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

NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though

Hello all. Further to the previous notifications on the NLP article [1] [2] [3]: The most constructive effort now seems to me to be the encouragement of a civil atmosphere that allows editors of different viewpoints to get along [4] and to present an article that includes all relevant views “presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[5]. There are some problems remaining:

• Despite being reminded of the importance of civility for constructive editing - some editors (possibly the same one) are continuing to be uncivil by demanding blocks in edit summaries ([6] (under “serious examples”)) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

• Editors ignoring suggestions to civilly discuss edits (diffs as above)

• Some editors (possibly the same one) persistently restoring argumentative phrasing [12] [13] [14]

• Editor trying to marginalize (ignore) critical discussion by using spacing [15] [16] [17]

• Continued obscuring of relevant science views eg [18] [19] [20]

On the positive side:

• Editors have stopped actually removing critical discussion from the talkpage:

• Concerning evidence for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: Some editors are editing using predominantly single use accounts [21] [22] [23] [24]: The recent COI issues on the article are perhaps more important [25] considering the cultic issues inherent in the subject. Apart from this I see no evidence of any sockpuppeting actually going on in the article.

• There has been some compliance with Cleanuptaskforce suggestions. Also - though they do tend to try to marginalize critical suggestions critical influence shows some effect and there is a delayed positive response towards some of those suggestions afterwards.

Overall things are slowly moving forward. Civility is clearly very important on Wikipedia (as I see it in a nutshell - to “Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally) and especially for articles such as the NLP article. None of the other articles I edit on have editors who persistently restore argumentative phrasing (WP words to avoid) into the text. It seems to me that as long as civility is properly adopted and reasonably maintained though - then all relevant views can be fairly presented and constructive article proceedings can be maintained long term. Again - if I inadvertently make any suggestion or action that is not constructive then I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thank you AlanBarnet 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been trimmed down considerably, which is major progress. When I was a mentor on that article, it was ridiculously large. Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Woohookitty. Yes there's definitely room to make the whole article more concise in criticisms and in the general presentation of the subject. Redundancy can be reduced and the style can be made more encyclopedic. Moving forward. AlanBarnet 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty for some positive remarks. As for AlanBarnet, the reason why he is sidelined and/or ignored by all the other regular editors is that they are all of the view that he is a sockpuppet of Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown [26]and therefore attempts to negotiate/discuss civilly or compromise with him are a pointless waste of time. Several of these editors lived through the previous mediation/arbitration marathon and therefore have experience of this. The major improvements in accuracy of citations and quotations took place in the teeth of his interference and major improvements in trimming have taken place since all editors agreed to ignore AlanBarnet as a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown thus enabling some constructive work to be done.Fainites 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. This is a good opporunity for you to try to get along with editors who hold different views from you. Some infrequent editors on the article seem to be in agreement with me concerning the need for civil discussion[27][28].. However, the prior assessments [29] [30] [31]: indicate that you seem to be part of a domimating group who encourages COI editing and the promotional obscuring of views. You seem quite resistant to reasonable admin suggestions [32]. According to policies on sockpuppetry [33] the dominating group in this case could possibly be considered meatpuppets when following the same NPOV non-compliance and can all be considered the same editor when voting about other editors. I'm not particularly interested in banning COI editors or rooting out all possible meatpuppets though - and I'm sure admin will deal with any sockpuppetry. The main solution is to encourage editors to get along civilly so they can present all relevant views in concise form without obscuring the most relevant. I believe that above all - admin suggestions and scrutiny have been helpful in improving the NLP article and I'll continue to make helpful notifications to encourage civility and constructive editing for as long as its needed. I believe its inevitable that at some time you will have to show that you can get along with editors of different views. For the sake of civil discussion and a balanced article of course - the sooner the better. AlanBarnet 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 4th effort gaming WP:AN/I [40] [41] [42] -- and his message is again overflowing with sugar-coated bait, arbitrary diffs, and flat-out lies. No-one has corroborated any of his stories and lies -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to all other editors indepedently deciding to ignore AlanBarnet completely -- enabling them to discuss and debate issues with sincerity. Even without an ear on the NLP talk page, AlanBarnet has nonetheless persisted in trolling both there and here. Please check out AlanBarnets talk page and you'll see his conflicts began with his arrival at wikipedia and have continued up to this date. Please, can an admin please review this situation? 58.178.97.116 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 58. I am not gaming anyone. I have shown commitment to civility and that will continue in cooperation with admin. I believe my discussion behavior complies with how a Wikipedian should communicate on Wikipedia and follows how other admin communicate. Criticising it probably doesn't help. I believe my userpage is full of undue harassment towards me and shows a particular group's pressure to stifle criticism. If anything it shows that the more pressure I get - the more civil I become. I hope to encourage this civility reaction in others long term on the NLP article and all the other articles I am editing on. Feel free to join. AlanBarnet 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a quick note. It has been a pleasure collaborating with 58.* and Fainites. I believe these editors tend to be on the healthy skeptical side. Together we are working on NPOV. We have systematically worked through the entire article to checking facts and references. It has come a long way on the road to become a wikipedia feature article standard. We want to promote an atmosphere in the article and discussion so that more experienced wikipedians are willing to weigh in. --Comaze 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Judging by the past notices there is a dominating group on the NLP article (and there are COI issues) who tend to obscure relevant views for the purpose of promotion. Just yesterday Fainites and 58 added defensive writing to the lead section dressed up as criticism. The Cleanuptaskforce just asked for less defensive writing from proponents yet it was added as if its criticism. Criticism has been obscured. The science fact is that NLP is unsupported. The main criticism and concern is that NLP is pseudoscientfic and there are concerns about it being promoted as a therapy in self development and in HRM. Its fairly clear that as a group there is no substantial skepticism. It took a lot of work and even scrutiny from this ANI to make the basic fact present on the article (unsupported). The obvious solution: If more experienced Wikipedians are to be encouraged to edit there then it would help if you as a group would show that you can get on with editors who hold diffent views and who want to report straight. AlanBarnet 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense.Fainites 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Professor Devilly appeared on the talkpage a while back and said he held NLP as an archetypal pseudoscience [43]. His paper also supports the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. Professor Drenth (1999) and others call it pseudoscientific. Its discussed in books about mind myths and pseudoscience and the main reason for mentioning it is because it is promoted in fringe psychotherapy - pop psychology and human resource management. Editors have persistently been suppressing that information in the lead section eg [44]. I'm glad to see that the incivil edit summary has been omitted though. Now in order to be properly civil it is necessary to discuss with all editors whatever their view. I believe most here would deem that to be in the spirit of constructive editing on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions

An editor called my attention to an ongoing dispute at Srebrenica massacre. I've done some poking around, and I'm greatly troubled by what I see:

• Bosniak (talk · contribs) reverts any attempts to introduce neutral point of view terminology (for example, an editor changed the subheading "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" to "Critical views" to make it less POV-laden).
• he repeatedly introduces information in blatant violation of WP:BLP ("...accused of raping Bosniak women...") and has been adding this information despite warnings since August ("...accussed of participating in Serb-run rape camps..."). This information has no reliable sources and has in fact been widely discredited.
• Bosniak accuses editors of "vandalism" when they make any changes contrary to his POV, using edit summaries like "rv to Psychonaut - Jim Douglas, this is not your personal web page to vandalize. Your vandalism will not succeed." and "rv to Psychonaut -- Jim Douglas, read discussion page before attempting to vandalize article". It should be noted that the user in question was discussing the issue on the talk page.
• Anyone who disagrees with Bosniak is labeled a Serb apologist. Bosniak even goes so far as to compare their "destruction" of the article to the mass murders itself: an egregious violation of WP:AGF, to say the least.
• The user threatens to have another user blocked for asking him to cease making ad hominem attacks, violating WP:CIVIL.
• Bosniak persistently removes Serbophobia from the Anti-Bosniak sentiment article as part of an ongoing effort to make a point; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniakophobia, an AFD the user was blocked for disrupting (see also this edit, where he falsifies votes for his bad faith nom of Serbophobia.)
• The editor canvasses user talk pages, enlisting aid to preserve his POV within the article (characterizing the other editors as "genocide deniers"):[45] [46], [47]
• The editor's userpage is in itself a soapbox and clearly demonstrates his POV agenda.

The user had two previous AN/I reports, one in November and again in December. He was blocked for one week after the November report (in which he disrupted AFD processes). He lodged this complaint on AN/I against the admins who rolled back his soapbox canvassing, and it was suggested that he be blocked for two weeks if he acted again in this manner. It is clear that this user has not learned our policies concerning WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. I confess that I do not have much knowledge of the tragedy at Srebrenica, but it is very clear that this user is interested in promoting a very particular POV to the exclusion of all others. Attempts to deal with this user are persistently met with accusations of vandalism, allegations of being a Serbian apologist, and threats to have users blocked or banned. I would like to ask for other administrators' input on how to handle this situation. -- Merope 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend pursuing dispute resolution, starting with a Request for comment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That may actually work if the editor were to be interested on dispute resolution, but looking at his contribution history it is easy to realise he is "on a mission". As a matter of fact, there is an ArbCom decision on Kosovo (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo), which although not directly related was used in the past as rationale to block another user for disruption (Osli73). Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also add to the list of grievances that he's a serial and unrepentant copyright violator. He has a history of contributing text and images without permission of the copyright holder, and continues to do this despite conspicuous warnings on his user talk page. In fact, the most recent violation occurred just a few hours ago; see User talk:Bosniak#Congress of North American Bosniaks. For reporting such policy breaches I have been labelled a "Serb [who] defends Serb interest on Wikipedia", as have many other editors. —Psychonaut 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he may need another block, and quite possibly a community ban, given that he has not ceased soapboxing and violating copyrights. It's becoming clear that he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia and its community. I'm not sure if dispute resolution would work effectively in this case. --Coredesat 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As User:Bosniak has apparently decided there's no point in paying attention to my "Serb propaganda", I've asked one of his friends to have a chat with him. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My research

I, as a completely unconnected person conducted some research into the conduct of this user. I'm unable to make any judgements as to the quality or actuality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the topic, but the pattern of behavior is clear.

Srebrenica massacre - edit warning

• 04:49, 20 January 2007
• 23:21, 19 January 2007
• 05:16, 19 January 2007
• 21:26, 18 January 2007
• 21:34, 17 January 2007
• 20:19, 16 January 2007
• 07:55, 16 January 2007
• 22:47, 15 January 2007

Soliciting help in edit war

• User_talk:Bosniakk - 17 January 2007

Incivility and personal attacks

• Ethnicity as an insult: (edit summary) "Duja is a Serb; stop reverting and deleting our comments. This is not your personal page. We have freedom of speech here." 17 January 2007
• Insulting labeling: (edit summary) "(rv. Is Hadzija new provocateur?)" - 07:55, 16 January 2007 (2 more with similar language: [48][49]
• Incivil edit summary: (rv. Jim Douglas is a Serb apologist) - 22:47, 15 January 2007

What I see here is the aggressive pattern of an activist... someone who is here to push a point of view. (every revert changes "criticism" to "revisionism", etc). I don't know if a short-term block will get the attention of this user or not, but it might be worth a try. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If a community ban is the only solution, then by all means. My problem is what would stop him/her of creating a sockpuppet. (Well, I guess these would be easy to spot anyway). --Asterion^talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think he's worse than Gibraltarian and/or Beckjord (although I do NOT condone the behavior of these two people either), so I think that if he were to be permabanned, his user talk page should also be locked to prevent him from soapboxing on it. Scobell302 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough he does remind me of User:Gibraltarian. --Asterion^talk 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sockpuppets should be easy enough to spot, given this user's behavior pattern. --Coredesat 20:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Truth be told, I'm hesitant to call for a community ban because I feel it would result in martyrdom and a plethora of socks, but they would be easily spotted. The user, however, runs a blog on this subject and would likely recruit meatpuppets to his purpose, which would be more difficult to control. -- Merope 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure whether meatpuppets would be a big problem - take Beckjord for instance: at one point he posted a notice on his website calling on his supporters to revert to his preferred version of Bigfoot, but with little success; the notice was eventually taken down. Scobell302 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything User:Bosniak does in retaliation for being banned couldn't be much worse than the situation we already have with pro-Bosniak POV warriors and policy violatiors. In the past month we've already had to deal with the likes of Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosniakk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. —Psychonaut 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a point of staying out of this discussion, but I didn't want to leave Bosniak's comments above unanswered. No, I'm not "on a mission". I explained how I came to be involved in that article here, in response to a suggestion that I was acting on some hidden agenda. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

<reindent> I've blocked Bosniak for 31hr for violating 3RR: [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]. His comments above further cement my assertions that he fails to recognize WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Any editor interested in this discussion can see that the above-named editors have in fact participated on the talk page of Srebrenica Massacre, explaining the WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but this user has failed to recognize their contributions. -- Merope 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that outburst removed any doubts I had about a long-term (not sure how long) or indefinite block. I would now support one since it's clear that he has no respect for policies or guidelines and is here to push a POV. --Coredesat 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen happening on Srebrenica massacre, a page that I've followed for years and where I sometimes try to mediate, I've come to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to conduct a discussion on Talk:Srebrenica massacre in User:Bosniak's presence and thus I fully support a long block. And I implore all people looking in the matter to watchlist Srebrenica massacre; my experience is that User:Bosniak's fear that Serb apologists will vandalize the page is unfortunately well founded. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today I did some minor reformatting of the Srebrenica massacre article, which consisted entirely of what I thought to be noncontroversial typographical changes: replacing hyphens with dashes, trimming whitespace, fixing indentation, etc. You can view the diff between my first and last edits today. User:Bosniak seems to have flown into a rage over this, accusing me of "deleting important paragraphs of the article", "total desecration of the facts", vandalism, and genocide denial. I asked him politely three times to identify the information he alleges I removed from the article, but he refuses to do so, instead responding with insults, further accusations, and personal attacks. See User talk:Bosniak#Srebrenica massacre 3 for details. —Psychonaut 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have increased the duration of the block to 1 week in the light of the evidence produced against this user; after seeking permission from the orginal blocking admin (Merope). (ref. WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Add WP:CIVIL to the list. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell wikistalking

Closing pointless and fruitless finger-pointing discussion to save everyone's sanity. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

• Note: comments moved from above discussion of Milo, to avoid muddying of issue

Yes, and I responded to you here. Please don't respond with groundless ad hominem attacks every time your behavior comes under scrutiny. MastCell 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet which you used only to comment at Barrington Hall, and I have left numerous articles to avoid you, as you aware. The WP:STALK evidence is very clear in your case, and I think you have gambled that I would not report you because you know I don't want to have anything to do with you, not even an ANI case reporting you for wikistalking. But I would do it at this point, and ask any admins who are paying attention to bar Mastcell from stalking me. (Especially because he has done so twice now in order to escalate disputes at Barrington Hall/is having a dispruptive effect on the article.) This should be clearly marked as a separate issue from Milo if it continues, and moved to a WP:STALK complaint against Mastcell.-Cindery 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Cindery, the "sockpuppet" situation you're referring to was reported (by me) at AN/I and received admin attention here. As far as my "disruptive" effect on the article, I invite any and all to review my contributions at Talk:Barrington Hall (I've made no edits to the article itself), and everywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Cindery, your claim to the moral high ground on matters of disruption and sockpuppetry is tenuous, at best, and since you've shown no lack of vindictiveness, I can only assume you haven't "reported" me because I have not, in fact, violated WP:STALK, WP:DE, or any other policy. MastCell 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you because you stalked me from Emergency contraception to Depo Provera. In November, I left all birth control articles, specifically to avoid you. (And I was an excellent contributor to those articles, so it was a loss for Wikipedia). You then stalked me to Barrington Hall, using a sockpuppet. When I inquired on my talkpage in general about who "Girondin" was, you admitted on ANI to being Girondin. Your "confession" was archived by JMabel, in case I wanted to make an issue of it. Barrington Hall is an article you have never made an edit to, and which you aware I will not leave. You crop up at this article only during disputes, to escalate them. You should be barred from stalking me to any articles, but Barrington Hall in particular.-Cindery 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a timeline for this stalking and diffs to back up your position? How recent was this? Spartaz 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the evidence can be found here: [54]-Cindery 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its nearly a month since then. Have you anything more recent to report? --Spartaz 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the "diffs" supplied there, and judge for yourself whether I was in fact being disruptive. MastCell 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but I just ignore him when he comments elsewhere. I will dig up the diffs. What I am concerned about is Barrington, because it really gives the creeps--he know he's "cornering" me at an article I'm personally committed to, and he shows up only to try yo escalate disputes. The recent diffs are all on the Barrington Hall talkpage. Someone else already pointed out to him "perhaps you are editing the wrong article," to which Mastcell responded with WP:OWN b.s, I think because he thought I wouldn't report him-- reporting him means having to be involved with him. For him, it's a win-win situation. I just want him to leave me alone, I already left all the birth control articles, and his presence at Barrington Hall is making things worse for everybody, not just me.-Cindery 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: here is a good example of him wikistalking, me just ignoring him. (Everyone else ignored him as well.) This was an ANI complaint started by J.Smith, in which J. Smith, Nick, and Guy were all involved, but dropped it for obvious good reasons. To their credit, they admitted they weren't unbiased, since they were all involved in the big You Tube/EL controversy at EL, taking the opposite position from me. Mastcell appeared at the end to try to continue the argument (and by doing so let me know that he was reading/stalking all of my contributions to EL, saying, in essence, "I am following every one of your edits, I read everything you write, and I will chime in if I think it will bother you, or make a situation worse,": [55]-Cindery 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC) And here is a link to the entire discussion, so you can see his comment in context:[56]

I started to respond, but since the above is mostly personal attacks and bad faith, maybe I'll just wait for diffs. It's all at Talk:Barrington Hall, if anyone cares. MastCell 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if it has been well-estabished that you and so and so don't get along, so and so has left articles where they were a regular editor to avoid you, and asked to be left alone, you should try to stay away from them--not stalk them. That's disruptive in and of itself. As for your "de-escalation" absurdity, no, it does not de-escalate disputes if you join them when they are heated and unbalanced, and you join on the unbalanced side against someone who has already asked to be left alone and pointedly avoids you. Since you stalked the EL issue and the EL You Tube issue at Barrington Hall specifically, you were already aware that the side you were joining was the "EL" side--editors who are not neutral, and arguably not disputing the issue at hand. So, seeing a bunch of people disgruntled that the You Tube link was allowed to stay try to pick a fight about something else, and deciding "hey, this would be a good time for a stalker to join! That would de-escalate the issue, if I sided with the disgruntled EL people!" is ridiculous, and you know it. Now everyone else knows, too.-Cindery 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd refer the reader to the following diffs: [57], [58], which are my responses to her initial charges of "Wikistalking" and an attempt to de-escalate any conflict we had. Both were deleted by Cindery, with an edit summary describing them as "further harassment". I'd also suggest that my input at Depo Provera was not disruptive, and would note that you also "left all birth control articles" at a point where other editors (besides the two of us) were getting involved and a consensus was developing against some of your more strident edits. Perhaps most importantly, I'd invite anyone to review my input at Talk:Barrington Hall, which was aimed at de-escalation. But isn't this more appropriate for WP:DR? MastCell 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: and if you read what I wrote to him in those diffs, hopefully the irony of him providing a message in which I asked to be left alone, which he refused to honor, as evidence that he is not wikistalking me months later to is not lost.-Cindery 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that my contributions to Emergency contraception. Mifepristone. amd Depo Provera were stellar. You have wikistalked me, and I consequently left all those articles to avoid you. Then you created a sockpuppet to stalk me to Barrington Hall, to escalate a dispute with baiting, uncivil language. Now you have returned to Barrington Hall, and are doing the same thing. You should leave me (and the article talkpage) alone.-Cindery 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really have nothing else to say about this. For every further personal attack you make, just assume that I respond by disputing your charges, noting that others at the talk page don't agree with you ([59], [60]), and referring any interested parties to review your behavior on Wikipedia. It will save time and space, and I can move on to more productive things. Think Ford Prefect asking Prosser to lie in the mud in front of the bulldozer in place of Arthur Dent. MastCell 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear that you should stop stalking me. If you do it again, I will note it immediately at the location with a link to this page and make another report. -Cindery 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU need to stop assuming bad faith. Someone uses an alternate account for a legitimate purpose, and you immediately jump on it and start calling it wikistalking. You have no proof for your claims. Therefore, stop calling it such unless you have much, much, more proof than flimsy speculation. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that he only used the sockpuppet to make inflammatory uncivil comments to me. (And he admitted they were uncivil.) That's a nice story--I invented this sock puppet for some noble purpose, but then I accidentally only used it to harass you?

• Let's also note that I left all the birth control articles/Wikipedia entirely for a month, and when I returned, it was to Barrington Hall. Mastcell's first edit ever to Barrington Hall talkpage occurred then, after I left all the birth control articles--since he could no longer harass me there. Thinking I would ignore/avoid him, since I was actively avoiding him, he used a sockpuppet.-Cindery 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the stalking continues in spite of this complaint:

Per WP:STALK, you should not be here. [9]. Cease your disruption at this article. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) It almost feels like you're trying to bully me (and Localzuk, and J.smith, and Milo) with ad hominem attacks and accusations of ulterior motives. There is actually constructive discussion going on below about the issues which got this page protected. Why not contribute to it? MastCell 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) You're a special case all by yourself of WP:STALK. Why are you harassing and stalking someone who completely avoids you? It's not helping the article. As Astanhope said "you are editing the wrong article." -Cindery 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note I am the author of most of the "constructive discsussion below.") -Cindery 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So, he makes admittedly incivil mistakes a month ago, and now you make accusations based on events way long past? Ludicrous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the quote you give us is a great example of irony: You say that you won't discuss with him because he violated WP:STALK (a flimsy pretext in itself), and when he asks you to stop, you continue with accusations of WP:STALK and hound him wherever he goes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I completely avoid him,l eft all articles I previously edited, and did not even make the prior ANI report I should have made about stalking because I didn't want to interact with him; I just want him to leave me alone. He's fixated on me, he has been for some time, and it gives me the creeps. "A month ago" shows a pattern--he has been stalking me for a while. If he doesn't stop, I will point out that he's doing it every time he does it, with a link to this page. -Cindery 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that Cindery is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Cindery - let it go. if someone really is wikistalking you, someone will notice, especially after this AN post. You're only digging yourself into a hole here, really - for if an admin is to take any action in this case, they would have to consider the actions of both parties, and your actions have been less than stellar. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AStanhope has noticed. I haven't advertised that I have a stalker, because I hoped he would go away if I ignored him. but he should leave me alone. "If you find that you can't get along with someone, perhaps it is best to avoid them," per Wiki--not stalk them after they leave all the articles they used to edit in order to avoid you.-Cindery 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof that he's doing it right now? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict):::::I posted above what he posted to the Barrington talkpage during this discussion. (Around the same time he said he had nothing more to say on the subject, and I said I would point out his stalking in the future if he did it again, he posted to Barrington talkpage. While this discussion was/is ongoing.) There's no benefit to Wikipedia in him stalking me; there are a million other articles for him to edit, etc. Again, I completely avoid him and left articles to which I was a significant and productive contributor just to avoid him--there's no need for him to stalk me to articles he doesn't edit at all, let alone to join disputes, use sockpuppets to make inflammatory remarks, etc.-Cindery 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him stalking you; I do see, however, you harassing him. Unless you will provide convincing diffs instead of futile rhetoric, I will hold this opinion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Less rhetoric, more proof, please, Cindery. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Following people --who leave articles to avoid you and ask to be left alone-- to articles you don't edit is stalking.-Cindery 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not proof, that's rhetoric. Proof in the form of diffs, please, or your complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting from when? (To establish that I contributed 60 citations--half the research--to Emergency contraception, while he contributed only to the talkpage, in comments addressed only to me, I could provide diffs, but there would be hundreds. It's boring research, too. A glance at the edit history of the article and the talkpage will give you the overall picture. I'll give you a diff which shows a clear personal attack on me which I did not report, [61] and includes a statement from me that I would report him for harassment, and points out that I had already asked him not to address me on my talkpage because he was overly emotionally engaged with/fixated on me. I never reported him--I just left. The story is: after a fairly minor disagreement at Emergency contraception, he stalked me to Depo Provera, so I left Depo Provera, after expressing concern that he had imported anger from the EC dispute directly to Depo. He was very emotionally overangaged on my talkpage, so I asked him to disengage/leave me alone, stick to articles. He then devoted all his time to harassing me on the talkpage of Emergency contraception until I left. After I left, he stalked me to Barrington Hall.)-Cindery 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• And here is a recent diff of his response to User:Astanhope, who told Mastcell, "perhaps you are editing the wrong article. I think you are needed elsewhere.":[62] -Cindery 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no personal attacks by MastCell, but I see instances of incivility by you. Though minor, you are now only serving to discredit yourself, not the person you are disagreeing with. I find your post of "Sorry, you just have no case" particularly interesting. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, you keep saying you "left articles to avoid me" and that I "harassed you away from articles". It seems a little incongruous that someone who dishes out as much abuse as you is so thin-skinned as to be chased away by our relatively mild (in the grand scheme of things) content disputes at emergency contraception or Depo Provera. So I just took a look at the chronology. Your last edit to Emergency contraception was Dec. 1. Your next edit was to post a Wikibreak notice. You then returned early from your break specifically to fight about YouTube and managed to accrue 3 blocks in rapid succession. After which you wrote that you would no longer contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and would limit your involvement to a campaign to de-sysop someone you had a disagreement with (and for good measure, went after Essjay, who had run a checkuser case on you). And now here we are. So to claim that you left emergency contraception to avoid me is convenient for you at the moment, but it seems equally likely that the above sequence of events, which had little or nothing to do with me, was responsible. MastCell 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, look, I'm fairly thick-skinned, but Cindery's now made dozens of edits today calling me a "stalker". You've presented your case. If you want to add more diffs, do it. But further unsupported accusations are really just personal attacks, and at this point I'd ask that they be treated as such. MastCell 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about you, and the fact that you are stalking me, and that it serves no good purpose for Wikipedia. (Anyone with the patience to read your 40 pages of nitpicking harassment on the Emergency Contraception page will want to leave that article too.)

But I will address what you have said, for the benefit of readers, with the caveat that it does not mean I will allow you sidetrack focus off of your stalking.

• 1. I had a sterling rep prior to the block--which was one extended block, and if I wasn't already disgusted enough by you to have left all the articles I used to edit, I would have contested the blocks, as the first, for "npa" was extremely weak. The block was for a draft of an RfC against Nick on my talkpage. The next person to make a draft saw their draft deleted and protected from recreation. There was definitely concerted interest in preventing people from organizing transparently to file an RfC against Nick. If I had intended to "personally attack" Nick, I would have left a message on his talkpage. Putting together an RfC is not a personal attack.

• 2. User:Mumblio is not a sockpuppet, he is a human being. His unblock request and his letter to Essjay were ignored. No one "went after" Essjay--it was pointed out that he ignored an email in the hope that he would reply. Mumblio, incidentally, interviewed a lawyer this week, in his capacity as a journalist, who turned out to represent a member of the Foundation. (They traded stories and gossip.) He does idly sometimes want to contribute again--about some guy named Gene Savoy. He thinks the lawyer will help him. I told him just to create another account and stay away from me (his home IP is not blocked.) He likes the name "Mumblio," though. He was blocked after making a single comment re the Barrington You Tube dispute.

• 3. Yes, after you, and then that, I was completely disgusted, and I still am--I agree with a lot of "Why Wikipedia is not so Great." Nevertheless, I followed through on the Nick RfC, and the EL issues (I felt somehwat better about Wikipedia at the Foundation level after the Foundation's comments on that, but still feel there are too many people-with-problems.) I also massively improved Rheingold Beer--it's hard to resist improving articles sometime, even if one agrees Wikipedia is not so great because of the people.

In closing, maybe I haven't made myself clear enough about your stalking: you give me the creeps. Leave me alone. I will never like you. You crossed the line when you stalked me to Depo Provera and then refused to stop posting on my talkpage after I asked--your emotional over-engagement was the creepiest thing that has ever happened to me on Wikipedia. There is no chance I will ever change my mind and want to have anything to do with you if only you stalk me enough. I know that you feel rejected. That is not my problem. Invest emotionally in something in the real world. What part of stay away from me don't you understand? The "dispute resolution" that you desire/keep asking for, where I end up liking you is never_going_to_happen. The way to resolve this is for you to stay away from me. I left all the birth control articles--you can stop stalking me.-Cindery 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of contributions

Out of curiosity, I've tried to compare the contributions of both of these editors. I don't promise that this is all correct, but I've tried to match pages that both have edited in their past 1000 edits, to see who was 'first'. None of this proves or disproves anything, but just in case its interesting to anyone.

First instance of each user editing at the same page:

1. Depo_Provera

   2006-11-03 23:01 MastCell

   2006-11-16 02:49 Cindery

2. Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:11 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:50 Cindery

3. Mark_McClellan

   2006-11-11 01:38 MastCell

   2006-11-11 19:32 Cindery

4. Mifepristone

   2006-11-11 22:02 Cindery

   2006-12-19 18:49 MastCell

5. Talk:Barrington_Hall

   2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery

   2007-01-17 06:43 MastCell

6. Talk:Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:03 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:57 Cindery

7. Talk:Mifepristone

   2006-11-12 03:34 Cindery

   2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell

8. User_talk:Cindery

   2006-11-07 05:28 MastCell

   2006-11-13 07:42 Cindery

9. User_talk:Milo_H_Minderbinder

   2007-01-17 19:49 MastCell

   2007-01-19 20:30 Cindery

10. User_talk:William_M._Connolley

    2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery

    2007-01-17 19:44 MastCell

11. User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon

    2007-01-18 00:22 MastCell

    2007-01-20 05:44 Cindery

12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

    2006-11-21 19:49 Cindery

    2007-01-15 18:32 MastCell

13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

    2006-11-28 23:44 MastCell

    2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery

14. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

    2006-12-29 17:12 Cindery

    2007-01-04 21:54 MastCell

Checked MastCell back to 20:34, 26 October 2006. (1000 edits) MastCell was 'first' 8 times.

Checked Cindery back to 01:50, 11 November 2006. (1000 edits) Cindery was 'first' 6 times.

Regards, Ben Aveling 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your diffs don't make any sense--at Depo Provera, for example, I was a long-time contributor--Mastcell showed up there 30 minutes after the dispute at Emergency contraception (and a day after I sent a message to another editor saying that article meant something to me). After he was (and admitted he was) "more argumentative" than he should be, I left. His knowledge that I edited that article didn't come from the article. At emergency contraception, I returned after a long break and didn't even notice him until he fixated on me/began responding directly to me. Your Barrington diffs don't take into account his sockpuppet, Girondin, in December...and so on.-Cindery 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

...and your diffs for Milo's talkpage, William M. Connelly's talkpage, and the admin noticeboard refer to instances in which one or the other of us was discussing something completely unrelated/wasn't aware of the other. (But the idea of "first" leaves out the concept of "repsonse"--so while you have included two completely unrelated comments we made on ANI, you have left out his responses to me on ANI.)-Cindery 10:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is looking only at the fact of editing. For example, it 'shows' that MastCell was first to your talk page, which clearly isn't true. It's just that in his past 1000 edits, he has some edits on your talk page that are older than any of your past 1000 edits, so he appears to be 'first'. Regarding Depo Provera, all my report says is that he too is a long time contributor. That doesn't mean he wasn't stalking, it just provides an alternate explaination for why he might be at the page - he probably already had it watchlisted. I guess I could list all of your edits at each page, would that be more useful? It might be quite long. What about I take this to your talk page? Anyone interested can follow us there. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is an example of a meaningful comparison: I left on Dec. 1. I returned on Dec 20--to the Barrington Hall talkpage. (an article I have edited for a while, far away from birth control articles.) Mastcell made his first appearance there on Dec 21--as a sockpuppet.-(How would he know I was back if he weren't stalking me, etc.)Cindery 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He might have seen your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. More likely he may saw that you had edited your own talk page. What I can say is that you didn't edit any other pages that I would expect him to have on his watchlist, based only on his last 2000 edits. Below are all the edits from either of you on pages that you have both edited, from when you left to when his sock appeared at Barrington Hall. At a complete guess, he either followed your contributions or the link on your user page. And I'm going to log off. Back tomorrow. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: thanks, Ben. I would like to point out that there was no link to Barrington Hall on my userpage at the time. As you have noted that I didn not return to any articles I previously edited/that might be on his watchlist, I think it is safe to guess that he was stalking my edits.-Cindery 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No, that's not what I said. He edited your talk page in November, so it's quite likely that he knew you were back as soon as you edited it. I'll annotate below. For me, there are two issues here, of which I'm only looking at one, but you should consider them both. The issue I'm not looking at is what did he say, was it valid? The issue I am looking into is why did he say it? Was he following you, and why? There are valid reasons for following people. For example, I'm following you both around at the moment for what I hope is a valid reason - to try to help you both contribute better to Wikipedia. But rather than you and I guessing, let's just ask him. MastCell, I assume you're reading this. What took you to Barrington Hall? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 2006-12-07 06:55 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
2. 2006-12-07 06:57 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
3. 2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
   • Last edit by Cindery
4. 2006-12-08 05:27 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
5. 2006-12-15 18:20 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
6. 2006-12-17 00:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
7. 2006-12-18 23:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
8. 2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell Talk:Mifepristone
9. 2006-12-20 18:21 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
10. 2006-12-20 18:22 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
11. 2006-12-20 18:32 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
12. 2006-12-20 18:43 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
13. 2006-12-20 18:58 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
14. 2006-12-20 21:57 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
15. 2006-12-20 21:59 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
16. 2006-12-20 22:02 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
17. 2006-12-20 23:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • Cindery returns
18. 2006-12-20 23:46 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
19. 2006-12-21 00:18 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
20. 2006-12-21 00:30 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
21. 2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
22. 2006-12-21 01:23 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
23. 2006-12-21 04:01 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
24. 2006-12-21 04:59 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
25. 2006-12-21 06:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
26. 2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery User_talk:William_M._Connolley
27. 2006-12-21 07:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
28. 2006-12-21 22:58 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
    • Cindery edits her own talk page
29. 2006-12-21 23:08 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
30. 2006-12-21 23:16 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
31. 2006-12-21 23:34 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • 36 minutes later, the puppet makes its first edit
32. 2006-12-21 23:35 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
33. 2006-12-21 23:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
34. 2006-12-21 23:49 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall

• Note that his reapperance at talk:Barrington Hall was January 17th, and his mea culpa about the sockpuppet harassment was Dec 25 (and the long notes re his previous wikistalking, in which I stated "I completely avoid you.) There's nothing innocent about returning to the page three weeks later.-Cindery 11:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Girondin? I'll check, see what I can see. Just let me do the washing up first. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a way to get a count of the mainspace edits I made to emergency contraception vs. the mainspace edits he made (and a count of his talkpage edits) for November. Is that possible?-Cindery 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the mainspace for that page in November, you made 220 edits and he made 48. On the talk page you made 159 and he made 88. Why do you ask? Do I want to know? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted attention

I looked at the contributions from Girondin and can't relate this to stalking. Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. It looks like a normal content dispute to me.

evidence of bad faith ...mimsy-whomever [Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington] was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Now can we get back to more self-congratulatory reminiscenses about how great Barrington Hall was, and how lame the youth of today are? ...it doesn't really change anything/make a difference if NHN is a sockpuppetesque rather than meatpuppetesque. Cindery 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account. unsigned by girondin

In this interaction above girondin is trying to explain to Cindery the ins-and-outs of wikipedia. It borders on being helpful!!! Closer to a mentor than a stalker. David D. (Talk) 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He found this page by stalking my edits, used a sockpuppet to make comments he admitted were uncivil, during a dispute. (And clearly was not much of a "mentor" as WP:SIG doesn't advise having a username and sig which are not obviously the same to the casual reader--it can be considered disruptive. There's no reason a user couldn't apply right now to register the username "Nearly Headless Nick," as it is not registered to anyone, but the sig of Mimsy.) Let's also note that you are currently involved in the Barrington Hall dispute.-Cindery 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG is not policy as far as I am aware. Many users have signatures that differ from their user account. The fact he was trying to point this out to you was quite helpful considering your first post in that section. The only uncivil bit is the "self congratulatory" part which is not exactly OTT given what you have on your user page, re: the "Barrington six" . [63]

My involvement in the Barrington page is due to the arguments overflowing on to this page. There is no reason why i should not edit the page and give my opinions on whether your sources are reliable, or not. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that 1) WP:SIG states: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive" and 2) I edited my userpage to note Barrington six, etc two days ago 3) please keep content dispute on the page of the article. Noting that you are involved in the content dispute is helpful here, in my view. Let's not confuse the issues. This is about a clear case of stalking.-Cindery 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered it was a recent edit (added link to my original comment for clarification) but still the fact you wrote still shows it is not an OTT observation. I repeat WP:SIG is not policy, I know what it says. Look around you and note how many other users do not follow the guideline. It is no crime, although I personally would not recommend it. [64] Also it is quite normal for people who are involved in a dipute to comment on WP:ANI, this is a place for community input. To be frank you probably need to learn a little more about how things work in wikipedia. It seems that all your disputes involve people trying to help you understand how to sucessfully contribute to wikipedia. If you refuse the advice from others on what can be considered a reliable source then you will be in many more disputes. Please listen to what other have to say, believe it not, many are trying to help your write an article that will be stable. David D. (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perception is reality

Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. --David D.

Remember though, that unwanted attention is itself harrassment. Suppose a colleague kept giving you gifts, even after you asked them stop. It's important to look at what was said, but it's also important to look at other things as well. I've looked though both users contributions at some length. I have not checked the quality of the contributions, but they do match the pattern Cindery is complaining about. At Depo Provera, Emergency contraception, Depo Provera and Talk:Emergency contraception Cindery was editing regularly, then MastCell started editing, both of them edited for a while, then Cindery stopped editing. At Mifepristone Cinder was editing then stopped, and MastCell is now editing. At Talk:Barrington Hall Cindery was and still is editing, and MastCell occasionally drops by. Let's just say that if MastCell were to show up at any more pages where Cindery is editing, I'd look badly on it. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look at the "quality of contributions", then. I stand by the fact that I've improved both Depo Provera and emergency contraception, and not disrupted either article. I explained what should have been obvious with a basic assumption of good faith here (which Cindery rejected as "further harassment"). I don't see why I need to check to see if Cindery's been at a page before I edit it, so long as I contribute constructively and don't disrupt/attack/violate policy - and I think that's a really questionable precedent to set. MastCell 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is "Because it would make the universe a happier place". It doesn't take long to check the last 50 edits once and it would save a lot of stress for a lot of people. Right or wrong, Cindry is convinced that you are still following her around. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a dangerous precedent to set, though well-intentioned. Should we cater to Cplot because he perceives there is a pro-government cabal on Wikipedia? No! Doing so would be absurd. Likewise, doing so here would be akin to acquiescing to disruptive forces on Wikipedia, though I do not equate Cindery to such undesirable elements. We are not here to make everyone happy, warm, and fuzzy. If we are to edit peacefully in this world, we either must swallow what bitter medicine others force down us or we grow a thicker skin. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I do not think it is necessary that he check the last 50 edits of every new article he edits to see if I have edited there. What I would like him to stop doing is harassing me at a specific article, and following my contributions in order to make inflammatory comments, like the one at ANI regarding the You Tube/EL dispute. He doesn't need to check every article (I edit so few anyway) what he needs to is stop adressing me directly in a hostile way.-Cindery 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That does not explain why your sockpuppet appeared at talk:Barrington Hall a half hour after I edited my talkpage after a long break (you did not answer Ben's question about that) and it especially does not answer why you would return to the same talkpage after I pointed out that I was purposely avoiding you. There was nothing "innocent" about returning to the Barrington Hall talkpage after you used a sock there, and after I explicitly told you that I completely avoid you. That was clearly stalking and harassment, not accidentally stumbling on a page you merely hadn't noticed I had edited before--you were aware I edited that article because you had already harassed me there with a sockpuppet. -Cindery 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I suggest we all try not to repeat ourselves. Let's try to find the things that haven't yet been said. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it is not harrassment to correct people who are not willing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:V. It is common for editors to try and limit the damage that such individuals bring to wikipedia. To suggest it is stalking and protect editors such as cplot flys against reason. Not supporting Mastcell now is a bad precedent to set and is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: David D. is heavily involved in a dispute at Barrington Hall, and has started several others, apparently after an uncivil "request for input" from Hipocrite, who was involved in the EL dispute (read towards the bottom):[65].-Cindery 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for the admins

Since this is being discussed here, could an admin persuade Cindery to stop bringing up her stalking accusations at Talk:Barrington Hall? We're trying to edit an article there, and repeated "go away, you're stalking me" messages just sidetrack the discussion. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I feel a little ridiculous even continuing this, but if nothing else, look at WP:STALK. It defines Wikistalking as "following an editor to another article to continue disruption... the important part is the disruption." Look at emergency contraception, Depo Provera, Barrington Hall, or at any of my contributions - can anyone (besides Cindery) say that I've been disruptive, there or anywhere on Wikipedia? The User:Girondin edits are here, and were made to correct a misunderstanding in a debate I wasn't involved in. Judge for yourself if they're disruptive. The situation was reported, by me, to AN/I and discussed here. Finally, when I've said anything about Cindery here, it's been backed up by diffs. On the other hand, her posts (this one in particular) consist mostly of personal attacks and abuse. Like I said, I'm thick-skinned, but aren't there some standards, even in a dispute? MastCell 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Is defined as:

"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

That means that if on Dec. 25th you admit to using a sockpuppet to harass someone at an article you have never edited before, after they have left previous articles to avoid you, and you are aware of that because they write:" I completely avoid you. For you to then create a sock account and use it only to make inflammatory comments on the talkpage of an article where I returned as a regular editor and you have never before made a contribution appears to be very clear use of a sock to harass/wikistalk in the worst faith possible. What is creepy beyond-the-pale to me is that you were harassing/wikistalking someone who left articles in order to avoid you/was very actively avoiding you." [66]--returning to the same article only three weeks later is very clearly wikistalking (and harassment).-Cindery 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I haven't been disruptive there or anywhere, a fact that others at Talk:Barrington Hall agree with ([67], [68], [69], [70], etc). These are continuing personal attacks by an editor who's been blocked for the same in the past, occurring on WP:AN/I no less. I'm asking you to stop. If you don't, I'm asking that someone put a stop to your constant, unsupported personal attacks. MastCell 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the regular editors at Barrington Hall do not agree with you: [71]. As for disruption, you are not only wikistalking/harassing someone at an article where only three weeks ago you used a sockpuppet to make inflammatory remarks/tried to inflame a dispute, but you are doing the same thing again: you returned to Barrington Hall precisley when the You Tube/EL people picked a fight about something else (a dispute that has no lack of contributors, and is now an extremely long thread completely out of proportion to the importance of what is being disputed.) As your ANI stalker comment [72] made apparent that you followed the You Tube/EL dispute, you aware of exactly what you are doing.-Cindery 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• What you need to do, which I have repeatedly pointed out, is stop stalking me, if you don't want me to point it out. There are a million articles for you to edit, and it does not serve Wikipedia for you to stalk anyone, i.e., return to any articles where you have used a sockpuppet to harass someone whom you are aware completely avoids you, as I explicitly told you I completely avoid you, and left all the articles I used to edit.-Cindery 20:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you see a distinction between "regular editors" and other editors is a perfect example of the attitude of ownership you and Astandhope have over the article. I have seen no disruptive behavior by Mastcell there, and based on the lack of action taken by admins it looks like they don't either. However, your continued accusations there are off-topic and becoming disruptive, please keep the whole stalking thing here and not at the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't stalked me there in the last 16 hours or so--he stopped last night after I began pointing it out (at the article, but after this report). Hence I have not pointed out on the talkpage that he is stalking me during that time. There is a distinction between the regular editors of the article, and a small group of people leftover from the You Tube/EL dispute (and then there is Mastcell, who is in a WP:STALK category all by himself, who opportunistically joined them.) As I have just made a complaint against you, Milo, for blanking a section against consensus instead of discussing--when the consensus included all parties, even the YT/EL crew--I do not find that you are an impartial judge of whether Mastcell is wikistalking. Clearly he is. Again, he created a sockpuppet to harass me on the talkpage, was aware that I completely avoid him because I explicitly said so, and then returned to the talkpage only three weeks later, to inflame a dispute.'-Cindery 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that he's stalked there in the past month. You're not saying that you plan to respond to every post of his on the talk page with a stalking accusation, are you? And you're still insisting on that "blanking a section against consenus" thing, even though at least three other editors have removed that same passage and more have agreed with the deletion on the talk page? Who exactly do you feel is part of that "consensus" besides you and Astandhope? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) editing there at all is stalking me (perhaps you are confused that Girondin=Mastcell).-Cindery 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That statement shows a blatant misunderstanding of wikistalking. "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption" is the definition you provided yourself. Now you insist that if he edits the same article as you it's stalking, even if there's no disruption? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread the definition--wikistaking is itself disruption, and is defined as following abother editor around.-Cindery 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an important part of the definiton that nobody has pointed out: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Cindery has shown disregard for WP:RS and WP:NOR at the article in question (not to mention WP:OWN) - I hope someone is keeping an eye on the articles she edits. It seems like there's some circular logic going on here - it's stalking because it's disruptive/it's disruptive because it's stalking. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Milo is the subject of a complaint above which got the article protected, is not participating in discussion at the article now, and was involved in the EL dispute.-Cindery 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done pointing fingers yet? It seems like everyone has dropped the issue except you. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redux

It seems to me that this entire thread (or rather, these threads) boil down to Cindery complaining that some other users are nearly as argumentative as she is. Can we please archive this and send it to dispute resolution? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about stalking. ( Let's note also that you were majorly involved in the You Tube/EL dispute, and are in no way impartial. You probably shouldn't be commenting at all without noting that--unless you're trying to derail the subject?)-Cindery 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Editing there at all is stalking me?" That's interesting, but not what WP:STALK actually says ("...disruption is the important thing") and seems to fly in the face of "anyone can edit any article at any time." You've "settled" disputes in the past by bullying those you disagree with - Severa comes to mind [73] - or accusing others of harassment. That's generally not a productive way of settling disputes. But Guy is right - no one seems inclined to block me for "Wikistalking", nor to block you for your constant, unsupported attacks, so why not go to dispute resolution? It wouldn't be the first time you've filed an RfC to try to settle a score. MastCell 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to derail the issue with false accusations will not work. Wikistalking, again, is: Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. As you admitted to using a sockpuppet to harass me at Barrington Hall three weeks ago, returning to that talkpage is very clearly stalking. There is no dispute to resolve: what you need to do is stop stalking me. It's very simple.-Cindery 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, my edit has diffs; yours has accusations. Here is what I "admitted to", which you keep misrepresenting [74]. My point was that you use accusations to bully editors with whom you have content disputes. A question to any masochistic admins who are still reading this thread: Cindery's now made nearly 75 edits in the past 24 hours containing my name and some variation of the word "Wikistalking", without providing any convincing evidence. Is there some point at which these become personal attacks that warrant preventive action? I'd like to move on, but it's hard to do so with a constant drumbeat of unfounded accusations. MastCell 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made no edits to Barrington Hall pointing out that you are stalking me, since you stopped. It's very simple: do not stalk me if you do not want me to point it out. You shouldn't be stalking anyone, period, whether they are forced to point it out or not. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. You have not substantiated your claims, Cindery, you have merely spouted off groundless accusations on this thread. If you have definite proof, lay it out for all to see; if you don't, stop whining and avoid MastCell (MastCell, also avoid Cindery). Further harassment of MastCell (yes, I am now calling it harassment now) will be seen as disruption, and will result in a block. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There should also be a ban on Cindery ever using the word "stalk" again, since she's used it here enough for one lifetime (71 72 73 by my count). ^_^ JuJube 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolution?

I have a proposal for both of you. MastCell, you agree not to edit Barrington Hall or any page that Cindery is editing, excluding the birth control articles. Cindery, you agree never to mention MastCell again. MastCell, you agree never to mention Cindery again. Both of you take each others' talkpages off your watch lists, as well the other pages I've proposed you agree not edit. How does that sound? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is all I want.-Cindery 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• (Note: his talkpage is not on my watch list; never has been.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

• Since part of the problem appears to be Cindery's WP:OWN issues regarding Barrington Hall, encouraging that idea and seeming to reward behavior which enforces it seems like a lousy "compromise" to me. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All compromises are lousy. It's in the nature of the things. But it seems the best tradeoff to me. Most, maybe even all of MastCell's edits on that page are not about the Hall itself, so I suggest that it's an acceptable loss. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not own Barrington Hall, I am a significant contributor to that article. I think the unfair compromise (to Wikipedia) was that I left all the birth control articles already, to avoid Mastcell. It's not much to ask that all he do is desist from following me around elsewhere, esp. desist joining/inflaming a dispute against me at the talkpage of an article he has never edited, and where he has admitted to harassing me with a sockpuppet. I think Ben's suggestion was extremely balanced/fair-minded.-Cindery 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said ppreviously, not an admin, just a watcher, generally. However, I do agree with Calton. It seems that your solution rewards Cindery for assuming someone's out to get her, and raising a stink about it. Even worse, your solution is one sided, because it says MastCell can't edit anythign Cindery does, but not vice versa. Thus Cindery could easily use this restraining order to ruin his wiki-life, by editing his more usual haunts, and then run for admins when he goes to them. While I'm sure the admins would see through it quickly, why set up for more AN/I filings about this? I think Cindery set herself up for most of this by giving the statements about her personal relationship with the subjects of the article, and it came back to bite her. ThuranX 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not one-sided, as I already avoid all articles he edits/avoid him entirely, and will be happy to state that I would never go near any article he edits--I have clearly stated since late December that I want nothing to do with him, nor have I edited any articles he edits. (Thanks for claiming I "set myself up"--nobody deserves be stalked/harassed; there is no possible justification for it.) If he's truly interested in "conflict de-escalation," the very simple thing to do is stay away from me. It takes zero effort.-Cindery 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Calton as well. The article has serious ownership issues, and I don't think using stalking as an excuse to make people who aren't "regular editors" go away just encourages it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

• I haven't violated any policy or guideline. I've been civil and content-focused at Talk:Barrington Hall, and I've been as civil as possible here. Every claim I've made here is backed up by diffs. (Compare my behavior here to Cindery's). Therefore, I don't see why I should be constrained, every time I'd like to edit an article, to first make sure Cindery hasn't been there first.
• I cited the diffs above to indicate that Cindery has a history of responding to content disputes by bullying editors she disagrees with. That's what's happening here, and I think your suggested resolution only rewards such behavior.
• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall, because my concerns (which had to do with WP:V and WP:RS) are shared by a number of other editors there and are being addressed by them, and contrary to Cindery's assertions, I really don't enjoy dealing with her. But at the same time, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively there, or anywhere on Wikipedia. If, as Cindery suggests, she considers my very presence on the same page as her to be "stalking" and a policy violation, regardless of the content of my contributions, then I'd suggest that the issue here is primarily Cindery's and not mine.

Here's my proposal for resolution:

• If Cindery has a problem with me, follow WP:DR. Isn't that why it exists?
• In the meantime, further unfounded, unsupported accusations against me should be treated as personal attacks. Is this an acceptable edit anywhere, under any circumstances (much less on WP:AN/I, from an editor with a long history of disruption and personal attacks)? I'm patient, but 70+ edits calling me a "stalker" in 24 hours, without any convincing evidence, seems to me to cross a line. MastCell 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly seconded • Giving in to unfounded abusive claims of stalking is counterproductive and promotes a negative environment on Wikipedia, where if one yells loud enough people will get their way. This is in no way desirable, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I think the sockpuppet and Ben's diffs are evidence aplenty. But, as I state below "I avoid you; you avoid me" is perfectly acceptable, and not unilateral.-Cindery 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall--that's good. As long as you continue to have those "plans" and do not respond directly to me anywhere else, we're done here. I avoid you; you avoid me.-Cindery 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to avoid me; you're welcome anywhere on Wikipedia (including any page I edit) so long as you're civil and not disruptive, as everyone should be. That was my point. And as I said above, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively anywhere on Wikipedia. If I hear my name and the word "stalking" or "harassment" in the same sentence from you again, it should be in an WP:RfC, WP:RfM, WP:RfArb, or other form of WP:DR. Those caveats aside, like I said I have no plans to involve myself further at Talk:Barrington Hall, so hopefully we're done here. MastCell 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 steps of DR are Talk and Disengage. We're doing the first, and I think we're close to agreeing to do the second. If by "have no plans" you mean "plan not to" then yes, I think we're done. I assume you've removed Barringon from your watchlist? And Cindery's homepage? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I want nothing to do with you, intentionally avoid you, and that the DR contact you want with me is never going to happen. If you stalk me again, I will report it to ANI again. The solution that's best for Wikipedia is: I avoid you; you avoid me. Goodbye.-Cindery 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalk you "again"? Sigh. I'll let that (presumably) final completely unsupported personal attack slide. It might demonstrate a commitment to disengagement if you changed this, but that's your call. I've said my piece above. Good night. MastCell 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay away from me. Disengage. Start by not reading my userpage.-Cindery 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd caution you both that if this becomes a game of "can't touch me", you're likely to both be blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So Cindery is suggesting that it's OK to attack me on her userpage, and that if I complain about it I'm continuing to "stalk" her. Got it. "Disengagement" isn't unilateral. By the way, if any of you ever find yourselves in my shoes - if a disruptive editor with a history of settling content disputes by bullying or accusing others of "harassment", who has a personal dislike for you, comes to AN/I and starts what amounts to an attack thread, calling you a "stalker" 70+ times with the amount of "evidence" Cindery's presented here - I hope that someone steps in with a preventive block somewhere around the 20th or 30th personal attack. It's surprsingly hard to disengage unilaterally in the face of continuing attacks and abuse - especially as these things tend to acquire a certain believability through repetition, regardless of the complete lack of evidence. By the way, I apologize to the community for taking up so much space here with this. MastCell 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strive to be better than disruptive users, not the same, or worse. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Violation of recently closed ArbCom case

In the recent changes channel, I found that Evanreyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was moving several episodes of the series My Name Is Earl to disambiguated titles, which recently is found to violate the arbitration committee ruling on naming conventions. I originally reported to AIV, but this is something that should be posted here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is currently one page that I cannot move back due to the editor editting over the redirect, Stole Beer from a Golfer should be at Stole Beer From A Golfer (it seems that every episode uses capital letters in each title).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Were they a party to the arbitration? If not then there seems to be no reason to believe they would be aware of the situation and may indeed have been acting in good faith so diving in with a block would seem harsh. I've posted a warning to their talk page. I would guess the right place for these would actually be arbitration enforcement --pgk 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the arbitration case when I made the moves, and apologize for what I now see is a blatant disregard for a standing policy. I've fixed all the disambiguation changes I've made. However, the capitalization changes I've made should stand. Regardless of how the producers wish to name the episodes, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which overrides the show's conventions. Therefore, Stole Beer from a Golfer is correct, as well as all of the other naming changes I made. Evan Reyes 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you should have been aware of the arbitration case; most editors have probably never been near an arbitration case. That's why the arbitrators cautioned admins not to enforce it in a "mechanical" fashion. Thatcher131 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thejps being abusive to me

Hi, i hope you can help me. Im having a big problem with an administratorcalled thejps. When i joined i didnt know what i was doing and broke a few rules. I wasnt abusive but went about changing articles the wrong way. I was banned for 2 weeks which i completely agreed tp. Since i have come back i have followed all the rules, discused everything, have not edited 1 article and been overly polite to everyone. Wherever i start adiscussion on the discussion page thejps keeps following me and telling everyone to ignore me,that my POV is wrong and calling me a trol! All i want to know is how do i report him and warn him off. I enjoy reading articles and have only started a few discussions, yet i feel i am being taunted to react so he can ban me again. He has really taken it peronnaly, how do i stop him? Iwould appreciate any advice, thanks a lot. My email is hidden cheers Daveegan06 10:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed your email, it can still be seen by bots. We can use the email this user link from your userpage if you have an email set for wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you want to indent like I have here, use a : at the start of the sentence, spaces just put the text into an endless box. The more of them you use, the more indented it is.

Like.

This. Viridae^Talk 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Onto the actual issue. I saw the talk page comments you made/The JPS made that tipped you to making this report, and have to agree that The JPS was being a little over the top in his critiscism, I believe you being perfectly civil and not trolling at all, I would like to hear from The JPS as to why he took it that way. Viridae^Talk 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The JPS has been notified about this thread on his talk page. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for what could be interpreted as being over the top. I will continue to monitor the user in a less vocal way. My concerns about the editor are based on the fact that most of his edits are ideologically motivated. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:TSLcrazier

User:TSLcrazier, has been causing a lot of trouble lately with Disney Channel articles. He constantly uploadeds images with no copyright info, or a source. He is also mass producing episode articles with little to no information, having only a sentance saying its an ep from what ever show, and an infobox, occasionally it contains the same summary SENTANCE that is on the list of episodes. He also has a habit of removing deletion tags from any article/image he creates. ([75] & [76] for example) His contributions have been causing a lot of editors much grief trying to fix all of his work. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(originally started as a seperate thread, this was merged when I noticed this thread)This user is being a bit of a problem editor. He's uploading lots and lots of photos without fair use rationales (though they can be used under fair use), and seems to ignore rules as he sees fit, such as removing AfD tags, which he's done before and been warned for, if I remember correctly, and has done it again today. He generally seems to have the attitude "Screw the rules, I'll do what the hell I want", which is a dangerous attitude for someone without knowledge of the rules to have. What can be done, here? I was tempted to block him but that seems way over the top. --Deskana (request backup) 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody going to comment on this? We could use an outside opinion. --Deskana (request backup) 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's blocked now for a week, (thanks CambridgeBayWeather), and there's a couple of new warnings and explanations on his talk page. I really think this is the only thing we can do with a user as uncommunicative as this: he's made no contributions to the talk space, excepting a page move, and here is his solitary contribution to the user talk space [77]. Even if there is a plausible fair-use rationale for these images, he has to begin giving source information. Antandrus (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LetsgoPhillies

LetsgoPhillies (talk · contribs) This user admits to being a sock puppet for evading a ban here, and the user's talk page states it's a revenge account for the purpose of vandalizing. -- Kesh 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is listed in "Highways problem". V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rfwoolf

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs) has not made many contributions to the encyclopaedia, but one of these was a re-creation of Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was deleted and endorsed then endorsed again. At one point he asked me to userfy the article so he could rework it, which I did, but he simply reposted it minus a small amount of text, and it was deleted as WP:CSD#G4 - its third deletion under G4, by my count, so at that point it was WP:SALTed. Ever since then, Rfwoolf has been making louder and louder disgruntled noises, largely against me, as the last deleter and salter (although the previous G4s were by other admins). I have tried to be fair to him at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf but he appears unwilling to accept that this is anything other than a personal vendetta against an article which, presumably, he considers to be of vital importance to the project. He has now started causing disruption at [78] the Village Pump (is it a natural law that mis-spelled accusations of "hyopcrasy" are baseless?). Would somebody mind having a go at calming him down? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why does he say he has more than 12 trillion edits? JuJube 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Funny ha-ha userbox. Teke ^(talk) 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oof... okay, question: does he have a copy of the article in user or article talkspace anywhere? It looks like he's trying to recreate/fix it up in the article's talk page but it's rather disorganized right now. I'll do my best to help; it's pretty clear he just didn't understand policy and now is so worked up over it he's refusing to let it sink in. I think we can fix this, it'll just take some work. —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] It was recommended by a) Deletion Review and b) the AMA Request for assistance and c) [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] himself -- that I recreate the article in my user talk page, then show it to [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] (or another admin) and if it was up to scratch they would re-instate the article. So I spent a few hours begrudgingly recreating and reresearching the article all by myself to make peace and I put on the talk page of Anal stretching only to find that your precious hypocritcal Guy has deleted all my hard work without warning and completely unilaterally. So the answer to your question was yes and now it is now no! Please encourage him to put back all my work. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. He reposted the thing all but identical, twice. That is not "not understanding policy", it's obsessing over a truly dismal subject for an article. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] Guy, if you have heard me at all in all these proceedings, you'll finally understand what I've said a thousand times: I didn't know what G4 was, I thought deletions took place in AfD debates, and I was trying to fix up the Anal stretching article, yes, by reposting similar content twice but in the same hour because it kept on being G4d. You then salted the article. That was over a month ago. Even though you should now understand that I won't abuse privilage by reposting the same content without templates this time, you still refuse to unsalt the article! So stop accusing me of malicious disregard for policy. If you were a bit more open and reasonable it would really help! Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left some advice on his talk page, though looking over his activities I'm not optimistic that it will do much good. Nevertheless, I'll continue to try to settle him down. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] FeloniousMonk, I have tried my best to be completely open to reason -- and continue to do so. I remain fully reasonable. Your pessimistic comment is either because Guy has completely misrepresented me in the above, or because you don't have a solid understanding of this dispute. I have tried recreating the article -- which was G4d and salted (even though the article should exist) -- then I tried Deletion Review which didn't help -- then I tried Request for Assistance, and my Advocate (User Talk:dfrg.msc) has thanked me for being civil and encouraged Guy to be more civil and supported my attempt to rewrite the article on the talk page of Anal stretching -- which Guy didn't object to -- but subsequently deleted my hours of work and its history without warning, unfairly and unilaterally, going against his own recommendations. So, I don't think I need to be settled down. I think if anything, Guy has done a lot to provoke me and prevent solution to these problems. It's him that needs to stop throwing his weight around and get some admins with balls to talk to him. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, agree to disagree here. I think he has a clear lack of understanding of policy (as shown by his insistence that since he only recreated the deleted article three times, it should not have been SALTed and the SALTing should be deleted to make room for the recreated article again). I'll do my best to explain things, but I need an answer to my question — is a copy of the article residing anywhere in user or talkspace? Thanks —bbatsell ¿? 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about User:Kingpr0n? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am being grossly misrepresented. Guy has defiled my userpage by removing some harmless Userboxes and removing some constructive criticism on Wiki Deletion Policy without reasoning with me (and he cited WP:SOAP which has little/no bearing on userpages) -- his actions were unilateral and I have support from at least 1 admin that his actions were too harsh. Guy has further disobeyed the recommendations of Deletion Review the AMA Request for assistance recommendations and his own recommendations -- that I recreate the Anal stretching article on a talk page -- because he has since deleted my hours of work on the talk page of Anal stretching and deleted its history. He is being more than a dick. I'm considering arbitration if he doesn't come to his senses.

1. He should immediately undelete my hours of work on Anal stretching and restore it to the Anal stretching talk page
2. He should immediately unprotect my Userpage

These are two perfectly 150% justified requests -- and you admins should be assisting me with this.

Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• That would, you know, wrong. From the DRV page:

Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated.

You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.

Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already, so unprotecting your user page before you're willing to promise not to use it as a soapbox isn't going to fly, either. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.
  

You are unfortunately rather mistaken. I did create in the linked space Anal stretching talkpage (honest to God!) in fact I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch and the next day it was gone! I have asked Guy if he was responsible but he says no. I am in the process of finding out who was responsible.

Also, why does it have to be in my user space? If articles on wikipedia are collaborative, then there's no reason why articles shouldn't be collaborated on their talk page -- it's what it's there for.

• Re: Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already,...
  -- have you read my comments about that? WP:USER clearly says that constructive criticism of wikipedia or wikipolicy is allowed on the user talk page -- don't be so self-righteous. Now, is somebody going to admit I have a point, or try to reason with me because nobody has. Rfwoolf 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the article was wrongly deleted then take it to deletion review. It's what deletion review was created for. Don't troll Guy on your user page, that is not constructive. MartinDK 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His issues are not just with SOAP but WP:POINT as well: [79], [80], [81], [82] I'm saddened that he has failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears he's trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page:[83] He gives every indication that he is refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I've urged him to reconsider both my advice and his method, but I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a troll, considering the source of all this concern on his part is over a deleted article on "Anal stretching"... FeloniousMonk 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tried really hard to resist this conclusion, but I have to agree. The combination of the subject, the obsessive nature with which he pursues it, and his very limited prior contributions, looks very much like one of our recurrent trolls. This edit in particular [84] is deliberately provocative, inserting his editorial comments into my statement on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy I am by no means a troll. Do you believe you have been beyond reproach here? Do you believe I have no reason to be frustrated and confused? You block my userpage, somebody deletes my hours of work, you cite WP:SOAP and I cite WP:USER and instead of being civil you block my userpage, you deleted some harmless userboxes -- and all of this was after the SALTing of Anal Stretching. So in many ways I have been rather tormented by admins, yourself included. My editorial of your one post on my talk page -- which I have apologised for -- was not too inappropriate at the time considering I thought you deleted all my work -- and I wouldn't dream of doing that anywhere else but on my own talk page. I am not a troll. Rfwoolf 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose him using hello.jpg as an example image to the draft article in his user space I proposed and citing Goatse.cx as a reliable source would be conclusive proof we're being trolled, but I'd rather not wait for it to get to that stage. FeloniousMonk 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be unable to tell the difference between an article and yet more meta argument. At what point do we cut our losses? Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:SOAP and WP:USER, this admin has rightfully put some constructive criticism about Wikipedia and is fully justified in doing so and is fully protected by WP:USER, and WP:SOAP is irrelevant. So far this gives me even more of a feeling I was in the right about that issue. Rfwoolf 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's constructive. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Everyone with a legitimate complaint that presents it in a civil respectful way should be treated with respect. Your criticism amounted to personal attacks and incivility. It has been ignored by most, and dealt with by those so inclined to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. This should not come as a surprise. I cannot honestly believe that you are so willfully blind as to not see your "criticism" for the attacks they were. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent trolling by User:193.219.28.146 on Talk:Ass to mouth - 3RR violation?

I submitted a 3RR violation report concerning anonymous User:193.219.28.146 persistent re-adding an unconstructive and inflammatory comment to Talk:Ass to mouth, because he objects to the existence of the article rather than suggesting improvements (the article recently survived an AfD). His comment has been removed by 5 different editors (including one admin) over the past few days, and the anon editor has recently re-posted the comment a 6th time today. He has been warned multiple times, and claims on his talk page that (a) his talk page comments are meant to improve Wikipedia; (b) he is not doing any reverting, others are reverting him and they shouldn't be deleting talk page edits; and (c) there isn't a precedent for reporting 3RR violations on a talk page.

My question is, is this appropriately reportable as a 3RR violation, or is there a better place to report persistent trolling? Details of the incident are documented in my 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:193.219.28.146_reported_by_User:Axlq_.28Result:.29. If there is a better place to report it, please let me know. =Axlq 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're within your rights to remove the comment (within 3RR), but my advice would be to leave the comment in place and answer him. Or leave the comment in place and ignore him. He's wrong, but he's within his rights to ask the question, so long as he doesn't 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, I agree with the anon - not about the substance of his comment, but about the fact that you shouldn't be deleting a reasonably civil talk page comment. He writes that this article is one of the differences between the Wikipedia and Britannica. Well, in that, he is absolutely correct. I personally believe that makes us more useful, but that's just an opinion. In any case, it is less disruptive to just let it stand. Trying to delete those three lines of text has already wasted ten times the effort of writing them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second this. Viridae^Talk 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me. He was answered repeatedly on his talk page, civilly. =Axlq

I had blocked the IP for 24hr for disruption, and then saw this (and then 3RR). Feel free to alter the block. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Endorse the anon's right to ask the question again after the block expires. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What question? He didn't ask any. He posted a comment about how articles like this devalue Wikipedia. =Axlq 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly places the same message on some one's talk page that they have acknowledged (deleting a message is the same as acknoledging that you read it) then it becomes harassment and incivility. The only time you should -ever- force a message to stay on a page is if a user is currently acting to vandalise the pedia and an easily accessible log needs to be there for a WP:AIV note. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda irrelevant - we have been removing a trolling comment from an article that has had a lot of scrutiny recently. The comment is completely non-constructive and its removal is in line with WP:TALK (ie. the second sentence, namely 'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.') Also, as I have stated elsewhere, 4 editors agree that his comment is inappropriate for that talk page and have removed it.

I disagree with the earlier editor who said it is wasted time removing them. If they stay it leads to other users adding similar comments which are also pointless (for example just prior to this silly incident there was another anon who went on a bit of a rant about it being anti-christian). Keeping a talk page tidy and on topic is just as important as actually working on the article in my opinion.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has restarted. I removed the comment (and that of a supporter as it would have been redundant without the thread opener). It has been reverted again. Can this talk page be semi-protected to avoid this? Also, the block imposed seems to have no deterrent effect. Mallanox 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Are comments on this IP's talkpage considered worrying to the community? Personally, I don't care about the farcical accusations that the IP is leveling at me, but I do wish an outside person to give some perspective on the matter, as I don't seem to have a clear head on the matter anymore. Constructive criticism welcome. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant references to the "Dear Reader" of the talk page is very Victorian, and very trolling; it's a recognized invitation of the audience to draw conclusions prefaced by the author. I say leave it alone and walk away. Teke ^(talk) 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I say just semi the talk page and leave content on it; he can't complain he was "censored", but he can't keep trolling. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie consistently deleting warnings on own talk page and other problems

I recently left a warning on Lucy marie's talk page in about her recent conduct.

Her recent conduct including creating multiple disputes on one article, deadlocking the article and keeping it at a factually inaccurate version (incorrect quotes and references) for a month, a duplication article split, and carrying her dispute to other articles. [85][86]

She deleted my warning, and left me a rude note on my talk page, saying that she had deleted my warning because she had stopped editing the various person articles a week before.

I replied to her explaining why I felt the warning was important, but not to worrry about it, that it wasn't a big deal. I then restored the warning on her talk page and left her a slightly modified removewarnings template warning.

She took this as her cue to hide the warnings instead by taking them off of her short talk page, removing them from her short talk page and instead adding them to her 38 kb archive page.

I replied to another comment she left on my talk page explaining that the removewarning note on archiving did not mean that she could archive warnings she disagreed with or to hide them and referred her to the Help Desk.

When she didn't unarchive the warning, I did instead, and left a note about the archiving on her talk page. She responded to that by deleting the warnings yet again, and asked me what authority I had to leave a warning on her talk page (she seems to be under the impression that only administrators can warn users).

My warnings on Lucy-Marie's talk page

Lucy-Marie's comments on my talk page

I would appreciate assistance in handling this situation. I got in way over my head. I'd read a few of Lucy-Marie's comments when editing the various person's articles, so I knew that she had a habit of continually reverting people's work and was a POV pusher and it didn't really matter if she was presented with evidence that what she was saying was incorrect, but she'd never been particularly hostile (I thought) and was at least sorta attempting to discuss things with people, even if only to tell them that they were wrong. I thought a gentle warning from an outside party showing her that she'd gone so far in her edits as to tred on quotations and references might pull her back a little.

I didn't expect her to be rude and hostile from the get-go, to ignore all authority and show no respect for anything offical or the person she's currently disagreeing with. I kept trying to get her to take her problems with the warning to the helpdesk, but she seemed to think that it was easier to simply constantly revert warnings, and for the moment at least, it has been. She has no warnings on her talk page, and instead I have comments on mine with her complaining that I'm harrassing her. I haven't had any interaction with her before this, but I've read her comments on the person articles' talk pages and her talk page and I don't think any amount of "fact" I could point her to would help, because it would be coming from me. I've also now seen her get angry (vandalism), and I'd like to avoid escalation. She obviously does good work on Wikipedia when not getting into fights with people, so I'd really appreciate if someone could step in.

I think she needs to be warned--looking back at her edits she not only edited quotes and references (which she may not have noticed), but she changed the intro of the article (to avoid using the word personhood) which is having consequences now as the future role of the article is debated, and put in other POV pushing lines which couldn't be taken care of because of the deadlock. It took three separate people to revert her edits on non-person. She reverted back giving "no reason for revert" as her reason for reverting back, even though a reason was provided and there was an ongoing Rfc about whether persons was a word where even the dictionary definition she gave for people used the word persons 5 times to define people.

Which is why I warned her originally. And her subsequent behavoir, removing multiple warnings multiple times also I feel needs warning. This isn't a case of a newbie not knowing something (for example, if I'm screwing this up completely, or this is the wrong place, let me know), this is someone who's been warned multiple times but doesn't believe that they are valid or that other people are right. This is someone who has NPOV and a million other Wiki policies linked to her in talk pages reglarly and ignores them anyway. Thanks for any help you can provide.TStein 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I were an admin, I'd probably have asked for a block based on her behavior related to this. JuJube 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you'd have been told that blocks aren't punative.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is really best to avoid putting warning notices on the pages of users whom you are in dispute with. They seldom help, and mostly tend to inflame the situation. And the user is perfectly entitled to remove them. If civil discussion is failing, I suggest you try one of the approaches at dispute resolution e.g. mediation or an RfC. This is not really a matter for admins.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't in a dispute with her at all. I had zero contact with her until I warned her--our only contact and dispute has been about the warnings and her violation of Wikipedia policy in removing them. I wouldn't have had a problem with her going to the help desk or somewhere else, I had a problem with her deleting them--making a uniform decision that she was right, and I was wrong and it didn't matter what wikipedia policy or convention was, she could do what she wanted. This was especially problematic as it was exactly the behavoir I was warning her about.
  • When I came to the persons article and saw the dispute, I originally never intended to warn her or anyone else about what I saw as a content dispute on the person article. I came to the article when it was deadlocked over the "persons" v "people" issue and over the "personhood" v. "being a person" issue--the article was deadlocked because everyone who had commented before was seen to have a bias. I had no prior edits on the article or any associated articles and unlike the Rfc debacle, I didn't know anyone on the article beforehand. I provided sources and fixed the problems. In the following days, I found that what was going on was much bigger than a content dispute, and I saw to what extent Lucy_Marie had knowingly violated Wiki policy to POV push. I looked carefully at edit histories and comments, and saw that there were points where she had blatantly lied to other editors, and when she was told that her edits had changed quotes she still deadlocked the article leaving quotes and references incorrect for a month to push her POV.
  • I saw what I felt was a fairly serious problem, and was probably the only person who saw the extent of it and couldn't be considered biased--I'd had no interaction with her or any of her articles. I left what I thought was a fairly mild warning, which spiralled quickly out of control.
  • There's nothing that we need additional comments for, so an Rfc is entirely inappropriate. I wasn't leaving a comment about a content dispute on her talk page, so we don't need dispute resolution or mediation. There was a dispute on the person article, between herself and everyone else, and she's apparantely no longer interested in editing the article and the dispute doesn't exist anymore. I wasn't involved in the article when the dispute did exist anyway, and the dispute was about the correct pluralization of the word "person" something that can and has been looked up several times. I really can't help someone if they can't understand or don't want to listen to every dictionary, including the one that they cited.
  • Also, if users can simply delete warnings if they don't like or disagree with them, why is there a template warning about removing warnings? Does that only apply to certain warnings? Can only certain users use this template? I'd appreciate some clarification, especially as I thought that user talk pages (and their archives) were supposed to be records. TStein 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. It is clear that users ARE entitled to remove warnings and are not obliged to archive.--Doc^g 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rix

There has been a tremendous amount of vandalism going on at the Chris Rix article with several IP's, and one account created under the name Creiree (merely to remove any negative comments about Rix [87]), continually vandalizing the article. Several editors have reverted the edits and left warnings on the user's talk pages to no avail. Attention and a checkuser of the new account name Creiree would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. —Mets501 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The check user is minor though as the user has done 2 edits thus far, the constant vandalism is the issue. Quadzilla99 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected. This was rather annoying though as he/she created an account to avoid 3RR. Oh well... the problem has been solved for now. MartinDK 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point - it may as well be a student prank. We will see what the accused replies; According to posts below, he admitted to this. One way or another I'd expect that the involved teachers should stress to students that 'vandalising Wikipedia is as bad as breaking a window in your local shop' and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and never can be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are also other IP ranges, such as the following:
  • 71.56.0.0 - 71.63.255.255
  • 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
• Both of which are utilized by the city of Dekalb, Illinois, home of NIU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SQL access is not necessary. Checkuser can do it. Raul654 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to the professor (it's spelled Pierce, by the way), who acknowledges that he did indeed make this assignment. I told him I would be forwarding the informaton to the president of the university. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: he acknowledged this in an email reply to you? OOC, did he apologize or is he arguing he did the right thing? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He acknowledged this and tried to justify his actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have passed Professor's Pierce's reply on to the Northern Illinois University office of public relations, and have asked them to pass it on to the school's President. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that uncommon task for university profs to set - I've seen it used a couple of times on courses (generally the prof will commit the vandalism and then revert). One use is to show why wikipedia should not be used as a source (Study skills context), the second is to show that wikipedia is to open to abuse (with an INFO-SEC context). --Fredrick day 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, if one wants to prove the violatile nature of Wiki's, that's what sandbox and one's userspace is. I teach, I talk about Wikis, I do use my userpage to demonstrate those issues - but I'd never thought to vandalize a real article even for a few seconds to prove to my students what can be proven as well on my userpage (as messing up real article's history and allowing a reader to find vandalised info during the few seconds it takes one to revert a change is simply bad). That said, I encourage examples of 'good editing' - I prefer to show my studnets how easy it is to add interlinks or copyedit articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great but you are coming from a perspective of domain expertise - many of the people doing this, don't understand wikipedia beyond a) "it's that free-speech website that anyone can edit and add anything about anyone" b) "this is the place that students cut and paste large sections of their assignments from". I'm not excusing anyone but that's just how it is. --Fredrick day 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - so it is our job to educate them. A very good way to to it in the academia is to ask them to read this article from Journal of American History (I do suggest sending it to the professors involved in this incident).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished checking the NIU class B.

• Edits that concern me and should probably be verified:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeling%2C_Illinois&diff=101685760&oldid=96451410
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wooden&diff=101268126&oldid=101232824
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michigan_State_University_Residence_Halls_Association&curid=4575200&diff=102152804&oldid=92396515
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huntley%2C_Illinois&curid=111373&diff=101151565&oldid=101050130

• Vandalism:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brookfield_Zoo&curid=1207234&diff=102039931&oldid=101862270 (Uncaught)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steroid&curid=141922&diff=102024168&oldid=101770838

The other ranges are too large and dense to check easily. Raul654 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just plain undid the questionable edits that you listed (except for the Wheeling one, as you beat me to that). One was a fact changing thing, the MSU one could not be supported, and the Huntley one was not supported by the reference (there are five Pacific Islanders in all of Huntley, Illinois, which has a 0.00 percentage of the population, not 0.02).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

5/16,719 = 0.000299 or approximately 0.03%. That wasn't vandalism. Can an admin unrevert and de-warn the editor? Jd2718 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave all of the above {{Test4im}} warnings, and a {{SharedIPEDU}} with the link to Northwestern pointing to this discussion. I say we have an extremely short leash -- A minimum one month IP block (including user registration) on the next obvious case of vandalism. This cannot be allowed, IMO. -- Avi 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Pierce's reply

This was Professor Pierce's email reply to me:

They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

I then replied to him that I would be passing his response on to the University President, and he relied:

It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth is he talking about? I tell my students not to trust Wikipedia, and that if they do, they're likely to get things wrong, and get worse results; that's what most of my colleagues do (though most sensible undergraduates don't need to be told). Why does he have to tell them to vandalise Wikipedia in order to get them to work sensibly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tell my students Wiki is a great place to start their research - but a very bad place to finish it. We are moving towards a level of quality with every fact properly referenced, but of course we are just an encyclopedia. Undergrads (and grads, and even professors) may find reading a Wiki article on unknown subject useful to get a general gist of relevant info, but then they should have enough knowledge to go to academic databases. Although I think increasingly we will have high quality articles on obscure subjects that may not even be covered well in English academic works (I challenge anyone to find a better English biography of this person then we have :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I smell WP:POINT violations. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Mr. Pierce. If you want your students to learn about the dangers of using wikipedia, have them search for five unreferenced figures in this encyclopedia. They can use the random article button on the left side of the screen. Have them verify those figures. Chances are that some of the figures will turn out to be wrong. You will get your message across to your students, they will hopefully learn from it and we will know which information is incorrect. Aecis^Bravado 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. He could get his students to improve an article on Wikipedia, and verify it.

As an aside, this professor has very little technical knowledge about Wikipedia, especially as we have the revert function and don't have to rely on printouts to restore the article to its previous state. Yuser31415 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez the same pointless experiment over and over. Don't these people realize they can just look into the history to see how we react to vandalism? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few people who are not editors realize what Wikipedia really is. I am not suprised at that, this is only to be expected. I would however expect an academic to read up on what other academics have done with Wikipedia: WP:SUP and WP:ACST are the two links that Professor Pierce should look through as soon as possible and Rosenzweig's article in JoAH should be obligatory reading for anybody thinking about 'teaching' and 'Wikipedia' in the same sentence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 71.70.92.135 on Waccamaw Page

I'm a Waccamaw Indian tribal council member and viewed the current page on Waccamaw. There were three incidents of vandalism on November 15, 2006 for the page showing the same user at 71.70.92.135 IP address. I will try to undo edit to correct, but I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia editing. Also, is there anyway of finding out the source? If this is possible, please email to </email removed/>. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.139.40 (talk • contribs).

The IP you mentioned resolves to Road Runner Holdco LLC. Crimsone 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Daybreak Community

There are an IP only accoutn and 4 registered users are hammering in the smae links to Daybreak Community and connected entries (like Daybreak and Utah and property entries) - you can see the talk page for a list of them and the history for the back and forth revisions over the last month. As more accounts have signed up and got involved and this happens a number of times a day now I was wodnering if someone could look into this in more depth (check if they are all sock puppets that kind of thing and it maybe that the link they are trying to add should be blocked). There are a few of us working on reverting the vandalism but it is getting to be a pain. Warnings have been issued but they tend to spread across accounts so it takes longer for them to reach critical levels and the only banning so far has been temporary. (Emperor 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Looks like a pile of socks to me. Since you appear to have an IP to work on, how about filing a WP:RFCU case "A"? In the meantime if the vandalism is getting too hard to deal with, you might wish to request semiprotection on the articles. Yuser31415 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over and the tip. I'll get on that now. (Emperor 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Cool, I see you've filed a WP:RFCU. I added the code letter for you. Cheers! Yuser31415 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another one (Perpetualmachine) -- the one that deleted your comments above and also re-added the spam links. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and spotting another account. They have also taken to blanking their user page too. (Emperor 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I blocked them all except the anon, per the confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#151.118.128.232 (not that there was really any doubt: they don't get much more obvious than this). Have we blacklisted the spamlinks, or do you think we should? Antandrus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend blacklisting the spamlinks, and at your discretion blocking account creation for the IP. This is the kind of thing we can do without. Yuser31415 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - they are awfully persistent so I suspect a number of measures would be needed to stop them. Thanks again for the help - its the first time I've had to take things this far and your help made things go smoothly. (Emperor 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Sasfatpogobsqalt

Sasfatpogobsqalt (talk · contribs) is constantly removing the speedy tag from the article he/she created, Edy Syquer. He/she has been warned to stop and refuses to. Heimstern Läufer 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This sound like a job for WP:AIV. To the Wikicave! JuJube 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries now, the article's been deleted. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Kannambadi and his elitism

Mr.Kannambadi (with his loyal friends) is removing the cited info at chalukya and rashtrakuta with other articles. he wants to push the POV of historians of his region and deleting my Marathi language and even English language citations. He is framing his own rules and bullying me by inventing new rules that google books and regional language books cannot be used in wikipedia. he has two books which I have quoted yet he is removing the info from those books as well also from the reputed source of Britannica encyclopeduia. I have given details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting . He is harassing me by asking ID no. but the book which i have (and he had claimed he has located them) are of 1924 AD which obviously dont have Id noes. Please help.Sarvabhaum 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

defusd timebomb

I just blanked, and deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death

We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying: Not a single reference.

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or keep. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.

So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.

Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it. -- Drini 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• So if people want to reconstruct it, references are easy to come by for 90% of the names there at least. It's a kinda dumb article, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Deletion If it's recreated with references than yes, it could be a decent article, but as it was, it could have been a liability to the project. Canadian-Bacon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletion. Humongous BLP liability, not to mention being an entirely ambiguous and unproductive list. Who qualifies as "famous"? What constitutes "responsibility" for a death? Does it only included people convicted of murder or manslaughter, or anyone alleged to have "had a hand" in someone else's death? Seems silly to me. —bbatsell ¿? 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is worth noting that WP:V puts the burden of evidence on those seeking to add content or readd it, and that if this burden of proof is not satisified, it may be deleted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call, of course, and we should be embarassed it was sitting around this long. Jkelly 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting sourcing issue. Every item listed on this list had a wikilink to an at least one other article (usually a biography, sometimes an article about the incident itself). I haven't checked them all, but those linked articles I did check did have sourcing for the death incident. So they are sourced on Wikipedia, but not on this particular list article, where each incident is just briefly mentioned. Are we now going to require sourcing of an incident in every article in which an incident is mentioned, even just in passing, or is linking to an article with proper sourcing adequate? We could have a field day if every list must be sourced on the list itself. Who wants to delete List of Australian criminals and the dozens of other related biographical list articles? Perhaps we could start using footnotes on wikilinks that say "information sourced in the linked article." NoSeptember 11:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is a very bad idea for an article, open for all kinds of sneaky POV and vandalism, and bound to fail to give adequate context. Being responsible for something can mean anything from failing to call the cops during the escalation of a dispute to actually pulling the trigger. The subject is too fraught with difficulties. And I don't see an encyclopaedic subject "famous people being responsible for a death". Guy (Help!) 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please AfD it if you think so, because I'm working on restoring it. You can help! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse deletion as per above. If it is recreated, this should be done one item at a time; any reference to a living person without an iron-clad reference must be deleted immediately (per WP:BLP). Bucketsofg 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness to this list, it was actually a pretty tight list. Users Zzuuzz, Jessek and Duemellon were actively removing any unsourced or incorrect listings in recent months. The items were sourced on wikipedia (just in the actual biography articles, not on this list article) and the sources would have been easy to find on wiki. At a minimum these would qualify as the equivalent of a Convenience link. There are hundreds of list articles that are in the same format (unsourced on the list itself, but just a click on a wikilink away from proper sources). We should not get too lazy when deciding to delete these articles, save the deletions for the truly bad articles, not well maintained ones like this one was. (This in no way reflects on how I would vote on an AfD of this article - I'm addressing the sourcing issues of lists only). Cheers, NoSeptember 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think the deletion was a good call. In cases like this a category might be a better choice (Leaving aside the appropriateness of the topic.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD started by me: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article nees to be afd. AS badlydrawnjeff is redoing it with references, it's ok. It was the unsourcing that was bad. Jeff is doing right reconstructing it with references. -- Drini 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Haham hanuka

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#haham hanuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A community ban was proposed for this user previously, with many people endorsing either the ban or an arbitration case instead. He has a very extensive block log for edit warring, disruption, evasion, etc. That was two months, and since then, neither happened, but has continued his disruptive behavior. He just violated 3RR yet again at Adolf Hitler [88], and persists in calling those he disagrees with "vandals". Previously, it was brought up that he is banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia, with his user page saying he was a troll. I'm not inclined to give him any more of our patience. I've gone ahead and implemented the ban, but this is up for review, of course. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse permanent ban. Was only recently edit-warring on Adolf Hitler; also looking at all those blocks, I think the community has given him enough time to reform. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Has been a fairly disruptive force in Wikipedia, and he hasn't changed his ways. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as above. Bucketsofg 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban. --Coredesat 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Khoikhoi 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, he has shown he cannot edit without being a disruption. --Wildnox(talk) 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. General Idea 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse BenBurch 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse • The community has been very patient with this user, but I suspect the community's patience is worn threadbare. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed userpage to appropriate template, suggest notifying WP:LOBU, no comment. 68.39.174.238 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, a noxious bot reverted me; someone else will have to do it instead. 68.39.174.238 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer account - created on behalf of a website

Mad gamers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently added links to the MadGamers website in many computer/video game related articles. See Half-Life 2, CS: S, Half-Life, CS: S again, RTS, CVG. The same message, with links, posted to the articles. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more Primetime

Yes, it's tiresome. Looks like Primetime (talk · contribs) hasn't given up: his newest sockpuppet, Ad astra per aspera (talk · contribs), like a previous one, has once again nominated Panaca, Nevada (an actual town) for deletion. He also moved the previous nomination here, so someone will have to fix that by reverting the move, too.

(Officially, the previous Panaca troll was Justin322 (talk · contribs), whom I now assume was a Primetime sockpuppet, but even if he wasn't it's still abusive sockpuppetry, just by a different puppeteer.) --Calton | Talk 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the last version of the original nomination by Calton and moved the new nom to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada (2nd nomination). Obviously, should be dealt with as seen fit? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial percentages of Sean Paul

A line continues to be removed from a Sean Paul article relating to his racial percentages. The line in question is "Racially, this means that Sean Paul is 62.5% White, 25% Chinese and 12.5% Black". This is based on testimony which is already shown in the article. However, I calculated the percentages and posted them, because it is in general easier to understand. Since many users will be going to the Sean Paul article specifically to find out about his racial background, this information is important. The user Guettarda has removed it, stating that it is original research. However, in my opinion, this is not original research, but a simple math calculation that anyone could perform in their head. The only difference is, this makes it easier for readers who are less math-saavy than I am. I have once again replaced the line, but I informed Guettarda that I would report the issue to administration to find out what should really be done. Rhythmnation2004 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it's not original research then you will be able to cite a reliable secondary source which says precisely this. Otherwise, it is original research. Quite why anyone would care about these percentages is an exercise left to the reader. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Have you tried WP:DR? What administrators abilities are you looking for? I find Third opinion is a great venue for such things. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of what value it adds to the article, the "percentages" (to 0.5%!) really are not supported by the source - "mixed black and white" does not necessarily mean half and half, while "Portuguese descent" does not mean pure Portuguese, especially since he claims descent from Solomon, making the family Portuguese Jews (like many in the Caribbean) - after 500 years in the Caribbean, the default assumption is that these people are mixed, not that they are unmixed. So the "percentages" are not in keeping with the available information - the info is too vague. Guettarda 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Generally, when a person says they are "mixed black and white", that usually means that it's half and half. It's not as if Sean Paul is perfect when it comes to the English language. He speaks the typical lingo of Jamaicans, who always consider "mixed black and white" to equal half Black and half White. And Portuguese Jews are white - since when are Jews a separate race? That's a little bit Hitler-ish, if you ask me.Rhythmnation2004 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this on the talk page of the article in question or take it to dispute resolution. This is not the forum for this sort of thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're 100% correct, articles can only include information that's verifiable, not based on facts that might "generally" be true. SuperMachine 15:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) #1, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. #2, without a clear-cut source, this constitutes original research. #3, "race" is an extremely fuzzy concept (which many people don't realize) and calculating the exact percentage of one's racial affiliations is laughable to me. #4, why would the average reader care? Grandmasterka 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And #5: implying and insinuating that another way of thinking is "a little bit Hitler-ish" is absurd. Please leave such rhetoric out of this. Wikipedia is not a chat room. Aecis^Bravado 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that this editor seems to have a thing for original research and then making uncalled for comments when he does not get his way. I to the editor would suggest that you study wikipedia policy a bit more closely, especially [WP:AGF] when interacting with admins and other editors. Especially if you plan to take a 4th run at RFA. --Fredrick day 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Slightly odd considering I'm neither adminned nor a crazed Michael Jackson fan, but I won't hold it against him. Trebor 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, this is not the place for this discussion. However, seeing as it's here: Giving percentages to 0.5% is false precision. I doubt anyone is the world is 100% one race (I don't think race is well defined enough, for a start), so the chances of anyone being 50/50 between two races is pretty much 0. It's much better just to state the approximate races of his ancestors and let the reader decide how to interpret it. I don't think it is really original research though, it's just misrepresentation of verifiable facts. --Tango 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as a recent channel 4 show indicated (anyone remember the one I'm on about - they genetically tested various people), even if you know your family tree back - 6 or 7 generations, your ethnic mix is far more complex than that. It's a nonsense to come up with such numbers. --Fredrick day 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Tango, it is original research as he is taking the vague descriptions of the persons racial heritage and drawing his own conclusions from them - namely the figures. -Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention to interpret the facts. The editor sincerely thought that was what the sources said, and was simply representing those facts incorrectly. It was bad research (which is excusable - being able to fix people's mistakes is what makes wikis so great), not original research. --Tango 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I was not saying that Jews aren't white (although in the English-speaking Caribbean Portuguese weren't "real white", which is why they tended to intermarry with the light-skinned mixed lower middle class, rather than the white upper class descendent from the plantocracy or the upper middle class originating from the English civil servants). I'm saying that Portuguese Jews were expelled almost 500 years ago, and that after being in the Caribbean for 500 years a lot of them would have intermarried. With respect to "mixed black and white", this means just that, mixed. In the English-speaking Caribbean we have families who have been mixed for 200 years, and have continued to marry mixed people. They had their origins not only in slavery, but also in the "poor whites" (mostly Scots and Irish indentured labourers who were sent to the Caribbean in the 1600s and 1700s (see redlegs for the Bajans), who often intermarried with the mixed lower middle class). So to say someone is "mixed black and white" says nothing about the proportion of each race; there is no reason to take it as "half and half". Guettarda 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Siokan

This user is totally denied the cleanup in the few articles, Special:Contributions/Siokan. Few days ago, i make the cleanup in few articles for Asian football competitions with the appropriate Manuel of Style. However, in this days, this user are reverted my cleanup with unapproprate reason "degrading a page" without remark my cleanup editing. With the account just create in this New Year, i believe that he is not read the Manuel of Style of Wikipedia and even not browse any examples as references to editing he articles, while like to edit with his style. I hope admin can resolve this problem. Thank you.

I having talk to him regarding my cleanup editing, he seems arrogantly denied it and not accepting my cleanup. --Aleenf1 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Move of Homophobia to Misohomo by User:Topses

I believe this action constitutes WP:POINT. I can't find "misohomo" in any dictionary, only 17 results return on Google. Would someone change it back? Joie de Vivre 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already fixed it. Sorry for the interruption, and thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning at his Talk page not to do that sort of thing. It looks as though Topses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bit of a problem editor in general, though, creating unsourced stubs on non-standard notions in linguistics, and on minor notions that are already part of longer articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated old vandalism

I really do not know what to do. User:VinceB repeated his vandalism,[89] for which he was blocked in October.[90] He is persistently trying to Hungarize official geographic and personal names in other languages. Moreover, he moved an article about a region in Slovakia to its Humngarian name,[91], though this kind of moves contradicts WP:NCGN, has been reverted by admins in the past,[92] and was refused by a poll at Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. He also removed a category in a funny way (hiding it into a comment).[93] Can anyone deal with him please? All the previous warnings and blocks of that user can be found at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1. Tankred

In all truth, this looks far more like a content dispute than vandalism. In the block mentioned his "vandalism" was the removal of messages from his talk page, and even then the blocking admin said the block was primarily for edit warring. If you look at his block logs, they are all for edit warring and NPA violations. --Wildnox(talk) 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, you are right, that old incident just triggered an edit war , which lead to VinceB's block. But what to do with that recent disruptive edit,[94] which is both against WP:NCGN and the consensus reached in a previous case Talk:Spiš#Requested_move? Why do we have any naming conventions, if they are not protected? Similarly, if you have an article called Petar Zrinski and you delete any mention of this official name from a link to that article, leaving only a Hungarian version of the name ("[[[Petar Zrinski|Péter Zrínyi]]", is it a content dispute or vandalism? Tankred 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to move, it was a disruptive move, just move it back. As for the other thing, it is a content dispute, POV pushing most likely, but still a content dispute. --Wildnox(talk) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Yarillastremenog

This user is using personal attacks and is engaged in revert war. I asked him politely several times to provide proof of the salacious pictures he is inserting in the text and as a responce I get insults like stupid and degenerate.[95] I also challenged the validity of the salacious picture he is inserting in multiple topics on Wikipedia and would like a fair use rationale on it reviewed again.[96][97] I would like to ask for administrators to intervene and protect the article until the decision on its deletion is confirmed. I would also ask that the aforementioned user be made aware of the inappropriatness of this behaviour and the language he is using. --Chuprynka 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him about the personal attacks. I'll need someone else to look at the images - I can't do it now. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuprynka started the personal attacks [here] by claiming I was 'avid viewer of pornography' that is a totally unfounded allegation posted in response to the source of the documentary video which as these links show [[98]] and [[99]] is NOT a pornography movie. I ask you to warn the user to make make personal attacks in this manner. --Yarillastremenog 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yarillastremenog made a legal threat on his talk page, and I have blocked him 24h and pointed him to WP:LEGAL. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone an "avid viewer of pornography" is a personal attack, even if it is a few points shy of civility, compared to saying someone is "obviously too stupid" to understand something, which is clearly one. JuJube 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask administrators again to protect the page I mentioned from edits until the decision on its future has been made. The revert war around it still rages on, it is very disruptive. I also hope that the questions about the picture I raised above will be adressed in due time. Thank you.--Chuprynka 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block

Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper article for deletion protocol used by [100]SuganthinifromJaffna

This user, as can be simply seen from his contributions [101] is tagging multiple pages for deletion, without putting a pointer into AfD, aseveral times even puttinjg in his "deletion" vote into an already closed but kept AfD. Maybe someone should talk to him and explain to him the correct process for AfD on an article?

A brand new user who's edits consist of AFDing articles? WP:AGF doesn't mean we stick our heads up our arses right? --Fredrick day 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'M just totally unsure what kind of intervention is needed here. Help from an experienced admin would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it must be some user who knows how articles are deleted, i.e a sock of some existent user. I would keep an eye out for any existing user who consistently votes in favor of his deletions and open a WP:SSP case on him then. Eli Falk 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact I see none of his Ad listed in WP:AfD. That's a major concern to me?--Ramdrake 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All AFD's created by the user were deleted by me, Race and intelligence AFD was kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the R&I AfD was removed as well by User:Mytwocents--Ramdrake 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations) looks eminently AfD-worthy, in fact. Is it a PoV fork, or is there some other reason for such a peculiar article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert History A revert every three minutes (automated bot?) - Immediate attention needed... wasn't sure where to put it. /Blaxthos 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and WP:NPOV problems at Brown people and White people

I am having trouble with two editors (LSLM (talk · contribs) and SqueakBox (talk · contribs)) who continue to edit from non-neutral points of view as their discussion page comments have stated here and here. I had previously brought up the subject of SqueakBox's poor approach to the Brown people article here. I have reached my limit of reversions allowed and discussion has been like talking to a wall as attempts at discussion and compromise have fallen on closed ears in both articles. I'm unsure exactly what to do next. I feel like both are attempting to make a WP:POINT by adding PoV statements and/or remove useful lead summary statements (that are detailed within the actual article) under the guise of being "unsourced", simply because they have both stated that the articles represent racism and ignore their historical usage (or even current usage in some cultures/places). Any help would be appreciated. I may not have handled everything as appropriately as possible, but I have tried to point out in numerous ways that their edits fail multiple WP policies. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has moved on to claiming other editors are "...filling it (the article) with ridiculous fringe ideas..." [102], which violates WP:AGF. At the same time LSLM (talk · contribs) is also adding insults like Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. [103]. The talk page is rife with these two editors talking past my attempts to discuss the actual article and the content in it (including a complete diatribe with links on how parts of the world hate Americans) and only want to see the article as a racist rant (which it has nothing to do with). Am I being unreasonable here? ju66l3r 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation

This user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ju66l3r

Has violated the 3 revert rule in the White people article. Veritas et Severitas 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you did too. Neither of you revert again, and neither of you will be blocked. Yuser31415 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Page has now been protected. Trebor 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article page and served warnings to both editors to discuss first (well, it's more of like they have no choice but to discuss on the talk page). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to report such activity is at WP:AN/3. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...Though it might be rejected out of hand due to the circumstances surrounding the edit-warring. Oh well, all's well that ends well. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thing it was brought here (WP:KETTLE comes to mind, since both editors violated). Never mind. Yuser31415 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I was not out-right reverting the content of that page. I also made an attempt to incorporate their edit in a more appropriate place and in a more appropriate way in an effort to compromise and was told that it "wasn't convincing" (whatever that meant) and was reverted again. If their edit was B and the page was at state A, then I went B->A, B->A, Compromise text, B->C. I will have to review 3RR but I felt that because I had introduced a new version that a revert to that version was not in the spirit of the rule since I was working towards compromise on this issue and they were simply ignoring my efforts and reverting to make a point. ju66l3r 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, 3RR is interpreted very strictly. The 3 reverts is an absolute limit. Even 2 partial reverts can be enough to get you a block in some circumstances. Edit warring, however nicely done, is still edit warring. It's best to just go to the talk page, and if that doesn't help, request backup. --Tango 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I recognized that I was reaching a problem situation. I went to the talk page and was ignored, even after drafting compromise text in the article. So I did come here to request help (please see the AN/I section just above this one). ju66l3r 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but unless you are completely sure the other user's edits are being made solely to deface Wikipedia, don't revert more than three times. Cheers! Yuser31415 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarenne

• Sarenne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned more then 4 times and has continued to disrupt articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetary Chaos (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those warnings are all from you over an issue that is not vandalism, and on which there is a live discussion. Please settle your disputes through talk page discussions. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Put shortly for others reading this: The issue here is using SI prefixes in articles where our sources quantify numbers using binary prefixes. I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:V will always override MOS guidelines. The MOS says that converting from binary to SI in articles fine, but I'm of the opinion that doing so where our sources are explicit in using another format is decidedly not fine. Wikipedians don't usually have the leeway to restate what a reliable source says with different units of measure, just because some people prefer that measurement. Apple (and publications who report on them) almost never use SI... as a result, neither should we.

Sarenne's edits have now been reverted by no less than five different established editors, and yet this single-purpose account still insists on pushing changes on a wide number of articles (though limited in scope almost exclusively to Apple consumer hardware articles). They're claiming "consensus" by pointing to a discussion from a year and a half ago, but if this many editors are reverting their changes, then this mission of theirs needs to be put on hold, and discussions need to happen BEFORE wide-ranging changes are made.

Sarenne's talk page is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. I've started a discussion on the issue of SI prefixes here, and I hope people with an interest will participate. -/- Warren 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Warren, that seems like a reasonable course of action. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: 70.134.225.98

he/she has vandelised the siamese cat page again after it was reverted last time, i though i should reported here.

You should probably post that on [104]. This is more for long-time troublemakers. HalfShadow 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked ip editing from other ips in same domain

An anonymous ip has been stalking my edits and warring across several articles. His vandalisms earned him a block. [105]. One issue also is that I have been attacked similarly before by another ip from what looks like the same domain system [106].

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.34.17 http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.49.93

This attack is similar in tone and content to that old one [107] for which he is blocked. Now, another ip from the same domain is making attacks against me of the exact same nature, evading the block [108]Rumpelstiltskin223 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of Hamsacharya dan redux

The user previously impersonating Hamsacharya dan as Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back, this time as Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He's also incompletely nominated Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. I think this article has survived AfD twice. Either the nomination should be reversed as done by an impersonator, or completed. Up to the admin answering this, I guess. A Ramachandran 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names as a problem username, which doesn't fully address the problems you've noted, but may jumpstart the process of getting the account blocked. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NoToFrauds, as there's a history behind this... A Ramachandran 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble on Uncyclopedia

Pardon my inexperience, but I don't know where to put this. It's a little more controversial than your standard page protection issue, so I'm putting it here. Uncyclopedia just went through two AFDs in one day. Both were speedy kept, and several people ahve been advocating a re-write due to poor sourcing (very little third-party references) and such. So I get started on it, and pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverts me twice without so much as an edit summary. When I revert back and ask her about it on her talk page, she protects it, then reverts to her preferred version again. Now she's saying I'm "vandalizing" - yeah right. Can someone unprotect the page, due to her protecting it over a content dispute, so editing can resume? Milto LOL pia 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp made one error, that much is clear. Protecting the page is inappropriate when simply blocking you stops you. I can't comment on the rest. --Deskana (request backup) 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, removing tongue in cheek humor from an encyclopedia article is VANDALISM all right. It's definitely worth a mention that the site's potato mascot did not found the website. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I never made any comment on anything you did. I simply said that really, pschemp should have blocked you rather than protected the page. Whether that block/page protection is appropriate is something I didn't comment on. I'm not well versed enough in the situation to understand it. --Deskana (request backup) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp will also be a bit tiffed when she sees some of your commentary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, my bad. Milto LOL pia 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I believe she protected it because you added {{unreferenced}} repeatedly, when there are nearly 3 dozen in-line citations, and a citation referencing the "content free" portion (from what I can see).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but we're currently discussing the validity of those cites, such as citing Uncyclopedia's "content-free" article as evidence of it being such, when it clearly says so on the Main Page; a link to an unhelpful Uncyclopedia page is not a good cite. Many other cites are self-references to Wikimedia or not third-party sources. ANd she was revert warring over other stuff too, without so much as a glance at the talk page, where all this was being discussed. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, my sex is irrelevent. Repeat insertions of tag that is false = vandalsim. I did you a favor Miltopia, by not allowing you to get to 3RR. pschemp | talk 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing me a favor by hindering me from improving a poorly sourced page, revert warring me with no edit summaries, calling me a vandal, ignroing the talk page, and wildly assuming bad faith? No, you are protecting a page that you are in a content dispute with after boorish edit warring. Milto LOL pia 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? O rly?

[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116] I don't see any vandalism here. Just some cleaning up of highly unencyclopedic tongue-in-cheek humor and confusing templates, replacing them with links. Where is the vandalism? Milto LOL pia 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{unreferenced}} falsely = vandalsim (especially when previously asked to not do it by Sean Black). pschemp | talk 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, knock it off with the running around in circles. I've said several times that it was poorly sourced and that it was being discussed on the talk page, and every time you simply say "SORRY YOU WERE ASKED NOT TO ADD IT". There was a good deal of talk page discussion that you completely ignored. Clearly my edits were in good faith, and I don't need your or Sean Black's permission to point out that article's shortcomings. Milto LOL pia 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, that article does require a tag. It's not {{unreferenced}}, but it is either {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}}. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I found that out, but it ws already protected, so I added it to the talk page instead so the people who actually pay attention to that will see the problem. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we agree to unprotect the article? I don't see it as a sin to have been using the wrong tag by mistake, and the diffs I've seen from Miltopia are well in keeping with policies like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But I don't want anyone to spark a wheel war. Grandmasterka 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, users are requesting uprotection at Talk:Uncyclopedia already. I don't see the horrible harm that required protection to begin with either. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his edits first (which other users didn't agree with) sure. But repeated insertions of something people in the page didn't agree with is not cool. pschemp | talk 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think adding the wrong tag is vandalism. Should he have added the right tag to begin with? Sure. Does he have a point about the quality of the references? Yes. This isn't a content dispute either, so there isn't any point to the protection. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Miltopia agreeing to work to get consensus for his changes. If he wants to change from vandalism to adding content, he needs to do that. pschemp | talk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus for initial edits in the least - if that's your only problem, you have nothing to worry about. Your accusations of "vandalism" are starting to sound hysterical - clearly we have a consensus that the article needs to be unprotected and tagged, but you refuse because you want me to do it on your terms. Let's just cut the crap and get to work on the article already instead of playing out this foolish battle of wills. Milto LOL pia 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You do need consensus after people repeated revert you. Which is what happened. pschemp | talk 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Using administrative tools in a content dispute isn't cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect if Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his changes first. What you don't get is that I could care less about the content. I'm not involved in a content dispute, I reverted vandalism. pschemp | talk 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I had a number of good-faith, sensible edits that you were reverting without comment. Those were content edits. So far your only characterization of it as "vandalism" is because I was "asked not to add the tag". It's pretty obvious that you're the only one who thinks I was vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You made repeat insertions of something you didn't have consensus for. Get consensus first. I personally don't care what the content is, i care that you work with the other editors on the page. pschemp | talk 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing there was a disagreement on (as in, not blind "vandalism" reverts) is the tag. We now have a consensus for a different tag. There is no problem. Milto LOL pia 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where? pschemp | talk 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, right here. Milto LOL pia 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What, you and Tito? You need to discuss that on the talk page of the actual article. That's where we get consensus about articles. pschemp | talk 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"..I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally." - Newyorkbrad.[117] Sigh. Miltopia, don't do anything reckless, discuss changes beforehand. Pschemp, remove the protection, it is inappropriate. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I say again: Using admin tools in a content dispute is NOT cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. It wasn't a content dispute. pschemp | talk 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It might b e helpful if you could add something to the discussion other than "NO U". THe only people who "reverted me" used sysop tools to prevent my changes - Sean Blac via rollback, and you via protection. If it wasn't a content dispute, where's the "disagreement" coming from? No one else reverted me. Milto LOL pia 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) We shouldn't need "consensus" to include something that two editors disagree with and which resulted in full protection by an involved admin during a content dispute. This is a wiki. Nevertheless, I've voiced my opinion on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected. Now, how hard is it to get consensus about contested edits? pschemp | talk 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing to see here anymore, move on... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^ Milto LOL pia 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollback/Popups/Whatever

So, does the 3RR apply to blind reverts via popups or rollback? I just got another revert via popup with no edit summary. I think it's stupid that the only one of the four of us reverting who has managed to use the talk page and use edit summaries would be blocked for 3RR for re-reverting. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to everything but vandalism. Looks like someone else thinks your edits are controversial. Interesting. pschemp | talk 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they also weren't considerate enough to use an edit summary or the talk page, choosing instead to blindly edit war. Depressing. Milto LOL pia 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting policy violations. And even if it did, I would choose to Ignore All Rules in those cases. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia Gaming the system?

I'd like some feedback on this as I feel this is a case of a user walking a very fine line. Here I warned Miltopia about 3RRing on Uncyclopedia. And, he responded so obviously read my warning. His first three reversions 1 2 and 3 were the addition of the {{unsourced}} tag (and all within the space of 20 minutes). One hour after my warning he went back and added the {{reliablesources}} tag 4. Does this seem like a blatant case of gaming the system to anyone else? No action has been taken at this time Glen 04:00, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be the only one to think so [118]. Editors on the page have expressed that the tag should remain deleted, so I wouldn't block this time, but if he does it again after all this mess...pschemp | talk 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the rule and have stopped editing. We're done here. Milto LOL pia 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also wasn't the one to re-insert the tag. You have Tbeatty to thank for that. Milto LOL pia 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me!!

I tagged an article for a speedy delete. Mike_Gaun and an editor of the page. This wikipedian User:Ncole vandalized my talk page and removed ALL of my tags on the Mike_Gaun page. In my mind, this requires and immediate ban. The article Mike_Gaun is a memorial not wiki content. Admin needed! Thx --Zrulli 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Calmness, calmness. No, it doesn't require an immediate ban (although continuing behavior of the same type might result in a block, which is notably different from a ban). The page has been deleted. Don't worry. Yuser31415 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"United Front Against Deletion"

User:Criscokoenig seems to be quite intent on making a WP:POINT, after his autobiography was flagged for deletion. See [119], [120], and many other similar edits. Seraphimblade 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this user has just been blocked for 24 hours. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours only? I would have indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the block to indefinite. I was wondering that myself - 24 hours seems way too lenient in this case, especially as the user in question has no good-faith edits aside from creating the page that ended up getting deleted. --Coredesat 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 24h to stop his spree, but wanted to scroll through the contribs before an indef-block to make sure there weren't legit edits in there. If we're comfortable that this isn't a regular editor who just went off his rocker, I have no objection to the indef. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from the user claiming that his original intent was not to vandalize (but to edit Will & Grace-related and other articles), and he agrees with the 24-hour block and not the indefinite one. I'm going to AGF and reduce his block to the 24 hours. His edits should be monitored when he returns. --Coredesat 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not. But one chance only. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war and likely sockpuppetry at Shinigami (Bleach)

An edit war has been ongoing between 67.186.73.164 (talk · contribs · count) and Mekryd (talk · contribs · count), both of whom have reverted four times in today. I only chose not to report them at WP:AN3RR because neither had been warned. Now, TrueAnime (talk · contribs · count) is making the exact same reverts as the anonymous, which makes me suspect sockpuppetry. I have reported this here because I'm uncertain exactly what to do in this case: if this is worth taking to Checkuser or if it can be handled without this. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

At a request from an arbitrator, I've run a checkuser that has determined with a high degree of certainty that Ekajati (talk · contribs), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs), and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs) are all the same person. It is suggested based on behavior and the timing of the account creation that these are all the same as the "retired" Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), but that account is too old to check. Please take a look at this and take any necessary actions. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Ramachandran (talk · contribs) was created 12 hours after Hanuman_Das "retired". Here is an analysis from wannabe-kate's tool, of their editing patterns, with common articles edited, labelled in bold

A Ramachandran article edits:21 Mantra, 21 Bharatanatyam, 19 James Branch Cabell, 18 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 18 Shiva, 15 List of vacuum tubes, 15 Yoga, 15 Brian Cutillo, 10 Bön, 10 Tantra, 10 Spirituality, 9 Dr. MGR-Janaki College of Arts and Science for Women, 9 M. G. Ramachandran, 9 Lu Sheng-yen, 9 Sahaja Yoga

A Ramachandran article talk edits:13 Michael Roach, 6 Bharatanatyam, 2 Michael Roach (disambiguation), 2 Tibetan Buddhism, 2 Dharmic religions

Hanuman Das article edits: 144 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 100 Tantra, 100 Nath, 67 Thelema, 52 Gurunath, 47 Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, 44 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 39 Dattatreya ,38 Mahavatar Babaji, 32 Lu Sheng-yen ,29 Obligations in Freemasonry, 29 Haidakhan Babaji, 26 Neem Karoli Baba, 25 Barbelo, 25 Hermeticism

Hanuman Das article talk edits: 188 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 46 Gurunath, 38 Nath, 33 Mahavatar Babaji, 26 Jahbulon, 22 Michael Roach, 20 Thelema, 13 Hermeticism, 13 Tantra, 13 Stella Matutina, 13 Satguru, 13 Sidhoji Rao Shitole, 12 Starwood Festival, 12 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 11, Tantra/Archive 1

What sticks out, apart from from the general overlap, is the editing to Lu Sheng-yen. In the last year, only five registered users (excluding vandals, single purpose accounts, vandal reverts, and typo fixing) have edited this article. Of these, three of them are Hanuman_Das, Ekajati and 999, all parties to the Starwood case, all of whom are on one side of the fence. Similarly a look at Michael Roach shows the same thing, very few people edited this article, so both articles are likely to be obscure, and a new user appearing, immediately after the retirement of another, editing with the same viewpoint, editing on a similar set of articles, especially two common articles which are almost inactive. So all the socks have been blocked and the owner also blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Art Dominique (talk · contribs) sockpuppet

The latest Art Dominique (talk · contribs) sock, who is vandalizing RFCU requests. An RFCU was filed against some folks who AD doesn't like, and when they were proven to not be socks or puppetmasters, he began attempting to re-add more and more to the RFCU (in spite of Essjay telling him that the evidence had already been reviewed). [121].

The Art Dominique sock insists on trolling this RFCU, re-adding info that has already been checked. [122] [123].

• Virtual Realities (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.216.199.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The "Virtual Realities" is pretty clearly an Art Dominique sock, based on AD naming conventions, the consistency of huge, tedious piles of misinformation, and continuous trolling and stalking of Petri Krohn (talk · contribs), Whiskey (talk · contribs) and Illythr (talk · contribs). TheQuandry 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of WP:PAIN…

…I would like my fellow administrators' opinions as to the acceptability of the following edits. Am I being a bit too sensitive, or is this a tad over the line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jakew&curid=8980070&diff=102367812&oldid=102366949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TipPt&curid=4554553&diff=102366338&oldid=102245504

-- Avi 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He pretty much invited that by saying "So why is it bad that I am this person?" -Amark moo! 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, to answer the question, I think that's not really crossing the line. Rude, yes, but not really over the line. -Amark moo! 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkivar's unilateral deletion and salting of a draft article

Wow, I am amazed. I am working on a draft in user space, mention it by link Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rusty_trombone, and the next thing I know it is deleted and salted. This is completely uncalled for. Will someone kindly restore the page so I can continue my work on it, get it up to quality and policy, and post it? I'd appreciate it a lot. CyberAnth 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)