attack account. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

End moved section

Seeing the above on WP:RFCN, I indef-blocked the account User:Jennie Cooper. I'm moving the thread here so that it will be archived, and so that anyone who wants to can review my action. Mangojuice^talk 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I have deleted the userpage as an attack page against the person who was being impersonated. Newyorkbrad 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:WunNation

This account appears to be a vandalism account - his edit history seems to consist mostly of subtle racist vandalism and random votes in AfD discussions, while his user page is bordering on an attack page. While all the vandalism is fairly low-level, can someone keep an eye on him? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WunNation.--cj | talk 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User indef blocked by Ryan.--cj | talk 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Louis Sévèke and adding unsourced name of murdersuspect by anonymous user User:195.169.212.143

Hi there,

User:195.169.212.143 is continuously adding the full and not confirmed name of a recently arrested murdersuspect to the article Louis Sévèke. The case is that the name he adds has been mentioned by anonymous users in a forum (www.geenstijl.nl) and therefore he (or she) concideres this as a valid source. The fact of the matter is that the name of the suspect only is referred to by the initial of his last name in the Dutch newsmedia. I've asked the anonymous to give a reliable source (see the edithistory of the article, the talkpage of the article and the talkpage of the user), but he or she refuses to do so and keeps on adding the name. Can an administrator have a look at this and take appropriate actions?

Another fact is that I am administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia, and I also have a problem overthere with someone who keeps on adding the full name of the murdersuspect, claiming that it is on the English language wikipedia. I have no proof, but I suspect the anonymous overhere is the same user as the one that keeps adding the name on the Dutch article nl:Louis Sévèke.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, Tdevries 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this request and would also like to alert admins here to the fact that the disputed name is visible in several edit summaries, which in itself seems a breach of Dutch/US/international libel/defamation/etc. law. (diff)(diff)AvB ÷ talk 15:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to allow the shortened name available in the media? (Martinus Hendrikus T.) I ask this just as a question for my own knowledge, not as an argument for allowing anything. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source; I would say Martinus Hendrikus T. is OK. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The short name should be OK. Dutch law mandates that the Dutch press may never publish a suspects' full last name; only the first letter may be used. While en.wiki is not strictly bound by that law, it is arguable that it violates WP:BLP. Some weblogs (such as geenslijl.nl) feel they should expose the suspect, but I can say that geenstijl.nl cannot be used as a reliable newssource; their goal is to publish controversial 'news' and hold no journalistic ethics. Having said that, I feel that any mention of the suspects' full name, including edit summaries, should be deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a probably superfluous note note that, as with all negative information about a living person WP:BLP kicks in when we don't have a reliable source and forbids any mention of it anywhere in the encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, if it is please point me in the correct direction.

On my talk page user Widefox has posted a slanderious lie stating that I have been banned from Wikipedia and other unnamed forums for a dispute with someone else. There is no factual basis for this. The reason I believe that he has posted this lie is an ongoing dispute on the Swiftfox article. He is doing this out of spite, in an effort I believe to use one lie in one place as a basis to start problems in another place. He did that in the past, by saying an unsigned edit was a sockpuppet, even though I have a static ip. He then took that lie and used it in other areas. Is it poossible to have user Widefox blocked from my talk page as he insists on posting lies, slander, and starting arguments with me there? Thank you Kilz 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz is wasting your time - he was banned Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz and is lying. In his own words User_talk:Kilz/Archive "I was banned, because you filed a sockpupet case against me for a not loged in edit. I think whoever banned me had no idea that I had a static IP. Kilz 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

Kilz is currently edit warring on Swiftfox and I'm looking at whether User:Loki144 is his sockpuppet (I don't know yet). He has been banned on other sites re: Swiftfox - see User_talk:Kilz/Archive. Now might be a good time to warn him about wasting admin time, 3RR, and investigate his other problems. I'd like to see a ban of him editing Swiftfox for reasons above. Widefox 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

per WP:ATTACK personal attacks are not allowed. This is a pure example of a personal attack. False accusations, lies, slander. Widefox isnt interested in editing or working togher. He is interested in attacking, accusing and belittling me instead of working togher. Instead , he attacks, he slanders, he has false accusations. Kilz 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you explain why this requires the intervention of administrators in 100 words or less?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Edit warring Swiftfox. 2. accusations of vandalism and personal attacks Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

100% agreement with Ryulong. If you have issues with each other, try WP:DR. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Widefox, I think that you might be confusing the series of events. At Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz it appears that the IP address listed as Kilz's sockpuppet was only blocked (not banned) for 48 hours to prevent Kilz's from bypassing the 3RR rule (c.f. anon block log). Kilz, however, is not currently blocked or banned (c.f. Kilz's block log). Your interaction with Kilz is not beyond reproach itself. I suggest you give it a rest, that you both try to cooperate civilly, assume good faith, and content on content, not each other. --Iamunknown 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Widefox is violating WP:NPA with personal attacks on me. My talk page and the Swiftfox talk page have accusations from Widefox that I have been banned from wikipedia and mutiple other sites, that I am a sockpuppet, that I have broken the 3rr rule. This is slander. Widefox knows that none of it is true. Even if some banning happened in the past, he should not be useing it to try and silence me. He also has a history of posting lies, then refering to the lies in complaints he later files. Kilz 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, please just assume good faith. No need even to respond to this. I in no way doubt that Widefox has every intention to improve the encyclopedia. Nor do I in any way doubt that you have every intention to improve the encylcopedia. Dragging an editorial dispute out will only create more tension between you two. Please, to both of you, be civil, realize that the other editor is trying to contribute productively to the encylcopedia, and talk about content and not each other (that means no personal attacks). --Iamunknown 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to assume good faith, but Widefox's actions are starting to make me wonder if he is assuming good faith. I am wondering why he is posting things on my talk page that have no buisness being posted. Posting things that can only be seen as an attack. I would like to have him blocked from my talk page. He posts nothing there of any value and seems to see it as an oppertunity to cause me problems and as a place to slander me. Kilz 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - yes agreed he was "blocked" 48hrs. Actually, I used "banned" because that's how I remembered it and I'm also quoting *his words*. How can Kilz object to his own words? I followed all advice for cooperating with Kilz before - Kilz rejected 3rd opinion as opinion, up until mediation. I left him months. I'm always doing the work. Other forums banned him for his behaviour re:swiftfox Please check links and compare our editing histories. Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that Kilz was neither banned or blocked. Users can misinterpret actions taken against them, but it doesn't make their misinterpretiations fact. --Iamunknown 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

he was blocked wikipedia 48hrs! He was banned swiftfox forum permanently, he was told to take his argument elsewhere on other forums. Links in his talk archive. facts. Widefox 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your true motives here. You dont seek to work on the article, you seek to slander me, seek to post things about me, seek to spread as much vinager as you can. Seek to dreg up as much dirt as you can and assume bad faith.Kilz 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - Kilz came to this page to try to get me blocked! He did not inform me - as stated at the top of this page. I have defended myself by giving links about him being blocked 48hrs, banned from Swiftfox forum and warded off elsewhere. His claim was slander, but he does not dispute these facts, and I quote his own words "banned" (meaning blocked)! Widefox 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You were warned in the same section you posted the attack "I take that back, I have gone to an admin, this is going to far.Kilz 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)". Your continued defense of your actions show that you see no problems in your attack on me. That you think its ok to post personal attacks. That so long as its what you remember happening months and months ago you can dreg up anything and post it. What makes it even more unbelievable, is you know the sockpuppet case you filed was for a logged out edit. So now you seek to build upon a false accusation by posting it again, and again. What is the purpose of posting it again? What good can come of it? Kilz 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just cool down for a minute. Stop making accusations at each other and think about what you are doing. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Solution - grant both of us our requests - he is permanently barred from Swiftfox and me from his talk page. Sorry that he brought this here. Widefox 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats against Wikipedia

Over on anti-Wikipedia whinefest Wikipedia Review, somebody claiming to be associated with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, or at least the modern company that has taken on this name in imitation of an unrelated early-20th-century movie company, is ranting and making legal threats, which of course are being warmly received over there, as is any anti-Wikipedia rant no matter how crackpotted. Among the things this guy apparently wants to sue over is our insistence on not considering his company the direct successor to the "classic" one, in the absence of any references outside of his own site that states such a connection in contrast to the many references that cite the original company being out of business by the 1930s. *Dan T.* 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This happens pretty often at WR; they do nothing but whine and complain. I don't think that there's anything we can do, anyway. WR is way out of our jurisdiction. Comments? PTO 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess its the wiki media foundation that should deal with this if anyone, not that any of WR's legal threats ever actually come to anything. Making legal threats is a poor substitute for pursuing legal action. Worth putting the article on one's watchlist though, SqueakBox 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Two editor war

I've noticed two users, Mudaliar (talk · contribs) and Venki123 (talk · contribs), battling ceaselessly on a number of articles. At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do about it. It has been going on for quite some time despite previous warnings and interventions. Any help from people here in dealing with these two warriors is appreciated. Thanks. The Behnam 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These two may need some forced dispute resolution - they seem only interested in getting the other editor blocked. One of them only recently stopped harrassing me to block the other, and they have bothed filed checkuser cases against each other. Natalie 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could give both of them what they want, if their behavior is egregious enough. Αργυριου (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to work with these users, but their actual responses to my questions are usually rather incoherent or begging the question. On the other hand, they are repetitively battling across a variety of articles and there has been no success in stopping this dispute. I give Venki some credit for trying mediation, even though he listed an absurd number of people as parties, making his attempt futile. Anyway, overall, I don't think giving both of them what they want would be a bad idea. Of course a number of socks would follow, but from what I can tell, they should be fairly easy to catch; these two users have very specific things in mind for these articles. Do what you think is best here. Thanks. The Behnam 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block 'em both for a couple of weeks so they can calm the hell down, and make it clear that if they continue to lose sight of the "build an encyclopedia" concept, those blocks will be lengthened. We've got like 1.7 bajillion pages around here; seriously, can they not find different articles to edit? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A mid-length block for both might work. I would suggest that someone with some experience with dispute resolution keep a long-term eye on them: they were both blocked for 3RR in mid February and it took about a month for their edit war to heat back up again. Natalie 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Require both editors to read "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby" and watch the Star Trek (original series) episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", then collaboratively write a 500-word summary of the stories' thematic similarities to each other and to their own situation. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST P.s Federal Clowns On WHEELS! 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User Harrasment

The certain user Rokbas attacked me some time ago for editing an article, which he did not like, although the criticism was based on what everyday news say. He proceeded to my talkpage and left insults, as well as threats of having me banned. He also made several ip adresses with which he appears to edit my talk page from time to time. I ask this user to be warned to stop, since he is taking this to a personal and completly unprofessional level and apparently holds a grundge against me for some reason. He also threathened to report me if I delete my talkpage again, so it is possible he will send a report shortly as well. Please make him stop. Thank you!

MorisSlo 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It'll help if you spoke in English... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also help if you didn't act like a dick (Kzrulzuall). Jiffypopmetaltop 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:NPA jiffypop. May I also ask in what instance was I being a dick? They were insulting each other in a different language. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's pretty hard to figure out what's going on when its written in a different language (and a different alphabet, for that matter). This is English Wikipedia. Natalie 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan politics

Re 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor has been given repeated last-chance warnings for various misconduct in relation to Saskatchewan political articles, yet still continues this editing pattern. Could the matter have admin attention? Tearlach 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but I sugges taking it to AIV, make sure all vandals reported their have had a last warning though. Cheers! Tellyaddict 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible puppets

Zuko14, Zeo12, and Traceguy all only edit their user pages and/or Aang and articles to do with Avatar: The Last Airbender. They also continue to add non-free images to their user pages as well as edit each other's user pages. This is either three guys who know each other and they are using Wikipedia as a MySpace or it is one guy with multiple accounts screwing around. Traceguy created and recreated an article about himself, Traceguy, seven times. IrishGuy ^talk 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns

Something strange going on at Turtle Creek Chorale. This isn't so much of a content dispute as a plagiarism concern. The history section of this article has been copied verbatim from the website of this organization (this is approximately half od the article). I have removed it twice, and stated on the talk page that it violates Wikipedia policies to simply copy from other sites. It has now been readded with a little note that We have their permission to use it [34]. I don't think this is an appropriate way of writing an article, but don't want to revert again. The editors who are adding this do not respond on the talk page. Cheers. Jeffpw 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no notice on the website granting permission. On the contrary, it states: © 2007 Turtle Creek Chorale. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this site in whole or part is strictly prohibited. I'd say remove it. And I will do that now. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IrishGuy. I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. Jeffpw 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also give them a warning for {{uw-copyright1}} --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as advertising, and unreferenced. Hopefully that will give them an idea how to improve the article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion of controversial userbox

According to this deletion log, the template was deleted for being inflammatory and no longer exists. However, I have noticed that it has been subst'ed back into the pages of some users [35][36]. Is this circumvention of the deletion appropriate? The Behnam 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I now note that the subst's were done by Khoikhoi in the minutes right before the deletion of the template, who also deleted the template. However, I do not yet know the significance of this observation. Tell me what you all think. The Behnam 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Substitute and delete" is one possible outcome at TfD discussions, even for controversial userboxes. I do not know of a citation, but I'm sure a user more familiar with the circumstances could find one. --Iamunknown 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Under CSD T1, "divisive and inflammatory" templates are not permitted. This prohibition does not extend to user pages per se ... although personally, I think that userbox is probably an all around bad idea anywhere. In any event, that photo is a non-free image and cannot be used on templates or in user space. --BigDT 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I judged this particular box to have been deemed too controversial to exist in the special UBX space too (as it doesn't exist there), so I figured that it shouldn't exist in subst form either. Should I remove them? The Behnam 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only question here is: does the content contravene the user page policy? Answer that question and act on the answer. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It unquestionably violates WP:FAIR#Policy #9 and CSD T1. Beyond that, I'm not going to jump up and down screaming either way. ;) --BigDT 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - I cannot figure out why Tony crossed my post here [37]. I have undone this. The Behnam 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I brought it here specifically to get that question answered since I haven't dealt with it before. I see at as roughly equivalent to having a userbox saying, "This user is opposed to international terrorism" and including a picture of George W. Bush on it. It is definitely divisive and inflammatory, like the deletion log said. I believe they should go and I am not sure why Khoikhoi subst'ed them right before deleting them. Kind of odd actually. The Behnam 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, for good or ill, "substitute and delete" is currently an acceptable decision at TfD. I'll remove the fair use images for now. --Iamunknown 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, BigDT beat me to 'em. --Iamunknown 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I really question the purpose and validity of substituting these before deletion. If they're bad, which this one was, just delete it. Don't keep it around on people's userpages. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that people were going to yell at me if I started editing everyone's userpage, but it's probably justified in this case. I'll delete the userbox from everyone's userpage if there are no objections. Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems best that you do. Thanks for clearing that up. The Behnam 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Important

The Wikimedia foundation Wikipedia Announcement In private talks with long standing wikipedians including Jimbo Wales, Angela, and past and present members of the Arbitration Committee the Wikimedia Foundation has decided there is no other option at the present than to charge people to edit the English Wikipedia. "Advertising on Wikimedia® has been roundly rejected by the community," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikimedia®, "even though we're missing out on about sixty thousand dollars each and every day by not having two Google text ads". "For too long people have been free to hack this website. It's about time they paid" states Theresa Knott the new funding officer. "Allowing free access to all simply encourages vandalism. By asking for a quid an edit we stop kids vandalising, spammers spamming and edit warriors warrioring (unless they are very rich, in which case we can think up special rates)." Minor edits will naturally be cheaper, although the exact pricing details have not yet been fully worked out. Debate on this is welcome. All users should register their credit card at Wikipedia:Credit Card Registration by noon on April 1, 2007. Otherwise their editing privileges will be suspended. Members of the cabal are, of course, exempt.

---

On a personal note. I would like to thank the foundation for giving me this exciting opportunity to increase funding. I have been given no salary and instead take a percentage of the funds raised, which I think is fair. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Congrats Theresa- we all knew this had been in the pipeline for some time. And can I say that I could think of no one better than you to fill this exciting new position. WjBscribe 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Please please don't. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, Ere We Go again! SirFozzie 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is about time. Can you accept PayPal? I don't have international card and want to continue editing here. -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Give us a few mins to set it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little biased against it since I don't have a credit card, but it had to be done. I support it.--Wizardman 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And what if some idiot was dumb enough to post it? Then we'd need it oversighted... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Add temporarily @aol.com to the black listing at Meta and you prevent 95% of those idiots to post it :-P -- (yes, this is a joke!). ReyBrujo 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. I really do have an IBM 5250 terminal emulator on Windows 1.0 here, and it's not working! --Carnildo 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I use my credit card with debit overhaul? (Or is that debit card with credit overhaul?) --Iamunknown 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I put a little notice at the top in case anyone actually does think this is serious. I should make it a bit less aggressive though. I am one of those boring, "this is a serious project" people. :) Prodego ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. This conversation at the bottom makes it perfectly clear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Prodego ^talk 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby invoke Provision 41(k) in my Rouge Administrator Contract of Rights and Responsibilities on the English Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allows for admins under the age of 18 to be exempt from any financial liabilities or payments which may be requested. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on just one minute there mate! Did you read what I wrote? I get a cut! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will last until the Fair use cabal invokes WP:FUC#9 to remove the logos from that page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously going to blame you guys if I get a heart attack...That's about the seventh time today...paying for editing..grrr... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My contract takes precedence over the financial troubles that may be result from the Wikimedia Foundation's usage of funds. And, in turn, over your commission. Complain to Jimbo for lavishing me such benefits. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey KZ, addicted to the wikicrack are we? That's how the drug biz works, free at first, then … Hey Theresa I'm part of the Cabal right, I still get my fix for free right? RIGHT? Paul August ☎ 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul you're fine don't worry. For everyone else - if you are in the cabal you know it, otherwise (unless your < 18 & an admin (grrrrr!!)) pay up and look big. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, anything wrong about being "addicted?" --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want any money outta me, you'll have to talk to the guy who handles the trust I set up for myself after having received that MacArthur grant not too long ago. -- llywrch 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some sock blocks

Dereks1x (talk · contribs) was recently confirmed to be a puppetmaster of several socks this recently closed SSP. Dereks1x was blocked for 48 hours by Durova for violations of WP:POINT, but the socks weren't blocked because there was not evidence that Dereks1x used them to evade blocks. Now, however, the confirmed socks are being used by Dereks1x to edit while under his 48 hour block (even pretending to talk to Dereks1x on his talk page). The relevant users are TL500 (talk · contribs) and HumanThing (talk · contribs). I would indef block the socks for use by the master to evade a block, but I was involved in the SSP and an editing dispute with the master. Someone want to dish out a couple blocks? · j e r s y k o talk · 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by TL500

• Jersyko is trying to harass
• blocking by Durova was improper. Durova nominated an administrator and Dereks1x posed a legitimate question to the candidate. Durova did not like the question so Durova made the block. The question to the candidate was whether he would consider recusing himself from any decision involving those that voted for or against him. That was a legitimate ethics question. So the person nominating him did the block. Jersyko was one of the people voting.

So here we have a question of political patronage. You pose a legitimate question and you get blocked. Durova, who does not do SSP administration normally jumped in to protect her/his candidate.

Furthermore, Durova did state that only Dereks1x would be blocked not the other accused. There is extensive proof that I am not a sockpuppet, but Durova didn't want the normal SSP person to review it and make a judgement in their favor.

Therefore, this is just a sign that Jersyko is abusing his knowledge as an administrator to harass. Show me where I have been disruptive today. TL500 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts indef blocked. To Dereks1x: for the second time I advise you to read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. You may seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT program during your block by posting {{Adoptme}} to your user talk page. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about disruption. It is about using socks to evade a block. IrishGuy ^talk 00:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

SLCUT841 (talk · contribs) is a pretty obvious Dereks1x sock, too (though this ID wasn't subject to the SSP). See SLCUT841's first edit (to my talk page) and note that SLCUT841's second and third edits were to create the speedy deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tvoz (check the deletion log). · j e r s y k o talk · 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked that sock. It ceased activity before Dereks1x requested mentorship so I'll be very very nice and not extend the 48 hour block. As noted at the unblock denial, additional time would be amply justified by this user's antics since the 48 hours were announced. I count about ten days' worth and intend to apply all of it if this issue gets pushed another millimeter. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more sockpuppets (addition)

Per this case that was moved to the archive, user:Lyzka, which I had assumed was banned for sockpuppetery, has resumed editing the Recovered Territories article. The original sock has spawned others, including 131.104.218.123, user:Garnekk, 190.47.233.156, 131.104.218.123, 131.104.218.46, and user:Garnek1. I propose semi-protection status to the article to prevent the sock puppets from vandalizing the article for a period of a week to see if the vandal is short-term or is here for much longer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another sockpuppet here, I have counted well over 20 or 30 sockpuppets of user:Serafin. When will we learn and ban him like the Polish and German wikipedias already have?

Widelec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

check Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, 17 known sockpuppets and 20+ suspected. --Jadger 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I had no idea it was that widespread. I only saw this after seeing the case on WP:ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jokes abound...

... And I'm just as guilty. But, lets keep April Fools crap out of the Main and MediaWiki namespaces. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I personally think that MediaWiki namespace would be okay, as long as the system message edited is only available to registered users. However, regardless of what we decide here, someone's going to revert any edits anyone makes to the MediaWiki namespace with a righteous indignation, so oh well. Gracenotes^T § 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation

User:216.99.60.104 has violated the WP:NPA policy on Talk:Muhammad after being informed of the WP:NPA policy:[38]. after being informed:[39]--Sefringle 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual has used a number of other IPs in the same range to engage in harassment, vandalism and personal attacks, and has evaded at least one previous block:User:216.99.56.235, User:206.126.80.107, User:206.126.80.68, User:216.99.60.136, User:216.99.52.133, User:206.126.80.121, User:206.126.82.92, User:206.126.81.88, User:216.99.60.104 (at least).

Proabivouac 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After edits like this I gave him a warning. He did it again so he now has a 24 hour block for disruption. IrishGuy ^talk 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither warnings nor blocks will do any good: he is obviously aware that he's violating policy, and in the past, he's just resumed editing from a different IP in the same range.[40],[41].Proabivouac 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following diffs suggest a connection between anon 206/216 and User:130.113.111.214, either as the same individual or as a meatpuppet: [42],[43]. [44],[45], [46] [47]. Due to mutual involvement in some fairly obscure articles such as Battle of Yarmouk and Islamic socialism (along with less-obscure ones such as Jihad), coinvolvement in Talk:Muhammad/images representing the same POV, placing successive votes as shown above, and a very close geographical location, it is reasonable to assume User:130.113.111.214 to be connected to User:Bless sins. As the connection (or identity) of User:130.113.111.214 and the individual posting under the 206/216 is obvious, I had at one point guessed both to be anonpuppets of Bless sins - a conclusion I was not happy to reach, as Bless sins, while at times quite difficult to work with, had always proved civil. It may be that they are distinct individuals whom Bless sins had recruited onto Wikipedia, or at least to the depictions discussion. I am inclined to accept Bless sins’ word that 206/216 is not actually him; however his studious and repeated refusal to deny a connection by this time constitutes a virtual admission: [48], [49], [50], [51]. (same direct question, four times in a row, evaded each time.) I am therefore inclined to ask Bless sins to prevail upon his associate (who evidently cannot be blocked) to cease this disruption.Proabivouac 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A ranged anonblock may be called for here. -- Avi 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that many of the edits from this anon are happening at the same time Bless sins is editing but on different articles. See for example the edits by this anon IP [52], at the exact same time Bless sins is editing another article while logged in, if you check Bless sin's contribution log. This suggests that they are different people, but in all seriousness if you make both ranges wide enough you can probably get a match anyhow. --64.230.123.126 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that racist language being used on Talk:Muhammad in this post:

"The fact that Muslims become unsettled when we say that Muhammad founded Islam, but Buddhists have no problem hearing or even saying that the Buddha founded Buddhism (though the Buddha also claimed to have predecessors) says a lot about the Muslim psyche. Arrow740 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

--64.230.123.126 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Fanning and block review

I have s-protected Ellen Fanning and blocked 0001 (talk · contribs). This user was repeatedly adding a passage about this individual's purported smoking history. Under WP:BLP, I, and several others, have reverted this change and informed the user that such things need to be sourced. After s-protecting it, I found out that Jimbo was interviewed by this person and that is the reason this article is getting so much traffic. I have no earthly idea who she is or if she does/did smoke ... only that such a claim could be defamatory and needs to be sourced and demonstrated to be important to be included in the article. To any other admin, please feel free to review the block and the protection. --BigDT 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse both, however I'm actively editing the article, so my endorsements means little. Daniel Bryant 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit

User:Gwen Gale was blocked by User:Dmcdevit for having reported a 3RR violation by User:Blue Tie. In addition to having done basically nothing wrong here at all, Gwen Gale has been very active in discussions re the controversy surrounding User:Essjay and the resulting policy questions. Dmcdevit's unorthodox response to an otherwise straightforward 3RR report was unfair, and prevents Gwen Gale from continuing her productive and responsible input on foundation-level questions. Indeed, it appears to have led her to question the wisdom of her involvement with Wikipedia in general. I ask that this ill-considered block of a good-faith, lawful and productive user be reversed as the earliest possible opportunity.Proabivouac 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect; Gwen Gale did not violate 3RR.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And your further reversion of the article in question is Gaming the system. – Chacor 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an absolutely pathetic attitude for an admin, truly. Derex 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Examining a dispute and making a well-considered call does not constitute "gaming the system."

Re "her loss," my ass. We're lucky when serious responsible adults take time out of their busy days to contribute to Wikipedia. It's not at all desirable that/when they're driven off by clueless college kids.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Her choice. We don't care either way. People contribute of their own free will, after all. – Chacor 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to characterizing Dmcdevit as a "clueless college kid". For my part, my previous unblock of Gwen Gale was conditional on refraining from future edit wars, and she then edit warred not too long after on an article regarding the same subject. I'm failing to see what you consider so unreasonable here. I would indeed be sorry to see her leave, but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment I ask that you watch your tone. It is needlessly hostile and I will enforce policy if it continues.--Jersey Devil 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You suffer from the misimpression that edit warring is acceptable as long as it doesn't exceed 3 reverts in a page. Please reread the pages on WP:3RR and WP:BP; it is actually quite clear. Unfortunately, edit warring is prohibited, certainly not "nothing wrong at all", and a blockworthy offense, especially in light of a block a little more than a week ago for 3RR, which was reversed upon her promise not to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To both sides, tempers seem to be getting out of control, all those who contribute to Wikipedia should be respected and thanked for doing so, but from a quick look at the contribs, both sides did break 3RR. Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and sometimes it's necessary for someone outside of the situation to remind that to those inside of it.Just H 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happens when you click the old block button against established users on a judgement call with no clear rule violation, tempers flare. Does anyone really believe that's a constructive response? It's seems to me considerably more harmful than edit warring in the first place. Derex 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not made in bad temper at all, simply explanatory. Was this misindented? Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, I was talking to everyone in this section, not directly to a single person. I don't find the colons to be that big of a deal. Just H 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and Seraphimblade have above claimed that Gwen Gale herself violated 3RR, along with the violator she dutifully reported. That is simply false. To ask for diffs proving the contrary would be mere formality: they do not exist.Proabivouac 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not mischaracterize my statements. I did not say she "broke 3RR", I said she "edit warred". The two are similar but not the same. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to do so. When you wrote, "but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR," this suggested a violation of policy on Gwen Gales' part which did not occur. If you did not mean to suggest that, declining to add "or break 3RR" would have made this more clear.

Ryulong wrote, "They both violated 3RR," which is plainly false, and should be retracted.Proabivouac 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Ryulong. Your statement suggested that Gwen Gale violated 3RR in this recent incident, not on some other occasion. What is so difficult about admitting that you were wrong?Proabivouac 09:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it that way because otherwise your reference made no sense: we do not block editors for alleged past infractions. It is obvious that you erred in your assessment of the issue at hand. You should admit this, and apologize to Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that editors are not again blocked for infractions in the past. It is not however true that those won't be taken into account if a future block is considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted. I'm tired of being being attacked for all of my statements. I recuse myself entirely from this situation, but that does not mean my original review of your unblock request for Gwen Gale is invalid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting her talk page so she can't respond is a hell of a way of recusing yourself, Ryulong. Given that you've already admitted that you are taking this personally, it's an abuse of administrative tools to use them in a dispute in which you are involved. Particularly as you objected to her using the word "trolling" with reference to you. Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you read below? My recusal is gone now, except for the next 8 hours or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's response

The following is a transclusion from Gwen Gale's talk page so that he/she can respond to this thread: (→Netscott) 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I had recused myself, as a result of these edits, I have temporarily protected Gwen Gale's user page for her personal attacks against me, in which she twice mentioned me as "trolling."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this develop and want to state that I support the block - edit warring is bad. And I support the page protection - footstamping is also bad. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{User talk:Gwen Gale}}

Might I suggest you block yourself for abusing administrative tools by using them in a dispute in which you are involved? In particular "for her personal attacks against me," emphasis added. No, well I suppose the rules do only apply to little people. (edit conflicted, was to Ryulong) Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusing that someone who is screaming about the rules doesn't know about the rule against self-blocking. --Golbez 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know about that rule. Do you know about sarcasm and irony? Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's just great. Now he protected his own page as well, so no one can talk to him. [53] Ryulong seriously needs to get the clue that admin tools are not a personal toy. Derex 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And you need to get a clue that he's stressed and stop attacking him. – Chacor 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You know who else was stressed? Gwen Gale. But it seemed just dandy to block her rather than speak to her respectfully. But, as you helpfully noted above, "we don't care" if she leaves. But if someone criticizes an admin, it appears that's definitely worth caring about. Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Per [54], and Derex' comments above, I am now convinced that Ryulong lacks the integrity and maturity of character we should expect from those we entrust with authority, a.k.a. "the tools."Proabivouac 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you are directing that message to me, clearly. The fact of the matter is that she was abusing the editting on her own talk page. And she also attacked Seraphimblade a second time, stating that Seraphimblade's a teenager when he/she clearly stated his/her age on Gwen's talk page. Also, my talk page is only semiprotected because there's an IP user who's being a dick (and move-protected because no one should be moving those pages). You can very well give me a message there, but I probably won't answer as I should have gone to sleep a couple of hours ago and I will be within the next 10 minutes. Consider that the block on myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this is not the first time that Ryulong has blatantly misused the admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that you have referenced Straight Outta Lynwood.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And on both accounts, I am supported by established editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I tend to trust Ryulong's reasoning when it comes to Wikipedia matters however I do not agree with this statement he made: "And it also seems that Gwen Gale has left under these circumstances. His/Her loss regarding a respected Wikipedia editor. That is really poor form and is sooner a demonstration of contempt and lack of good faith. Editors like User:Gwen Gale who make valuable contributions (as an co-editor on the Essjay controversy article with her I should know) should not be spoken about so flippantly/non-chalantly. (→Netscott) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please add this war to WP:LAME? I mean, seriously, a dispute resulting in two blocks and a biggish thread on this board over whether to include the fact that two pilots appeared wearing bomber jackets? Do we always note when court witnesses appear in casual attire? Please! Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:LionheartX

Some admin please take a look at LionheartX's repeated, very disruptive moves to article Chonji. At the talk page, there was a discussion and a vote to keep it at Chonji, against moving to Tianchi. LionheartX keeps moving without any discussion or consensus.

Then he give me a 3RR warning for undoing his moves, and then vandalizes by user page with a "suspected sock" tag. This is very disruptive trolling.

I bring this here because I see he has a history of disruptive behavior. BAmonster 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally titled Tianchi[55][56]. There was never consensus to move it to Chonji. The status quo before the move should be restored until disagreements are settled. BAmonster (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock. He has cut and paste moved the page to Cheonji lake which destroyed the talk page history.[57]. He then reposted a 3RR warning for undoing his moves. BAmonster appears to be a sock because he has made very few edits and seems very familiar with the site.[58] LionheartX 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky

File:Boa.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has now been deleted seven times (in a couple of different versions) as having no copyright information whatsoever. In every case I can recall the image was uploaded by a single-purpose account with no other edits at all, a different account every time. Someone is not learning. Now, I could protect the title but I suspect that they will then upload it with a different filename, and then I will not spot it (I see the bluelink in my deletion log). Clearly someone is not getting the hint, do you think CheckUsers will help to flush the main account out? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with the popups preview, that looks to be an album cover. Is it? If it is then it shouldn't be hard to track down the copyright info, though asserting fair use for it as the primary image on BoA (singer) would be another matter. --tjstrf talk 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't album covers, they are publicity headshots, probably uploaded in an attempt to fill the infobox on BoA. Since that expressly requires a free image, that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Is it just me, or will all of the contributions by Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have to be oversighted? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a vandalbot and indefblocked. UnfriendlyFire 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs a wikibreak avoiding block

This user is going about canvassing for someone to do a GA review of the Islam and slavery article utilizing talk pages that have nothing to do with it. After having removed this talk per WP:TPG, I warned this editor that what he was doing was disruptive and to cease at once. He responded with a flat no and proceeded to re-revert me. This editor is exhibiting very odd behavior today as he has been linking an article that he's written entirely upon original research about Autosodomy to Yoga and Yoga as exercise both of which where "rvv"ed by another editor. In addition to all of this editor has been severly anti-Islam propaganda POV pushing (this addition to his user page is rather indicative). Could someone kindly prevent further talk page disruption on this part of this individual? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a warning about it. Hopefully he will stop. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed all of his reverted messages. He seemed to have stopped... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Shaking my head in disbelief) The guy has just gone from putting the GA request in articles, to putting it on user talk pages. He definitely didn't read WP:CANVASS... I'll let someone else deal with this... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep I see one two three since the last warning on his talk page ... It's clear that this user is not going to stop despite two clear warnings. In addition, the person in question made a rather strange edit to the Hezbollah article in the purported role of a GA reviewer. Orderinchaos 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've enacted a 24 hour block on the basis of the above. Orderinchaos 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is editor is on the way to destruction. He may have no chance to make his time. But seriously..... constant and disruptive/problematic editing on his part is not encouraging for Wikilongevity. (→Netscott) 12:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 is avoiding his block using IP sockpuppetry as User:149.135.84.72, this edit and this revert (to his version) on a DavidYork71 favorite article → Islam and slavery demonstrates. This is not the first time he's edited from this IP range as this edit shows (there he was commenting via that range on a 3RR report against himself). (→Netscott) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's now requesting an unblock. Please be aware as this additional revert illustrates he knew he was blocked when he made that revert. (→Netscott) 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock declined by Yamla. I wonder if a longer block might be appropriate, given the sockpuppetry as well as the canvassing. --cj | talk 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially as we're now looking at a repeat offence - the block around the 22nd attracted similar behaviour. Orderinchaos 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block to 48 hours, in the sense that this is the next logical extension upward from a 24 hour ban. Orderinchaos 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to utilize IPs for sockpuppeting. His latest IP: 149.135.34.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(Above copied from my talk page) Have blocked the IP. What action would be most suitable for this one given it appears he will keep doing it? He is, for the record, blocked for another 35 or so hours under his primary nick. As I've taken the basic actions thus far I'd prefer someone other than myself review appropriately and make the call on any extensions. Orderinchaos 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior to his block this editor was engaging in other disruptive behavior. He wikilinked an articled he created called "autosodomy" to Yoga and Yoga as exercise (both edit were rvv'd by User:Buddhipriya). This combined with other problematic edits makes me think that the project would be better off without the input of this individual. (→Netscott) 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg

I created Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png a few days ago from an existing UN map (under a PD license) to provide a high-resolution overview of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and chunks of the neighboring countries. It replaced an earlier version of the same map, Image:Israel.png, which I also created from the same UN source. That map was the subject of a dispute between Timeshifter and a number of other users concerning the classification (was it a map of Israel alone or a map of Israel plus the territories occupied by it?). I sought to resolve that dispute by retitling the map and renaming it (plus making some unrelated formatting changes) to make it clear that the map was indeed supposed to be of the entire region, not just Israel. I explained the changes and the rationale at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and asked for an independent review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Request for review of map classification. Nobody there saw any problems with it.

Three (presumably Israeli) users raised questions about the nomenclature at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. (The term "occupied territories" is taken from standard UN usage and is also replicated in the CIA World Factbook map of the region, which uses the term "Israeli-occupied" - see Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. Wikipedia uses "Israeli-occupied territories".) In response to their concerns, I suggested renaming the map again to eliminate the term "occupied territories" (see Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Alternative proposal). The discussion was ongoing and there was every chance of finding a solution that was acceptable to everybody.

Regrettably, Jayjg has decided to abuse his administrative powers by speedily deleting the image's placeholder from the English Wikipedia with the edit summary "enough is enough; restore the original image without your added commentary" [59]. He also posted to the talk page (addressed to me): "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." [60] Jayjg had previously played no part in the discussion on Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - this was his first edit to the talk page. (Added: the thing that has been deleted is a placeholder page categorising the image in two categories, not the image itself. The image is on the Commons. See my comments further down this thread for a detailed explanation.)

This is a blatant misuse of deletion authority for presumably POV reasons and is a completely unjustifiable personal attack as well. The map was not created for POV reasons. I've taken the time to explain every aspect of its creation and rationale on the talk page. As the talk page also shows, I've been working with the objecting editors to find a common solution, and I've directly asked them for their views ([61]) - how on earth is this "abusive"?. Instead, Jayjg has decided to short-circuit all of that by speedily deleting the image page, posting a personal attack and attempting to shut down the efforts to find a compromise. The deletion policy was ignored, bad faith was assumed and an unpleasant personal attack was posted out of the blue. As a former arbitrator (!) he of all people should know that isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "occupied territories" is the official term for these regions, and it is a term used by the UN to describe them - therefore it is by definition a NPOV term. As you describe the facts Jayjg speedy-deleted the image, failing to satisfactory explain why he did that. But I would also like to listen to what he has to say.--Yannismarou 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN does indeed appear to refer to the territories as "occupied", discussion did appear to be happening in the talk page, and the speedy did appear to be out of process and non-AGF. The highlighting of the Palestinian territories makes the title change seem reasonable. I don't like the look of this at first glance, but would like to hear Jayjg's side as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we sum this up as "If it may be questionable for you to use admin tools in a given situation, request that someone uninvolved do so, just like a normal editor would do, and go from there?" I have the idea here that a speedy tag on the images in question (on either side) would have been declined, and I believe rightfully so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely like to hear Jayjg's comments on this. --Golbez 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, Jay wasn't involved in the dispute and took admin action to sort it out. You were involved, yet you also speedied two of the images the dispute was about. On March 27, you speedied Image:Israel.png; Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg, and their talk pages, [62] [63] the first of which had posts about the dispute on it and probably shouldn't have been deleted.

I'm not saying you were wrong to do this, because I don't know the details, but I'm wondering why it would be wrong for Jay to take admin action when he's not involved, but all right for you to do it when you are involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand here we go. Replacing a map with another (and certainly not a duplicate as was claimed) using admin tools? Oh there's fun on every side. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. I originally speedied because I uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. [64] Following the dispute over the categorisation, I modified the image to make the subject matter explicit (as explained at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png) and de-linked the original image on en:. I requested on the Commons that the image be deleted as it had been obsoleted; this was actioned yesterday. There was no need to retain a "placeholder" for a deleted Commons image here on en:. I also created File:Israel annotated topographic.jpg and uploaded that only to the Commons. Following comments on en:, I realised that the image name was both ambiguous and inaccurate - it isn't purely of Israel, and it isn't a topographic map (it's of the entire SE Mediterranean region and it's a satellite image). To resolve this I re-uploaded it to the Commons as Image:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg - the same image with a different filename and some more annotations - along with an explanation of its purpose (Image talk:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg). The original deletion requests are at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg. My preference would have been to move the images to new names and overwrite them with the updated versions, but the images had to be deleted rather than moved because the Commons software doesn't support moves (see Commons:FAQ#Technical questions). I did specifically ask about this - see Commons:Village pump#Image move request.

The CSD reasons were (1) author request (i.e. mine); (2) transwikiing in the case of the first image; (3) deletion of the referenced images on Commons in both cases. None of those reasons applies for Jayjg's action. No rationale whatsoever has been given for Jayjg's action and it certainly isn't covered by WP:SPEEDY. Just to clarify, neither image is a "duplicate" - I don't think I've ever claimed this. I've been very explicit about why they were created and why I asked the Commons to delete the first versions. They were misnamed, the first image had some technical problems and neither image was clear enough about the subject matter. -- ChrisO 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I will cease commenting when half asleep. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

here's my personal perspective:

1. ChrisO, has been rigorously involved in the last month and a bit or so (over 150 related edits/talks/reverts/deletion requests/requests for support/etc. within that time frame) in "taking an article Pallywood hostage" via an AfD suggestion, a blanking attempt, a 3RR evasion and general ignoring of any wiki editor with a different opinion/perspective.
2. this apprears to be a similar case in regards to Israel related editing, where user appears to be adamant on anti-israeli presentations. As such, i think it is very much appropriate to firstly remove the bais presentation, and return the information only when an approved version is accepted upon - rather than doing it the other way around - misrepresenting events until a resolution is achieved. Jaakobou 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you've added your personal perspective, let me add mine. I've been creating maps for Wikipedia since 2004 for places as diverse as Greece, Ukraine, Niger, East Timor and Azerbaijan. Dozens of my maps are in use across numerous Wikipedias. I've never in nearly four years of editing had to face such a barrage of hostility over a map as I have over this one: "blatant idiocy" (sic) ([65]); "POV" ([66]); "attempt to place a POV" ([67]) and "increasingly abusive" ([68]). There seems to be a tendency among some users - you, Jaakobou are one, Jayjg is plainly another - to constantly assume bad faith on anything to do with edits on Middle Eastern matters that don't meet their personal POV. It's more than just inappropriate - it's creating a hostile and intimidatory atmosphere concerning the entire subject area on Wikipedia. I know people have strong feelings about the issues, but that isn't justification to constantly assume the worst of your fellow editors. -- ChrisO 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

please explain to me the text i just highlighted from your statement in the following order:

(1) how does "What did you change other than the new POV title?"^[69] (by user [User:Eric1985]) was turned into just "POV" ?

(2) how does "was somewhat an attempt to place a POV (though I am not accusing you of taking a side, but rather you interpreting the situation in your own personal way), but then you emphasized this change with the 'occupied territories' bit." (by user [User:Shuki]) was turned into just "attempt to place a POV"  ?

(3) how does 150+ of your edits/reverts/etc. on Pallywood makes me an "allways assumes bad faith" ?

(4) do you feel an aggressive hostile environment when being requested by a multitude of numereous editors to treat Israeli matters with a little less of a bias presentation? Jaakobou 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:Jayjg is in the wrong without question. It has been noted before that Jay abuses his admin powers(although probably with good intent) - but whatever the intent, power abuses can't be tolerated and policy must always be followed. Perhaps an apology from Jay would suffice - if not maybe we could think about consulting ArbCom (by the way I'm really glad to have found this page, it's brilliant for helping with the more mundane tasks!) --I'm so special 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[70]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the deleted image. No opinion about which of the two is better, but as long as there are no copyright problems or anything there's no harm having both of them on the server and leaving it to the editors of the articles in question to decide which they are going to use. There clearly was no valid speedy criterion. Sorry for IAA'ing in taking this discussion in lieu of a formal DR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png? He has already uploaded it to the Commons, a restore is no longer necessary. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that. For some reason it was showing as a redlink for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's evidently some confusion about exactly what's been deleted. The first version of the map, Image:Israel.png, was uploaded here by me by accident, but I deleted it immediately and re-uploaded it to the Commons. A placeholder page for that image at [71] was used by Timeshifter to categorise the map in the existing English Wikipedia categories Category:Maps of Israel and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. After it became clear that I had misnamed the file and the caption was insufficiently clear, I created a second version of the map, Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and uploaded that to the Commons. I requested the deletion of the original image on the Commons; this has now actioned and the original image no longer exists, which is why it shows as a redlink. I deleted the redundant placeholder page for the first image and created a new placeholder for the second one at [72]. This placeholder is what Jayjg deleted. -- ChrisO 11:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog

After AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made highly POV edits such as changing collapse to demolition, etc., and here as well then libeled a person here for which we have a bio in a seperate article (Larry Silverstein), I reverted this vandalism and posted a vandalism test level 2 warning on AumakuaSatori's usertalk[73]. AumakuaSatori changed 7 World Trade Center collapsed to 7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein. This wasn't an innocent mistake, it was an overt effort to defame Larry Silverstein and vandalize the article. Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then reverted my warning and instead added a welcome template to this same editors talkpage with the edit summary "replace inappropriate warning with welcome template". Guinnog then proceeded to my talkpage to warn me claiming he didn't see anything wrong "I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article."...as if libel is now an improvement I suppose.[74]. Guinnog has harassed me for about a day now about this, seemingly unable to see that there was nothing inappropriate about me warning another editor about obvious vandalism. It should be noted that Guinnog has made threats to further escalate what is much ado about nothing, I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error...in fact I did zero wrong and his removal of my vandalism warning to instead welcome an editor who libelled another person is highly inappropriate. His ongoing badgering about a lot of nothing is certainly not becoming in an administrator...his "guarantee to take it further" is also highly inappropriate and I see it as a threat to make a poor administrative decision on his part, especially since this is an article that he has had disagreements with me in the past, and his behavior in regards to this same article was a major issue by those who opposed his request for adminship. Perhaps someone can ask him to stop harassing me about a whole lot of nothing, and stop falsely accusing me of vandalism yet he does nothing about AumakuaSatori who libelled a third party. Guinnog was cautioned here about making threats of admin action during this ongoing nonsense.--MONGO 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, not only did a conspiracy theorist finally get admin status, but it was by the thinnest of margins. This is making me rethink my current abstention from RFA. I don't quite know what to say, except that if Guinnog does this again (among other things, justifying libel - I notice that Guinnog, while adding a welcome template to his new buddy, chose not to actually warn the chap for violating BLP, which was the main reason that warning was there in the first place), you should take this straight to RfC and/or Arbcom. I like how Guinnog is inviting this person to 'add their thoughts' to improving the article, as if anything they put remotely belongs. Sad. --Golbez 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog did nothing wrong here and acted in good faith. I would suggest that you do not just try to get rid of every administrator who doesn't follow your instructions, it could lose us valuable wikipedians - Guinnog has tirelessly reverted vandalism since he got here - just see his contribs. I don't think there is any question of his commitment to the project. Please MONGO... just move on for god's sake --I'm so special 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By removing the warning and welcoming someone who added libel without any warning, nothing wrong was done? Commitment is not the only requirement to be a good administrator. --Golbez 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Guinnog absolutely did do wrong, in that these edits were in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Any administrator intervention should have been in support of warning the editor never to repeat this grossly inappropriate behaviour. Whether a polite note to MONGO would also have been appropriate is immaterial. I have blocked that account because (a) every edit appears to violate one or other of the two policies noted above and (b) if it's not a sockpuppet then I'm a monkey's uncle. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please note, the user who reported is removing comments in support of Guinnog under the guise of "RV Vandal" see this diff

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[75]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with MONGO, and I'll state that I have handed out similar warnings in similar cases myself (on articles in the domains I edit). Even though these cases may not technically match our standard definitions of vandalism perfectly, there is a point where reckless POV-pushing becomes so blatant and so disruptive that an anti-vandal response is legitimate. Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that the statement "7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein" fairly and accurately reflects the current state of commonly accepted human knowledge. Even if you happen to believe that the statement is true, you simply must know it's not commonly accepted and not "obvious". A user who makes edits like this is either not acting in good faith, or so clueless about the purpose of Wikipedia they really shouldn't be here. Come to that, there's the very real BLP issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog told me it would have been better had I done a BLP warning instead of a vandalism warning, but seeing that the editor has such a very limited contribution history, his edit appeared to be clear vandalism. User:Tbeatty later placed a BLP warning template on his talkpage. My biggest concern about this entire affair is to wonder why I would be badgered for the entire editing session about a whole lot of nothing when I had hoped to be working on other things of interest to me. It appears Guinnog was trying to goad me into saying something nasty.--MONGO 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

My comments at the above dicussion are being reverted for some reason by User:Chacor and User:MONGO - it's highly innapropriate for the user who reported on the noticeboard to remove other users' comments in opposition - please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2 and User talk:I'm so special for further evidence. --I'm so special 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:I'm so special - MONGO says I am only here for abuse and he will run a checkuser. I need admin attention urgently. Thanks --I'm so special 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious. End-of. – Chacor 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hours. Now, I'm really going to go to sleep...after a final comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The unjust blocking of Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)

Administrator Gaillimh (talk · contribs) has indefinitely blocked long standing contributor FS for having an "offensive username". FS was previously blocked in August 2005 for the same, but was almost immediately unblocked by another administrator as they didn't find it offensive enough. User:Gaillimh has attempted to get FS to change his username, but FS refused and has been indefinitely blocked. This is a clear breach of the WP:USERNAME policy, which states that if a user will not voluntarily change their name it should be brought up at WP:RFCN. I have raised this matter with the blocking administrator, who has summarily ignored me. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a good block and urge unblocking. Long-standing users have always been asked to go to RFCN and such. It's not a new user. Even then, question, how is it offensive? – Chacor 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As for how it's offensive: Fenian = Irish Nationalist. So I can see how some would see bad in this username. --Golbez 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing the block, Wikipedia:Username policy is clear on this: Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. If the user will not voluntarily change their name, bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should also be made aware of the discussion. The time this discussion can take varies upon how active the user in question is.--Jersey Devil 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe the username is inappropriate, however, but the block was not helpful.--MONGO 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been asked to change it and absolutely refuses. He has pretty close to absolute contempt for admins. This will not have improved that. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

There's something suspicious about Poemswheel's contributions. The first thing he does is to create his user and talk pages, and then they make edits with the false edit summary of "rvv" which are actually vandalism, such as [76] and [77] and most curiously [78]. Should this user be blocked? Resurgent insurgent 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hells yes. I've blocked the account. The "rvv" and immediate creation of userpages seem to indicate that is an account created solely for vandalism. Looks like User:Wbwbr / User:Accountready / User:Enlighter1 / etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)