Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways: [1]

User seems to be mass merge tagging articles and later redirectifying them. That seems to be the case for the past 5000 edits at least. Is this acceptable behaviour? Are episode articles banned?

-- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual episode articles aren't banned, but they still have to meet WP:NOTE just like every other article. That is, they don't get a free pass on notability just because their parent show is, if you get my drift. There are currently vast numbers of individual episode articles which could never meet WP:NOTE and thus should be merged into their parent "season" article instead of on their own.
WP:EPISODE lays out the procedure pretty well. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not merged. They are blanked/redirectified. WP:EPISODE doesn't require mass merging. And I see no centralized discussion for such a thing anywhere. -- Cat ^chi? 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does...there's a logical progression here that has to be met. Series, then season, then individual episode. Each one must meet WP:NOTE. A lot of people assume that since multiple independent sources can be found for the series and the season, that means every individual episode deserves it's own page. This is, obviously, not the case. Merging (mass or otherwise) is the appropriate policy-approved way of dealing with a non-notable episode from a notable season (or notable series). Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no "policy"-approved procedure for this. Guidelines are there to help us write better articles. They are not licenses for deletion without discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using merge tags, and waiting for discussion, so yes, it's fine. This has been up here many, many times for when I was being WP:BOLD in redirecting, so it has come down to that. To answer your question, by WP:EPISODE, most episodes have no chance of ever needing to exist. We have somewhere over five thousand episode articles (possibly way more) that need to be taken care of, so that is what I am doing. TTN 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of taking care of is removal of over "five thousand" articles without undergoing any deletion procedure. Such AFDs will most likely fail if my experience is any indication. -- Cat ^chi? 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try something constructive like coming up with a reason that these articles are notable? Otherwise, TNN is just engaging in cleanup. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain what to say here. What is the metric for notability for episode articles? If all episode articles are to be deleted, I want to see a general discussion for it. Or else someone, if not me, will mass revert the mass merging. -- Cat ^chi? 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD, he can redirect as he pleases. If people push back, he needs to discuss. There is no special notability for episodes- just the standard form. He should, if people revert, discuss individual groups of articles on the List of Episode page. — i ^said 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. TTN is editing way too fast on tagging and redirecting the episode articles. Being bold is one thing but redirecting an episode without checking if it has sustained its notability is another... TTN, please stop and gain consensus before redirecting any more articles. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way I or anyone can discuss at the rate of his tagging. I would think any show with the cultural impact as 24 to be notable. I do not know what reason is needed to establish notability... Why is Shakespeare's Hamlet notable? Why is any book or movie notable? The idea that a show itself is notable yet none of its episodes are worth a mention simply baffles me. If something is not notable, why is not AFD used? -- Cat ^chi? 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pages are not being merged. "Merge" implies that all or at least some of the content is being moved into the target article; this is not the case, they are just being redirected. For such a large list of articles, there should be some sort of centralized discussion, possibly one discussion per series as to: should they all be merged (some episodes may have notability for specific reasons that others in the same series do not), what content should be merged, etc. I think this is taking WP:BOLD a little too far and bordering on WP:POINT. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this behavior is quite disruptive. Particularly disturbing is the fact that AWB is being used to make controversial edits. IronGargoyle 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notability. There has been centralised discussion about the notability of episodes: WP:EPISODE arose out of one such discussion a couple of years ago, and has recently been rediscussed (see WT:EPISODE). The guidelines for establishing notability of fiction articles is undergoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and the actual necessity for separate guidelines for fiction is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability. As to centralised discussion about the appropriate action to undertake regarding articles which fail the above notability guidelines, then this can be found at the talk pages of WP:TVE and WP:TV-REVIEW, Wikipedia talk:Television article review process. If anyone has a concern about any issues about episode articles, regarding notability through to the processes surrounding such articles, then it's probably worth checking out any of those pages and contributing to constructive debate there. Gwinva 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not say that this is what to do. It says how to determine if episodes should get articles. This is just mass redirection of episode articles with little or no review. WP:EPISODE does not say whether or not each of the episode articles redirected was notable or not, nor does it say that episodes should not get articles. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just randomly reviewed ten of the most recent thousand edits made by TTN (talk · contribs), all the episode articles I saw generally had zero references and no real world context. Likewise they were chock full of things that WP:EPISODE says to avoid, including trivia sections, quotations, in-universe writing, and extremely detailed plot summary sections. Again, this was only a 1% spot-check, but I did not see any issues with TTN`s clean up work. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why redirecting articles without checking the notability is considered "clean-up work". WP:EPISODE is a guideline on creating new articles, it is by no means a guideline set for deleting articles. WP:NN clearly states that discussion must be present, and that suitable consensus must emerge for the redirection of articles. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take Indian Summer (Dawson's Creek episode), one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of TTN`s clean-up work. On August 25th, TTN added [2] a {{mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to Talk:List of Dawson's Creek episodes#Episode notability. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged [3] into the episode list. Reviewing the final, pre-merger version of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what WP:EPISODE says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He also redirected all the episodes in List of 30 Rock episodes, and multiple reviews can be found for every episode. This was discussed and ignored on the talk page. Lots of shows episodes, especially older ones don't have second party information, but some do, and it doesn't seem to effect his redirecting them. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles were really bad before he redirected them. That said, regarding the discussion linked to above he closed the debate himself and claimed consensus despite two people disagreeing with him and only Ned Scott agreeing with him. That's not consensus to merge/redirect. As for articles containing trivia the correct approach is to merge that into the rest of the article and then delete the trivia section, not simply to merge/redirect. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews for episodes does not mean you will have real-world information to place in said articles. As for the reviews themselves, they were somewhat questionable, being from http://tvsquad.com and http://buddytv.com . A consensus does not just include the discussion on the immediate talk page, but also what the community at large had decided about excessive plot summary (WP:PLOT). -- Ned Scott 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but then what is the purpose of starting a debate if the outcome is predetermined per consensus on WP:PLOT? I'm neither jumping on his back nor am I disputing that most of these articles were bad. What I'm disputing is the way he did this. If he was going to be truly bold he could have redirected without wasting other editor's time with futile debates the outcome of which he was just going to ignore anyway. What is the purpose of tagging so many articles using AWB when the debates were futile and the obvious outcome was to redirect rather than merge? EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have a group of artilces, of which say 10%, 20% or 50% can have their noteability established, do we have any guidelines on how they should be dealt with. Is summary redirection based on BOLDness the correct way to deal with this? - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And before more people jump on TTN's back, I'd like to point out that he has yielded to past requests, taking more time with these issues, giving fair notice, and starting discussion about these redirections before they happen. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the relevant TV-related wikiprojects what their opinion is on this issue? >Radiant< 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage, a Task Force in WikiProject Television. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me if someone else has said this, but TTN is not deleting anything, since the episode articles remain in the revision history. I don't believe s/he's an administrator, so s/he isn't actually capable of deleting anything. Merging is a completely acceptable action for anyone to perform on any article they feel it's appropriate, and is in fact suggested as an alternative for deletion (here and here). There is nothing about TV episode articles that makes this any different, and there is no special guideline regarding editing episode articles. WP:EPISODE is only concerned with notability, so beyond that they are subject to all the normal editing rules, including the deletion policy. So this discussion (which should take place somewhere else, since it requires no admin intervention) should take into account the fact that there is no reason episode articles are special or otherwise exempt from the normal rules and practices. Natalie 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit point

Let me reword my original argument since there seems to be a confusion. When an article is low on quality, you improve them. I do not mind several article improvement drives on episode articles. We do not have a deadline so in the course of several years this can lead to multiple good articles. If an article does not immediately have adequate sources, the recommended action as per community approved procedure is written here. In this case that was not attempted. In fact the last three steps were avoided all together. Process is important. There are many low quality articles on wikipedia. Each suffering from valorous problems. Unless an article suffers from an urgent problem such as WP:BLP it is almost never blanked. Blanking is a last resort not the first.

Usage of {{merge}} is entirely improper as nothing is ever merged as a result. I also observe that all these mass merging is preformed by a specific group of editors that impose their consensus to the "local" people working on the articles. An imposed consensus is no consensus by very nature. Some of these users have no other contribution.

The WP:EPISODE guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the 16 April 2007 version. Between then and 26 September 2007 article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline [4]. I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Wikipedia community as a whole.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (WP:NOT, WP:V) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months...[5]. The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. Fram 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that merging is never appropriate? I note that the very page you linked suggests "if appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." The notability policy, which has been derived out of consensus by the community as a whole, is the policy by which these articles are being merged. I would also like to underscore Fram's point by noting that the sky is not falling and all of these articles can be retrieved by anyone, since they are not being deleted. Natalie 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I think what we have here is a breakdown of communication all around. In my mind, at least, the problem isn't necessarily that these articles shouldn't be merged; it's that what TTN is doing is not merging them. Merging implies that information from the article being eliminated is incorporated into the article it's being merged into. TTN's standard practice seems to be to simply redirect articles en masse without any effort to incorporate the information into the article he redirects to. I've noted a similar modus operandi by other people who have been redirecting many articles while citing WP:FICTION as a reason, and think that there may be a need to clarify this point, since we end up with people angrily editing and creating lots of AN/I and AIV reports as a result. Rdfox 76 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point exactly: it's only a merge when you actually retain some of the content in the article. Many of TTN's edits have not even vaguely been in line with that statement, and even then regardless of the merits of the actions themselves his (her?) handling of the situation has been "counter-harmonious" to say the least. I understand exactly where White Cat is coming from on this. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect.[6] So? Fram 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has merged over 5000 articles such that none of the content from the individual article was retained in the merged article. Statistically and logically it is impossible that none of those articles had content worth retaining. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A large number of these articles contained identical or near identical summaries from the List of episodes article. Also, summary is easy to generate, and we have no shortage of editors willing to do it. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's your argument here? It's okay to completely blank an article because eventually someone else will perform the rest of the merge for you? That's wildly irresponsible, and a crap argument to boot. If TTN is so hard-pressed to merge that many articles then he needs to put in the time to do it properly. Right now he's just wiping out whole swaths of information and dragging the overall quality of Wikipedia down, regardless of how "easy" it is to find the original article content in the edit history. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice TTN has been noticeably absent from this discussion, yet he continues to redirect articles. I've asked him to comment here. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN has said on his talk page that he will not comment here. Mr.Z-man 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more to say, he's not doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass removing article content is a problem. Some of these allegedly merged articles contained enough information that disqualifies them from being stubs. So they are "full articles" and not stubs. Altering a guideline and converting it from a "MOS guideline" to a "notability guideline" without adequate discussion is a problem. TTN isn't even willing to discuss the matter which is also a problem. There most certainly is a problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is even revert waring over his "bold" action despite the lack of consensus. In this case a discussion was overwhelmingly against a merge or let alone a redirectification. [7] was redirectified anyways despite having enough content to disqualify even as stubs. Granted these articles are not featured they aren't stubs either. -- Cat ^chi? 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His priorities--his choice of which articles to modify first--seem very shady for someone not doing anything wrong. In trying to determine what the actual, practiced standard for episode notability is, I looked over the television shows which have featured articles (as I take it those are supposed to set the example for other articles in the category). While I did not look at all of the shows, I looked at enough to realize that virtually every featured article for a television show on wikipedia has a full complement of individual episode articles that contradict TTN's interpretation of the guidelines for notability, but from skimming his extensive edit history, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to apply his modifications to shows with featured articles--other than his very recent (10/4/07) attempts to apply those modifications to The Wire, with its famously small audience--although he has applied many thousands of them to articles with lower traffic.

Although I can see how his interpretation may be valid, it contradicts the example set by most or all featured articles in this category, and I am inclined to respect their combined example over his individual objections. If his interpretation is widely acceptable by wiki standards, then it would be more honest for him to apply it to the featured articles first, and have it demonstrated as part of the standard for featured television articles. While I understand his stated objection that he can only modify so many articles at once, it looks like bad faith editing when he attempts to change the de facto standards for the entire category of wikipedia television episodes by altering all of the articles with low readership first, and intentionally flying under the radar of the featured articles with high traffic.

He has also stated explicity that he will sneak in "silly messages" on low-traffic talk pages to prove a point, something wikipedia seems to expressly discourage. Apparently it's an official wiki policy that the number of people interested in a subject does not in and of itself constitute noteworthiness, contrary to TTN's own guidelines for modifying or deleting these articles. The more I look at his history, the closer it seems to systemic vandalism and selective modification of articles where he believes he can get away with it (as shown by his "testing the waters" with silly messages to see if anyone will revert them), rather than trying to apply criteria uniformly across the entire category of articles. Wiki describes bad faith editing as "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism", and TTN's modifications seem to be edging very close to this precise description, although I have the impression that he believes these practices are constructive when he's doing them. --24.90.146.245 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there certainly is a problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has stated on his own talkpage in a discussion regarding WP:FICT that he doesn't see much chance of being able to pull off his redirection-without-merging and "discussion is unnecessary, consensus is unnecessary" tricks on high-traffic topics. He specifically says that he plans to mostly stick with "picking off smaller ones," because he feels that "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones." The way I read it, it appears to me that he's trying to establish a precedent of eliminating episode and character articles by working "under the radar" on lower-traffic topics before attempting to do anything to the ones that would attract a lot of attention. Looking through his talkpage archives, I also see dozens of comments and complaints per month about his method of indiscriminately mass-redirecting episode and character articles to lists without any discussion or even an explanation in the edit summary, including ones from before WP:FICT went into effect. I don't know how often he's gotten warning templates put up as a result, because he has a habit of deleting them, and digging through the history to find them is enough of an annoyance that I didn't try it today. Rdfox 76 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something... how exactly does TTN have special authority to decide how the standards will be applied, and enforce his decision over any and all objections? I understand that he thinks his application of the notability guidelines is valid, but it is obviously not accepted practice. He demonstrates his awareness of this by avoiding the most popular shows, for instance generously decreeing that all the Simpsons articles can stay, because "they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles". I don't know how the notability of several articles in a category gives automatic notability to the others, but if anyone can see the hidden sense in that, I'd like to hear it. It sounds more like an excuse to avoid articles where he knows he won't be able to unilaterally enforce his own vision of what wiki should be. If he doesn't need consensus to enforce whatever interpretation he pleases, then does anyone else need consensus to revert his changes wholesale (much as he applies them wholesale to begin with)? And at what point can it be blocked as vandalism, since apparently he is engaging in revert wars in the process? --F.dolarhyde 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

After having looked further into the issue, there are several things I want to underline. I can see how TTN feels his interpretation is backed up by the guidelines, but it would be much less offensive, less destructive (fewer people would spend days and weeks typing up information that will only be discarded), and less devious, if: 1) TTN weren't taking it on as his sole responsibility and mission to bulldoze through thousands of lower-traffic articles, but was backed up by other notable contributors sharing this duty; and especially 2) it were applied to the highest profile articles FIRST, not after he's wiped out the pages for hundreds of less-popular series.

If I'm a new user, unfamiliar with TTN, and I want to create a set of articles for a new series; I'm going to read the guidelines, and then look at the featured, high-profile shows to see an example and confirmation of how to construct accepted articles for a television series. If I see that they avoid creating articles for most individual episodes, I'll think twice before doing that for a new show. But what I actually see now, is that they nearly ALL have articles for each individual episode, and that nobody is putting "merge for lack of notability" warnings on most of them. As a new user I'm not likely to go look up one of the several hundred obscure anime series that TTN has seen fit to reshape to his idea of the notability standards; I'll look at the highest-profile series for examples. I may then spend weeks typing up information for individual episodes, thinking that it's in line with the approved, featured, high-traffic show articles, and then have him come along with his back-door bulldozer and wipe most of it out.

This practice creates an unwelcoming (if not outright hostile) environment for new contributors, and without good cause. His talk page shows many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of users he's discouraged by his way of going about this--several who have entirely abandoned wikipedia as a consequence. If he's as sure of his version of the notability guidelines as he claims to be, and does not intend to harm the site in the process, then the high profile articles--which serve as role models for new articles--need to be retrofit first, before the countless deletions he's applying to lesser-known articles.

This would serve both as a good test of whether his reading of the guidelines is a sustainable practice, and serve to spare new contributors: from working hard at finding, creating and contributing content in good faith that will mostly be swept away by his interpretation of the guidelines. The only argument in favor of his doing the low-traffic shows first is that it's easier for him to get away with unpopular changes, even at the cost of substantially damaging the "good faith" of this subset of the wiki userbase. Rather than show any compromise or respect for the community that has created all of these pages, his talk pages show something close to an eagerness to spite most of those creators en masse. It may be a rewarding power trip for him to single-handedly reshape the face of WikiProject Television from underneath; it would be much less destructive for the contributors (and would generate much less destructive ill-will and mistrust in the community) if he joined with notable contributors who share his views on fiction guidelines, and together they approached these changes head-on, starting with the highest traffic articles, where everyone can be aware of the changes from the top down. --F.dolarhyde 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT is an official policy. WP:EPISODE is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following WP:FICT ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in no consensus or keep anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy. Tagging all nn episodes results in complaints about his behaviour at ANI. Going for the "small" shows first to evade major fan outcries (that would again outvote the policy) results in accuses of POINTy and biased behavior. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I'd say. Fans who really care about their TV shows should spend their time in establishing notability and create real world content, maybe write a good episode article, but not create excessive plot summaries. The redirects allow fan-editors to recreate articles with their notability asserted in the case they can. If I had more time and weren't that thin-skinned, I'd support the enforcement of WP:EPISODE much more than I already do. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"when other options have been exhausted"... Which any other option is even attempted? Yes that is right none. Mass redirection is unhelpful. The more productive way to deal with poor quality articles are through article improvement drives. How many have been attempted on the episode articles before the merge (not merge in actuality mass-redirectification)? I find it hard to swallow that all of the episodes of the 24 TV series is automatically non-notable. All movies are automatically notable even if they haven't even been produced yet, why are TV episodes that aired internationally for multiple seasons automatically "non-notable"? More people watched them than theater movies so it received a greater reception by simple logic. This mass redirectification based on how "lowly" fans are is disruptive. It is not in line with WP:FICT at all. -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: [[8]], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning.[9] Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John

Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks#Satanic_symbols page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.

'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page , which continued for some time afterwards.

I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider [10] this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--Mostargue 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy has quite a history.--Mostargue 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his tone. Also, WP:CIVIL states "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--Mostargue 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- WebHamster 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Wikipedia policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan#Climate_Change_.2F_Asian_remark page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, Daniel 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. Shot info 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Wikipedia, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Wikipedia campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Wikipedia. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John#Please_stop, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)

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

Page protected

The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, especially the lead, has been a difficult one, prone to edit wars and controversy. Currently, under the auspices of the chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel (3rd separate mediator, I should add), we are finally engaging in some meaningful and appropriate dialog at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, over the last day, Omegatron (talk · contribs) has been making substantial and substantive edits to the article, seemingly unilaterally changing a number of things including edits that strike directly at the heart of this mediation. Despite being informed of the mediation, his edits, and requested to join the mediation process, the user continues to make unilateral edits.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the accusations of WP:BLP issued were so severe, that a huge list of sources needed to be compiled. These were combined into a few reference numbers. Omegtron has declared interest in paring down those sources.

For those of us involved in editing this article for around two years now, and who are cognizant of the many discussions that required, nay demanded, the long list of edits and various other compromises, it is very difficult to see someone without that background come in and make sweeping changed against consensus, compromise, and mediation that has gone on for the better part of two years.

Furthermore, looking at the users contributions, it seems that there is a significant amount of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH being applied.

Can the article be returned to the structure under mediation, the references returned, and the aforementioned user enjoined from making such unilateral, non-consensus-based, source-removing edits while mediation is undergoing?

I believe it is not proper for me to do anything more than ask here, as I am deeply involved in the mediation process.

Thank you, -- Avi 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

My edits speak for themselves. I have done nothing but clean up formatting and add a few neutral bits. — Omegatron 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it an accident that you made controversial edits like this (adding "though the exact translation is disputed" to the lead) to a protected page? - Merzbow 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was protected (and don't know why it would be), but even so, what's controversial about that edit? — Omegatron 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I made that edit to meet concerns on the talk page (Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#transcripts and this). See Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Anti-Israel_statements, Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation for background. The topic itself is certainly controversial, but pointing out the fact that it's controversial in an article is just normal editing. — Omegatron 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the "substantial and substantive" edits I have "unilaterally" made to this article (the only edits I have ever made to this article, besides routine cleanup and formatting):

1. add "statement that was interpreted as" so as not to imply that the translation is undisputed
2. clarify who made the hostage claims
3. expand quotes about nuclear ambitions
4. add quote about Russia and US bombs being useless
5. expand homosexuals quote
6. change "that was interpreted' into "widely translated as" to emphasize the literal translation of the idiom
7. reword for neutrality, including Avi's concern(?) about the person being criticized and not just the statement, Sefringle's concern about making light of the "anti-Jew" quote, etc.

Judge for yourself. Avi seems to think that no edits can be made to the article while it is undergoing mediation, but I don't think this has any precedent. That mediation case has been ongoing since May(?), and we're certainly not going to lock down the whole article for months while we wait for them to make decisions.

From my perspective, my edits have been completely neutral and verifiable. (I haven't formed any real opinions on the guy, so it would be hard for me to edit in a biased manner. I'm just trying to fill out the incomplete parts of the article with things as I learn them.) If you disagree, by all means discuss it with me on the talk page and we'll try to work it out, like any other article. — Omegatron 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article protection was because a number of users were engaged in adding/removing parts of the lead in a repetative nature, and Riana protected the page because there wasn't much discussion going on parallel to it. The mediation has nothing to do with the protection (and the article isn't going to be "lock[ed] down for months while we wait for them to make decisions"), however the material under dispute is the same in both places. From a personal perspective, I invite you to join the discussion on the mediation page to try and reach a compromise - you seem to be very proactive in suggesting solutions, which is fantastic. Cheers, Daniel 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the mediation page, but I don't think there should be a prohibition against changing the article's intro in the meantime. It can always be updated when the mediation discussion comes to a decision on something better. In the meantime, it's not quite neutral. — Omegatron 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

overwriting your own images with watermarked versions

can somebody try and talk to Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs)? he is insisting on exactly that: overwriting his previously released unmarked images with inferior watermarked versions. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have let the user know of the relevant image policy, Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building. // Liftarn

I tried to reason with him, but he apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand. I'm deleting the watermarked images, leaving the clean versions uploaded on Commons. FCYTravis 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one reasoned with him or ever discussed what they were doing to his images BEFORE doing anything to or with them. You have his permission to delete all of his "watermarked" images from Wikipedia so that they are not available on Wikipedia anywhere. Motorrad-67 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving images to Commons is a standard, uncontroversial procedure, as it makes the images freely available across the entire Wikispace. I thank you for your previous contributions, and I am sorry that you no longer wish to contribute under our guidelines. FCYTravis 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he's reverting valid warnings and personally attacking people. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably best to just leave well enough alone; he's obviously upset at the moment and the warnings won't disappear from the history. Might be a good time to de-escalate. Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. He will be happy now when all his photos (listed below) are deleted from Wikipedia. ^{Motorrad-67 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)}

He isn't attacking anyone who doesn't richly deserve it. Motorrad-67 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{speedy delete|Subjected to repeated past interference without my consultation}}

Please delete all of the images I have contributed to Wiki. Here is the list: Motorrad-67 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bevel-gear.jpg
• Image:629.jpg|S&W Model 629
• Image:Octabarn.jpg|Octagonal barn
• Image:Barn-and-box.jpg|Octagonal barn and mailbox
• Image:Dual-saddles.jpg|Dual saddles
• Image:Dual-saddle.jpg|Dual saddle
• Image:Craven-panniers.jpg
• Image:Topcase.jpg
• Image:Weiss-800.jpg|Weiss
• Image:Scarlett-800.jpg|Scarlett
• Image:Iowa-800.jpg
• Image:Lucille-800.jpg
• Image:R32-percival.jpg|R32-percival
• Image:R68-700.jpg|R68-700
• Image:R68-opposed-cylinders.jpg
• Image:R68-vcover.jpg
• Image:Golden-arrows.jpg
• Image:Pace739.jpg|Pace trailer
• Image:Pace500.jpg|Pace trailer interior
• Image:Bogey-wheels.jpg
• Image:Cardinal-singing.jpg|Singing Cardinal
• Image:Pyrr-seedblock.jpg|Male Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Pyrr-juvenile.jpg|Female Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Cf-card.jpg|Compact flash card
• Image:R68-sidecar.jpg|R68 with sidecar
• Image:R32-front.jpg
• Image:Heated-handgrips.jpg|Heated handgrips
• Image:Cows-500.jpg|Cows
• Image:Feet-forward.jpg|helmetless Harley
• Image:Guzzidrive.jpg
• Image:Astronaut-in-space.jpg

The images in question have been freely licensed and accepted into the Wikimedia Commons. One may not revoke the granting of a free license. FCYTravis 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make clear the policy does not state that watermarked images are not permitted. Perhaps Wikipedia should attempt to work with photographers to continue to receive the quality images they have been. This is now the second instance in about 1 weeks time. The policy states images ideally should not be watermarked. However I do not see why letting him add a small identifying watermark would hurt the project anymore then losing yet another talented contributor. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If the policy isn't clear that we don't accept watermarked images, it should be clarified. Photographers can require that they be attributed by using either GFDL or a CC-BY license. We don't put credits on pictures in articles, however, either in text or via watermarks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not state it, I am not sure if people are misreading it, or if its wrong and needs clarifying. However its current incarnation says watermarks are allowed, however not optimal. Just to add perhaps the admin who dealt with the last situation would be better suited to handle this as they made a nice resolution with the photographer in question and resolved everything in an amicable fashion. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Watermarks are not allowed, apart from rare exceptions; the policy was just written poorly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, the policy pages determine what is allowed. If you are from WP:OFFICE, please let me know as you would be better aware. However if you are not, the policy page is what determines what is allowed, not your reading, or mine for that matter, of it. Since the page does not, and most likely has never, stated they are not permitted. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What a shock! WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS???? Seven, what is wrong with you? Why ever would any of you want to do that????? Motorrad-67 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "working with" anyone. If you require visible photo credit to be stamped on your images, then this is probably not the right project for you to contribute to. Professional printed reference works do not stamp names on photos - instead, they have a photo credit reference section. Why do you expect Wikipedia to be any different? FCYTravis 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the policy page in question does not say its not permitted, I am not sure what the issue is. Is it possible to have someone from the "office" or however it is referenced, chime in? --SevenOfDiamonds 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the "office" here. The user in question provided freely-licensed, un-stamped images to Wikipedia. He later attempted to replace these images with stamped versions. We are not obligated to accept these new, lower-quality uploads as replacements for the original photos, because the original free license is still valid. The original versions have all been placed in the Wikimedia Commons. If Motorrad-67 chooses to cease contributing over this matter, that is regrettable, and it is his right. However, he does not have the right to decide what freely-licensed material we use. FCYTravis 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Wikipedia community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Wikipedia leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider placing unsightly credit boxes on photos to be "a small technical issue?" Images with credits Photoshopped into them are inherently of lower quality than those without. The box detracts from the image and damages its free-content reusability. Individual Wikipedia editors cannot expect to have publicly-visible personal credit for their contributions stamped into the text of each page they edit, so why would we treat the contributions of individual photographers any differently? FCYTravis 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well hopefully people find a meaningful way to contribute above, however I tried to hopefully find a middle ground or resolution, however the policy page has changed since I last looked and that worries me greatly. This conversation based on policy is pointless if policy is changed at the drop of a hat. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Wikipedia is descriptive of current practice. In practice, we don't accept free images with watermarks; that's why the policy needed to be changed to correctly match our practice. We can discuss the policy its talk page here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history of the policy page, it turns out that until today it did say images may not have watermarks, until this edit: [11] — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven sez, "However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away." Seven is an unusually sensitive and perceptive man. I have been "pushed away" for sure. Thank you, Seven. All this could have been avoided had someone like Seven simply chose to communicate with me before going hog wild on my photos. Motorrad-67 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive here, let me suggest the following. Motorrad-67 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

This is not a formum for discussing policy changes. The right place for your proposal is Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, where it is also under discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obtain permission to transfer? Are you serious? The whole point of the GFDL and other libre-type liscenses is the right of the work to be used by anyone, so long as they pass those rights (and author history) on to other users. You released them under a free liscense, for the benefit of humanity. Be proud. And no, those proposed points run completely counter to the spirit of the 'pedia. -Parappathebagel 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, a thousand times no. Perhaps you should have read the disclaimer before you hit the "upload" button. It says clearly, "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." Once you hit the "upload" or "save page" button, you lose your rights to the content, and is now free to be used as according to the license. You do not have the right to retract the license, period. --71.141.117.207 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not! You are in no way losing your rights to the content by releasing it under the GFDL. Please stop repeating this falsehood, as it will only scare people away from contributing free content. All copyright on images released on the GFDL is retained. No, you are not losing rights, you are simply granting additional, nonrevocable rights on that image to the rest of humanity. One of those rights happens to be that the image can be reused, republished, and modified under the terms of the license agreement, which would include uploading the images to Commons (or any other compliant website) at any time, without notification or added permission beyond the original release under the GFDL. --198.200.171.235 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "losing your rights" may have been the wrong phrase, but the issue still stands: we in no way need to notify the photographer when his/her images are to be moved to Commons, as the image has been released under the GFDL, and for all purposes on Wikipedia, we operate within the allowances and confines of the GFDL unless there are other circumstances preventing such. Of course, I do not dismiss notification of photographer as a courtesy. --71.141.117.207 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deletion review

After careful consideration, I've deleted the user page of Deeceevoice because it shows unprovoked racism and offensive content that is in violation of the arbcom case about her. As with all controversial deletions, I list this ANI post regarding the review of the decision. For the non-admins, the userpage holds POV such as "This has resulted in both misinformation and disinformation; appalling subject matter deficits; and various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples." "...edit-warring editor, User: Stbalbach, openly and blatantly invited others to engage in tag-team edit warring, a favorite tactic on Wikipedia to censor the writings of other editors who don't toe the party line of a numerically superior editorial faction." "Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous." "In short, Wikipedia is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias." If an administrator has a problem with the deletion, I urge you to explain the problem, or in worst scenario, undelete. Thanks. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial? This is a pretty straight-forward case. I would have nuked it on sight. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This deletion was uncalled for. It boils down to deleting her userpage because she criticized Wikipedia? Are we really that Iron Curtain around here? Complaints of systemic bias are very serious and should not be hushed up like this. The page should be undeleted immediately. Really, this just boggles my mind . . . . — Brian (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you judge this for yourself Brian. "The same dynamic was at work on an article about Black people, where essentially a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are. Contributions by black editors have been reverted (deleted) summarily and repeatedly -- wholesale -- including corrections of grammar, fact and capitalization. And one of these very same offending editors had the gall to visit my user page to tell me to stop editing, because my edits were "not helping."" She is blatantly stating that other editors are racist. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to follow up her accusation with the evidence that she's wrong? ---- WebHamster 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in your quote do I see any "blatant" accusations of "racism". And what if her report there is true? Isn't this something she has a right to be angry about? Again, silencing someone in their userspace because you disagree with their opinion is not something I want to see administrators doing. — Brian (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She speaks her mind. The last time I looked at her user page, it was angry. I agreed with some of it, I disagreed with some of it, I thought it was harsh about Wikipedia. I didn't think it was offensive. I shan't bother to look at the page now, as you considerately supply what you seem to claim is a particularly offensive nugget. I think it's about articles such as this one, and my impression is that it's a reasonable interpretation of the facts, phrased with sufficient politeness. ¶ If you're so upset by this user page, take it to MfD. (It wouldn't be the first time.) -- Hoary 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is ironically racist in itself. She is specifically making references to "white males" editing this place (soapboxing). Then there is rude and obnoxious commentary on User:Stbalbach which is certainly soapboxing. I am not commenting on the truthfulness of DCV's comments on the particular user, but choosing "not to believe everything I see in print", since I have not looked into that matter. Those comments are against the very foundations Wikipedia is based on. We cannot condone a hostile atmosphere for users to work on Wikipedia, and that includes contributors of every ethnicity, race, colour, religion. It is not the criticism of Wikipedia that is objectionable, but her whole-sale characterisation of "white people" as essentially racist is provocative. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Provocative proposition or not, white people are indeed generally racist (as are black people) to some degree; try this, and/or read the second section of the third chapter of Gladwell's book Blink. You're likely to find that, no matter what color you happen to be, you're racist (most people find that they are, and I'm among them). Whether or not it's a provocative insight, it's a salutary and depressing one. -- Hoary 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are." I read that as racism. She is guessing the race of the user, dependent on the edits he/she makes. Also when she accuses other users racist, it assumes no good faith at all and is borderline on personal attack. No matter how deserving the users may be, putting a comment on her userpage calling other people racists is not on. I am not familiar with this issue on Black people, but am sure that the comments will be hurtful to whom it was addressed to. Also, userpages are not to be used as soapboxes. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)r

It was one big soapbox for a number of different things, so good work in deleting it. The text had no purpose on wikipedia. Even the top was just a big advert for charities. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you there. Her commentary is entirely divisive and inflammatory. According to her, there are only two categories of users: blacks and non-blacks which is creating an uncomfortable environment for other Wikipedians. "We are not Republicans or Democrats on Wikipedia, we are just Wikipedians" — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly comment on the inappropriateness of the banner on the top stating, "Justice for the Jena Six![12][13]" If you have a quick look at what the article Jena Six is about, it is massively POV coupled with the links towards activism and donations. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a long soapbox rant, including a long email by a banned user, which is a violation of WP:BAN. This version was correctly deleted, user can recreate a userpage without these problems anytime. Fram 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't? I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to reading about how a demand for justice is a no-no in our troubled times. I'd have thought that everybody deserves justice, but then I'm old fashioned I suppose. -- Hoary 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read it on a weblog. For now, please read what Wikipedia is not. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And you can read WP:CSB. Oh, and where's the policy page that says that dissenting opinions on Wikipedia can be summarily squelched? — Brian (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly was that page assisting us in "countering systematic bias"? It was a provocative piece of commentary and nothing more than that. The only solution which seemed discernible from it to protect Wikipedia from systematic bias was to get rid of the racists (which quintessentially includes all the whites and some of the non-blacks). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nick is absolutely right. Nor are we Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists or any other religion. No, we are Wikipedians. Great first step, now let's see this expanded to the countless other user pages that serve no other purpose than to divide when we are suppossed to collaborate. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't you just edit the page instead of deleting it? I propose to restore the page and replace it with "In short, Wikipedia is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias.", a clearly completely inoffensive statement. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that part of the userpage that's the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That part of the userpage is not a problem. Criticising Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Did you happen to read most of the page and what was the locus of the commentary? That systematic bias exist because white people are editing Wikipedia. You don't need to restore the whole page just to add these lines, I can say, you can go ahead and add those lines on her page, if you want. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not very interested in editing other people's userspace, especially if those people have been productive editors in the past. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not condone actions to encourage productivity of one user at the cost of the productivity of other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, I have no problems with that. The racism comments, however, have to go. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have just removed those and left the rest of the page alone. See also the MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deeceevoice closed just a week ago. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Closed earlier than it should have. I don't necessarily agree with those opining on the MfD discussion, assuming that the page was similar to what it was, just before it got deleted. Restoring the page, but removing the offensive commentary is OK with me. Who's gonna volunteer? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The links can go as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here... Removal will be enough. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) Given the debate here and that the only votes opinions expressed at the (short) MfD were 'keep' by 2 admins, it is clear this discussion belongs at MfD. R. Baley 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote, and the page can certainly go for deletion review, but definitely not MfD because that means those comments stay there for an additional number of 5 more days. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the purportedly offensive content should be sufficient. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored with all the soapboxing rubbish removed. I don't see why that wasn't done in the first place. Neil ム 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I did not want this to be restored in the first place. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens if you restore the content. Some guy reverts, and we're in a worse position than at the beginning. I'm not going to revert war this, but that revert doesn't reflect consensus in anyway whatsoever. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the next person that thinks reverting to include such content on Wikipedia is a good idea will get blocked. Neil ム 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(personal attack by User:F Mita removed)

Comment Simply from the amount of debate arising from the deletion regarding the interpretation of some of the language on the userpage I should think it obvious that the content was disruptive. There is nothing that doesn't allow the user to re-edit it in a fashion that both illustrates their concerns and does not contain inflammatory phrases and terms. LessHeard vanU

The deletion was in breach of Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and of Wikipedia:Civility. If you've a problem, raise it with the user first. If you disagree with their personal opinions, discuss them and don't censor them. It's a very odd idea that setting out perceived problems of racism at Wikipedia should be banned because you think that even discussing it is racist. Having read the comments, in my opinion they're within the latitude allowed on a user page. I'm not going to edit war on her page, but even removing bits then inviting discussion is a breach of civility and in my opinion these bits should be restored and the procedure set out at Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content until there has been followed, allowing time for a proper community discussion. .. dave souza, talk 12:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) grmr edit dave souza, talk 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, if you're going to quote Wikipedia:User pages, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. No polemics. Neil ム

The community owns the pages not the user. True, latitude is offered to users when it comes to their user space, but they have to use them sensitively, while furthering the goals of the project and not to post agendas against other user's colour and ethnicity. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. DCV has been sanctioned by the ArbCom before for the same very reason. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm defending Deeceevoice, since I believe I have fought with and strongly disagreed with her before, and am quite possibly one of the editors she would remove comments from unread with a snarky edit comment if I commented on her talk page... but I also believe strongly in the use of user space by an editor to explain where he/she is coming from, even if some of that may offend the thin-skinned. I think Wikipedia these days is showing an extreme intolerance of criticism that is unbecoming of an information resource; the big BADSITES flap is a perfect example, but not the only one. This warning, treating me as if I was vandalizing her page rather than reverting what I saw as vandalism (something I'll do even on behalf of my enemies just as much as my friends) seems highly uncalled for. *Dan T.* 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think removing offensive content and soapboxing tirades from Wikipedia is "vandalism"? Wikipedia is not an information resource. It is an encyclopaedia. If something does not help us build a better encyclopaedia, it probably should not be here. If it actively hurts the cause of building a better encyclopaedia, it definitely should not be here. A 10kb rant about how Wikipedia is biased against black people does not help Wikipedia. Wikipedia should tolerate no criticism, of itself or of anywhere else, other than relevant and referenced criticism within its articles. WP:RPA says "remove person attacks" - explain to me how the removed content on Deeceevoice's user page was anything but a series of personal attacks. Neil ム 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious, Neil? Look at my user page. Everything you see under the heading "Early American popular culture" (and quite a few articles under "Miscellaneous") — everything — is there as a direct result of Deeceevoice's criticism. I wrote the earliest form of the minstrel show article, and she criticized it, soundly, and in her characteristic fashion. Rather than hide my tail between my legs and complain that she was being "divisive" and "incivil" (or deleting her comments as such), I took them seriously and, you know what? I used them to make the encyclopedia better. I am really troubled by this attitude that no one can criticize Wikipedia. I am really, really troubled by this. Are we really that thin-skinned? Are we really that afraid of a revolution by the proletariat? This whole discussion is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. — Brian (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You do know that you restored a very long post of a banned user in "reverting the vandalism"? Fram 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please check what you're talking about. It is not the criticism against Wikipedia that was perceived as offensive by a large number of editors (even before this incident), but the blanket accusation that "whites" are editing this encyclopedia, hence Wikipedia is biased. Things can be said and done in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I also explain that I deleted what I thought were comments of racism. I have nothing against criticism of Wikipedia. She can say whatever she likes about "where she is coming from", but only if it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia or be so much in excess that it is more of a soapbox... The userspace in which you reverted to violates both. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly worried about what I see on User pages. I have been somewhat surprised over the months to see people edit out content on other people's user pages. Things like a counter showing the length of time since the US invasion of Iraq were deemed inappropriate, but other user pages containing commercial advertisements are allowed to stand.

However, I have found deeceevoice to be a particularly disruptive and uncooperative editor. When I was editing with her, I did not know the full range of WP administrative tools and remedies for dealing with difficult editors like herself, or I would have called for one or more actions to be used against her. The problem is not her user page with some bitter complaints. It is how she drives away good editors and good content.

On the black people page, she would not agree to any other definition of what a black person was, from anyone else. This included people of color from Africa, or India. She had her own personal idea and agenda. Of the dozens of definitions considered, and justified with citations, she maintained that only her definition was correct. She rejected peer-reviewed scientific references in favor of pseudoscience and her own personal assertions. If you disagreed with her, you were branded as racist. She even refused to accept that there was disagreement among the definitions. She was angry and pushy and insulting and disruptive, and probably used sock puppets and meat puppets to get her way.--Filll 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposing taking appropriate action against her regarding things she does elsewhere in the project, but I'm in favor of at least letting her have her own user page as "rant space" if that's what she wants. *Dan T.* 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I use some of these as rant spaces. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of a bunch of admins telling an editor they are a racist for pointing out that others are racist. I guess this would have left us to pre-civil rights movement days. The white people who wanted to maintain racial inequity could have just called the blacks racists for calling the whites racist. Does anyone care to investigate the situation they described, or is everyone just upset their race has been slandered, since no white people are racists. They also did not call all white people racists, they called certain ones. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but who called Deeceevoice (or her userpage) racist? It is an excessive rant (violating not a soapbox), it contains pesonal attacks, and it contains a long post by a banned user (not really a very good idea either). These are the reasons I have seen for deleting the page (or removing most of it). I don't care about the race or colour of any of the people involved, I mainly support the rights of blue people anyway. Fram 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

People here in this very section are stating they made racist remarks by pointing out what might be racists on Wikipedia. Just to note it seems if I am reading correctly, they never said such a thing, eluded, but did not state. I also like smurfs. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• El C has just reverted Neil's edits to the page in question. This now looks a bit like wheel warring... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I protected the page. That means that those who edit warred over it, even if they are admins, do not get to continue the revert war. Thx. El_C 14:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• You should not have protected the page in the first place - there was no edit war. Protection is not a whacking stick to be used to get your own way in a content dispute. El_C, I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Neil ム 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even if that was the case, you should not have reverted a protected page; you should not have unprotected. It looked like a revert war (and I still am not sure it wasn't), so I protected. You still used your admin tools to get your way. That's fine, I want nothing to do with this anymore, or with you. El_C 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She has been subject to racist attacks since she joined the project (does anyone remember User:Wareware?) After 3 years of this crap, isn't it getting kinda old? Guettarda 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Guettarda. She has had to endure racist attacks for a very long time and this new circus appears orchestrated with the sole aim of humiliating her further. The offensive statement, I suppose, was her opinion that "Wikipedia is skewed toward a white, male, under-50 demographic""?! Man, that's rough and hurtful for all those who feel unfairly targeted (which would probably be about 70-75 percent of the people in this thread here). No wonder her user space needs to be erased from the project, especially when she said that other hurtful thing, namely the this demographic has "various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples". Will I too be censored if I let you all know that I agree with her estimate about the systematic bias and that the actions against her user page appears to prove her point? Pia 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that the userpage appears to be having the desired effect, judging by the jousting that's going on up above and elsewhere. Can't we all come to our senses and find something better to do than talking about a userpage ? Nick 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like talking about talking about a user page? Neil ム 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To those who found the page to be polemical: you saw it as being so because it touched a raw nerve and you were offended. However, the beauty of truly free speech is that many will disagree and some will be offended. Oh well, that's life. DeeCee is entitled to her opinion, and having it on her user page is her choice. While I may not agree in totality with her opinion, I'll defend her right to have it. Her other activities and her behaviour on WP are completely separate issues, and should not have been raised here.

Additionally, as I raised somewhere and somewhen else, "polemical" is a subjective term. Where is the boundary drawn? When does something move from being a statement of principle to a polemic screed. When it upsets Bob? When it upsets Terri? When it upsets Mark? I've seen user pages containing statements with which I strongly disagreed, but I'll be damned if I want them banned, bowdlerised, censored or suppressed. If you don't like DeeCee's user page, stay away from it. (just pretend it's a TV and you have a remote to change the channel so you don't have to watch something that upsets, deranges, or unsettles you). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this could have been avoided by talking to her first? She might have been willing to remove it herself if asked. Some of the material that was objected to has been there for 10 months. A couple of days more wouldn't have hurt. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given this comment "Gee, Animum. Thanks for giving me permission to edit my own freaking user page. The issue you need to consider is what gives you the right to do so? Get a life. Hands off my user page." I highly doubt the user will change anything on the userpage when asked. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the rules appear to allow you to delete userpage content in situations like this, please use some common-sense discretion. I used to have a section on my user page that I openly titled "Soapbox" [14]. I'm sure many people saw it, since it was there for awhile and I've been involved in some controversial debates since I added it. But no one who saw it deleted it. After I felt that I had made my point I removed it myself, having blown off some steam, I guess. Anyway, our userpages allow us to vent and express ourselves to some degree. Again, although the rules may or may not allow such expression, please don't be so thin-skinned in these situations. If you don't like what you read, let it go for a few days so you can consider what you're going to do or not do about it unemotionally. Just my two cents on the matter. Cla68 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gross misuse of blocking

Obviously there was something suspicious with the account with the blatant vandalism [15] and a questionable username. He can create a new account if he wishes right now. Leave it be. — Moe ε 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moe, quit trying to censor the discussion on this thread. It is unacceptable to put an "archive page" before this is resolved, with the final (obviously against AGF) words of "obviously there was something suspicious", then list a diff that is taken completely out of context. It was clearly experimentation. Notice how that diff you pointed out was in the same paragraph as "flight rape". Technically, the edits were sourced and correct.

I looked at the editors page, and noticed this edit. This is good faith if I've ever seen it. I request that the blocking admin and page protecting admin personally welcome and apologize for the misunderstanding. Additionally, I request that their username be unblocked so they can contribute according to the intent they listed on their page.

This is common sense. The name is not especially belittling to anyone, and there was no need to be so quick to pull the trigger with blocking this. If anyone here wants to start a discussion for consensus regarding if the username should be blocked, per Wikipedia username blocking policy, and the consensus decided it should be blocked (although I find that highly unlikely), then it will be blocked. In the mean time, it should not be blocked as it is not a blatant case of an attack username. 68.143.88.2 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I was reviewing the deletion log and noticed this unfortunate victim of over zealous adminship. Obviously the rules of being nice and assume good faith toward newbies don't apply to all adimins? This user wasn't even warned. He made a couple of edits in the sandbox, then edited some articles with clear experimentation (which he self-reverted by the way) and was blocked because of his username and vandalism. Not 1 warning! No offers of help. They didn't even know why they were getting blocked. I can't find anything in the username policy that suggests this name was a blatantly inappropriate one, and he should have been asked politely to change his username.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to register on Wikipedia. Someone needs to make the blocking admin understand that new users are not expendable. 68.143.88.2 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I notified DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) and C.Fred (talk · contribs) on their talk pages. I share 68.'s concerns about these sorts of blocks, and request that the user's talk page be unprotected and that they be unblocked. I personally volunteer to walk Wikitarded (talk · contribs) though their first edits and get them oriented around the place. Also, I will assist them with changing their username, if consensus shows it to be necessary; personally, I don't think it is. ➪HiDrNick! 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An inappropriate username (clearly a play on the word retarded) and a vandalism only account [16], [17]. Seems a perfectly valid block to me. If you want to contribute, I recommend a less inflammatory username and constructive edits. WjBscribe 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Username blocks don't require warnings. The block was timestamped at 22:08; the user's "why am I blocked" message came in at 22:11. The only thing missing was an explanation of the block--which, rightfully, should have been made in that 2-3 minute interval. I started to ask whether the block should be redone as a softblock to allow creation of a new account; when I saw vandalism in the edit history, I withdrew that question of the blocking admin.

I have no objection to this user creating a new, better named account and immediately editing on their merry way. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to grant a new, better-named account and a hand-holding. The edits were... not useful, but I'm also willing to grant that they weren't necessarily vandalism. DS 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your accusation that this is vandalism. This is clearly experimentation. Read what article it was put into and where; it is an article about the Irish Hunger Strike. Also, the article about the duck sexual behavior is...in fact...referred to in the very same article as "rape flight". I see no obvious reason to suspect this is vandalism. What I do see is a lazy group of admins who would rather just block other then attempt communication with a newly registered user. Additionally, a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked. This user had no interaction from any Wikipedian both editor nor admin alike and was simply blocked on the spot. Furthermore, his username, according to the policy is not a clear cut case of inappropriateness. It clearly states that, "boarderline usernames need to be discussed, and if consensus is reached that a change is needed, the user should be asked to change".

That editor probably will never come back. This was clearly handled very poorly.

Additionally, the user admitted his username was a play on words. From the way it sound to me it was connotation that he was "new" and reflecting his views toward himself. 68.143.88.2 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have a hard time seeing if he does come back or not is someone doesn't make with the unblocking and unprotecting already. Obviously it was handled poorly to begin with, but let's fix it now if we can, and then worry about how to prevent this kind of thing in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is unprotected. It was my call on the protection, so I've reconsidered my own action. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the username is in one of the "big five" categories of unacceptable usernames, as it's offensive: "Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked." - While it is recommended (though not standard procedure for obvious username violations), it states: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking." And it also states that: "some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked: ... accounts with inappropriate usernames" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs)

Postmortem

I'm distressed to see so many administrators saying that this kind of block is appropriate. If it fit the letter of the policy is irrelevant, it clearly does not go along with the spirit of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Obviously usernames like "JimboSucksCocks6969" should be blocked on sight, but what good are you really doing Wikipedia in the long run to drop in banhammer on borderline cases making test edits without so much as a polite word on the talk page? Let's everyone try to be more cautious and welcoming in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was fine, the username policy is clear on this. More communication may have helped. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No it was not. I don't think that "Wikitarded" is a "username that refers to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." At worst, it's self-sarcastic, and it doesn't display any sign of attention to derogate others. And the recent incident with "shoot first" attitude led to WP:USERNAME policy change, which now states that "In borderline cases, it should not be necessary to immediately block the username but rather to attempt to discuss the problem with the user."
In sum, I don't think we lost a valuable contributor: Wikitarted was experimenting and playing, and the result was borderline vandalism, but apparently in good faith. But I'm not happy with the "shoot first" approach. Duja► 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those blocking should stop and think first. And they should be prepared to unblock and apologise in the spirit of the policy, instead of tenaciously defending the letter of the policy. Even better, they should discuss before blocking. Carcharoth 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block itself, but I'm puzzled as to why the talk page was protected. -Chunky Rice 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about the page protection and the block. I notice admins love to take random sentences of pure policy (out of context I might add) to justify poor judgment. I don't understand why one can't simply apologize -- both blocking and page protecting admins were in the wrong on this. Additionally, I would like to make a page for consensus on the username Wikitarded. I personally do not feel it is appropriate to classify this as a "ban on sight username" as it is clearly not an "attach username", as defined by the username policy (by the way, that was a perfect example of using a policy sentence in context; which is the essence of Wikipedia). I don't even think it's a bad username (I've seen worse on here get by without a word). Look at the connotations of Wikitarded. This entire username symbolizes the users feelings of inadequacy towards not only his understanding of wiki's, but even emphasizes how dismal his experience is with the word "tarded". It's not directed to others in anyway. It's not "yourretarded", or "retardkiller", or "OMGuRetard", or anything like those name. Perhaps you should look at more than the general definition of the word "retarded" and "medical". This thinking is fundamentally flawed. One must take into account the cultural significance regarding the use of the word. The word "retarded" is used more often by demonstrated something that has been impeded or slow moving, (hence, slow mind), or a casual term used to describe a stupid action, "dude, ahhh man, that was retarded". My point is, I believe if this over zealous admins have a problem with "Wikitarded", they'd also have a problem with "Wikiblind (medical condition--blind), Wikideaf (medical condition--deaf), Wikimute (medical condition--mute), Wikicrazy (medical condition--psychosis), Wikiinsomniac (medical condition--insomnia), Wikisniper (act of violence--attack anme), Netsniper (act of violence--attack name), etc. Notice how ridiculous it seems now? Wikitarded, wow, big deal. I'm willing to bet if we had a vote on this username in regards to being personally offensive toward any one person, the majority of editors would answer they are not personally offended. If more admins and editors alike would just use some common sense and avoid these personal vendettas to administer the supreme rule of Wikipeida policy to it's very definition, and not get their panties in a wad about really insignificant things, WP:ANI would be a much, much shorter page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.88.2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You were uncivil by linking to a page with an offensive name. Please retract that or you will be blocked. No, rather, I'll block you straight away.</sarcasm> Duja► 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I request that wikitarded's username be unblocked so they may contribute to this ANI discussion, and contribute to the encyclopedia as they intended to here. I do not want one of the people involved in this discussion to make the final decision. Their needs to be something of a consensus regarding if the name should be blocked. Until that discussion is over, the name should be unblocked ASAP.

I intend to request a WP:RFCN if this can not be resolved with this ANI discussion (I'm hoping it can). 68.143.88.2 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are also welcome to request a name change. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haizum and Blackwater USA

User:Haizum has blown a gasket overnight over what he feels is POV in the Blackwater USA entry, which is currently featured on the front page, and keeps adding a POV tag and making uncivil remarks on the talk page. Can someone look into this? --Pleasantville 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See also his edit summaries for Blackwater USA arms smuggling. --Pleasantville 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome it. My POV tags were clearly explained - I even made a point of noting that they were explained on the talk page. The evidence will show that Pleasantville deliberately ignored my supported concerns with unsupported reversions. Again, I welcome it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You objected to factual, verified information about the company and its executives as being "irrelevant." That was all your argument -- "it's not relevant." The facts in question were: 1. CEO interned at the WH during Bush 41. 2. VP Black volunteers for the Mitt Romney campaign. I asked you repeatedly to substantiate your opinion, by quoting WP policy for example, which you never did. Instead you insulted me, calling me "misogynistic" for some reason that escapes me (the discussion hasn't involved talking about woman even once). Basically, not once have you contributed anything but personal opinions about sources or other editors' bias. Niczar 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This was in the main Blackwater USA article, not the weap smuggling article. Niczar 08:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial volley on Blackwater USA arms smuggling may be misthought, though... there is only going to be largely "negative" news related to this, as it's not exactly a happy topic for Blackwater or their supporters, given the subject matter and Congressional investigation, and Congressional investigation of confirmed cover-up attempts. It's rather unfortunate, but there isn't any positive news to offset the allegations besides Blackwater calling them "baseless". On others, I'm curious how statements from Blackwater employees aren't credible? I'm sure Pleasantville will agree with me that we just want these articles to be as fully detailed and sourced as possible

I'm happy to work with you, as I hope you are with us. I saw you have been blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Haizum eleven times in your career for aggressive editing, so I want to help keep things calm. Let's work together. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm happy to work with you, but let's look at your block history. You don't agree with me? Let's look at your block history. You won't go along with the other editors? Let's look at your block history." Hardly civil if I say so myself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing by User:Haizum

Would an admin mind reviewing this? I don't know how this person is being helpful unfortunately and he seems to be attacking the editors.

"I reject your response. The references are coming overwhelmingly from left-leaning media sources (generally accepted as being so), and that is the fault of the editors of this article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[18]

But we only have those sources to work with, which he won't accept. Then,

"...coming from the one that's been launching misogynistic insults and this entire time. Why don't you tell me how I'm being "emotional" again? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[19]

And,

"A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[20]

I'm not sure how to approach this given his block history and hurling insults. Its not a content dispute, really, since he's not adding or removing any, just railing against the fact that all RS around Blackwater USA tend to be negative and how no one will allow a conservative article to be built. Or something. I'm not sure. Please help. He has been on ANI before. • Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About his block log for nearly every block except the most recent he was later unblocked. Besides this is a content dispute anyways. 65.102.7.201 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The unblocks were to extend blocks? I see blocks for "abusive emails", "user repeateadly assumed bad faith and was uncivil on several talk pages", "particularly venomous email I recieved", "abusive emails", "Massive incivility and edit warring on Laura Ingraham", "personal attacks", and "repeat offender" with blocks of 5 to 8 days. How is this a content dispute? He is just railing against editors. • Lawrence Cohen 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's debate the content of my block log. It's soooo relevant. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented in the hopes of calming it down. Not optimistic, though. --Haemo 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt to silence my concerns. An article as been written with primarily left-wing sources. I make note of it, and because Lawrence Cohen can't defend it, an ANI is launched. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to defend? There is praise on the talk page for the balance and detail of the article, and all the sources are major notable news organizations or Government reports. As mentioned on the Talk page, feel free to add any "conservative" sources if you're concerned, or I will be happy to add them for you if you find them. Were you able to find any?

My concern that led to my adding to this report (which was begun by another editor, not me) was that your criticisms were hostile ad hominem attacks on other editors, no matter how we tried to deal with your concerns. You have done nothing on the articles besides accuse "liberal media" (paraphrase) of attacking Blackwater, enabled by Wikipedia editors. • Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and trying to eternally damn me because of a block history is the biggest ad hominem of all. Maybe I should create an ANI report. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that this is not the first time you have done this, and had been blocked before for emails harassing admins (unproductive attacks on editors, as this was devolving into). You were willing to be cooperative and civil on the arms smuggling page, but then afterwards just starting swinging wildly at all of us. • Lawrence Cohen 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I just want to detach from this editor on ANI here, and ask that if he has something to contribute to the articles in question, to do so, but to stop with attacks and rhetoric. It's not helping anything and making what was a completely civil group of editors completely wound up for no reason beyond damning the "liberals". If not, I ask that he leave the articles alone as it's not helping anything. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I would like accusations of ad hominem attacks to be backed up with evidence. Simply saying that I'm attacking an editor doesn't make it so. Franking, launching a fruitless ANI (this being the 2nd one surrounding this article) filled with comments taken out of context, false accusations, is the only ad hominem I currently see.........Oh, I suppose I'm acting in bad faith now? I must accept these accusations as true, otherwise in claiming they are false, I'm acting in bad faith? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that the more I comment on this false ANI, the more I screw myself by "being combative" That's fine. At least I'll have my dignity. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My feeling about the Haizum situation is that this is a matter for admins to deal with — or not. I have nothing further to say to him. I have already said to him what I have to say about his behavior. --Pleasantville 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am done as well, this is for admins. He's still (check Blackwater USA talk) just railing still. I have asked him to actually edit the article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you've been launching common misogynistic insults from the start. I don't know how to be any more clear. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This is pure comedy. Probably the first time an international definition is not being used in a Wikipedia article, simply because the subjective definition makes the company look more eeeevil. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) You just claimed I attacked you when I didn't. Stop harassing me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So repeating the phrase "ad hominem attacks" is supposed to turn my concerns into ad hominem attacks? Oops, did I just ad hominem attack you? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)' Please do something. Niczar 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've given this user a final warning about his behavior. His conduct on this page, and the page in question is clearly crossing a line. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.54.56.198

User talk:68.54.56.198 is personally attacking me and an admin on his talkpage. I tried to get the page semi'd, but it was declined because the admin there said he didn't see how it violated WP:NPA. User in question called User:Haemo a "damned fool" and labelled me as a page owner. USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and offensive comments removed from their talk page. --Ben^chat 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. To be completely fair, that might not have been the same person. IP addresses change hands regularly, and suddenly discovering you're blocked for something you didn't do is not necessarily conducive to civility. —Random832 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I read the page - he did NOT claim he didn't touch the page, he claimed he didn't add anything new (i.e. only reverted removals of stuff that was not originally inserted by him). This isn't spamming, it's a content dispute, he should only have been blocked for 3RR (if he did, in fact, violate 3RR, and in which case that should have been spelled out.) —Random832 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't add anything to the page (First person shooter)." That is dishonest as they did add about 20 spam links tot the page. They also were blocked for 3RR, that notice was removed somehow. The fact that they mentioned me and the declining admin by name, and the way the initial unblock request [21] was worded, makes me think it was the same person. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He claims he didn't add them. There is a legitimate argument (one I do not personally agree with, but that is reasonable enough that I can believe he sincerely holds that opinion) to be made that reinsertion is not the same thing as addition. That may not have been clear from his claim, but it was certainly clear from my explanation. There is a difference between "He added these links, that were never on the page before" and "He reinserted these links that had been on the page forever before being removed a weekmonth ago", and, regardless of how worthless the links are, he perceived your claims an accusation of the former, and correctly defended himself against that accusation. I'm willing to AGF and suppose you either didn't realize he meant that (though the way you rephrased "didn't add anything" to "didn't touch the page" seems like you were trying to mislead) or didn't realize the links HAD been there in the past, added by other editors. Are you willing to AGF and accept that by "did not add them" he means he was not the one who first put them in the article? —Random832 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Boricuaeddie / lots of bots.

Resolved

both user and bots indef blocked --slakr^\ talk / 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, User:Boricuaeddie is currently creating lots of suspicious-looking bots. --slakr^\ talk / 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

... and it now appears they're vandalizing random rfas. --slakr^\ talk / 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very curious. I don't think I've ever had dealings with Boricuaeddie (now renamed User:Agüeybaná, according to this), but he appears to have been a productive editor in the past. Could these bots possibly be the result of a compromised account?

More relevant to many editors who have been renamed: is it possible for someone to usurp the prior name for malicious purposes? If so, perhaps protection of former account names is in order.

Thanks. --Kyoko 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people should recreate former accounts after being renamed if there is a danger of impersonation. WjBscribe 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this notice regarding what happened with the name yesterday. A vandal somehow re-created the name, and should be blocked now, but if someone could get that name back to Aguey I'm sure he'd appreciate it. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but that should really be achieved by technical means. I don't see the reason why should we allow old accounts to be reused; that could only lead to ugly impersonation incident. Similar thing already happened to another user I know (I can't sort out the logs at the moment to demonstrate it). Bugzilla, anyone? Duja► 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That part, I don't understand either. Nor can I explain how the vandal is even able to create accounts, when the Boricuaeddie account was blocked on the 2nd. I'm sure someone with more insight into the inner workings can figure it out, but it seems quite odd to me, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. I was User:Pedro1999a and that now just redirects to existing name. So I assume no-one could usurp that account, and indeed my older one which was (more worringly) my RL name? I'm probably being thick here..... Pedro :  Chat  14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You assume wrongly. Now there is User:Pedro1999a, and I consider the feature a serious security breach. Now I'm in possesion of your old identity—you're pwned :-). Of course, as a matter of courtesy, I'll block it forever. Duja► 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) was not blocked with account creation disabled. I've corrected this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Omigosh Duja, that's pretty funny (in a scary, how could that be, kind of way). Definitely something that should be looked into, I'd think. And I'd suggest that anyone who renamed go and create their old account again (or have an admin do it) to avoid this sort of thing. Poor Agüeybaná :( I hope nobody thinks he was doing this. (And ahhhh that makes sense SQL. Still the bottom line is the names are there for the taking, scary) ^Ariel♥Gold 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was him, but, I figured either his old account was compromised, or, he was being impersonated... Shot him an e-mail this morning to let him know :) ArielGold brings up a good point, that even I didn't think of until recently... If you're renamed... you need to create your old account again! :) (And, if you can't, we're always happy to help at WP:ACC...) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for that to be part of the procedure for the renaming, so the admin does it immediately after renaming your account?  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope that's what is decided, as this is pretty disturbing. I mean, a vandal creating the account is easily dealt with like this one was, but imagine if an innocent user ends up with someone's "released" username out of coincidence, and does a lot of editing under the name, and people think it is the other person not realizing they've renamed? I mean, it seems like it should definitely be addressed in some way, either through tech modifications ("locking" the account name after re-naming/moving) or by adding in that step as part of the renaming process, to create the old username again. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Don't forget admins can't rename accounts, that requires a bureaucrat - who I suspect will say they already have enough to do without having to recreate accounts as well. I must say I am surprised users haven't been doing this themselves - but I guess what seems obvious to me as someone involved in organising the rename pages may not be obvious to everyone. I've added a note at WP:CHU advising people to recreate accounts [22]. WjBscribe 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent thing to add, WJBscribe, thanks. I hope that will help for future folks. And yes, bureaucrats are the ones to rename users, so perhaps they would not want to deal with re-creation, I'm sure they have tons of things to do. At least this way, the information is out there until (if) it is fixed. I'd have to say though, that the average user who was renamed, probably would not even consider this as something that happened during the re-naming, since the userpage and talk pages redirect. It makes it appear that the username is still in existence. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This might prove interesting and/or relevant... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and modified WJBscribe's note further, to stress that even though redirects are created in the renaming process, the old account can be taken: 1. I had assumed that simply having the redirects would prevent impersonation, but this incident has taught me otherwise. --Kyoko 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooookkkkkkkk...... Weird. Just for the record, this was not done by me. Also, I don't entirely agree with the recreation of previous usernames. Part of why I changed my name was so that others could enjoy my previous one. Unfortunately, it didn't work out as expected :-) Thank you all for your help. --Agüeybaná 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to address this issue at the Village Pump here. ~Eliz81^(C) 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kimbell2.* (and variants)

Over the last few days, a number of accounts with the same user name format were created. So far I can see:

• User:Kimbell4.MichaelL
• User:Kimbell2.emelyh
• User:Kimbell4Zoobia
• User:Kimbell2.gina
• User:Kimbell2.JoelL
• User:Kimbell2.JiannaG
• User:Kimbell2.CobyA
• User:Kimbell2.deysia
• User:Kimbell2.AnmolS
• User:Kimbell4.katherinec
• User:Kimbell2.chelseas
• User:Kimbell2.YancyM
• User:Kimbell2. anaa
• User:Kimbell2.KathyG
• User:Kimbell2.geraldc‎
• User:Kimbell2.shanellen‎

A few of these were posted to WP:AIV, but I'm not convinced these are either vandalism or sockpuppets. The standardized user names may indicate a school project. Has anybody heard about this?

I think we should hold off on puppetry blocks until at least we get a checkuser done and perhaps call the school to confirm if this is a project or not. Caknuck 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a high school class to me. One says "Crowded in the hallways of Brentwood High" on his or her user page. --Pleasantville 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser be necessary? They're clearly related and not trying to hide the fact. Folks going to this level of transparency shouldn't be blocked unless any main space nonsense starts occuring. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a teacher named Kimbell at Brentwood High in Brentwood, NY: See http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/new_york/brentwood/brentwood_high_school/ms__kimbell --Pleasantville 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for the checkuser:

1. Some of the editors have been violating policies (albeit, not in an evidently malicious way) such as using userspace as chatrooms & creating vanity articles. If this is a school project, we should contact the teacher responsible to make sure that the aim of the project is within the scope of the project and to make sure that they make the students aware of Wikipedia policies.
2. If we take a proactive approach here, then other editors will be aware of the circumstances. If I'm correct in thinking that these are high school students, then it's not unreasonable to expect some level of juvenile vandalism. If we make other admins aware of the circumstances, then there's less chance of blocks that may hamper their project. (For instance, if an admin blocked the users reported to AIV with account creation blocked, then some students may be locked out of their assignment.)
3. It's not inconceivable that some of the students already have accounts, and may be using both to edit from home and/or school. Confirming intent will make it clear whether or not it's allowable instances of using multiple accounts.

I've filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kimbell2.shanellen. Caknuck 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To figure out the intent of these accounts, you could try to ask them on their talk pages. Checkuser seems like total overkill. Kusma (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the phone number for the school. I'll leave a message for the teacher this afternoon. According to ratemyteacher.com & the Web site for the school, Ms. Kimbell is an English teacher. I certainly hope this isn't a creative writing project or anything of that ilk. Caknuck 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(To the tune of Monty Python's "Spam song") "BITE bite bite bite Bite bite bite bite BITEY BITE, bitey bite bite." Heaven forbid someone actually welcome these kids and politely point them to a few relevant rules and guidelines. Thatcher131 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to preemptively avoid the biting. I started this thread to try to avoid unnecessary blocks & deletions, not to attempt to incriminate people. If this is an exercise in collaborative, factual writing, then WP may just be the best place to get real experience. Also, isn't contacting the teacher responsible for the project the best way to welcome them and to establish a rapport with them? Caknuck 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I get points for doing just that while you were posting this? Basically, this does look like a school project from a quick look, but nobody had communicated with any of the above users except for one speedy-deletion notice for an article that looked to be a misplaced attempt to create a userpage. Two of their userpages were deleted by Merope (talk · contribs) for G2 and G3, without comment on the talk pages. I welcomed all of those listed, so hopefully they'll have some links to investigate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the G3 I deleted called a student "the biggest crackhead", and I pretty much zap anything attack-page-y like that quickly. The other one was probably a bad call; I deleted it because I was trying to sort out the mess of edits by all of these accounts and got a little overzealous. -- Merope 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was personal information or something and they were good and proper deletions, was just surprised there were no messages left with regards to them. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I make mistakes! I should probably be de-sysopped. -- Merope 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, let me get my torch and pitchfork. Anyone got an angry mob handy? (No criticism of the deletions or the mistake was intended, you're a great admin!) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do the same as Merope. I'm used to CAT:CSD where the speedy tagger has already informed the user. I figure the user can see the deletion reason and I try to link to the proper section of WP:CSD for further reading but I know it's not reasonable to expect all users to figure that out. I'm smelling a good idea for a new bot! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more accounts out there. I only listed those I found in the User creation log, but it only went back to yesterday afternoon. Some of the accounts posted to AIV were created on 10/2, so there's probably dozens of others dating back at least that far. (I neglected to mention this in my reasoning for the checkuser request.) Caknuck 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 37. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In a row? hbdragon88 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue

If a user reveals on the Wikipedia where they work, and if that user is using their work IP address to continue to vandalise the Wikipedia, is it a violation of our privacy policy to report the abuse to that network administrator? Specifically here, I'm thinking of a blocked vandal who continues to set up abusive sockpuppet accounts to get around the block. I want to note for the record that I am only talking about disclosing information revealed by the user themselves and revealed on Wikipedia, not any other site, and only to stop the continued vandalism. Blocking the IP addresses in question will not work; it was tried and it lead to collateral damage. A soft block does not work because this vandal uses outside addresses to set up additional sockpuppet accounts. For the record, I do not know for sure if the disclosed IP address was actually where this person works but it does appear likely. There's no doubt that they are using this corporation's IP address, however. --Yamla 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Best not to handle something like this on your own, given possible legal implications. Raymond Arritt 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say, no it is not a violation of the privacy policy to contact the network admin. An alternative would be to drop a long term hard block on the IP with the instruction that editors who are blocked should contact their own IT department for assistance. Let them come to us and then let them know what has been happening. Thatcher131 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken Thatcher131's advice and dropped a hard block on the address range in question. Thanks for the suggestion. --Yamla 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations" Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans. I don't know whether the particular editor here is editing articles about his or her employer, but my own take on the matter is that the vandal's company and IT department bear responsibility for oversight. I'd block the IP address without remorse if this editor really is a persistent vandal. And although I wouldn't go out of my way to notify the company about it, I wouldn't conceal the fact either if someone from their IT staff contacted me to inquire. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor was not editing about her employer, but had made many edits while logged out so the IP addresses revealed her employer, and then raised the privacy argument when this was pointed out to her. It remains to be seen whether this was mostly a misuderstanding or something else, but in the mean time the editor has been unblocked. Thatcher131 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So this sounds like the "invasion of privacy" argument the anon tried to make at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the privacy implications of IP editing are poorly understood by occasional editors who are not technologically astute insiders. It can be quite shocking to have someone say to you, "I know you work at Citibank in New York and if you don't stop doing X I will complain to your IT department" even when the warning is appropriate under the circumstances. I think that explaining the situation has taken care of the problem in this case. Thatcher131 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via overzealous copyvio tagging of free images

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) whose overall activity on enforcing the free image policy I am not in a position to evaluate, is repeatedly retagging the PD images as copyvios. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 4/Images under "PD-UA-images" thread. All official symbols in Ukraine are PD according to the Ukraine's copyright law as elaborated at {{PD-UA-exempt}}. The user claims that the images' being found at some commercial web-site that claims copyright over everything it hosts makes the images non-free despite the user was explained that an exact reproduction of the pre-existing image does not generate a new valid copyright claim.

What comes next? Someone placing an image of Mona Lisa at his MySpace site with "All rights reserved" disclaimed and forcing us removing the image of the Leonardo's (d. 1519) painting? Someone please help sorting this out. --Irpen 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted report by Videmus Omnia

I tagged the following four images (among many others) as copyright violations from http://www.uniforminsignia.net; that website contains an explicit copyright claim at the bottom of all of its pages stating "The information on this page may not be reproduced, republished or mirrored on another webpage or website without written permission from the editors." Irpen (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the {{Imagevio}} tags from the image pages, claiming that they are public domain. I'm sure that a public :domain image can be made or obtained from another source, however these particular images are copyrighted by uniforminsignia.net and our use without permission is a violation. I'd appreciate an outside look at this, as I intend to tag another couple of hundred images downloaded from this site as copyvio as well.

Images

• Image:Ukr viceadmiral.gif
• Image:Ukr admiral.gif
• Image:Ukraine VDV branch.gif‎
• Image:Ukraine radiation branch.gif

Thanks - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to obtain the public domain images "from another source". The PD images remain PD no matter where we find them. This has been a long standing view both among the copyright lawyers and in Wikipedia. See Mona Lisa example above. Our {{PD-Art}} tag explicitly refers to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. which, as well as Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, is a must read for everyone who goes out to an image copyright patrol. It is a pity that even the self-appointed image patroller did not bother to study the copyright-related issues before going out of his way to enforce his view on the copyrights. --Irpen 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can take a public-domain work, modify and/or improve it, and then re-license it under copyright. That appears to be what this website has done. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These images may not be public domain themselves. If they were made from scratch in the likeness of a public domain image, I believe the copyright belongs to the image maker. For example, the US flag is a public domain image, but a photograph of a Jasper Johns painting of a US flag is probably copywritten. - Crockspot 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A photograph/scan/other reproduction of a two-dimensional work is deemed to have insufficient creative input to be worthy of copyright. A photograph of a Jasper Johns painting has no copyright protection; the original painting does, but the photo has no additional protection. If the artist were Leonardo da Vinci, or someone else dead for a hundred years, there would be no copyright whatsoever. Which seems not to prevent websites from insisting that their .jpg of the Mona Lisa is "copyrighted" and can't be used without the website's permission. - Nunh-huh 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jasper Johns' painting is not an exact replica of the flag. It contains a good deal of originality via presenting the painter's view and creativity. The images at the web-site, however, are nothing but generic replicas with no originality whatsoever. --Irpen 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to get an opinion from Mike Godwin about that question. In any case, we have several people who could make high-quality SVG images from scratch to illustrate these things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that uniforminsignia.net created these images themselves, using official descriptions of the insignia, rather like coats-of-arms. They don't seem to have scanned actual insignias, so Bridgeman doesn't apply. Is uniforminsignia.net's claim of copyright valid? I don't know. A judge could rule that the amount of creative, original work in their gifs is de minimus, and they therefore have no enforceable claim to copyright. Or he could rule that the copyright is valid. That's a chance the Foundation would have to take, since it would be the Foundation who gets sued, not you or me. In this case, uniforminsignia.net is clearly claiming copyright, and it's entirely plausible that their claim could hold up, and it would be relatively easy to recreate the images in a way that is unambiguously free. When it comes to putting my own butt on the line, I can choose to play it safe or I can choose to be gutsy. But when it's someone else's butt on the line, it's no virtue to be so cocksure. It's safer to recreate them, so that (in my opinion) is what we should do. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly "several users" have to put aside time to recreate a yet another version of a PD-image. Because Videmus Omnia does not understand the copyright concept? Not good enough a reason for me. Mike and the foundation repeatedly refused to step in similar debates and I see no reason why the would make an exception. I would welcome if they do, though. We have very clear Wikipedia precedents, in fact every "PD-Art" image is a precedent.

It is important to keep in mind though, that indeed not all military insignia is PD. It depends on the national laws and some may be copyrighted by respective governments (not in Ukraine though). But no national symbol gets magically copyrighted by an arbitrary person who places it on his/her unaffiliated web-site. --Irpen 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The copyright claim on that website appears to be a blanket one, covering everything even if it shouldn't. In other words, the website maintainers might put public domain stuff up there, but they aren't going to make the effort to modify their blanket copyright statement to say "oh, except for the public domain stuff we have used, you'll have to work out for yourself which bits those are". Blanket copyright statements are depressingly common, but it requires judgement to work out exactly what they are applying to. Assuming it applies to everything on a website is a very narrow and blinkered (if easy) option. Carcharoth 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but in this case it appears that the website created their versions of the insignia from scratch (certainly nobody has shown anything to dispute that), which leads me to believe that their claim could be valid in this case. Can anyone point to a source that this website could have taken the insignia from? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it does not matter! The Ukrainian law states that the Ukrainian military insignia is not copyrightable. Whether the image is jpeg, gif, png or a paper-copy, it reproduces the non-copyrigtable intellectual property. If they created the calligraphic artistic work based on the insignia, there would have been a copyright on the modification. But they state themselves that all those images show are the insignia itself. In Ukraine the insignia is PD. They may also claim a vlaid copyright on the "arrangement" and "collection" of the images, just like the art albums do. But art-albums by claiming such copyrights in no way overtake the copyright claim of the painting themselves that they depict. --Irpen 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A judge might agree with you, Irpen. Or he might not. And I don't think you or I should intentionally provoke a copyright dispute between Wikipedia and another party, when it would not be difficult to recreate these. If uniforminsignia.net were not explicitly claiming copyright, I might feel differently, but by using these images we're putting Wikimedia at legal risk for no good reason. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Quadell has made. Whether or not the website's copyright claims are valid, the website is certainly making those claims. Wikipedia's policy on image copyright is generally to play safe when in doubt. By the way, if the images really are PD, and that website just found them somewhere, reproduced them, and claimed copyright, can't we find them somewhere other than on that site, reupload them, and claim PD? ElinorD (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not mindless machines here. We should use our brains to a reasonable degree. If I happen to find the image of Mona Lisa with the better resolution at the web-site that makes a blanket copyright claim and the poor thumbnail copy at the web-site which reminds its readers that Leonardo is long since dead, I do not have to use a poor-quality image just because someone makes a patently false copyright claim. Copyright for the military insignia belongs to the governmental bodies which, depending on the country, may be PD, restricted, permission required, etc. Arranging those images in illustrative or informative form in the work about the military insignia may create a copyright claim for an arrangement. But there is nothing anyone can do to start owning the image itself that is free to begin with. Arrangement, collection, artistic collage - yes. The original - no. It is crystal clear. In no way I am able to copy the entire Wikipedia to my web-site and claim "all rights reserved" on it. I mean, yes, I can do it by typing "All rights reserved" and clicking the "save" button but by doing so, I will simply make a meaningless claim rather than derail the Wikipedia project. --Irpen 18:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you have no idea whether or not they have altered these images in a sufficient way. If they've drawn up these insignia from descriptions, there's artistic merit there, even if the officially produced ones are public domain. They claim to hold copyright over them, and their claim could hold up in court. Given that we can produce free versions, this seems like a silly point to argue. --Haemo 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If they altered the image in any meaningful or artistic way, yes, you would be right. But their own web-sites claims that these are just insignia, clear and simple, and insignia is not copyrighted in Ukraine. --Irpen 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Insignia, like coats of arms, are subject to creative interpretation. The design is public domain, this is true, along with official versions in some instances, but individual artistic takes on how they are portrayed is different, and can be copyrighted. --Haemo 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not and artistic take. They do not even attempt to claim this as a "creative interpretation". All there is to it, is the generic image. The mere reproduction of a free image does not generate a new copyright. Read again {{PD-art}}. --Irpen 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The detail and depiction of the elements of a crest or a coat of arms are artistic, and can be copyrighted. For instance, look at version of the Canadian coat of arms] versus the official Canadian government one. --Haemo 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Videmus Omnia here. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says "exact photographic copies". These appear to be hand-drawn (well, computer graphic program drawn) pictures. Not mechanical reproduction without creativity. What exactly is the contention that was copied? Following instructions is not copying. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Implications, works lacking significant creativity fail the test of copyright. As it's already been conceded that these images, if constructed by the website, were exactly according to the descriptions to be identical in information to an image of the item. Per the recipe metaphor, reproducing the enire book, even in your own words, fails it. As this site's entire purpose is to represent exactly the catalog of insignia of a nation, according to the official descrpitions, and to mimic the sewn items, how is there any creativity to judge by? A further example:

This seems little different than following the Revell instructions to the letter. Are you really an artist if you follow them? If you do so carefully, and accurately, you're a good modelbuilder. It would take deliberate variance from the instructions to create your own touches to get far enough away to claim artistry, including, but not limited to- servos in the fuselage to get the rotors and blades to spin, LED systems for timed lights,exceptional research for perfect paint jobs... lacking that extra effort, you're just following instructions.

As such, I think this is best handled by contacting the office. If they choose to NOT comment, then the images stay. If they opt to remove, then do so. This shouldn't be undertaken by 'just any editor/admin', but by those most qualified within the poject to decide, which makes no judgements about Irpen, Omnia, or anyone else debating here. ThuranX 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Office has offered few comments with regards to copyright. They are not trained international copyright lawyers (note that nowhere in the "Mike Godwin" biography does it mention international copyright law). I doubt they will comment on this issue. Most copyright issues on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are resolved by editors. I think postponing this issue to wait for comments from the Office would be fruitless (either for or against the deletion of this particular class of imagery). --Iamunknown 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee

→WP:AE#User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee — madman bum and angel 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

206.167.65.125 vandalism block?

This person has been adding things into articles like Simpsons jpgs and "ennnnnnhhhhhhhh".

If this isn't the correct forum, please refer me -- I'm still learning my way around here. Thanks. Orbicular 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if the user has been warned (escalating up to the final warning) and persists in vandalizing after a final warning. Since the user isn't currently vandalizing, there probably isn't much point in blocking that IP address right now. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandals, though, and if you see continued abuse from that address (or any other), remember to give them warnings (from the list at WP:UTM) and then use WP:AIV to report vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spamming (non-urgent request for action)

Hi - I'm not sure if a) this requires admin action and b) em quite what the problem is - Jamesr1ley (talk · contribs) is the account of the owner of live simpley which going from memory has been AFD'd at least twice. His userpage just consists of various links to his business and he adds more over time - the straight forward explaination he gives for this is that it's an experiment and that nofollow means that he gets no benfit. My knowledge of nofollow is limited so I am unable to assess this claim. --Fredrick day 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it violates the userpage policy. You may start warning at any time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. The user page hasn't been edited in almost a year. He's got one link to his own website. That's perfectly acceptable. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry I meant the talkpage - check the history he edits it on a fairly regular basis (including today under one of his IP addresses) to add more and more links to the same page - it currently has 19 links to his site --Fredrick day 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While those few links might be pushing it, we have many worse problems. I recommend leaving this user talk page alone because he's not causing real trouble. We can always use more help at WP:COIN investigating COI cases.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User: 82.13.189.143

Resolved

User: 82.13.189.143 has vandalised several pages this evening, and this anonymous IP editor continues to do so despite having received several warnings not to. I wondered whether somebody could intervene to put a stop to this. Below is a link to their contributions:

User: 82.13.189.143 contributions

Cheers

Paul20070 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User has already been reported. Please report users to WP:AIV next time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Range block advice

This is my first range block, as far as I can recall, so I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.

1. This started with 4 or 5 RR on Water fuel cell from 84.110.219.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
2. When blocked, the editing continued from 84.110.221.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
3. When that was blocked, the editing (and a questionable comment on my talk page) continued from 84.110.211.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
4. vandalism of my talk page continued from 89.1.35.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I don't think is even the same ISP.

I've blocked 84.110.208.0/20. Semiprotecting Water fuel cell might have been adequate, but he still probably would have vandalized the talk page. Semiprotecting my talk page is not a real option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I notice you didn't block account creation so don't be surprised to see logged-in socks resume. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A range block with account creation blocks should (I believe), only be used with open proxies. I've semi-protected the article, also, as blocking 89. is questionable without some idea of the range. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker lied about having an article mediated, to avoid changes being made to it

Resolved

 – dispute resolution beginning

On the talk page for The Classic Crime, we where having a discussion about the bands genre. I had a source that said they were Christian rock, and Skateremorocker left this message on my talk page regarding it:

"Ok Frist of all we have already been over this while you left Wikipedia Myself and other members that discused The Classic Crime have already found out that they are not christian band by looking cite were the band its selfs say it is not a christian band and how other cite have said that one of the few bands on tooth and nail that are not christian. And also we have found cite saying about the band being Emo. Iam sorry but we have already been over thiis"[23]

I saw no consensus of this on the talk page for The Classic Crime, and brought this up.[24] He then replied:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."[25]

The Anberlin thing he is reffering to is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anberlin, where an admin helped us come to the conclusion that the Christian rock genre, should be listed on the page, per sources, but also that it should be mentioned that the band did not consider themselves this genre.

So he's telling me not to make these changes to the article because a request for mediation already determined it was unnecessary, but when I did a search for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Classic Crime, the only thing that came up was a request that I had just filed, because I wanted an admin to re-look at this. No other request for mediation for this article existed. It appears that he lied to me in hopes to convince me not to make changes to the page. Hoponpop69 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? It's not clear to me that he's saying there was mediation; rather that users discussed it in a mediation-fashion. This isn't the Wikipedia complaints department, and I am getting really, really tired of seeing this same dispute on this page over and over again. Can you fellows not just disengage and move to other parts of the encyclopedia? The continual complaints over this incredibly trivial issue boggle my mind. --Haemo 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that you failed to inform them of your post here. --Haemo 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he can't show any evidence that such a mediation existed should be a red flag, if such a thing took place it would be in his edit history, and he could find it for me. He says it took place while I was away from wikipedia, which would mean it happend in late June/July (when I temporarily quit editing). Look at his posts from this time period[26], no where does he discuss the bands genre on someones talk page. The only discussion he had about this subject was the one on the bands talk page, for which there was no consensus among users that the band was not a Christian rock band. Furthermore this discussion, he assured me, was not the one in question:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."[27]

Have I made it clear enough that he is not being truthful?

Posting here would not be neccesary if wikipedia wasn't such a buerocracy. After I filed the request for mediation, my request was denied, and I was told to take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. After filing a request for help from them, they have done absolutely nothing.

You have to understand that the person I'm dealing with does not seem to be an educated, rational editor. As evidence of his posts that I've quoted above, he has a very poor grasp of the english language. He can not understand the rules about Wikipedia:Citing sources, as evidence by the report I filed the other day shows him deleting sources and citation requests, for numerous articles, on numerous occasions. After I filed that, I was told essentially to work it out with him, but as I'm saying now, he does not seem to be rational, and it is incredibly hard to work with him. This is why I am trying to get outside help, but whenever I request some, it gets shot down or ignored. Hoponpop69 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you haven't got any help from the Mediation Cabal is because your case is one day old and still hasn't been listed. I'd be happy to mediate your dispute, if you're so inclined. I understand your frustration, but you'll have to just be patient. Don't worry; there's no hurry! --Haemo 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have you mediate this dispute, thank you. Also I just edited my above post to include evidence that he did not have a discussion while I was away for which a consensus was reached on the bands genre. Hoponpop69 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, here's the deal — fill out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 The Classic Crime with the relevant information, and notify the other parties about where the page so they can participate in the process. --Haemo 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will. Did you look at th evidence I added?Hoponpop69 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Haemo is mediating the dispute, the need for any admin action is, for now, over. I'm marking this as resolved and assume y'all will continue to discuss it at the appropriate venue. Good luck! Natalie 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:87.11.16.15

87.11.16.15 (talk · contribs) claims that two editors on the English Wikipedia are major vandals and sock puppeteers on the Italian Wikipedia, and labeled their User pages as such. I reverted, since these were this IP's first two edits here and they provided no evidence. They provided links on the Italian Wikipedia to prove their claims, but as I don't read Italian, I don't know how valid those claims are. I suggested they come here, but they declined. I am reporting this, not backing up this IP's claims. Corvus cornix 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "When in Rome..." springs to mind; What an editor may or may not do (or is accused of doing) on another wiki is of no relevance to another. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks one of those editors was blocked here for vandalism but his account was compromised and later unblocked after an email request. Other than that, they both seem to be decent, fairly inactive editors here. (Note that I cannot read Italian either and did not check it:wiki). Mr.Z-man 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

I have asked here and on WP:Village Pump three times whether there is a policy for users who delete referenced material. I didn't get an answer, except, post a particular example of an editor doing this.

Here is an example. I am not trying to get this editor in trouble, I just started editing this page a couple of days ago and have no beef against him/her at all. I simply am interested in knowing the policy on edits like this. I really fear there is no policy, that is why these kinds of destructive edits are so common.

Here are the edits:

• Removed two referenced paragraphs
• Referenced sentence removed

If this editor didn't (incorrectly) put copyvio as the reason, and left the reason for the removal of this material, would this still be okay?

Thanks. Travb (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which should ideally be resolved on the article talk page. It is not about references - ideally everything should be referenced. What it might be (and the relvant policies):

• It may be about removing material which gives undue weight to particular incidents in the company's history in the context of the overall article.
• It may be the text is a copyright violation, though it is easy enough to reword text instead of deleting it.
• It may be someone who doesn't like criticism of the company and has a point of view problem.
• Or it may be simple vandalism.

It depends on the context, which is why you haven't been getting a straight answer anywhere. An editor who removes slabs of meterial from an article should generally explain why. If you can't get them to discuss it on the article talk page and there seem no other editors particularly interested either way, a request for comment on the article might help. Euryalus 00:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I just said to another editor elsewhere, not every true fact needs to be in every article. It's a matter of editorial judgement. For example, an 11 paragraph article about a politician should probably not have 10 paragraphs about a minor scandal that ocurred when he was editor of the college newspaper 20 years ago, even if it is completely referenced. Here, the issue seems to be just how much negative information to include. Ideally you and other interested editors will discuss it on the talk page and try to reach some consensus; failing that, head over to 3rd opinion, RFC, and ultimately mediation. Thatcher131 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The onus should always be on the person who adds material to justify it and not the other way around. Much sourced amterial fails our notability policy, SqueakBox 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments all. Travb (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

forgot to summarize page edit

Resolved

I can't find a better page to post thsi under, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue.

I updated the Judson University Page today, as I am student there and enjoy correct information, but I forgot to summarize what I edited. Basically what I did was edit the entry under the Benjamin P. Browne Library building section, and add some stuff to and edit the Harm A. Weber Academic Center section. I hope that this does not get deleted! AbbytheP 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) AbbytheP 10/4/07

An edit summary is not compulsory, as long as your edit did not involve any vandalism, or the adding of unsourced, inflammatory or untrue material, then there is no reason why it should be reverted.--Jac16888(non-admin) 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All true ... but if you want to get into the good habit of using an edit summary all the time, you can go to the "My preferences" page and click on the box that automatically prompts for a summary if the user forgets to input one. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anywho, thanks for reporting it, actions like this show the hallmarks of a great, concerned contributor. Happy editing! (marked as resolved) --Ben^chat 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets...

User talk:24.208.224.153 and User talk:Koopa turtle are clearly sockpuppets of Nintendude, who has been blocked indefinitely. When I check for existing puppets, this page, which is archived and says not to modify, but doesn't really give instructions for where else I should report this. Evidence of the sockpuppetry can be seen in the type of stealth vandalism (in the form of unsourced edits) such as this and this, racist edits to subjects like NIG and Nigg, and common subjects like highways and cities in Michigan, video games, "Lists about songs...", models of American cars, and the word "poop." Torc2 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bavarian taco

Is it possible to protect talk pages from being created? If so, can someone please do so to Talk:Bavarian taco - the article itself has been protected against creation, but anon IPs keep recreating the talk page with the same content that was put in the article. Thanks, Blair - Speak to me 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done and  Note: that the protection will be temporary. Mercury 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User recreated deleted content after release from block

Cazzaman, after being blocked for creating hoax pages (see here) is at it again. I can't see the deleted contribs to prove it's a hoax, however, the pages are mentioned on his talk page. (And this is very suspicious... looks like a copy/paste from the article page rather than the edit page). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I'd normally go to AIV with this, but given the lack of warnings, and the non-straightforward vandalism, I thought I'd bring it here. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all the hoax articles. If he makes another, I think he should be indefinitely blocked. As an aside, could anyone who speaks Italian help with the appropriateness of the username -- Samir 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I speak Spanish (the two languages are very similar) and believe it to mean something along the lines of "sucks"man - there isn't a direct translation. Babelfish backs this up translating cazza to "it hauls". But it's not too derogatory. --Ben^chat 05:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cazzo" is dick in Italian. I've never heard a feminine form.--chaser - t 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association

Hello all. Further to comments by WAVY 10 FAN [28] on the AFA talkpage. I am notifying admins here on the problems that have been occurring there just to keep you informed. Its my belief that some form of admin presence may help the article move along.

Context: There has been a long category dispute on the article. I believe the homophobia category circumvents NPOV policy and is just an accusation so it is inappropriate. I’m all for lists. The other current editors there Cheeser1, Orpheus, and Christopher Mann McKay disagree. Christopher Mann McKay altered the categorization recommendations during this dispute [29]. I believe it changed the meaning of the consensus based recommendation[30].

I believe the article does not fairly represent all significant views. I did add AFA views, albeit erroneously using non-reliable sources. I was corrected on this matter via Wikiquette notification. One of the Wikiquette notifiers (Cheeser1) decided to join the dispute.

I then added reliable information to improve the article [31] with a view to improving the background section of the article.

I also added what I believe to be a reasonable compromise to help the article keep a breadth of viewpoints [32], which was rapidly reverted by Cheeser1 [33].

Since then a lot has happened, including myself taking a break from editing the article. I believe I have been cooperative with all suggestions. Consistent with what has happened over the past few months, I believe relevant and reliably sourced views are being either suppressed or deleted.

Editors tend to delete or revert material rather than try to adjust or seek clarification, and they also seem to use talkspace more as a wall of shame rather than a way to seek consensus e.g. [34].Hal Cross 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of discussing with the other editors, and have taken editor disputes to editor pages rather than disrupt the article talkpage, though there still seems to me to be a strong tendency to personalize matters on the talkpage[35][36][37][38][39]. I did my best to reply by explaining my comments were the fifth comments I ever made on Wikipedia [40][41]. The discussion seems to involve bringing up old history and not moving forward.

Anyway, if you feel some sort of admin presence would be useful for helping the article along, I would be happy to hear suggestions. Hal Cross 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To summarize what I believe is going on here: Hal Cross does not understand the BRD process. He reverts a revert, for example, claiming that the revert was bold, and thus that he's entitled to revert it. He also makes up his own compromise and immediately adds it to the article (isn't a compromise supposed to be something that people come up with together?). He repeatedly adds material from unreliable sources. And he claims that we're not allowed to call the AFA "homophobic" or "anti-gay" because it's an accusation (when it is, in fact, a well documented characterization of the group). --Cheeser1 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I have made mistakes in the recent past. But I do understand the rule as is evident in my self corrections[42]. I have not recently been repeatedly adding anything to the article. I am just back from a break from editing the article. The category dispute centers around the consensus based WP recommendations that I mentioned above[43]. My own view on the AFA is that of someone who did not hear of the AFA until I visited Wikipedia and saw what I felt to be the rather narrow state of the article. I understand that a people who do not like anti-porn activists may not appreciate the AFA, and that includes WP editors. There are other relevant views though. Hal Cross 06:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Break? You stopped editing the article for like a day and a half, but you continued to actively argue for your edits on the talk page. I don't see how that constitutes a break. --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. You advised me to stop editing the article for a while and I decided cooperative behavior was the way forward. It gave me time for finding more reliable source. I continued discussion on the talkpage because you also asked me to come to consensus. I still haven't seen explicit replies from you on that matter. Hal Cross 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross has been slowing the pace of editing down for months now at American Family Association. He has brought a previous AN/I ([44]) which was ignored (presumably for being groundless). He engages in wikilawyering and ownership. When someone disagrees with him, he either accepts the parts of what they say that agree with him and ignores the rest or casts aspersions on the motives of the editor who disagrees with him. The amount of time and effort wasted dealing with his incessant attempts to nitpick every tiny word is unbelievable, and this AN/I post is more of the same. Orpheus 06:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits which I feel are more “wall of shame” rather than efforts to seek clarification, article improvement, discussion improvement, or consensus [45][46].

Also, I believe I have been discussing with consensus in mind. I feel there has been a lack of clear response towards consensus from other editors[47][48], and emphasizing fault seems to be the preference. I know that articles are helped along by criticizing each other’s edits[49], but the present situation doesn’t seem to be consistent with Wikiquette at all. I will be happy for any admin advice, presence, mentorship, or anything else that will help Wikipedia process on the AFA article. Hal Cross 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are seeking mentorship or guidance, please note that I have repeatedly referred you to the adoption program. If you think people are here to make a "wall of shame" then I'd suggest you assume good faith and listen to what we're telling you. We're explaining to you why your edits are making it hard to constructively edit the article together. This is a good-faith effort to help you edit constructively, to help you understand and abide by policy, and to help us make progress on the article (instead of constantly going over the same ground). --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am notifying administrators here because of WAVY 10 FAN's suggestions. I believe administrator scrutiny and assessment will help. Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Orpheus. I believe there is a resistance to moving forward with improving the comprehensiveness of information in the article. It seems to be more about maintaining a narrow set of views, rather than encyclopedic inclusion. I know administrator influence will be more likely to help ensure a more NPOV compliant article in terms of allowing all relevant views. Hal Cross 06:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the only POV issue you've raised is that we use terms like "homophobic" and "anti-gay." You've said they are "accusations" - and thus they are non-neutral. Actually, they are verifiable characterizations of this group - they oppose the gay-rights movement at every turn. Are we not allowed to call Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation? --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, sorry to seem repetitive, but I refer you again to the categorization recommendations that were altered (and I believe obscured) by Christopher Mann McKay [50] and the information given by administrator Sam Sam [51]Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Hal Cross, you are using ANI for the wrong reasons again and your comments will likly be ignored by admins again. Please stop missusing ANI. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I believe I am being cooperative in terms of notifications and other editor's input [52]. If I am in the wrong place to make this notification, then I apologize to administrators. If there are better venues for notification, then advice from administrators would be helpful. Hal Cross 07:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC). PS, It seems to me that administrator presence on the AFA article would count as administrator intervention. I believe the need for that intervention should be determined via admin input somehow. Hal Cross 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Users have suggested you get "advice from administrators" from admin coaching, adopt a user, or request for comment. You are using ANI for the wrong reasons twice. Most admins don’t waist their time trying to solve content disputes unless through mediation or other formal dispute reason processes, so these posts are useless. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we've tried RFCs and so on. Considering the situation I don't feel its going to work. This is more about some sort of intervention, presence, or advice for allowing better WP process on the article. Content is incidental. And when taking into account your accusations of deceitful editing, and your accusations of lying[53], admin intervention may help to prevent personal attacks and so on[54]. Hal Cross 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's never been an RFC on this subject, so how can we have tried it? Orpheus 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. We have had help from others outside, such as Wavy 10 FAN, and his presence has been helpful. The Wikiquette alert brought Cheeser1 in, but that seems to have resulted in a strong decline in Wikiquette. Alternative admin presence would be helpful, just as Wavy 10 FAN has stated[55] So in cooperation with CMMK's subsequent comment on process and presentation to ANI, [56], I am presenting the information here. Hal Cross 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this is an easy call. Follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention. File an RFC to start, or go to the mediation cabal. This isn't the appropriate venue for solving a content dispute. AniMate 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC at the article's talk page. Hopefully that will get more eyes on the article so that clear consensus can be built. AniMate 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response, AniMate. Regards Hal Cross 08:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Hotfury = User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

Hi, my name's JuJube, remember me? With a bunch of free time on my hands and less interesting places on the Internet to go to, I've found myself editing here anonymously. Anyway, I should turn your attention to a user named Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs). He's rather blatantly a sockpuppet of hoaxmonger User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com who has a long history of hoaxmongering, and his edit history shows he's at it again. I made up an info page on him here. He's never been officially banned, but it should probably be considered. JuJube 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, WP:CSN is that direction if you want to go further with the ban suggestion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. —CrazytalesPublic talk/main/desk 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal Attack by Iwazaki

I am reporting a user who goes by Iwazaki. This individual seems to be a little distressed and has made a couple of remarks against me here. I do not know exactly what he meant by when he said, "...has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble". I am taking this as a threat made against me. In another statement he states that I "lie". Not only has he used threatening language and a personal attack against me here, this user has caused problems for me in the past. This is not the first time he has conducted himself in this manner. In the past Iwazaki has posted a couple of rude messages on my talk page. On 14 March 2007 he has made a derogatory statement saying, "we don't accept tamil-something sites as reliable sources..I don't mind having them in the articles dedicated to terrorists or Suicide bombers" here. Also in that statement, he has commented to me that, "you are showing your emotions way tooooooo much these days." I have never corresponded with him in the past which made me feel that he was stalking me on Wikipedia. I then posted a reply about his comments here and he replied back with personal attacks on me here. This is my first time reporting him and I humbly request for this matter to be looked into. Thank you. Wiki Raja 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what Iwazaki meant by your political comments on a MFD discussion. Remember this is Wikipedia, and expressing your political opinions is discouraged. A few of your comments at one MFD, which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies are

• This userbox is a negative apporach in regards to promoting peace to any conflict.
• The very wording of the template itself is hypocritical to its purpose of supporting peace which only promotes violence
• It also shows a negative attitude towards a political dispute
• I thought of joining his project, but then decided not to due to one of the members donning this template on his page.
• In Sri Lanka this stance of disarmament is politically motivated.
• For example, back in the 1990s former President Chandrika Kumaratunga held a campaign called "War for Peace". This in turn has cost thousands of lives and destruction mainly in the Northeast part of the island where it is primarily dominated by Tamils.
• It is true that there is division in the world. It is also true that there are wars in the world.
• As you say, "People who hold this UB think that LTTE should disarmament (neutralise) to have a peace in Sri Lanka." Let us dissect this term disarmament. Disarmament would mean an all out bloody war, with of course, aerial bombardment of Tamil dominated areas in the Northeast, which would mean mass civilian casualties.
• One can argue all he or she wants, but when it comes down to it, there are no Tamils in the Sri Lankan military or police force

Note his comment was

the nominator, instead of giving valid arguments , has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble.

Unless you didn't understand, that wasn't a treat, Iwazaki was pointing out that instead of going by Wikipedia policies, you were letting your political opinions get in the way, which is why all the neutral editors who have voted in the MFD voted to keep the userbox. And instead of misleading users at AN/I, you should have made clear the comment "Tamil-something" wasn't a reference to an ethnic group but to racist websites such as tamilnet.com, tamilnation.org, tamilcanadian.com etc. etc.

Also the above comments from March which you have pointed out were in response to you serially undoing his edits[57][58][59] on the Burning of Jaffna library article, and not "stalking" as you falsely claim. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner's user page

Most of Operation Spooner's user page is absolutely fine in discussing his political influences. In the middle is a section with the title "Shady and ridiculous methods I've observed that individuals, or groups of individuals, use to prevent other editors from changing article content", and a subheading "Ownership strategies I have observed" which goes into detail in criticising other un-named users. Mr.Z-man made a previous attempt to discuss the issue with Operation Spooner, but was given the response "You don't understand Wikipedia policy" [60]. I don't think MfD is in order but should the section be blanked and kept blank? Sam Blacketer 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems acceptable to me. It's Wikipedia orientated. He/she's not naming any specific editors. It's done in a reasonably neutral manner. I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not against the rules to criticise Wikipedia or to demonstrate what's wrong with it. Deleteing the content of that page could be seen as censorship ---- WebHamster 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a reasonable point of view, but user page policy does say "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not allowed, and does not specify that the editors so attacked must be named. It might create a serious loophole if unacceptable material becomes acceptable by disguising its target or covering the targets with an imprecise "they". It's never going to be very difficult to work out the identities of the users criticised; simply by looking at the contributions of the user making the criticism it will be obvious with whom they are in dispute. Sam Blacketer 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, editors themselves aren't being attacked, it's the methods being used that are being attacked. There are no references to any particular editors and their methods, or even articles used, just the methods themselves. My own interpretation is that although it may perhaps be a grey area it's a grey area within the rules. It's one of those dichotomies wherein it could be construed in equal measure to be a comment on the methods or a how-to on the methods, but given the onus on us to assume good faith we really should consider it to be the former. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If I might chime in here, I am one of the editors Spooner is addressing in his ""Ownership strategies I have observed"" section. A quick look at his user history shows that each time one of his edits is reverted, he updates the section with new info - of course, naming no one by name. Most of this section was created while the user was editing within the Ronald Reagan article; by editing, I mean that OpertionSpooner was adding the same edit over and over, for over a week (once or twice a day). Setting aside the fact that no fewer than three admins counseled him about not only the disruptive nature of these edits (in the face of a pretty solid consensus) and his user page diatribe, he didn't stop updating his user page (though the repetitive edits did indeed drop to a trickel).

His response was as Sam described it. This is just one of those folk that think that this whole Wikipedia thing is - and I quote - "a farce", and that seeking stability in an article is pointless and useless. I am not sure if he's pushing the anarchist agenda he features ont he rest of his user page and this is one grand little experiment in fostering anarchy, or if he's just not getting the idea of editing within a community to make something stable. I just know that I (and others) have been the unnamed subjects of his PA section, and that's uncool, and non-conducive to a professional working environment; if someone can insult you, thumb their nose at the admins who suggest removing it, what prevents others from doing the same thing? Eventually, you end up with anarchy. And not the good type of anarchy that you can mosh to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you choose to out yourself is no reason to make it look like he's doing so. The fact remains he hasn't outed anyone, the fact there's a breadcrumb trail is not his fault and shouldn't be used against him. Likewise WP shouldn't be seen to be censoring critics of itself (or censoring anything really). If something you've done is on his list you always have the option of not doing it again, after all if you don't like seeing something you've done appear in print, then the simple answer is... don't do it. But as I've said, from what I've seen he's not breaking any rules. He may be leaning up against some of them, but that's not a breach... and I seem to recall someone saying once "break all rules". Especially if WP is made better because of it. If some editors are using tactics (and I'm making no accusations here) that really shouldn't be used and someone highlighting them stops it then that can only be a good thing surely? ---- WebHamster 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that's just silly, Hamster. Do I really have to list the diffs, taken from his own user edit history, to indicate when he updates the list? Without putting too fine a point on it, your suggestion that I stop whatever it is that he's railing against makes me wonder if you actually looked at the user's edit history. You mean, stop "using tactics" like editing for NPOV? maintaining consensus? DR? Those things? Of course I could stop doing those things, but then I'd be of little use to the Project. See, I don't see myself doing anything other than what any responsible, reasonable editor would be doing. Perhaps I should suggest at this point that considering Operation Spooner to be a poor little lost anarchist waif just might be the wrong mindset to adopt for this particular discussion?

That aside, how about that whole NPA thing, or SOAPBOX thing? I would suggest that you consider if those same allegations listed on Spooner's Talk page were directed at yourself, you might take a slightly different mindset. There is nothing as deleterious to a free and interactive editing environment than an individual who feels that the rest of the Project is wrong and that they are right; who will take any rebuke of their point of view as an attack on them, and post said perceived attack as a caveat for others. Yes, IAR is a good rule, but usually that applies to edits and articles, right? Certainly, that doesn't apply to those basic rules which govern how we have decided to interact with each other in Wikipedia? I am not suggesting that we flog, tar and feather the user; one has suggested clearing the offending section with a caveat to not repeat it elsewhere - what's wrong with this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, I did say that I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I haven't even said that what he's saying is correct. I have no idea, and very little interest TBH. What I am saying is that he hasn't named anyone, not even you, so he isn't attacking any particular editor, not even you. He hasn't said it's you, you did, and you have absolutely no proof that he is actually referring to you, only supposition and conjecture. He has no control over the breadcrumb trail, neither have you nor I so he can't be blamed for what it does or doesn't show. What I'm saying is that there is nothing in the rules that says he has to be truthful on his own userpage. There is nothing in the rules that says he can't comment on WP negatively. As he hasn't specifically named anyone then he can't be deemed to be attacking any editor specifically. Just because you think he's referring to you is immaterial. Assume good faith and assume he's speaking in general terms. As for me being in your situation, well one of the userboxes in the "outlook" section of my userpage will sum that up in a phrase I'm not going to use here. As for "anarchy", well all I can say is one person's rant doesn't come close to being an anarchic state. As they say in my part of the world, "today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip paper". In 200 days, let alone 200 years no-one will give a shit, their just the words of one more anonymous wiki-editor. Look at this topic for example, it's not exactly garnered an awful lot of interest has it? ---- WebHamster 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Using userpages to call out other users

Moved here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Pedro Gonnet 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:GHcool has a list of "Accusations vs. Reality" on his/her userpage which is more of a collection of quotes without context and rebuttals thereof. Most of the quotes are chosen to make the respective editor look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid. Is this really what userpages are for? Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the first time somebody challenged by user page. The first time it happened, User:SlimVirgin and User:Jpgordon exhonerated me of the accusations of misconduct citing that I quote my subjects fairly and accurately and even provide a link to where the quotation came from so that others can check the context themselves and judge accordingly. They also said that it does not violate WP:NPA because I keep my criticisms to what was being said as opposed to criticising the person who said it. --GHcool 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the current page does indeed criticize the person who said it. I urge honest Wikipedians not to take anything that Pco says seriously on any matter pertaining to the Jewish people. cannot be construed in any other way. (It might well be correct, but that's irrelevant.) Stick to the content and avoid the ad hominem; trust the reader to come to their own conclusion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm another victim of this behaviour - which drives a cart and horses through accept good faith. But I've never bother challenging it, I assumed GHcool had some special permission to behave in these unpleasant ways, and that if I attempted to behave in any similar fashion I'd be immediately blocked for disruptive use of UserPage, personal attacks and probably several other things. It's especially bizzare that he should be the one doing this, because I'm pretty sure I could present a lot of what he writes as being extreme, displaying disruptive logic, writing tendentiously, edit-warring against consensus, along with flouting BLP and probably breaches of a whole pile of other policies. Several of these patterns of behaviour are clearly visible at this talk page, where he seems determined he'll hold up editing to consensus. GHcool's behaviour and outrageous attacks on an excellent scholar (and the small amount of uncontentious material from him we'd like to use in the article) seems calculated to protect another source used extensively - a race-hater with a strong association to violence amounting to terrorism. PR^talk 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how assuming good faith and criticizing somebody's statements are necessarily contradictory. People do it all the time all over Wikipedia. --GHcool 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Victim"? You? Oh that's funny. It's enough to see your "contribution" history to see how "NPOV" and "Civil" you are. And by the way, if you thing that "concensus" and "good faith" are when the other user gives up on all he belives and does what you want, then you are wrong. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the headline to remove the word "slander", which can be taken as a legal accusation against other users. You don't need to go there to have this matter heard. I don't know the answer to the underlying report but it seems uncomfortably close to personal attacks to use your talk page to call out users for criticism who have not voluntarily chosen to enter a discussion there. Wikidemo 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I notice GHcool purports to reveal the identity of another user in this section of his userpage. Is that user's identity well known? A breach of privacy policy and an attack on another editor is certainly not acceptable user page material. Sam Blacketer 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed at length on GHcool's talk page here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing, and that is essentially what a large part of your userpage includes. I am asking you now to please remove the relevant sections. Viridae^Talk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

or would that be irrelevant sections. No I jest, but on a serious note... I'm sure some of these sections, if they do not offer any insight to the articles, or the tone/style of the article, and it is point of view mostly, it might be a good idea to tremove them. Mercury 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If they look anrisemitic to you thats your personal POV. He haven't made up what they said. They really said it, and he really responsed, thats all. It's his complete right to copy parts of conversations and place them on his talk page. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes aren't the problem, it's GHCool's own writing;

• "Norman G. Finkelstein, the notoriuous anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist pseudo-scholar...."
• "In short, because of the fact that Jacob Peter has a very limited knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict...." etc etc. Whether true or not, much of the page violates Wikipedia is not for opinion pieces, which is a policy, not a guideline. I suggest strongly that GHCool removes it, before it is removed for him. ELIMINATORJR 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SOAP is really intended for articles more than userpages. I think GHcool has made a reasonable use of their space here - they are discussing a topic as it relates to Wikipedia, they are doing so in a civil manner, and they are giving references for their talking points. If anyone takes issue with what GHcool says, they can look at the edit histories of the articles and decide for themselves. The POV on GHcool's userpage is slanted, but that's readily apparent and in fact admitted up-front. Factual accuracy is not a requirement for a userpage, and so long as things are kept civil and related to Wikipedia, I really have no problem with the userpage existing. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• "They" are not discussion anything. As far as I know, these users were not informed that they were being quoted on his userpage. And branding people as ignorant or anti-Semitic is, in my opinion, far from civil. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read that second quote from above? That isn't civil in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, per WP:USER, amongst the things that you may not have on your webpage is "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws". ELIMINATORJR 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

INVOLVEMENT NEEDED: Content war in the Alexander Lukashenko article

In the Alexander Lukashenko article there's a criticism section which included only negative critisism on hom. For the sake of NPOV, i added a paragraph, with references, what his supporters think of him. Nevertheless, there's a user named User:Bakersville who keeps on removing what i added and adding information against the man. If the information is sourced, i dont mind it to stay, but i dont like him deleting my information. I started a discussion on the talk page (where, as you could see, i offered a compromise, but it was ignored), yet the user was supported by the user User:Barend who gave against me two lame claims: 1. Thereferences being in Russian (1. Whats the problem to ask a Russian administrator to check it?? 2. One of the references was in English. 3. If the references give the material thy fit. I wxplaimed it in the discussion). 2. Me supporting Lukashenko and calling him the only real democrat on the talk page (And? But i havent wrote that in the article. All i gave in the article was referenced, nutral and objective). Please, stop this political idiotism. Wikipedia haven't sworn loyalty to any political ideology, so the article has to be NPOV and show both sides on the coin. M.V.E.i. 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just cant stop! Not talking about the fact he already broke the 3RR. M.V.E.i. 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but a look at the article and its history shows a need for protection and 3RR blocks (plural) if another admin can lend a hand. Note to MVEi, blogs are seldom acceptable as sources, much less foreign-language blogs in the English wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked both for 24 hours. I am not sure that protection is needed at this stage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sri Lankan Conflict

Still no consensus here to display a single flag. Please enforce the status by mediation. Mattice3 12:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy... take a look at our dispute resolution process. Listed in that document are the mediation options, that are available. Posting here, is requested administrator intervention, I don't think there is anything I can do there as an admin. Regards, Mercury 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind regards for your comment, but some one in the mediation committee should help on this.Mattice3 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish for someone on the Mediation Committee to help you, please file a case at WP:RfM. Please note that you must have attempted prior dispute resolution (ie. WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC etc.) or the case will be rejected. Cheers, Daniel 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, you might have more success at their house, unless a medcom member catches your comment here. Let me know if this goes unanswered, and I'll be more than happy to mediate myself if thats whats needed. Best regards, Mercury 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*catches* :) Daniel 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (both). But I am not that familiar with WP:RFC. Any way I will try my best or leave the message on the Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict someone else to file the case.Mattice3 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to ask for the mediation right now. We have called for a straw poll in the template talkpage to gain the community consensus. When other party understand that they are loosing User:Wiki Raja made some canvassing and even it was proved. Still we're discussing this issue and this obvious sock puppet is trolling around and messing the whole situation. Hereby I ask from the admins to indef block this account. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia thats loosing out of all this from constant revert warring due to sri lanka related issues. There are are atleast 15 votes for having both flag vs 9 votes for a single flag. But thats not the point, Lahiru I think it would be appropriate if you initiate the procedure to go for some sort of mediation and not use your valuable time to engage in a pointless revert war that will probably go for mediation, arbitration or worse. Sinhala freedom 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah 15 votes lol thanks for the canvassing of your buddy. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well wiki_raja and I didn't even vote on the same side. Sinhala freedom 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, you kindly ignore the above message. As you are the Chair of the Mediation Committee, your verification at Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict on issues will determine whether it qualifies for Mediation. Nothing will happen by blocking me.Mattice3 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before going to a advanced dispute resolution systems we took the straw poll to gain the community consensus and even we found that this method was very successful in previous issues. But some were purposely ruined that. But we didn't gave it up. Please help us to do so by vanishing these WP:SPAs. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The SPAs is not the issue here. The obvious POV pushing and not accepting the real world realities are the issues here. A mediation will help for greater consensus with experienced trouble-shooters and negotiators on wikipedia.Mattice3 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? SPAs like you are play a big role in consensus gaining. Stay out of using socks next time! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything in relation to the issues which are disputed, but requesting the mediation committee's involement only. Leave it whoever am I, the voice can come from anywhere. Why are you scared of the mediation committe's involvement after all? Mattice3 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an RfC on this article's talkpage, and a MedCom member looking into it. Why are we wasting bytes hashing this argument out on ANI still? Rdfox 76 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This situation would have been quickly resolved if all of us just used some common sense. The LTTE organisation has been declared as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries. It has received no recognition from any of the international organisation and has no existence apart from an armed rebel force it has created. There is no official recognition either of the LTTE organisation nor its assortment of symbols. The conflict is not between the LTTE and the Military of Sri Lanka but between the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka. The argument of NPOV is a red-herring and facetious. Wikipedia is not a place to publish polemical point of views. Next time, please give sometime to research and check the facts before even agreeing to facetious demands for mediation. The reputability of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia is at stake. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone would like to replace these flags and symbols with the map of Sri Lanka? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you trying to say by the statement, "The conflict is not between the LTTE and the Military of Sri Lanka but between the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka." Do you think the negotiations in various Southeast Asian and European countries between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE was foolish and the countries involved in those peace talks are insane.Mattice3 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That is because they have created dissension among an ethnic group of people and have assembled an army to counter the Sri Lankan armed forces. The situation has got ugly in the past with deaths of huge number of people including members of the armed forces and citizens. That other countries have requested the Govt. of Sri Lanka to negotiate with the LTTE does not imply recognition on the parts of those governments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Now their endorsement or the ban is not the issue, but the "Equal Players" in the current Sri Lanka Conflict. We can't go beyond that in our discussion here. If so, then the legal nature of the Sri Lankan Government also highly questionable because they have got it when the British, the last European colonial power left the island, which was a with three polical entities when the Portuguese accessed the island's territorial dominance. Mattice3 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The endorsement and the ban are pretty much the issue. Please stop using red-herring here. The LTTE might be the "equal players" (as you term them to be), but neither are they recognised as a lawful political entity in Sri Lanka and elsewhere nor are their symbols. It is a Sri Lankan conflict, an internal armed rebellion, which does not in any way give lawful recognition to the rebel agency. Again, please stop making red herring arguments like questioning the validity of a recognised governments. Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing political agenda. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka [61], so the implication that they are an unlawful entity is not correct. Sinhala freedom 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ban was temporally lifted in order to the current Memorandum of Understanding which was signed between gov and the LTTE. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed, please. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have included a citation for you in the original comment. Cheers, Sinhala freedom 16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That the organisation is not banned in Sri Lanka (but is banned by 32 countries abroad) does not give it legal status. The The LTTE page itself says that it runs an unrecognised de facto state in the Sri Lankan territory. It has no recognition whatsoever. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't understand the nature of the rebellions since the ancient times between various tribes around the world you should get a grasp of it. Please don't accuse me for your ignorance over the statement, "...questioning the validity of a recognised governments.". You should go back in the passage of time and question youself whether your understanding is right on East Timor independence.Mattice3 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making irrelevant arguments here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I request the "Mediation" is something which is irrelevant to others are relevant to some others. Terrorists for some are Freedom Fighters for some others.Mattice3 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't understand where you want the Verifiability, not truth. Mattice3 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please quote reliable sources where they have been accorded legitimacy. That's all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't repeat things. Their legitimacy comes when they are accepted as the "Equal Partners" in negotiation with Sri Lankan Government by the European and other nations. That is all I can explain you. Otherwise I will have to repeat the East Timor scenario once again.Mattice3 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, there are some immature statements are coming out strangely that the LTTE is banned terrorist organization, so it has no parity with the Sri Lankan Government. But here the ban is not the issue but the "Equal player" in the Sri Lanka Conflict is the issue. I think we should go for an immediate mediation with the inputs from uninvolved editors who have more grasp of international affairs than who spordically coming out with their POV observations.Mattice3 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the use of the word 'immature'. It sounds very divisive and unnecessarily raising the temperature of the arguments here. All sides must be able to explain themselves to anyone, whether they are fully informed or not about the situation in a polite manner. Sinhala freedom 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking this again, does anyone would like to replace these flags and symbols with the map of Sri Lanka? I'm trying to save the valuable time the WP:MEDCAB --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it just blank.Mattice3 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, why is this discussion occuring on ANI? This is a content dispute, and should not have even been brought here; the discussion needs to be taken to either the article talkpage or to user talkpages. It is not appropriate for ANI. Rdfox 76 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In answering Nick discussion moved to talk page. Sinhala freedom 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New vandal sockpuppet master

User:309dursley has made such articles as Beijing Penis Festival 2008 through 2019, WP:AIV can suck my willy, and LOL i have an orange new messages bar where he posted he's going to keep making accounts once they get blocked. Can I get some help deleting his garbage? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also User:Saltysnails. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both have been blocked by other administrators. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests of Tbouricius and User:Ask10questions

Input is needed here on a series of blocks placed on a series of editors for disruptive or single-purpose editing on Instant-runoff voting. Tariqabjotu has blocked several editors involved with this article, including Tbouricius and Ask10questions, both of whom have made unblock requests. (Ask10questions's unblock request has been denied by Sandstein while Tbouricius's request is pending.) There is extensive discussion of the blocks at on, including Tariqabjotu's detailed explanation of the blocks and input from several other users. It appears at least one of these editors (Tbouricius) is a real-world published author on instant run-off voting and that this situation may, in part, involve an external dispute on the merits of this voting system and alleged COI issues. While the editor behavior on the article was far from optimal, I am concerned by the indefinite blocks, at least some of which were not preceded by any warnings. Tariqabjotu has indicated that he stands by the blocks and does not anticipate reviewing the matter further but that any concerns could be raised here at ANI. I would appreciate input from other admins on these requests. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a possible COI in a few edits could result in an indefinite block. I would personally have explained the situation to the editor, and advised him to keep him a neutral point of view in editing. This user is eager to edit and might have some future conflict with it, but I don't find that to be grounds for blocking. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I've only started going therough the various talk page discussions, but since the blocking editor seems to feel that User:Abd was defending the article from puppeteering, if that same user (Abd) suggests that one or two of the editors were unjustly blocked, then perhaps unblocking should be at least considered? - jc37 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've researched this a bit too. There was heavy socking going on, from acct4 or whoever the main account is, but Tbouricius and Ask10questions weren't part of that. I'd be inclined to unblock also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was watching this as it unfolded and was also concerned that the block might be precipitate but NYB beat me to the unblock review. I would support unblocking these users. They can always be reblocked if their editing raises further cause for concern. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nish, it's quite obvious that you did not look at the full scope of the situation. A case for unblocking might be able to be made, but your suggestion that the blocks were over "a possible COI in a few edits" shows you did not look into the reasoning behind them. I was not even aware of a possible conflict of interest until after I had blocked the users and they (and others involving in the conflict) made them public. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User Self-Identifying as Child

Hopefully in the right place. User User:Mitchmeerkat (second log in User:mitchlover11 identifies herself as being a minor on her user page, along with including the name of her school, a lot of her family member's names, pet names, and her personal email address. Collectonian 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

user page should be deleted per NOT#Myspace, since thats clearly what she and her friends are doing, then warn them. Is it me or does she have a Lot of dead pets?--Jac16888 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)(non-admin)

The user page doesn't need to be deleted. She's just posting information about herself, which is what everyone does. Only most people do it more generally, using userboxes. The page shouldn't be deleted just because she's using text instead. There is an excess of personal info though, especially for a minor, and the user should be advised about the inherent dangers. I've posted my own suggestion on her talk page, but an admin notice might carry more weight.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:54, 10/5/2007

PS. She sure does have a lot of dead pets, for someone who hasn't been alive all that long yet.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:01, 10/5/2007

Yes, but looking at her page, shes encouraging other people to do the same and add it to the bottom, as someone already has. the whole page looks just like a text version of a myspace page--Jac16888 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

She does indeed...though less than her friend (who claims every animal he's ever known as a pet) User:Cruise_meerkat. He self identifies as being 12, but doesn't really have any major identifying info beyond his state on his page. Though his also does the Myspace type thing. Collectonian 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap!! Between them they must have more than 50-60 deceased or missing pets.--Jac16888 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Roitr - new IPs

• 79.179.183.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.179.150.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Same editing pattern, same IP hostmask. Request block. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

I ask that any available administrator please unblock user Wikitarded (talk · contribs) (unblock) so that they may participate in a discussion about the suitability of their username currently ongoing at WP:RFCN. Please note that this is the same user discussed above at WP:ANI#Gross misuse of blocking. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The username is not permissable because its a poke at a mental disorder, or appears to be so. I won't unblock, however, registration of a new username in order to discuss I don't think would be objected. Mercury 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a valid block to me. It is not something every admin would block, but well within policy and admin discretion. This is a better place to discuss and unblock request than RFCN. The user can create a new name to discuss here if he/she wants. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

After a thorough examination of policy, I find the correct course of action within a WP:RFCN discussion (and yes, this has gone to RFCN), is to wait until the discussion is over to block. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Temporarily unblock so the editor can join the discussion.
2. Ask the user to not edit any article in mainspace, and only to contribute in discussion revolving his username (or he will be reblocked)

This is perfectly fair. Why not allow him to contribute under his current name as the policy states itself!?. To disallow him to contribute to his own discussion via a temporary, restricted, unblock would be a injustice to the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll even add him to my watch list to ensure he doesn't edit anywhere else. 68.143.88.2 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot. By now he's either long gone, registered with a different user name, or whining at us as an anon. —Cryptic 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack cleanup requested

I'm tired of deleting personal attacks from this fellow, and his latest has so much stuff tangled together that I can't delete segments without affecting the meaning. Can someone clean this (diff) up? (SEWilco 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC))