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

Problems with user Sarvagnya

Hi, I am here to report Sarvagnya's numerous deletions of items on the Dravidian topics template here. I was fortunate enough to have an administor put a temporary block on there for 5 days here and to resolve the issue with this user, which I have attempted. I have been asked by Sarvagnya to show reference sources to back my claims, and I have here, here, here, and here, and here. So far, Sarvagnya has not shown a single referenced source to back his claims. He even refuses to do so and continues to ask me to show more referenced sources. Furthermore, he tells me to show him referenced sources and if I do not, he will continue to remove items from the Dravidian topics template here I have shown him books along with the page numbers where I found the info to back my claims, and he is still hell bent on removing items from the template. This user also shows a great intollerance of other people's ethnicities and nationalities, also generalizing certain ethnic groups here, here, andhere.

After the five days were up and nothing resolved, an administrator put a disabled tag on the page to protect it from further deletions here I have reported this user before and when Sarvagnya found out that I reported him, he sent me a threatening message on my talk page here to get me blocked. Lastly, Sarvagnya has managed to find a way around the protection plate and has has began removing items off the template again here, here, and here. Just now, he has just posted a demeaning message on my talk page here. I am beginning to get the impression that this user is messing with me and is trying his level best to get his POV across using wikipedia as some sort of a propganda machine. It would be most appreciated if someone could help with this situation here. Regards. Wiki Raja 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. First he called me a vandal when it was infact only a content dispute. And then when I had had enough of his crying wolf, I left a {npa2} on his page. This he now claims is my 'threat' to him. Between all this, he filed a frivolous rfcu in bad faith against me and many ips with all sorts of fabricated evidence. It got thrown out. As for his references, I'd like to see him point out even one user that he has managed to convince on the half dozen talk pages that he's pushing his case on. If he thinks I have some kind of pov and am biased, let him show atleast one user who has supported him. Fact of the matter is that all his so called 'refs' do not prove what he is claiming. For details, people can take a look at Template_talk:Dravidian topics, Talk:Yakshagana, Talk:Carnatic music, Talk:Dravidian people etc.,. You will see that he is fighting a lone and losing battle and yet he is continuing to tag dozens and dozens of articles with his nonsensical {Dravidian topics} template. If anything, he is guilty of blatant trolling and vandalism. Sarvagnya 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki Raja about the behavior of Sarvagnya. And I believe Wiki Raja has supported his claims with citations. He says Wiki Raja is fighting a lone battle. But if you see the [talk page], most of arguments are made by him and Gnanapiti who has been identified as confirmed sock puppet of Sarvagnya [see here].Praveen 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this situation with Sarvagnya in a civil manner here. However, he has replied me with an incivil message accusing me of personal attacks here. I then legitimately replied to him in regards to providing referenced sources to back up his claims here and he replied to me with this attack message here. As usual, I held my patience and replied Sarvagnya here. Even furthering the attacks on me, Sarvagnya has tried to get me in trouble in regards to the pics uploaded on my user talk page and templates. He has also continued to harass me with demeaning words here. Therefore, I have replied to him in the appropriate manner here.

I am not the first to have this encounter with Sarvagnya. He has had a long history of incivility towards other users amongst many other acts of violations. Sarvagnya has been warned in the past to be calm when dealing with other users here and was warned to refrain from shouting and using foul language here and here. He has also been warned for personal attacks against other editors, removal of items, and blanking of pages here, here, here, here, and here. [user:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya] has also been involved with incivility issues here, here, and here.

These issues in regards to his past behavior does not stop here. Sarvagnya has been warned for breaking the 3RR or 3 Revert Rule on 28 August 2006 here, and warned for being in danger of breaking the 3RR 17 on October 2006 here and finally blocked on the same date of 17 October 2006 here for breaking the 3RR. After being blocked, Sarvagnya receives another warning in regards to the 3RR on 29 October 2006 here. These 3RR violations are a result of his edit wars in which this user has been warned about here just recently. Sarvagnya has falsely accused me on this page for trolling and vandalism, something in which I have not been involved with. This user fails to see that he has been accused of being biased here and vandalism here and here.

With all this, Sarvagnya posts illegimate warnings on other people's user talk pages if they disagree with his POV here and here. Even worse, this user has the adacity to not only illegitimately warn people who disagree with his POV, but even brag about it here stating, "But last heard, the guys who was opposing me, one of them ran away from WP[1] and another there got banned for 4 months from Wikipedia. So just chill out and have fun. Thanks again for your cooperation. " Sarvagnya has been bullying a lot of editors on Wikipedia in order to get his POV across and even at one point dared an administrator to do a check on him when he was reported for an IP check regarding a sock puppet issue. He is not only using Wikipedia as his POV playground, but he is taking the Administration and editors of Wikipedia for a ride.

Wiki Raja 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the above rant is so full of blatant lies and half truths that I will refrain from answering them. Unless, of course an admin or another respectable user wants a clarification. Thanks. Sarvagnya 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya does have a record of showing a short temper and pushing pov. Plus, if per [2] he has been found guilty of sockpuppeteering, and should get down from his high horse. What we require from Sarvagnya is a statement that he recognizes that sockpuppetry is unacceptable, and that he is required to seek for bona fide compromise within policy; Wikipedia is not a bullying competition, but a collaborative project. His dispute with Wiki Raja may be justified in good faith, but he needs to deal with it in a much more wikilike way. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• First things first. No. I have not been found guilty of sockpuppeteering or anything like that. It was an erroneous result that concluded so and upon further investigation by Blnguyen, dmcdevit and few other admins, we(me and Gnanapiti) were cleared of the charges. Unfortunately however, the rfcu page was never updated until yesterday to reflect this. This has made me fair game for people like Wikiraja who revel in coming up with fabricated evidence using half-truths like this.

• I have never been blocked for 3rr. Wikiraja's claim is pure BS. Anybody is free to check my block log. The first time Aksi warned me about 3rr violation in august, I was very new and I didnt even know what 3rr was. Technically it wasnt even a violation, coz nobody warned me when I was 'in danger' of a violation. Since then I have never violated 3rr. The recent warning by User:RaveenS was frivolous and stemmed from the fact that the user probably forgot how to count.

• As for most of the other diffs he's dumped above, who was I warring with? With a WP all time great - User:Mahawiki. Everybody who was involved knows what he was and I am unapologetic. I dont apologise for having been rude to trolls, vandals and sockpuppeteers. He and his comrade User:Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra(who later was caught using multiple and abusive socks against me and banned) were systematically targeting me and the articles I edited. More recently another user who curiously had the exact same POV and editing practices as the duo got banned indefinetely from Wikipedia, again for using abusive and block evading socks repeatedly. If you are looking for an apology from me for being rude to those people, you're not going to get it.

• And dear dab, you accuse me of POV pushing. May I know where? POV pushing was what wikiraja was accusing me of on that template too. Now the votes(many of them from admins) on that tfd speaks for itself. It should be clear now, who was 'POV-pushing' and who was 'NPOV-pushing'.

• And dab, you of all should know that reading selectively quoted diffs can be misleading. For example, I can make a collage of diffs of your correspondences with say, WIN or Baka or somebody(and vice versa) and make a specious case that you've been incivil, vandal, pov-pusher etc., etc.,. I only know to say it the way it is and call a spade a spade. For that, I am unapologetic.

• If anybody(an admin or a respectable user) needs any clarification about any particular diff that wikiraja's dumped above, ask. Even going through something is too much for me especially when I know that it is nonsense. Sarvagnya 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you could not find the link to the actual warning where you/Gnanapiti were instructed not to edit same pages. Assuming good faith, I provide the link here. Also, the talk page where Wiki Raja is fighting a 'lone' battle is here. Its interesting to note most of the discussions were between Wiki Raja, Gnanapiti, some IPs, and you. Its also interesting see the IP ids which used foul language were found out to be open proxies and consequently banned by Jpgordon. Here is the diff view. All this seems to be too much coincidence to assume good faith Praveen 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't bother answering all these sockpuppetry accusations unless an admin demands clarifications. I have better things to do at wiki. Thanks, Gnanapiti 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My post was directed at Sarvagnya. Thanks for answering on behalf of Sarvagnya anyway :) BTW: you both say that you are willing to answer only when an admin request for clarification. Perplexing. ;) Cheers Praveen 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Remain perplexed. Good for you. :) Did you think of considering my suggestion below, yet? Gnanapiti 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no response about the proxy IP edits? Have you considered that yet? :) Praveen 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From whom are you expecting the response about the proxy IP edits? and for what reasons?

If you consider those IP's as suspected IPs, please feel free to open a CheckUser case. - KNM ^Talk 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider them as suspected IPs. They are confirmed open proxies. Please read my earlier message thats in bold. Praveen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.43.49.134 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

And yeah, why don't you just request a check user rather than beating around the bush? Gnanapiti 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These two accounts were reported for a usercheck back in October of 2006 and both accounts have been confirmed to be the same person on 1 November 2006 here by Dmcdevit. On Nov. 12, 2006 Gnanapiti was unblocked here by Dmcdevit. Info on Sarvagnya's block can be found here. On 9 February 2007, both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were involved in a possible vote fraud here. Does it go against Wikipedia policy for sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet accounts to engage in voting? I have been attacked from all directions for the fact that I have formed a WikiProject Dravidian civilizations and have had Dravidian topics templates on Dravidian related sites. But, when those accusing me go against the rules and even break some of the most severe rules, they get a slap on the wrist. I just cannot believe how much biasedness, prejudice, and favoritism is going on here on Wikipedia. There is an intollerance for non-Hindus, non-Brahmins, non-Aryans (Tamils and other Dravidians), and especially against Sri Lankan Tamils here by these editors and administration of this social club who is campaigning against me. I have never once spoke out against a particular ethnic, religious, or any other group. However, it seems that some people are exempt to really trash mouthing the Tamil civilization in both India and Sri Lanka. I promote an interest group, and I get bombarded because it goes against some peoples nationalistic biased POVs. So, what policies are we going by here? Wikipedia policy, or POV policy? It is truly sad what is going on here and how much some of these editors and administrator can get away with by revising history and stating that certain ethnic groups or family of ethnic groups do not exist. When they feel that their POVs are threatened, they go for low blows and fight dirty. I have nothing else to say, other than I am really disappointed with Wikipeida. Wiki Raja 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You remind me of somebody else now... :). You really do. Sarvagnya 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) the one sri lankan tamil i ever worked with seemed not to be obsessed with national mysticism. o and btw, I initiated the checkuser against sarvagnya, at the height of his peculiar anti-Hindi crusade. I was later told sarvagnya introduced gnanpiti to wikipedia. There is more intolerance on the part of Dravidian Nationalists against Brahmins and their permanent obsession with Aryan Invasion Theory and other archaic therories, than there is from other "dravidian" users. Its only certain Tamil users (I am tamil myself) sympathetic to ethnic nationalist political parties and users that enjoy denigrating Hinduism that call themselves dravidian and preach of a dravidian race.Bakaman 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please do stop it. Sarvagnya has gotten close to line before when dealing with Mahawiki, Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra and Sarvabhaum, except that all those users are now either banned or are likely outdated sockpuppets of each other. Another user Dineshkannambadi who has provided multiple FAs for Wikipedia was also gotten irritated by the antics of these users, so the fact that Sarvagnya has gotten a bit hot under the collar is understandable if not ideal behaviour. Right, what exactly is the issue? I was quietly working through Wiki_Raja to make sure his images were in order yesterday..Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never spoken against Brahmins or any other caste, or any other ethnicity, or religion. Not even once. But I see that it is fair game for others to do so. However, I will not stoop to that level and put anybody down on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or caste (Even though I do not believe in the caste system). Also, by the way, another round of anonymous IP Address users are at it again this time taking off the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations templates off the Dravidian related sites. I am so surprised that this individual forgot to take off the Kannadiga user templates which I have created here, here, here, here, and here in which all of these templates were posted here. By the way, I have already taken care of the images on my user page. FYI: I am not of Sri Lankan background. So, stop making assumptions and stereotypes of me. Wiki Raja 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This should probably lighten the mood here. Just was so ROTFLOLing that I couldnt help but post it here :D No offence to anybody. :).... Dravidian "cricket" ha ha ha.. :D :)) Sarvagnya 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Donteatyellowsnow

Donteatyellowsnow (talk · contribs) has been trolling various articles about film, especially film in Canada topics, and adding false facts and changing the articles POV greatly. Notably seen in the articles Hollywood North and Runaway production. He has been banned for WP:3RR on Feb 7 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. On Feb 9 he vandalised my user page, [3] and was reverted by User:HighInBC. Donteatyellowsnow continously clears his User talk:Donteatyellowsnow and a full archive of all warnings he has been given has been recorded. On it he has received warnings for vandalism, WP:3RR, removing templates from articles, POV issues, and WP:CIVIL warnings. He continously disagrees with the working consensus of the other editors as seen on Talk:Hollywood North and Talk:Hollywood_North/Archive_2. Others on the AfD board described his nomination as 'bad faith'. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_North.

Ther are many other times where he has been uncivil to other edits. A recent quote:

• "It's too funny. If you don't like U.S. entertainment, then create your own! Don't call it "Hollywood North" unless you are willing to debate the theft. It's not America's fault that Canadians (and the whole world) loves our entertainment or that you guys are incapable of making your own without a heavily subsidized industry! - Donteatyellowsnow"
• "You guys aren't Hollywood! No matter how much you try to convince yourselves of it. And yes, I would know because unlike you guys I actually do know something about the subject. So yes I do have a specialty, unlike many of you "dabblers" or Canadian nationalists who have to have their government provide welfare to support their workers because the films wouldn't come there without it. Why don't you guys just create your own independent Canadian films and hire your own workers? Why do you feel you have to steal Hollywood's industry away and then steal even the name of the U.S. film industry too. I mean, come on! Should we start referring to Eureka, California as "Vancouver South"?! Should we start calling Montreal "New York North"? Do you see how ridiculous it is.Donteatyellowsnow 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC"

(Found on Talk:Hollywood_North#Peer_Review_and_Archive)

• "Yes, what you are doing IS vandalism. Because you guys have some weird Canadian agenda... you and your buddies who are conspiring to undo every edit I make to a page that I CREATED. You have posted this and other pages on Canadian portals to try to do your dirty business for you (including the vote for Hollywood North). That page should have been deleted or renamed -- but instead it became a popularity vote. What you are doing to this article is NOT making it Wiki "model"-like. What you are doing is the very same thing that GEORGE W. BUSH does to our American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) reports. He removes anything that he disagrees with or which doesn't promote his skewed vision of the world."
• "This isn't about the "weather" in Canada. It's so sad that you are so blindly in love with "the Great White North" that you can't see straight. No one asked you to be involved in this page. Examine your bias and check it at the door! (Or please just go make more arguments about whether Pluto is a planet or a star and leave the rest of us alone). And that goes for the rest of you Canadian parasites. Donteatyellowsnow"

(Found on Talk:Runaway_production#Donteatyellowsnow.27s_POV_edits) Similar messages can be found on a wide variety of user pages and edit summaries.

This user is also now starting to go around Wikipedia spreading lies about various editors.

• "Hi. There is a user who posted on here Skookum1 who is part of a contingency of Canadians who are doing personal attacks, deleting my edits, and generally making a hard time for any perspective on any pages that there is Canadian/American content on (I was actually surprised to see his name here as I came here on my own by your links to the California portal). But it makes sense that he is having spats with others on other pages because that is what he did with me -- making personal comments about me and such. If you are around and reading this (I know you said you are taking a break)... I would appreciate some help or advice in thwarting these people from their constant harassment of me, their constant reversions of my edits and their never ending and totally unfounded "warnings" they they post to my user talk page (including the fact that they are enlisting Canadian wiki "big guns" to try to threaten me or to try to get me blocked). Thanks. (A fellow American who is fed up). - Donteatyellowsnow"

(Found on User_talk:NorCalHistory#Nationalistic_Canadians)

Other various incidents and warnings can be seen at viewed here. He openly accused people of working for companies who are attempting to promote Canada as a film location: here and often attacks Canadians as reflected in his edits. Personal attack statements to other users and in articles are among some of his contributions: "Much debate has been sparked on when such references cease to be tributes and become plagiarism or just lack of originality." [4]

He has been noted for vandalising and wipe articles. Some few examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], the list goes on.

It could go on and on. This user fails to respond to warnings as he has been warned daily over a period of two months on Wikipedia. While not all his contributions are vandalism, they all consistently change the POV of the articles to which much clean up is needed (Wikipedia:Trolling). I feel this users contributions greatly take away from Wikipedia. Langara College 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had a brief encounter with this user. I tried to talk to him about what is and what is not vandalism, and he seemed to think I was part of a group of partisan Canadians. His removal of content from his talk page makes it a bit tricky to look through, however I have made a tool that can retroactively create archives: User_talk:HighInBC/Temporary_page_indexes/Donteatyellowsnow. I don't really have any advice in this case. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on the user's talk page. Maybe this editor will appreciate hearing from a fellow Californian. Recommended WP:ADOPT and some practice editing other topics. From a browse of the edit history I'd refrain from the t-word in this instance. Based on a lengthy and cited addition to the bio of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa I consider it likely that this is an entertainment industry professional who's concerned about outsourcing of jobs to Canada (a genuine issue in that field) and may have a COI on the matter. Maybe this is someone who can adjust to site standards. Get in touch with me if problems continue. Maybe my SoCal location scores a point or two here. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While he may be concerned with a genuine issue that may be a COI, I still feel that it does not excuse his vandalism to userpages, continuously removing maintenance templates, his exceptionally rude comments, randomly messaging other users with personal attacks about editors, accusing people of working for some sort of Canadian conspiracy, very anti-Canadian changes to articles, and disinterest in adhearing to concensus and other editors who have tried to give him friendly advice. This response just seems too light for someone who has already been blocked once and been informed about Wikipedia policy continuously and then deliberately ignores them. Langara College 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting with a friendly but cautionary note from a SoCal Admin is appropriate IMO. The goal is always to salvage potentially good (faith) editors while improving or at least protecting the encyclopedia. It's not wiki policy to punish editors for prior offences, and now that Durova's involved the editor's inappropriate actions will either be curtailed voluntarily or involuntarily. That's the Wiki Way. Shout out from a fellow Vancouverite, BTW. ;-) Anchoress 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that he has already been warned by admins in the past and subsequently been blocked for a period of time. If a user is continuously warned by his peers and admins and no serious consequences take place, he has no reason to change his habits. People have tried to help him, talk considerately to him, and in some cases, wrongly talked inconsiderately to him with no change. After he was blocked for 24hrs after a WP:3RR incident if you look at his contributions afterwards you will see not much has change. I will trust in your decision but at the same time will express my concerns. The best we can hope for is for him to accept this challenge and prove me wrong. Langara College 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know who this "Langara College" is only that I've only seen his postings recently. He has vandalized my talk page and constantly left unfounded warnings on there (along with others). I believe that "Langara College" might be a sock puppet site that is in fact a college IP address? I could be wrong, but I thought I would mention it. I seriously don't understand what this person's problem is. He is part of a group of people that have attacked, harassed and tried to provoke me. They engaged in an edit war with me, inciting an accidental 3RR (which was actually only the removals of tags that they kept reverting -- my actions of which are not formally considered vandalism on Wiki). This person "Langara College" and a few others ("Skookum" is another user) have constantly harassed this editor and deleted vital wiki content because it goes against their extreme Canadian nationalistic POV or simply because it was written by this editor. They have also tried to use the tyranny of the majority in the case of the "Hollywood North" page and have constantly removed sourced material that I have added to that page. Wiki is not a democracy, but they have acted with a false "consensus" that is extremely Canadian POV and have attempted a group "ownership" of that page. With regard to this user accusing me of "changing the POV" on the runaway production page, that is an outrageous and totally unfounded and uneducated charge because I was the one who CREATED that page in the first place. I have used sources to back up all of the writing and editing. I got sick of these people constantly barraging my talk page with unfounded warnings, so when they continued -- I sent a few warnings back to the ones who persisted. It's too bad that these people can't play fair and that they feel that they should try to have me blocked (for nothing!). I would seriously have administrators look into the antics of users such as Langara and Skookum on the Hollywood North and other pages. These people have engaged in other nationalistic fights on other pages long before I ever came around. This seems to be their "M.O." - Donteatyellowsnow 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks.

User fys has been abusive towards me:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

So I left him a warning using the standard template.

He removed it [13] saying "revert new user test". I made it clear it was not a test "rv deletion of warning re multiple personal attacks by this user on me. User has been told not to make personal attacks, and knows perfectly well this is not a 'new user test'".

He has now removed it again with the edit summary "m (fmt)". Nssdfdsfds 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to remove anything from a talk page. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what it says here [14]. While some people on the talk page argue that users should be able to remove warnings immediately, as to remove them they must have read and hopefully understood them, in doing so saying "revert new user test" and "(fmt)" doesn't demonstrate good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

"What it says here" (Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings) was a proposal, not a policy or guideline. It was not adopted. A note at top now clarifies this: "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." On the talk page, please note the comment: "Several proposed policies to forbid warning removal were defeated. As such, people remain allowed to remove things that they don't like from their talk page, and that includes warnings. Revert warring to replace a warning is bad form. One may assume that a user removing a warning has read said warning".... -- Ben 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty standard behaviour for Fys. You need to realise that Fys is absolutely right about absolutely everything and therefore any warnings are necessarily invalid. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • Might have known you'd show up in your usual provocative way - not actually arguing that I'm wrong, just insinuating that I must be. I might remind you that I still have my 100% record: whenever I kick up a fuss, it always turns out in the end that I'm right. If I'm not right, I don't kick up a fuss. That simple enough for you? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• This being the admins' noticeboard, and me being an admin, and one of the more active ones at that, I didn't "show up", I was here all along. "Revert new user test?" How about "I have read your comment and do not wish to engage in debate" or some such? And "fmt" (minor)? What's that if not a misleading edit summary? Has it ever occurred to you to be anything other than aggressive and provocative? Oh, and hey! You're edit warring on Anne Milton again! You need to chill. Why not ask your man Cameron if you can bum a spliff? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You didn't have to interpose yourself in this section, you chose to, in what is a fairly blatant provocation. I was a better admin on an off day than you've ever been, with your personalising of everything. You should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys, you were being blatantly provocative, and you are edit warring on a WP:BLP political article again. You don't want people to notice and comment on this behaviour? Try not doing it. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• David Cameron's on the other side. I don't think he'll be giving him any spliffs. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It appears he's trying to fix things by removing his edits about calling the other user an idiot [15], so hopefully things have calmed down. Cowman109^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless he's actually apologizing, that's not fixing things, that's covering his tracks. His last edit indicates that his sense of self-righteousness remains intact. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is a textbook example of a personal attack. From an editor with a significant block history and past ArbCom sanctions for disruptive editing. It's also very obviously a violation of WP:STALK. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am rapidly running out of patience for this user, continually involved in incidents similar to this. I would support an indefinate time out. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See also [16] with its rude edit summary, and [17], vexatious use of a standard template warning on an established editor, which by common consent is rude and provocative. I think Fys is often a good editor but is very very combative and his reaction to any challenge is frequently rude and obnoxious. He's a political activist and a Usenet veteran so this is pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, who's "stalking" whom? This started out not involving JzG, then he leaps in to revive a dispute long considered settled, and misused his admin rollback button in a content dispute. And the corollary to "don't template the regulars" is that you use a specific individual message: when I do this, he removed it. The reason I have learned to be combative with JzG is that he is a personal, vindictive and combative person who pays no regard to logical, well constructed arguments. He is unsuited to the role of admin. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You will note that when I removed your comments on my Talk I acknowledged them with civil edit summaries. The second was redundant anyway. But please don't try to change the subject. You have been rude and obnoxious with your comments and edit summaries, and this is part of a long-term pattern of rude and obnoxious comments and summaries. You should urgently consider changing this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think JzG ought to remove himself from this debate–I have a hard time seeing how this addition [18] merits the use of rollback. I also don't see how it's appropriate to bring up past sanctions against Fys as a justification of one's own behaviour–as we all ought to know by now, items in a block log do not speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was a mistake; I immediately made a null edit to add a summary (which was: taking it to Talk, which I did), but it did not show up for some reason. No big deal, I think, given that I gave justifications for the original edit in the summary and I took it to Talk. This is a sideshow which should not distract from the original topic. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make up. Also, I definitely think from [19] that Fys should use more moderate language, as a lot of his edit summaries seem to be provocative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I just read that as "I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make out." Not a pleasant mental image... Aecis^Brievenbus 12:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (and one, I might add, that JzG has involved himself). If the worst thing here is Fys calling someone an "idiot" (probably over this edit [20]), then I daresay contributors in this thread have said a good deal worse. Our focus ought to be on the article, which actually has on an active talk page. This doesn't require administrative attention, and I'm shocked that people above are seriously calling for a community ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of a long string of incidents involving fys and and his absoloutely uncompromising POV. There has to be a limit. Viridae^Talk 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of POV editing. You have caught this disease of JzG. I want this blog mentioned because it makes the article better, not because it accords with my POV. Withdraw that unfounded allegation. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that was directed at me. I wasn't reffering to your editing, I was reffering to your interactions with other users, your uncompromising position that you are always right, as clearly demonstrated in my past dealings with you. You never seem to have learnt from any of the disputes to which you have been a party and consequently you seem to be rapidly running out of chances for redemption. Viridae^Talk 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries in the last 50 edits today: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Many many users have been blocked for much less. What is it going to take for you to be civil? Viridae^Talk 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if I wasn't already involved in this discussion/had a history with you and I came across that lot I would have blocked you on the spot. Unacceptable. Viridae^Talk 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, Mackensen, with respect, it's not a content dispute. Fys has changed the subject, and that happened because I mentioned that one of the articles involved is Anne Milton, the article where I blocked Fys for edit-warring before, but the problem is not the edit warring (although that is part of the problem), it's Fys' repeatable use of insulting comments in text and in edit summaries. As Viridae says, it's a long-term issue with this editor.

I'm not going to press this further because I am "involved" (in the sense that one who does something to prevent Fys from doing what he wants is immediately "involved", since he seems entirely incapable of taking no for an answer) but you will see that the edit summaries and comments linked above use terms like "liar" and "idiot". He removed abusive comments instead of striking them and apologising (did he apologise for his rudeness? I didn't see it) and he posted blatant personal attacks, including evidently trawling through my Talk to find a disgruntled editor and stirring up dissent there.

In short: Fys is a troublemaker. His reaction to being called a troublemaker is precisely as one would expect from a politician and Usenet veteran: deflection and denial. Seems that's what's being tried again here. "Look at this horrible admin abuse, see this terrible edit warring". How about "Sorry, I should not have called this editor an idiot?" Or "sorry, I got carried away?"

Sooner or later we (for values of we which do not include me) are going to have to deal with this. Fys was desysopped for unapologetically edit warring on a political biography, and overall the one word that I think characterises Fys' behaviour generally is unapologetic. Like most politicians, he is entirely convinced of his own rectitude and he seems, from my limited interactions with him, to be absolutely unwilling to accept even the suggestion that he may be in the wrong. He is also not prepared to drop it, as we see form the fact that he is still evidently beating the dead horse of his 3RR block months ago. Of course the project can live with bullheaded and opinionated people, if it could not then I'd be out of here, but when they refuse to countenance the possibility they may be wrong, then we have a problem. WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to waste time drawing attention to JzG's blatant personal attacks and reference to off-wiki behaviour above; merely to point out that he says on his user page "If you act like a dick, I'll call you a dick". I'm merely doing the same, and "they don't like it up 'em". If this editing dispute has become heated, then JzG's contribution has been to bring much of the petrol. Where I am right I stick to my guns. Where I am wrong, I back down. The wiki would be rendered useless if editors backed down when they were in the right. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a whole world of difference between telling someone hey are acting like a dick and posting egregious personal attacks, which is what you did. Plus, the events whihc started this thread had nothing to do with me, you were insulting and attacking another editor entirely. Oh, and you're acting like a dick. Again. Like the man says lower down, put down the stick and back away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the utter and intense irony that it was Fys who claimed my Conservatives Userproject was POV-pushing... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an organised attempt to recruit Wikipedians by POV. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Articles I have written are NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I think it's rather silly to claim everything you've written is NPOV. Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [27] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neturality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective han overt bias. Of course everyone will do this, nobody is without opinions and bias, and to claim that you are an impartial observer, infallible and completely without bias is just silly. This is consistent with other recent edits of yours to the effect that you are always right, and doesnt' do you any favours. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't and you know damn well it wasn't. I even offered you the chance to act as an NPOV checker. No article I have ever written has contained POV either, so your insinuation that I have is a fallacy. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing - you have been desysopped for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread has wandered far afield from "User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks" (removing warnings is not an offense, by the way). As a non-admin, may I suggest it be closed here? And may I ask the disputants find some other way to settle their disputes than by bringing them to ANI?

If editors can't reach agreement (or at least agree to disagree civilly) on the talk pages, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process. -- Ben 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should run for a while. Fys is very skilled at diverting discussion of his problematic behaviour down blind alleys, but he does keep on with the problematic behaviour and, as noted above, he has an unshakeable belief in his own neutrality, which is a pressing problem given that he is a party political activist; it is unwise in the extreme not to acknowledge even the possibility that you might have bias. Add to that the extremely unhelpful nature of some of his comments, and we have a problem editor. With a history of blocks, an ArbCom sanction and a desysopping behind him. Every time he diverts the discussion by poking sharp sticks at everybody who disagrees with him, we all say "oh, content dispute" and wander off. How many content disputes do you have to have, with how many editors, before it;s considered a problem? Fys will not accept criticism, even when it is seen by outsiders as well founded. Anybody who criticises him gets a shitstorm. Do we need that? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that this particular incident report took not less than five insults by him calling me an "idiot", which I repeatedly asked him not to do (and which he ignored), and then two removals of my warning template about his abuse (which I only added after he had slapped a warning template on my own page about reverting (something, which of course takes two, and that second person was Fys) - in other words he wanted to warn me (and I responded), but refused to listen to my own warnings, firstly in the edit summary, then in the page itself, and then on his user page). In other words from the issue of whether or not this text

"In February 2006, Milton was among a minority of Conservative MPs to oppose exceptions for private clubs from the proposed Smoking ban in England. The next month, she was the first Conservative MP to sign an early day motion tabled by Labour MP Chris Mullin calling for fake fur to be used in the bearskin hats worn by some regiments of the British Army."

is notable enough to include in the article on Anne Milton, it escalated into this. This escalation took, by my count, NINE acts of abusive and/or arrogant behaviour against me by Fys. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] And this despite my requests to the contrary. I can't help thinking that it could have been stopped long before this. Nssdfdsfds 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And by my reckoning this is pretty standard behaviour for Fys, certainly not unusual or unprecedented. Which is why I think we ought to consider what, if anything, to do about it. It's the complete lack of openness to the idea that he is anything other than completely neutral in his editing that bugs me here. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My last contribution yesterday before 4 PM, and then JzG and others come back several times later to jump all over my reputation and then accuse me of "flogging a dead horse" when I did not respond. This is unacceptable. What exactly is the 'horse' in question? Does JzG think it is fair for him and his allies to issue constant insults against me, including unworthy suggestions which have no supporting evidence, and then object that I have no right to disagree? JzG is unworthy of being an administrator and should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I somehow see this ending in an ArbCom.--Isotope23 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not participate but would welcome an ArbCom hearing which resulted in desysopping JzG. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I may say this, though: if JzG undertakes never again to make the claim that my wish to see the Tim Ireland blog mentioned in Anne Milton is derived from my own point of view on her politics, and agrees that I have not been sanctioned for point of view editing, then I will let the matter drop so far as he is concerned (and he need not apologise for having done so in the past). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That blog is in no way a reliable source. It should be removed from the article.--Isotope23 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the blog as a source and all of the information sourced from the blog. Someguysblog is never an acceptable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, Hipocrite, blogs can be used as a source, like any self-published site. According to WP:V, Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. I don't know what kind of blog this was, but it's just not accurate to say blogs are not usable as sources 100% of the time. Jeffpw 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not in there as a source, as would be fairly clear if you knew the background. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Someguysblog is not the blog of a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." If they were, they wouldn't be "Someguy." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mighty generous offer there: "If he will promise to surrender unconditionally, I promise to accept his surrender unconditionally also." --Calton | Talk 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh do come off it. I'm merely asking that he stop making unfounded allegations which he has never substantiated. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is a problem with Fys's editing, then aren't the remedies from this ArbCom case still applicable (specifically, article probation - "Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Fys from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing... Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations.")? If this does not help, perhaps ArbCom would be willing to consider extenting the existing sanctions (with or without a new case)? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would 'any page' include this one? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not article probation (article probation applies to articles) but a one year ordinary probation which expires in August. Please note the "for reasonable cause". Please note that it's been accepted that I can remove warnings from my userpage (which I note JzG does all the time). If JzG would accept the very reasonable offer made above, which merely asks him not to make unfounded accusations (something he should not be doing anyway) then this would be a big pile of nothing and everyone could go away. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Or everyone could just go away, and you could take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to go to dispute resolution. I have raised this issue with JzG many times but he removes anything I ask him on his talk page. An RfC is not possible unless two users are involved and I don't see him waiving his privilege. And I am definitely not going to Arbitration as the whole process is unacceptable. So what should I do to stop JzG making unfounded allegations? Because, let me make it absolutely clear, a great deal of my irritation with him (which may come across as disruption) is because of his continual unwarranted accusations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom and ALoan... I would say 'any page' could indeed include this one, but perhaps that might not be the most productive thing to do. What I am seeing is a pattern of contentious behaviour from an editor that has been warned before and perhaps some community sanctioning is in order here... what would be the list of pages that we'd want to restrict this behaviour on? Do we really need ArbCom to sanction? Or could previously uninvolved admins just take care of this on their own? ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could make a list of pages and ban him from them under the existing remedy for disruptive incivility. But I'm not sure a focus on particular pages is what we need. The problem seems to be a pattern of behavior with other editors: unwillingness to be civil with people who disagree with him, to the point of interfering with his and others' work. As a disclaimer, while I don't follow these pages I have blocked Fys in the past, and he has called me an idiot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What in fact happened, a year ago this week, was that you blocked me for a totally fictitious 3RR violation. As I understand it no-one now believes that that block was justified. It did, however, lead indirectly to my desysopping when I self un-blocked at 1 AM: I was just about to finish an edit that had taken me an hour to work on. Just for the sake of full disclosure. I mean what I say about JzG accepting the deal proposed above, and that would be far, far simpler than anything anyone else has proposed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Events on International Cultic Studies Association

I request a review of the recent conduct of both myself and of admin Jkelly on International Cultic Studies Association.

The important events as I see them:

• Without identifying himself as an admin, Jkelly removes a mention of a living person. His edit comment says that it was not a well-sourced mention. In fact, it was extremely well-sourced, but Jkelly did not ask whether it was well sourced before making the deletion.

• Still unaware that Jkelly was an admin, I revert the unilateral deletion of well-sourced material.

• Jkelly then dleleted the material again.

• I revert again with a demand for an explanation. (This was my second revert and I was not planning to revert again.)

• Jkelly deletes the well-sourced material again and protects the page. He still had not yet identified himself as an admin; this was the first indication .

• A lengthy discussion ensued.

• WeniWidiWiki ends the discussion with "You do not dictate policy at wikipedia, and Jkelly has every right to discuss this issue, edit and end a revert-war or remove inappropriate material just like any wikipedian." My response to this would be:
  • I did not attempt to dictate policy at Wikipedia, I attempted to apply it by restoring well-sourced material. Someone has recently been blocked twice for deleting well-source material on Cult and Cult apologist. The admin involved called such unilateral deletion "edit warring." Perhaps I misunderstood in trying to apply that concept to the present article.
  • If this can be called a "revert war" then Jkelly participated as well, and not as an admin because he had not declared himself as such.
  • If Jkelly can delete "inappropriate material just like any Wikipedian", meaning that he was not acting as an admin, then I can certainly revert it as well (please note that I was being conscious of and observant of 3RR) since it was a unilateral deletion of well-sourced material.
  • In the discussion Jkelly suggests that I did not respect his admin authority. We were well into the revert cycle before he revealed himself as such.

My POV during these events was formed in large part by the fact that we have quite recently been through about 20 deletions of well-sourced material on the other articles mentioned above. We still haven't recovered the material.

The ICSA page is also cult-related. Absent any prior discussion I could only assume that the same thing was happening there. Perhaps I now don't have enough tolerance for unilateral deletion of well-sourced material without proper explanation either before the fact or for awhile after it, I don't know.

An opinion on these events would be appreciated. If I need a hard slap to the head then please do apply it. I'll accept and apologize profusely to Jkelly. I will actually consider that an acceptable outcome to this posting, as if I have screwed up I really need to know it. Tanaats 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to an m:OTRS complaint (2007021110005369 for other team members). Admins who'd like more information are invited to email me, and it would be great if some more editors could help us figure out what to do about the non-urgent issue discussed on the talk page. Jkelly 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct link is 2007021110008581. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to offer that Jkelly never said a single word about an OTRS complaint. When he first arrived as a non-admin editor and starting deleting well-sourced material, all he said was that "someone complained". I did not find that argument from just-another-editor to be compelling. Later, after revealing himself to be an admin (or rather after I had to deduce it), he dropped that argument entirely and started asking why we were using ICSA's own website as an RS for a mention of who the ICSA's own staff was.

I am used to admins identifying themselves as such rather than making editors guess. I am used to them showing respect to editors by giving at least a brief explanation as to what guideline they are enforcing. None of this would have happened had Jkelly done that. I happen to have respect for admins. Bishonen has advised me on several occassions that I was misunderstanding the guidelines, and I have been happy for that. But all of this has completely bewildered me. Tanaats 23:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you might be agitated by having your edits reverted, but I don't see what the big deal is about the admin identifying himself, etc. You were not blocked or anything. His second edit summary should have been more descriptive, because the fact did have a source. (However, the source is not a strong one—it is a non-published website and not an independent source—and even supposing the accuracy of it, there are separate reasons why it would not be appropriate to have listings of living non-notable ex-members of organizations who choose to leave. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, don't worry too much about whether or not you misunderstood guidelines. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and in this case we have a living person affected by it, in a real sense and a sometimes legal sense. In such case, we have weakly sourced information which, even if it were perfectly accurate, would not be very important to the article—and it may very well be completely false. Both of you were trying to improve the encyclopedia; Jkelly's summary of the edit or other explanation was simply not sufficiently explanatory. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really not trying to fight you folks here, I'm really honestly sincerely trying to understand so that I don't repeat this apparent screwup in future. Please help me here:

• Actually, I was not at all agitated about having my edit reverted. Not at all. On the "cult-related" pages (like ICSA) I get the hell reverted out of me all the time. Actually I and others have been so reverted that someone has been blocked twice on those pages, the second time just a day ago. I've gotten used to it. My strong understanding from the admin in that case is that it just "isn't done" to unilaterally delete well-sourced material without prior discussion and consensus -- if I understand her correctly then she considers this to be "edit warring". Perhaps there are nuances to this that I don't understand, and that it is sometimes ok for a new editor on an article to to delete well-sourced material, and that it is improper for other editors to protest, ask for an explanation, and revert until the deletion can be discussed. Honestly, that's where my head is at right now, trying to understand this. I know that if I go to the disputed pages mentioned above and start unilaterally deleting well-sourced material that Bishonen will hand me my head.

• I'm really not at all understanding why the ICSA website is not an RS from which to source a mention of who their own staff is. It would seem that it would therefore not be possible to make mention of the staff of any organization anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be flippant. And so far there has been zero support offered for the proposal that he has left the organization. Had that ever been presented to the other editors on the article we could have discussed it. As things stand I didn't realize that a rumor, presented by an ordinary editor (which is how Jkelley was functioning as I now understand -- see below) that someone had left an organization was sufficient cause for invoking WP:BLP. Again, I could easily be confused. And at this point, I'm definitely not being flippant about that.

• Jkelly has elsewhere recently told me that his initial edits were made as an ordinary editor rather than as an admin. I thought that someone who was an editor on a page was not allowed to exercise admin authority on the same page because it is a COI. I got this notion from Jossi who has several times mentioned that he was not allowed to administrate artricles on which he was an editor. But I must have been confused about that as well.

Any help understanding these things would be appreciated. Honestly, I'm very very confused. I want to be a contributor, rather than a troublemaker, and I need to understand these things. Tanaats 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First, your actions are not those of a troublemaker and I don't think this qualifies as a "screwup", though in general even if it had been some random user removing the name, it makes sense to bring up the change with the user without reverting repeatedly. Still, not doing that would not mean you would be a troublemaker. The reason the website of the organization is not the most reliable sources is that they have may have an interest in skewing the data; they could, for example, want to inflate the numbers of their leadership, or associate themselves with authors and academics in order to appear more credible, even though the authors and academics might have been only loosely or never related to the organization. I cannot anywhere Jkelly said that his initial edits were made as "an ordinary editor". There are several things he could mean by such a statement, but he does not mean that he is a regular editor of that page or that he has any special interest in it. He came to the page in response to a complaint on OTRS. Making some edits to an article, or for example coming there after a report on WP:ANI, does not entail that the admin suddenly becomes biased. —Centrx→talk • 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats, 3 points:

1.) I don't at all agree that Jkelly's actions were just the same as those I have blocked another editor for twice in the last few days. That editor had, as you point out above, not merely removed well-sourced material, but removed it about 20 times, performing essentially the same few reverts over and over. My first block was for 3RR violation together with edit warring on other articles, and incivility on talkpages. The second was for aggravated 3RR vio together with gaming the 3RR on another article. I haven't gone into the matter of sourcing at International Cultic Studies Association—can't face it at this time of night—but there's no way Jkelly could achieve anything approaching that lot in the few edits he did.

2.) There was no need for Jkelly to mention his other, admin, hat to you when you were discussing edits; you're ascribing too much importance to adminship, it's "no big deal". It's often positively inappropriate in an editing discussion to mention one's being an admin; as it's quite likely to raise complaints of being threatening, or of trying to "lord" it over other users. And a lot of the time, it's simply irrelevant. I won't belabor this point, as I think several people, including Jkelly himself, have been bringing it home to you. When it comes to giving editing advice, being an experienced, knowledgeable user is the point, and hopefully that point proves itself; being an admin is irrelevant.

3.) However, I agree with you that Jkelly was wrong to change hats in mid stream, i. e. to protect an article he was involved in an edit dispute over. "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dipute over" is both official policy and common sense. Overtly reverting to one's preferred version and then immediately protecting, as shown in this edit summary, is even wronger. The way you've described seeing Jossi do it is the right way: he edits the articles, and therefore never protects them. The only correct alternative is what I do on the same articles: protect them or block editors when necessary, and therefore never edit them. Just don't edit them at all, IMO, if they're in the least controversial, as you never know if somebody else will find your editing to be conflictual. (Mine is a dull role, yes. Best kept for articles you're not any too personally interested in.) Sorry, Jkelly, but you need to pick one of those, not mix them. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for your comments.

• I definitely see your first point. I wasn't actually intending to make it seem that this issue was anywhere remotely as egregious as the earlier incident, but I definitely made it sound that way. I sincerely apologize to Jkelly for speaking unclearly enough so that such a comparison could be inferred. I really messed up in allowing such an inference to be made.
• Thanks for the reminder, and I am actually aware that an admin doesn't have to go around saying "I'm an admin" every time he makes an edit to a new article, and that an admin is just another editor most of the time. I don't think that there was any problem at all with his not mentioning his admin hat if he was going to take and keep the role of an ordinary editor. This issue, however, you have already addressed.
• Please see below for an attempt to restate my still remaining points of confusion. Tanaats 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, I'll email you more details, but this wasn't a content dispute. Either that, or we need two admins to respond to every OTRS complaint. One to fix the problem, and one to deal with people undoing the fixing, since the original admin is now "involved". Jkelly 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, perhaps I've been too voluble previously to be understood clearly. Here is is in a nutshell... Were you or were you not functioning as an admin? If you were functioning as an admin enforcing WP:LIVING, why did you not say so right up front? I wouldn't have blinked an eye. You would have been in and out in flash. I would never have reverted your deletion, and you would never have had to make the same deletion three times in a row. We wouldn't have had to discuss it on the Talk page, and neither you nor I would be here on ANI. It really confuses me that you didn't do that, but instead chose the route of multiple reverts and page protections instead.

But if, as you've told my on my talk page, you did not make the deletions as an admin, but rather as an ordinary editor with no OTRS mandate, then in what way were your deletions appropriate? You did not discuss first on Talk. You did not give an adequate reason in any of your edit comments. You just unilaterally deleted well sourced material. In what way was this appropriate, and in what way were my two reverts, taken before I could get you to Talk, inappropriate? I really would appreciate having this explained to me, as I am very confused by this as well. Thanks. Tanaats 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that Jkelly did anything wrong. There was a complaint to OTRS. OTRS participants are expected to act on legitimate complaints, and if there is an unsourced assertion posing a problem it can and should be removed, and if an edit war ensues, page protection is appropriate. Policy is at WP:LIVING. OTRS participants, or for that matter any admin removing unsourced assertions per WP:LIVING, are not expected to find a different admin to protect the page if protection is necessary to enforce the removal. Once the immediate problem is dealt with, discussion and consenus-based decisionmaking are appropriate, but the onus is on the editors adding assertions to demonstrate that they are well sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever this OTRS system is, it seems to be secret. So if I'm in an edit war and don't get forward, instead of bringing up an argument, I write to info at wikipedia dot org and its done??? --Tilman 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you would need to be personally mentioned in the article, and you would still need to bring up an argument—a sounder one than would probably be necessary on wiki, and ultimately you would get the same result if you brought the matter up on WP:RFC, WP:AN, or WP:BLP/N, only more immediately (Actually, this is not true. There is a huge backlog on OTRS.). Content disputes are referred to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. To take this case as an example, there is no reliable source for this statement about a living person, nor reason why the listing is relevant to the notability of the organization (see WP:BLP and WP:RS), so it is removed and it would have been removed if the issue had been brought up in the aforementioned places. If, on the other hand, it were well-sourced and it were relevant to the notability of the organization, no amount of e-mailing OTRS would get it removed. —Centrx→talk • 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's incorrect to state that there is "no reliable source" for including this particular staff member. There is. The reliable source is the organization's own web page which lists it's own staff members and had this person on it. That is sufficiently reliable in an article about the organization. That the organization has now removed the person, actually makes the event even more notable. In fact it's downright suspicious. Makes me want to research the person to see why they are so important to generate all this fuss. Wjhonson 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Let's say for example I ran a very controversial organization. I could choose to discredit a public figure by listing him as a member of the organization on my website. One Night In Hackney 08:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, as in the example I described above, they may wish to appear more credible by associating themselves with certain academics. I don't see what would be so suspicious about it. The most reasonable explanation is that the organization inflated their relationship with this person, or someone simply made an error, and then when they were contacted they removed it because it is false. —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I would like to drop this now. I thank everyone for their comments. I have learned some valuable things. Tanaats 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd respect Tanaats's wish to drop it, except that I feel a need to reply to Bishonen (with whom I seldom disagree). Bishonen, your third point was that Jkelly "was wrong to change hats in mid stream, i. e. to protect an article he was involved in an edit dispute over." Actually, if I were to make a list of the admins I considered to be least likely to abuse their powers, I'd struggle to think of someone who'd be higher on that list than Jkelly. It's true that the proection policy forbids admins to protect a page when they are involved in an editing dispute. But the WP:BLP policy explicitly allows editors to "enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." Even with that exception, I'm far from convinced that Jkelly was in any way "involved" with the article. That article was started in March 2005, and Jkelly never edited it until yesterday, when he removed something, citing WP:BLP in his edit summary. Since Tanaats did not know he was an admin, and since there was a source for the information that Jkelly had removed (though it turned out to be controversial, and was subsequently removed), I see no reason to blame him for his revert. (Of course, asking for clarification on the talk page would have been better, but let's face it, lots of respectable editors revert once before going to the talk page.) Yes, Jossi is correct not to protect articles that he edits, unless there are BLP issues. If there are, then he, Jkelly, you, and I, not only may, but should protect if it's necessary. It would be an entirely different matter if Jkelly had been editing one of his favourite articles, had come across an editor who was inserting something he personally didn't like, and had protected the page after reverting, but it would be difficult to convince me that that's what happened here.

Jkelly, of course, had no reason to identify himself as an admin immediately. ("I'm an admin: don't revert me" would be a very inappropriate edit summary.") He should have made it clearer to Tanaats a little earlier, but that's not an abuse; that's an "oops-he-didn't-explain-himself-properly" mistake. Tanaats, I don't think you "need a hard slap to the head" at all. Your misunderstanding was entirely excusable, and since you did misunderstand, it was perfectly okay to raise the question here. There's no indication that you were trying to be disruptive in any way, and I don't think anyone, least of all Jkelly, will hold it against you that it turned into a big discussion. Musical Linguist 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

hidden page

someone created a page named OTRS:SYSTEM, but now OTRS has become a interwiki link, and the page cannot be accessied anymore, can any admin delete the page?

see Special:Prefixindex/OTRS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oemkid (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't access it either; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS:SYSTEM&action=delete also leads to OTRS, not to the usual deletion page. Kusma (討論) 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask the devs about renaming it. --pgk 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The developers have a script which finds all such pages and rename them (prefixing a Broken/). Just get hold of brion on IRC and ask him to run it. Then go to the prefix index and rename back to a working title. --cesarb 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that page is a redirect to OTRS (check Special:Whatlinkshere/OTRS). No need to worry about it. --cesarb 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

CarlosMyers

All edits by new user User:CarlosMyers are pornographic, solicitations for porn, racist, or similar. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to block him, I saw that Ryulong has already blocked him indefinitely for trolling. Kusma (討論) 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is just creeping me out. I just stumbled onto this account, User:Beulah Nelson-Myers after I came back from work, and now this account using my RL name. I know for sure tat User:Beulah Nelson-Myers isn't actually my mom even if it is her name and makes me wonder if I've picked up a stalker. I'm half tempted to see if a an account using my dad's name is lurking about on wikipedia somewhere. --Farix (Talk) 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Ahoy. I've reverted a non-admin's attempts at the early closing this AfD early; I feel the AfD is legit, and, my understanding is that admin decision should take precedence over non-admin decision in a closing of an AfD. If I am incorrect, or if another admin feels the article should be speedy-kept, please close as needed. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of Adrian's close, my understanding was that AfD closes should be reviewed by WP:DRV even if potentially improper closes by non-admins. The view that "admin decision should take precedence over non-admin decision in a closing of an AfD" seems to be rather a strict interpretation of the fact that non-admins should defer to admins in closing AfDs. WP:CSK states "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps", it does not forbid it outright. WjBscribe 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but, as much as possible, we should stick to recommended guidelines. Additionally, the one who closed the AfD also voted on it, which, while not expressly forbidden, is also generally frowned upon. The AfD is not illegitimate, and as such, we should stick to accepted procedures, either the full five day deal, or an administrative speedy closure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about before, but there is a delete on there now. Viridae^Talk 11:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This WP:AFD was opened by an anonymous user, who lacks standing to nominate an article for deletion.

Wikipedia does not exclude anonymous users, but AfD and other processes are understood to be community procedures, actioned by members of the community who are familiar with the community. When an anonymous user shows up straight at WP:AFD, they're either not a member of the community since they've never edited before, or they are, and they're hiding their identity.

The only support for deletion in the AfD was from another anonymous user, who subsequently threw a copyvio onto the article for good measure. I did close the AfD, and I believe I did so in-process, because a procedure begun without standing can have no legitimate outcome, and an administrator cannot sanction an illegitimate process.

Afterwards, the anonymous user edited the closed AfD and re-opened it, an action supported by Jeffrey. The situation can have no legitimacy past this point. If my closure was improper, there are procedures to review it, and the AfD can have a second nomination. We do no, to my understanding, ever re-edit closed AfD's. They are an archival of a community process, and we've gotten up to (10th) AfD on some articles specifically because as new issues arise, new AfD's should be opened.

Having multiple anonymous users all intimately familiar with Wikipedia points beyond the province of doubt at bad faith. I can't speculate at Jeffrey's motives, but must assume good faith -- he's almost certainly doing what he believes best for Wikipedia. The same can't be said for anon users involved. To clear the air, I'd like to see a checkuser take place here.

As has been said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Where there is abuse, it should be actioned. In this case, an effort to correct abuse was countermanded without discussion. I've done my best in my given time, as I always have and will. Thanks for reading.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 11:06Z / Adrian Lamo

I don't think Adrian is completely correct here. Although IPs cannot create the AfD page no rule prohibits their participation once the AfD page is created. If their comments are properly argued and reference policy, they should be as valid as those any other user. The validity of XfD comments should not be judged on the number of edits a user has, but on the reasoning behind their opinion. WjBscribe 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll excerpt from my talk page reply in response to this ...

«« Thank you for having the kindness to be candid about your opinion. I still believe I acted appropriately -- if an anonymous editor nominated an article with a well-reasoned rationale, I wouldn't close it out-of-hand. However, in the face of multiple anons with a suspicious familiarity in re. Wikipedia, the decision is clear to me, though I respect your opinion. »»

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 11:30Z

You should probably just let it run course so the "previous afd closed keep" tag can be added at the end. That said, I think Adrian felt he was doing the right thing here, though I just don't think this is a valid speedy at this point and probably should not have been closed as such.--Isotope23 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And if anybody's interested (doesn't appear that anyone is) I've just reset the AfD. It was the easier, correct, and painfully obvious thing to do with this one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with User:Taz Manchester

I need some help in informing with user User:Taz Manchester about the policies of no personal attacks, use of images and usage of unfree material.

After his insistence in readding unfree image violating WP:FU#Counterexamples #7 in articles Aria Jasuru Hasegawa ([37] [38] [39]), Osama Elsamni ([40] [41]) and Yu Darvish ([42] [43] [44] [45]),I tried to communicate with him about the importance of this policies, why he shouldn't use these images, and how the failure to understand Wikipedia's policies could led him to be temporarily blocked.

He replied explaining that those images where ok to use, implied that I haven't checked those images correctly, and said he wouldn't be willing to accept block advice from a user that have been blocked before. He also took the opportunity to categorize my behavior as wikistalking and harassment (it's really fashionable now to call me this). After this message, re readded the problematic images to the three articles again ([46] [47] [48]).

I sent him another message asking him to avoid such harsh words, explaining all my blocks were all reverted, and asking him again to re-read the policy and the images description pages (which were all tagged for deletion since the beggining).

He readded the images to the articles again ([49] [50] [51]), and again called my edits vandalism (as he did in almost all of his edit summaries).

Would anyone communicate with him? Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the addition and removal of policy-violating images considered a normal content dispute? Should I try to resolve this my self talking with this user (while still being accused of stalking, harassment [52] and vandalism? [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]) Would I be violating WP:3RR for repeatedly removing those images from those articles? Or should I just wait for those images to be deleted? I really would like someone to interfere in this case to avoid me and user User:Taz Manchester to go further in this unhelpful dispute. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Observation Post

I blocked the user indefinitely due to disruptive editing & in light of the explanation by Netscott on my talk page. I submitt the incident to review. El_C 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse I see no useful contribution history, and the accounts all appear to be recently created. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User has asked whether I "would kindly unblock [him/her], with the understanding that [s/he will] revert no more?" I declined, defering such a decision to someone else (by all means, feel free to do so if you feel it is warranted). Thank you. El_C 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is 0 doubt this is a sockpuppet and very likely a sockpuppet of User:Kgeza67/User:Wik based upon the first two edits this sockpuppet ever did. (→Netscott) 14:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for further clarification: Over the last couple of days myself and User:Proabivouac (much moreso myself) have been engaging User:Kgeza67 sockpuppets and user Observation Post (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now has targeted both of our talk pages in pointed removals. This is very apropos because I specifically mentioned removing/reverting banned users edits during this time (which Observation Post was doing). (→Netscott) 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose the block, but some of the material that he has deleted and that has then been restored is pretty questionable. There is some clear defamation in there that should probably be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I have decided to unblock the user following private correspondence with him/her, and with the understanding that s/he will tread lightly from now on. I'm not at liberty to discuss the detail publicly, but I'd be glad to do so via email. Thanks again, everyone. El_C 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A user space deletion

User:Lantoka/Sandbox2, the page's creator is agitating about this on my Talk but seems unwilling to bring it here themselves. So.

• General Mayhem has been deleted and deletion reviewed. A quick search finds General Mayhem, General mayhem, Genmay, GenMay, General mayhem forums, we have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genmay, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November); I'm pretty sure there are more.
• User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 was created on November 17, reportedly with the blessing / assistance of User:Essjay. There were about a dozen edits to the article that day.
• On December 25 there were two further edits, bringing the total to around 16 (excluding creation of the original blank page).
• I deleted the article on January 29 as WP:CSD#G4, abuse of user space, and also I note that the original content was a copy and paste from a mirror, so violates GFDL.
• The user began to agitate on 8 February. I explained the problem, but the user evidently believes that the reported past support of Essjay is justification for keeping the page in user space in perpetuity. The user asserts that it was being "worked on" and that they have founght hard to keep the article itself (undeniable).

Yes, I should have been kinder to the user. Not at issue. Was it acceptable to delete it? I think so, but I welcome input. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• If it was a clear copyright violation G12 and recreated work G4 under the general criteria, then I would say yes. Additionally, if the user is going to work on something in userspace, then s/he needs to work on it to a point to where it is not a copyvio perhaps on his/her computer, once it is cleared up, then move it to userspace for collaboration if that is his/her goal. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The copyright violation is a red herring - the user took it from a Wikipedia mirror. G4 explicitly does not apply to userspace. If Lantoka had asked an admin "I want to see if General Mayhem can be made into an acceptable article, can you undelete it to my user space?" then I think most admins would have assumed good faith and done it for them. In fact, Lantoka performed the same operation for himself without admin assistance. But as far as I read it, speedy deleting it without first raising a concern with Lantoka was an out of process deletion. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• But an admin would have undeleted and moved to userspace, preserving the history and not violating GFDL. You should know this, having been an admin. Which would leave only the problem that it's multiply deleted and reviewed content sitting around without being worked on... Guy (Help!) 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys: You wouldn't miss taking a shot at Guy, wouldn't you? The page has been through the process many times before; and the clear consensus has been towards its deletion. JzG has already provided the evidence that the user in concern has been re-creating deleted material in his userspace, when no good would come out of that. I also expect that you know that content in userspace is available to the world-at-large by a quick search using Google. I see WP:POINT and abuse of userspace. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can't see why the copyvio would be a red herring, the GFDL is quite explicit in terms of attribution. Persumably the mirror has attribution the version copied didn't. I guess we should be moving our real version to user space in these circumstances for further work. We do permit such activity if they are trying to actively improve the article (that would be to address the AFD issues), but as arbcom has reiterated in at least one case, using userspace to merely evade proper deletion process (or to keep POV forks if you don't like where the real article is going), is unacceptable. Sounds like a judgement call as to if the user was actively trying to address the issues of AFD and thereby ultimately enhance our collection of articles or if it were just trying to evade the deletion. I imagine Essjay didn't evisage his involvment as being seens as some sort of permission (which he couldn't give) to keep it in userspace indefinitely. --pgk 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't refer to the identity of the admin and my comments would have been the same no matter who it was. What I am concerned about is that a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia has been jumped on heavy-handedly by an admin. If the concern was GFDL, why not do the undelete and userfy, thereby preserving the history? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys, it doesn't matter if you name the admin, comments like [58] tell their own story. Lantoka appeared to have accepted matters until you stated with great confidence that there was no policy basis for deleting stale copies of multiply-deleted GFDL-violating content from userspace. Hey, turns out you're wrong about that! ArbCom says that this is an end-run around process, and WP:C and GFDL say it's a copyright violation and must go anyway, plus we have done it numerous times before under WP:NOT a free web host, WP:POINT and other justifications. Friday undeleted to User:Lantoka/gm in November, a different location, but then Alphachimp moved this version back to mainspace at General Mayhem in order to delete it, which was done on Jan 1. At no time between Nove 16/17 (when the two appeared) and January (when they were deleted) was there any significant activity on either copy. The copy at User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 was not an admin undelete for rework, it was a copy from a mirror. And there was no work being done on it. A good faith attempt to rework an article rather implies some actual activity, wouldn't you say? Two edits in nearly three months is not working up a new article. Lantoka obviously doesn't understand the details of GFDL, not a big surprise, it looks like Lantoka is not a very active editor (either here or on the GenMay forums, only about 350 posts there since 2003). So although you're wrong on a number of levels I'm not surprised since you have not, as far as I can tell, been involved in any of the deletion debates or reviews for GenMay, and you've never edited it, so it's not a big surprise that you've not got the full picture here. I would, however, have expected a former admin to understand the copyright issue a little better. Anyway, thanks for trying to help, but you didn't. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer Guy's original question (and Fys's heinous personal attacks notwithstanding), I have absolutely no problem with this deletion. I, and many other administrators, will undelete and userfy deleted articles if a user expresses interest in improving them, but it most certainly is not an unlimited offer to turn userspace into free webhosting for articles not appropriate for mainspace. If it is not edited for weeks at a time (such as in this instance), then it should be deleted, as it is, in the end, an attempt to subvert deletion process. I'm not even touching the GFDL violations in this instance, which made it an even easier delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to User:Fys, I will issue a nice long block, if you engage into further name-calling and throwing innuendoes. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record – [59], [60]. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by those links? I stand by every word of them. They are true and not personal attacks. Meanwhile I have not forgotten that you broke blocking policy in respect of me before. A friendly reminder to you not to do it again. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at Justin Raimondo

At Justin Raimondo, new accounts are being used to reinsert material that has been disputed as a violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, etc. These accounts do not appear to be used for anything else and include: User:Physician79, User:Clownbasher, User:Mortmain9, and User:Sisyphus Aeternal. DickClarkMises 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The same activity on these accounts is continuing. Can someone take a look? DickClarkMises 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's not a lot we can do in cases where editors create throw away accounts. If the insertion of derogatory info continues we can protect the page for a while. -Will Beback · † · 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by user:Anupamsr

This user is attacking me with these comments.

I don't want to get baited into another fight by people like this user as I did by Hkelkar so i seek a neutral admin to handle this.

Here is the pattern:If Indian nationalists cannot have their POV in the articles,they either start with threats like these or get a an Indian administrator to punish us for not accepting their pro-India POV. His threats clearly indicate that he wants to get me blocked by an Indian admin as other Indian users have done to Pakistani users in the past.

The dispute is regarding Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who was born in Lahore.Many indian editors insist that pre-british SOuth asia (including Pakistn and Bangladesh) was Inida. User:Fowler&fowler who is not Pakistani may i add is also agreeing that falsely claiming pre-british SOuth Asia as "india" is completely incorrect.

user Anupamsr placed a bogus warning on my talkpage(as others of his kind did on Fowler&fowler's talkpage as well).

His statement "our encyclopedia" enraged me as wikipedia is not "owned" by any single user.I am not going to respond to him anymore as I know where it will lead to and ask that a neutral admin or party handle this.

Since I am not the only one know that Lahore,along with the rest of Pakistan was never part of India,I would like user:Fowler&fowler,user:unre4L and other users who know that I'm correct on this issue to comment here.--Nadirali نادرالی at 16:26, 12 February 2007

It looks like a content dispute. The word our generally does not refer to single ownership. Have you tried the steps at dispute resolution? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have tried "Dispute Resolution", and even RfC in other articles. Unfortunately, I was banned before the debates started, for bringing up the Argument in the first place, which was referred to as "POV pushing" in order to ban me.
I can confirm this. user:Anupamsr and a few other users, insist on writing "Lahore, India, (now Pakistan)", even though Lahore is a Pakistani city and has Never been part of India. It was part of British India for 95 years, however, these users refuse to write British India, or link the page to British India. The page is currently linked to the India Disambig page, where the reader has to guess which India is being referred to.
Besides, in every encyclopaedia out there, Lahore is a Pakistani city. I dont understand why they just cant write "Lahore, Pakistan".
The fact is, that Lahore has only ever been an Indian (British) city for 95 years, which was during the British Raj.
I gave up editing this page, as I have been banned twice for having my say in articles like these.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask which admin tools could solve this problem? I don't think this is an admin matter, unless someone needs a 3RR or civility block, but I see any evidence of that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the purpose of such threats to get me blocked.And accusations of "block evasion".If I made such an accusation against an Indian user,RA would block me on the spot.As he stated in his threats about Unre4L being blocked,it corresponds to what Unre4L being blocked.I just think a warning should do for the time being thats all.--Nadirali نادرالی

You don't need an admin to give a warning, anyone can do that if they have an understanding of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I was not even told about this :), while unrelated users were: [61]. This sounds more like a conspiracy against me than anything else :D

Also interesting to see is that while I am being blamed of using our wikipedia, no diff is provided for it. I will do it myself for the future reference: [62].

I dont need to tell this to administrators: here is what it boils down to 'our', it was a simple {{subst:test|whatever}} warning for reversion of edit warring. The template Template:Test speaks for itself.

About what User:Unre4L has been blaming on me, I challenge for a diff that shows me editing whatever he says. I have never edited those articles (in the sense of, adding/removing data etc.). I am a very busy man and my contributions are nothing more than fighting vandalism by reverting it. See my User page for reference, and my contributions for that matter.

No one has tried ever, EVER, WP:DR against my edits because I don't indulge in edit war. This whole section is based on nothing but speculation that is so gross, I am sorry to say, it is extremely funny for me. So much for me being polite. Straw man arguments don't lead to anywhere.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

For those who think I should be warned etc., follow the User talk:Nadirali#Hmmm to see how I am being dragged into skullduggery and mud slinging.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Loli pedobear

I have indefblocked Loli pedobear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for vandalism to Anna Nicole Smith and his username. Loli is short for Lolicon, pedo for pedophile or pedophilia, and a bear is "a masculinist subculture in the gay community". Please review. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. The username itself might be merely questionable, but combined with the illegible spam seems to clearly fall under the "For inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism" section of Wikipedia:Username. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lest someone actually think this is a reference to the gay or bear comunity, it's not. See encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Pedobear — It's a 4chan meme. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a valid username block and I endorse it. --Coredesat 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it's absolutely a valid block. I just wanted it made clear that this has nothing to do with the bear community. — coelacan talk — 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, it does have to do with pedophilia, as following the link makes clear. 6SJ7 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd think the motive had more to do with 4chan than pedophilia. --tjstrf talk 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely more of a 4chan thing. Pedobear is sort of like the trix rabbit of pedophilia. Always just out of arm's reach -- feb^talk 09:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another offended image uploader

Here's another user who takes badly to being challenged over image copyrights ([63]). He's got a huge list of image uploads, and while some of them are probably legitimate, most of them lack proper licensing and source tags. But now he's offended and stomping off Wikipedia. Who will help clearing up after him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He stomped off Wikipedia in a rage, leaving behind him a track of insults and vandalism on his own image pages. I've blocked him. Indef, if for no other reason than that an indef leave was apparently what he wanted right now, and I don't know how long it's going to take him to cool off if he wants to come back some time. Anybody, feel free to review or unblock if he comes back some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of Main Page article

For some reason, Make Way for Ducklings is being tagged with dispute templates by new users, repeatedly. I would suggest protecting it, but seeing as it's on the main page, it can't be.

One user - WilliamHarrisonKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours. --sunstar net^talk 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have a thread about this, I should probably mention that I blocked a whole gaggle of accounts over it, yesterday (suggesting they email me or unblock-en-l to explain and request unblocking). There was obviously sockery or organized disruption involved; either way, rather plainly not done in good faith, and revert-block-ignore carries the day. On the off-chance they were acting in good faith, I'd like to think they'd try and establish some sort of contact. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In context, you mean "a whole paddling of accounts" rather than "a whole gaggle of accounts". (Further reference.) -- Ben 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and Impersonating me

Please block 24.23.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for impersonating me, see[64], and for committing various acts of vandalism. --Bryson 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User is still at it, now with personal attacks[65].How is it only a 2-day block for numerous acts of vandalism, including racism, user impersonation, and personal attacks?--Bryson 17:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I would hope that most recent edit would be enough to extend the block considerably. That's just plain unacceptable. --Onorem 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

?, no replies, no reason given, not even a warning to offender. Yes very professional. --Bryson 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A line in the sand

I'm sorry, but is it just me? If someone appears here and their immediate demand is for a desysopping then my kneejerk reaction is to check their edits and look for evidence that they are abusing editing priviledges. Which they usually are.

Anyone who appears here wanting the immediate desysopping of someone - and in the last month or so, this has not been an unusual cry from people who have disagreed even on a minor issue with an admin - should really go away and think about what they're saying. If nothing else, they are promoting a situation where real abuses will be ignored. A similar thing is happening with people dragging admins to RfC because they disagree with policy or the implementation of policy.

Perhaps something along those lines, less bitey perhaps, could be added to the header of this page? 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree with you, Redvers. I have frequently seen headings stating admin abuse, but I never actually see a case where this has actually occurred. People should really be cautious in how they address situations, and they shouldn't jump to conclusions. Nishkid64 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't give the impression that there is no place to turn should an admin misbehave. Unfortunately, there have cases that are at least debatably abuse by admins, and this is as good a place to bring them up as any. For example, the discussion on AN/I was a prominent player in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock, and not quite as prominent, but still influential in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, this is not the venue to have someone desysoped. This is a good place to report legitimate abuse, but if your goal is desysoping, better to go to arbcom. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a problem when people drag admins to WP:ANI, shouting "This admin clearly ABUSED his PRIVILEGES and SHOULD be BANNED", when (a) they don't clearly see the situation, or (b) they take advantage of an admin's weak points and use them to exploit their block etc. For example, "Admin Foo blocked me for 24h. She has a bad history of leaping to conclusions, as seen in <diff>. Therefore, the block was incorrect and unjustified.", which is a variant of a straw man/ad hominem attack. Yuser31415 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. We shouldn't miss the point I was making (well, not this quickly): if every single dispute with an admin is to be declared "ADMIN ABUSE!!! DESYSOPPPP THIS IDIOOT!" then we'll soon never be able to spot admin abuse on the rare occasions it does happen. The screams of "ABUSE ABUSE!" and the pointless RfCs are increasing the signal-to-noise ratio so much that a genuine complainant will simply never be heard. This is a Bad Thing. I don't wish to discourage people from complaining; I just think the shouts of "Wolf! Wolf!" are getting too loud and should therefore stop. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's anything you can do or say to stop it, though. A warning will not deter trolls. A warning is most likely to deter cautious editors who have legitimate, especially borderline, claims, and who really don't want to cause a scene. Those are exactly the people we want to hear from. I think it's better to leave the ANI header warning as it is, and just get used to taking one short look at lame complaints, marking them unfounded, and then letting them get archived away. -- coelacan talk -- 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And half of them can't spell rouge properly, either... Guy (Help!) 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

SPELLING! SPELLING! SPEELLLINGG! I DEMAND that JzG be immediately BANNED FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. Yuser31415 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's a damn 'crat when you need one? Grr... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, 'crats can only promote a user to adminship - you need a steward to desysop. Yuser31415 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just poke holes in my lame joke, see if I care... :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(back on track) legitimate editors with legitimate claims are unlikely to come here screaming abuse in all caps. Therefore, ignore the trolls/malcontents and just deal with normal claims. Viridae^Talk 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If I see a report that starts with "I have a concern" or something similar, I'm inclined to pay more attention than practically anything in all-caps (also, in the above thread, I checked the block log of the complaining editor to very quickly ascertain the editor's tumultuous history with admins).

Basically, while I think the concern about crying wolf is valid, I think most of superfluous complaints/complainers distinguish themselves from legit situations well enough that we have little to worry about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't called for the desysopping of anyone (or know what that means, for that matter). I simply believe very high standards should be demanded of admins. At the very least they should have a very good grasp of Wikipedia policy.

〈REDVEЯS〉, you must admit it does no good to Wikipedia to have admins around who are claiming that you can't do original research to check a source at the Talk page. Think of the many possibly valuable contributors that may be scared away from Wikipedia by such behavior.--Abenyosef 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You also can't make rant threads gloating over how you were right and the evil, evil, evil man who dared disagree with you was wrong and lambasting everyone who said you were overreacting for demanding the community avenge you for his "incivil" remarks. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is being lost, Abenyosef, mainly due to the WP:STICK thing you've got going here. Please give it up. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Give it up" was the same advice given to me by the admin who unsuccessfully tried to bully me into silence, and who has now retreated in disarray after having been resoundingly defeated by my solid arguments after other, more sensible users came to my help and... ok. OK. OK!!! Here and now I solemnly promise to never, ever again file a complaint on this page or, for that matter, contribute to it in any other way. The thing worth doing is trying to add stuff to the Policy pages so that the guidelines will be unequivocal and policy abuse will become rarer. --Abenyosef 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Emir Arven, not you ("you" being Abenyosef). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were talking about me... I do now ;o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly pronouns... you win again, English language! Clarification made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits by Zmaz0ox (talk · contribs)

Thid editor has a long history of introducing inappropriate articles. Look at his user talk page [66] and you'll see it has some messages about this, and finally, at the end, a warning. After this warning, the user went on to contribute a couple instances of petty vandalism [67] and [68]. I haven't reported this at AIV because they'll just say he hasn't been warned enough, but it's pretty apparent that this person isn't going to contribute constructively. Also, this person has a history of introducing bogus names to image thumbnail descriptions like these [69], [70], [71], [72], etc. etc. Most of these are sneaky and probably aren't detected right away, so people don't bother to find who did it and warn him. TheQuandry 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The image thumbnail edits were from May 2006 as far as I can tell, the initial talk page warnings were on some of these. Since just one edit in September and 2 now on 12th February:

Joseph_Stalin and John_Cockcroft, each of these deserves further progressive warnings as per policy, but I do not see that each type of disruption needs qualify in turn for the 4 warning steps before we take action over disruptive only accounts. Given page creation at warning level 4 (block on next such edit) with heed to follow policy, these 2 edits today seem to confirm the editor as making only disruptive edits over a period of time. I've issued test4 and test5 (blocked for 24hrs). Further disruption should lead to progressively longer blocking or an indef block. David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:FarmSanctuary inserting copyrighted material into the Foie gras article

A new user, User:FarmSanctuary is stubbornly inserting and reinserting materials into the Foie gras article which is taken straight from the [www.nofoiegras.org] site. He says he FarmSanctuary is his organization and thus he has ownership and right to copy them here. I have two questions based on this:

1)Should the user be allowed to keep the name of "his" organization as his username?

2)Should we take this user at his word that he duly represents the organization and therefore has the right to license the material to Wikipedia under GFDL?

The opinion of someone more familiar than myself with copyright violation issues would be welcome. Thanmks in advance.--Ramdrake 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this user cannot do so, for these reasons:

• Conflict of interest.
• No proof this user really is an employee.
• Spamming is not tolerated.

Yuser31415 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If he edits nofoigras.org to note that User:FarmSanctuary is a duly appointed representative of the company on Wikipedia, that would satisfy issue #2 that Yuser31415 mentioned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mm... well, at minimum, some proof of ownership of the copyright is necessary. I believe this is usually handled either through contact with the Wikimedia Foundation, or through a statement placed on the organization's web site stating the material is so licensed. If that should happen, then there's no issue with using that material, per se. However, it may still be a conflict of interest. Shimeru 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This "GFDL" claim does not jibe with what I see on the website. There is no mention of GFDL there.--Isotope23 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The same might apply to the pictures he uploaded, but he's already been asked for a more detailed source/statement there. Shimeru 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, editors claiming to own the copyright to material published on other websites should be directed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org -- the email used should match the domain the media comes from. Jkelly 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam sockpuppetry in Anna Nicole Smith

Normally I would just take this to AIV but it involves possibly sockpuppetry so I will bring it up here. Someone has been trying to add a myspace link for some "memorial song" about Anna Nicole Smith to the article. The first time it was

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

and I gave them a {{uw-spam1}}, but they put it back two more times so their warnings escalated, it was then re-added by

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

which is likely the same ISP and city, and had no edits prior to this. Then after that was reverted, a new user

Jerri1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

creates an account and tries to add the link again. Is it worth it to checkuser this guy? Should any blocking be performed? —Dgies^t c 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user back with new account

Recently indefinitely-banned user User:Booze broads and bullets seems to be back with a newly-registered username User:Broads. The "new" user just recreated the page Bakekang, which was recently deleted for copyright violations and has reuploaded an image ripped from the show's network site, Image:Bakekangnew.jpg. Shrumster 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article and image deleted, user blocked. --Coredesat 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet in RfC discussion.

I'd appreciate if someone can take a look at the user LimerickLimerickson to investigate if they are a sock puppet (possibly for user I m dude2002). The user made two comments on I m dude2002's RfC on the Lebanon talk page, and those are their only contributions ever. They quite emphatically agree with I m dude2002, and format their text quite well for a brand new user (indentation, bullets, etc.). Wording seems similar to me as well. — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:M Jilburn

This account has blatantly been created to mock me. The name is similar to mine, and my userpage has been copied over, with words changed. It follows a string of vandalism to my userpage. I request that the account is blocked, and that the userpage is deleted. Thankyou. J Milburn 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

mv report /wp/AIV. Yuser31415 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, next time AIV can probably take care of it. No worries. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just reported it there, sorry. Need to get to grips with this side of Wikipedia! Thanks. J Milburn 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I've done the same thing before :). Yuser31415 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures

I'd be grateful for admin eyes on what's going on here. After lengthy discussions (at Wikipedia talk:Username#Non-latin characters and Unified Login and Wikipedia talk:Username#Latin character transliterations) on the issue of asking editors with non-Latin-alphabet usernames to provide a Latin-alphabet portion of their signatures, consensus was reached that we should require this. Kim Bruning disagreed, but things went against him. He subsequently turned up at Wikipedia:Signatures, and deleted the relevant section. This was immediately reverted, and he took it to the Talk page.

When reminded of the consensus, he dismissed it as having happened elsewhere, and insisted that only the local discussion mattered (using authoritarian language such as: "I am provisionally willing to accept that compromise"). He then watered down the section, saying that he'd reached an understanding of the consensus in discussion with Pschemp. I pointed out that this was a novel notion of consensus, and he claimed that he was acting ina ccordance with WP:BRD; this turns out to be a procedure that is neither policy nor guideline, and which was largely written by... Kim Bruning. Moreover, leaving aside its status as nothing more than an essay (though it's in Wikipedia space with no descriptive template to say what it is), its own introduction says goes against the way that Kim Bruning has applied it in this case.

This whole business is worrying, as it seems to be a straightforward and sustained attempt on the part of one editor to overturn consensus; I'd really like others to look in on it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've looked and I can't seem to find a consensus on that page. Personally, I think the whole 'block people if they do not use our alphabet' thing is a bad idea and suggested a code alteration instead. With single login on the horizon I envision the 'transliteration' scheme resulting in people with 'usernames' like, 'Bob / Боб / हिन्द / り仮名'. --CBD 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Block people if they don't use our alphabet" wasn't the consensus; it was that users should be required to use a Latin-alphabet identifier in their signatures (giving thema choice rather of sig than an imposition via software). Given that a good-faith, courteous person would surely have no problem with that, the question of blocking wouldn't really arise.

As for consensus — it seemed clear to me that the consensus was in favour of the current requirement. At worst, though, you seem to be saying that there was no consensus to change the text; my worry remains in either case. If there was no consensus to change, an editor shouldn't unilaterally delete the text, and shouldn't claim consensus on the basis of private discussions with one other editor. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• It seems people are not quite on the same wavelength. Mel appears to say that people should have a Latin-lettered signature, and Kim states that we shouldn't prohibit people from having a non-Latin username. That's not really a conflict. FWIW multi-alphabet usernames are bound to be useful for Single Login which should be online some time this year; it is not unreasonable for any particular language wiki to require a signature within that wiki that is legible there. >Radiant< 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  That's certainly part of the problem. Now he's discussing the issue, his arguments are largely that actions regarding the blocking of usernames have recently caused a fuss at wikimedia, and so we mustn't make conditions concerning signatures. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Return of User:GordonWatts

Some of you may remember the mess that was Terri Schiavo and its related articles a year or so ago. One of its prime POV warriors, GordonWatts (talk · contribs) is back, and is now upset that a couple of links to his Geocities and AOL Homepage websites were discovered and removed by myself when I stumbled over them at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. Despite being told by more than one person that they're inappropriate, he's in full Wikilawyering mode, arguing a variety of rationales (that he's a "recognized authority", that his "paper" -- actually, a Geocities site -- is better than those know-nothings at the New York Times, etc. Now he's started a "poll" and canvassed a whole bunch of editors (mostly IPs), despite being told how inappropriate THAT is. Perhaps a word or two from veterans regarding Wikipedia policy would be good, but be advised that long engagements on his terms are likely to be fruitless. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've whacked the poll. For some reason, I really hate polls on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Polling is evil. PTO 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually polling is not evil it's just generally not a substitute for discussion. (→Netscott) 02:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of what I can gather of this situation from reading talk pages and whatnot, is that Calton is, ONCE AGAIN, asserting his opinion in place of others and be damned those other that try to voice an opinion different. I am not defending either side, I am netural in this, but in my experience (and from what I have read on the articles and talk pages) Calton has responded to GordonWatts with rude and incivil comments to incite a response out of GordonWatts and keep the conversation going after GordonWatts has thrown his hands up and "trust God to let the chips fall where they may". Calton will continue to insult GordonWatts into a response and keep this going as long as possible. This is not about GordonWatts, it is about Calton's inability to act like an adult, calm down, and stop acting like a child throwing a fit. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

it is about Calton's inability to act like an adult, calm down, and stop acting like a child throwing a fit. You first, Dr. Freud.

I am not defending either side, I am netural in this.... Not true: the term is stalking, and your inability to exercise even a minimum of self-control in favor of a petty vendetta is getting pretty damned tiresome. You've been advised to knock it off: do so, or you run the risk of self-destruction. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Insulting a person, throwing a fit, and throwing his own actions back on the person who comments against him and completely missing the point.

For the record, I have no vendetta and have exercised more self-control that is necessary. I also have not been stalking. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 09:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Again, batting 1.000 there: you may wish to look up psychological projection when you get the chance.

I have no vendetta...I also have not been stalking. Yah, of course. Your ill-considered RFC, your sudden interest in nearly every mainspace edit and subject I've made in the last week ([73] [74] readding spam readding spam re-readding spam [75], and your repeated removal of the {{db-repost}} tag from WRAJ Internet Radio); your canvassing of everyone I've had a disagreement with for the last week, looking for support ([76] [77]); your continual pestering of my Talk page despite your repeated claims of "staying away from" me ([78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] and [85], the last two about your out-of-policy removals of the {{db-repost}} tag, so particularly rich); and, of course, your cute little "open letter" to "an editor who shall remain nameless", uh huh: none of that means a blessed thing. Just a big coincidence.

...and have exercised more self-control that [sic] is necessary. Since you seem to be exercising none whatsoever, it's hard to imagine what LESS self-control would look like.

So how's about you actually keep that promise for longer than a few hours at a time and ACTUALLY dial down your petty little vendetta? --Calton | Talk 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton, you can insult my intelligence, you can insult me, you talk down to me....don't bring in my psychological status into this. Bringing up psychological projection....that's a new low for you. If you actually READ the "note" I sent you, you would have actual realized I was trying to be nice. As for me talking to everyone you've "had a disagreement with for the last week", maybe all those disagreements and arguements are finally catching up with you. Admins, is the above post by Calton, proof enough that he is not going to change, no matter how many discussions are open against him, and that you all need to step in? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 11:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up psychological projection....that's a new low for you So you apparently didn't bother to read the link provided. Pity. Let me help: "In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions" -- your attribution to me of what you were doing is what fits. I guess I could have simply called it "irony", but that term is overused in my opinion.

If you actually READ the "note" I sent you, you would have actual realized I was trying to be nice. Of course! I should have realized you were nicely pestering me when I asked to be left alone, nicely filing an RFC, nicely stalking my edits and making nicely unexplained reversions of my edits and re-adding all of that nice spam I had removed, nicely removing deletion tags out-of-policy, nicely canvassing two of the biggest -- and presumably nicest -- Wikilawyers on Wikipedia trying to enlist their no-doubt-nice support, nicely inserting yourself into discussions because I'm nearby, and nicely asking for me to punished -- nicely punished, no doubt. So as far as "nice" goes, I do not think that word means what you think it means. So, to repeat, how's about you actually keep that promise for longer than a few hours at a time and ACTUALLY dial down your petty nice little vendetta? --Calton | Talk 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

laughing hysterically Dude, thanks for the laugh....haven't laughed that hard in a couple weeks. :o) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, this thread stopped being in anyway helpful to the discussion about 10 posts ago... Take it to one of your talkpages and duke it out there.--Isotope23 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Serial vandalism of Nancy Pelosi by User:76.177.226.195

Vandalizing the [Nancy Pelosi] article. Warnings have been left. Latest act of vandalism blanked the page. Needs immediate admin attention. Dino 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

$ mv report /wp/AIV

$ echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks, Yuser31415 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"

$ vi AIV-redirector.sh

mv report /wp/AIV

echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks,~~~~

~

~

~

~

wq!

:-) (→Netscott) 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly good to see another Vi user (although I use the extended Vim).

$ ed
a
#!/bin/sh
mv report /wp/AIV
echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks,~~~~
.
f AIV_redirector.sh
w
q

:). Yuser31415 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the #!/bin/sh part was not there but a simple . AIV-redirector.sh (in the same directory obviously) gets it. But enough of this WP:BJAODN cruft. :-) (→Netscott) 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'll excuse the pun,

mov aiv,rept

Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking by PageantUpdater

PageantUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Several days ago, a difference of opinion arose over the placement of a fair use image in the Kandice Pelletier article. The editor in question, PageantUpdater and I went back and forth about the placement of the image and the boxes. In retaliation, PageantUpdater went and singled out the image in question for possible deletion. I stand by the assertion that singling out the one image rather than the whole class of photos in Category:The Amazing Race contestants makes it hard to WP:Assume Good Faith

We've gone back and forth about this. Today, the disagreement escalated so I felt I should issue a 3RR warning.

With these last four edits:

1. edit 1 - 1 minute revert
2. edit 2 - 13 minute revert
3. edit 3 - 6 minute revert
4. edit 4 - 29 minute revert

I wondered if I was being wikistalked. Since I asked to stop this abusive behavior the following articles have been nominated for deletion by PageantUpdater:

• Mary Conley - 13 afd nomination
• David Conley, Jr. - 22 afd nomination

Additionally, the nomination of these pages for deletion looks like a violation of WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_13#Amazing_Race_Contestants

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conley Jr.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Conley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Denk‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Bentley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Holliday

There is a pattern here of disruptive editing. Whenever PU doesn'tget their way they start nominating things for deletion. It's happened repeatedly today and started with the image listed above. This is abusive. Finally, as I've been writing this PageantUpdater has left me notes accusing me of being harassing. Please help. --evrik ^(talk) 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you are violating WP:POINT evrik. Reality contest contestants aren't considered automatically notable if their only accomplishment is the actual show, yet after an argument about this on PageantUpdater's page, you go and create two very short stubs about it to see if there is any reaction, and then go and wikilink redlinks for non-articles which are traditionally held to not be notable, which is why they are left unlinked, much like failed politcal candidates on election pages. Looks like you've been blocked a lot as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you have awarded PU a barnstar in the past, are you really being objective?

Actually, I have text for all of the candidates in this season as this is the All Star season. I was going to load the bio pages from the articles when PageantUpdater started reverting my edits. I went away for a couple of hours and then loaded the Mary Conley and David Conley, Jr. pages. PU nominated them for deletion within minutes. Stalking. --evrik ^(talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that she did good work. It's not as though it was the other way around, like I've been the target of some kind of charm campaign. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My side of the story: Back on the 6th of Feb I noticed a fair use image in Kandice Pelletier and removed it, while adding a pertinent infobox. The image was re-added by Evrik at which point I removed it citing the fair use rules. For the past week there's been to-ing and fro-ing about the use of the image and the positioning of the two infoboxes in the article (see the Talk:Kandice Pelletier) and I clearly admit that I have "used up" my three reverts today. Regarding the image, initially I mistakenly thought that it was only used in the biographical article and tagged it as "rfu". Later, after lengthy debate and argument, I realised my oversight and removed the rfu tags from the image, and again removed the image from Kandice Pelletier. Evrik seems to have a real issue with what I have been doing but in my opinion at least I have been working to improve the article, for example by adding detailed references and expanding the article.

The latest is that I noticed that Evrik had wikilinked some names in the Amazing Race episode articles which I reverted because I couldn't see the point of having redlinks. In my final revert I noted that that these articles, if created, would fail on notability. My edits were reverted, the articles were created, and I nominated them for deletion. Evrik then removed the afd tag on one of the articles [86] which I replaced. Creating the afds and my reverts to the episode articles has led to me being accused of wikistalking - which is ludicrous. The articles were all on my watchlist prior and had any other editor tried the same thing I would have reverted and dealt with it in the same fashion.

I probably have more to add but am due to leave work for the day soon so want to get this posted in the interim. I will just add that I prior to this ending up on here I suggested that Evrik launch an RFC if he continues to harrass me in this manner, because I am sick of it. Clearly, for reasons I cannot fathom, he chose to address it here. I have already attempted to extend an olive branch and call in other editors but this hasn't met too favourably with Evrik.

PS Evrik has basically challenged me to deal with the other images yet chooses to revert my action when I do so -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My side of the story (part 2): Ok back home now. Not going to add a whole lot right now but to say that I am frustrated by the accusation that by not immediately dealing with other Amazing Race related images at the time I removed one from Kandice Pelletier I have somehow acted in bad faith. To be honest at the time I didn't care a hoot about any other articles or images, but only the one in the article I was dealing with at the time (Pelletier's). When I was challenged on this I decided to go and have a look at the others, which I edited in a way I felt was appropriate, tagging some [87], moving those I thought were okay under the fair use guidles to appropriate places in articles [88] [89] and nominating whole articles for deletion because I did not think they complied with the notability policy[90]. Yet Evrik still accuses me of singling the one article out. As outlined above when I finished up dealing with the images some of my edits were reverted.

I admit that I have been mildly rude to Evrik on one occasion this afternoon when I just couldn't stomach this any longer (see [91] [92]) but I feel that it is I who is being persecuted here, not Evrik. I have been transparent and open throughout the whole ordeal and quite frankly I am sick of it, as I indicated to him here -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment of mine has just been deleted from his talk page as "abusive". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS if I was truly wikistalking him, wouldn't I be messing with all his edits, rather than just those we share a common interest in? Lol -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that anyone can make edits on an article. You shouldn't be taking it personally if someone changes or removes your edits. The fact is, most of those contestants are non-notable outside of the Amazing Race. --Madchester 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree about the editing, as evidenced by the back and forth prior to Feb 12, the fact is, that PageantUpdater has a pattern of nominating articles and images for deletion to make a point, and it is this that is abusive. -evrik ^(talk) 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik you are violating WP:POINT by the creation of those stubs, if you keep on creating more stubs I will block you Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• In Evrik's defense (and I may not be objective), PageantUpdater had never edited the four articles she initially reverted (until Evrik did) she then revertd him in the name of Wiki Quality. It seems to me that she must have been monitoring what he was editing and then edited right after him. This is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. PageantUpdater seems to have caused by this whole mess and Evrik has merely defended himself. --South Philly 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Using another editor's signature

An IP editor (User:86.42.176.24) left this [93] on a user talk page. The "Bitch" star seems insulting enough but the editor included the signature of a probably uninvolved editor in the star text. This seems exceptionally bad behavior to me. Don't know what I'm asking anyone to do, but I wanted to report it. --Pigman^talk 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "impersonation" here was intentional. I think (s)he just copied the code and didn't bother to update it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

fwiw, user made an additional personal attack here, was retaliating for vandalism warnings, and removing vandalism warnings from his/her page. User's writing style and areas of focus pretty much identical to an IP Vandal (of same IP range) we've dealt with before. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by 63.64.185.249

63.64.185.249 (talk · contribs) has made legal threats at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration: [94], [95], [96]. The last of these took place after he/she was warned he/she would be blocked [97]. Heimstern Läufer 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

endorse block, and I'll draw the matter to the attention of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Chanakyathegreat

While reading old posts and archives as a result of a recent ArbCom request invloving me I found this comment by User:Chanakyathegreat; please have a look at the later part. This kind of users often escalate often already hot issuse. Although this post is more than half a month old still I think disciplinary actions should be taken to prevent any such comments in future. I do not know how this comment went ignored but many users have been punished for far less severer offences. This comment can be found in archives at [98]. Szhaider 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here i quote the part I am concerned about:

"If you sell a small part of your property to a person who builds his own house will that make you to change the name of your house. Also Pakistan is just a temporary nation that may exist or may not exist in the future. It is based on Islam and the nation is not just Pakistan but an Islamic republic of Pakistan. If China can claim part of Tibet and especially Taiwan formed 50 or so years ago, surely India has a better right to claim Pakistan. Just because it is not done at present did not mean it cannot be made in the future, nor there is a guarantee that the so called Pakistani's themselves will not be joining India (Bharat).

Chanakyathegreat 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

This entire post is extremely offensive towards Pakistani users and it is taken as a direct insult by Pakistanis. Please note that it is a part of a thread which was started by a Pakistani user. This post is an open claim over Pakistan's territory; most Pakistan vs. India edit wars, even over talk pages, are because of Indian users' indirect claims over Pakistan. If this kind of posts go unchecked they will give negative impressions of the environment in which proud Wikipedians work and join their efforts to develop and maintain world's largest online encyclopedia. Szhaider 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. All nations are temporary: yours, mine, and theirs. The Earth itself is temporary. At some time in the past they all did not exist. At some time in the future they all will not exist.
2. Blocks etc. are to be preventative, not punitive. These are not imposed to "punish" actions weeks past, but to stop (or at least interrupt) misbehavior occurring now. -- Ben 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

I saw some guy accuse User:Gwernol of vandalising his user page. This user's userpage says that he's also User:ZacheryWanzer, but this userpage has information on the kid's birthdate, and he's under 13. An admin might want to delete the revisions that contains this info. – Chacor 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight. Yuser31415 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a hell of a lot of oversight and deletion revision removals.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: I had to delete 402 revisions. His age was on the page since its creation in March.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes. That is quite a few ;). Yuser31415 06:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In the past, admins have just copied the page as it is currently, deleted the whole thing and restoring the current version without the revealing info. Anchoress 06:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally that is usually how I deal with it. So far I've had no complaints, though I imagine it will happen eventually.--Isotope23 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Threats of violence, personal attacks, and likely sock-puppetry

I have been threated with physical violence by User talk:198.172.206.148. Please see this edit for an example. There are already multiple warnings at this user page. I believe this is a sock puppet of indefinitely banned User:Joehazelton. Please investigate. Thanks. Propol 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation is escalating. The user is now making death threats, see here. Please help and quickly. Also, is it appropriate to report this to law enforcement authorities? Thanks. Propol 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey clown, don't ever let me find out where you live or else. This is now personal between you and me little man. Your the little worm thats esclating this. I would leave it go...NOW!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.94.107.248 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I blocked this guy for 31 hours. --rogerd 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can we also go about identifying this individual? I don't wish to make any legal threats, but I would like additional information so that I could go to law enforcement if death threats continue. What recourse do I have? Blocking an anonymous IP address doesn't seem sufficient given the nature of the offense. Your thoughts? Propol 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikpedia wont protect you when I file a lawsuit in 16th circuit court for defamation, libel, slander. I would leave and go, stop assume in everybody's a sock puppet, and begin to behave like a man instead of like the little worm you all are. You think just because you're a citizen of Wikipedia don't mean your above civil law.

To be honest, unless the person is in a position to actually be a threat to you, I'd just ignore it; I've collected many threats, but haven't done a damn thing about them because they are just empty posturing. If it was from someone who was at least in the same state I'm in, I'd take them more seriously. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I isn't much else that I can do about this situation. I am just a lowly admin, and I don't have checkuser rights. If we knew that this isn't a shared IP, and this guy always uses the same IP, we could block it for much longer. I fear that isn't the case, however. --rogerd 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The only posts from that IP are all from the 12th (today/yesterday, depending on your longitude)...a 30 day block is fine I would have to say.--MONGO 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, the IP in question is apparently located in the San Diego, California area according to this tool. Good luck - a nasty situation. Raymond Arritt 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further incident just now. [99] Bubba hotep 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User creating "policies"

WWWUser (talk · contribs) is creating pages in the Wikipedia namespace in an apparent attempt to introduce new policies that already exist (see Wikipedia:Don't Sign Articles). I've redirected them to the appropriate, and already existing, policy/guideline. They all seem to be in good faith, but I'm not sure what to think, so I'm posting here. John Reaves (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a good-faith contributor who wants to edit something. Maybe giving him a hammer (ie., a list of articles) might help him bang a few nails and turn into a good editor. Yuser31415 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Yuser31415 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for the "good faith" theory; I think it's time to pull the plug on this person: Wikipedia:AWB Hacked!. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would classify that page as bad faith. Misguided, sure. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. But promoting a hacked version of AWB right after creating an account doesn't seem like something the typical new user would do, though. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor is creating a bunch of weird policy pages. It's possible that he edited under an IP before this, or just picked things up, though. He may have been frustrated at not being able to use AWB yet. I don't know. He also wasn't warned about why said Hacked AWB page was deleted. All of that said, the edit warring over this silliness is probably enough to warrant the block he's received. And yes, I realize I am blabbering. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin unblock review

Now he wants unblocked. I (not an admin) declined his previous unblock request (see his talk page history). Please consider this when reviewing. Cheers, Yuser31415 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... I thought only admins were allowed to review unblock requests. Heimstern Läufer 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, but didn't see anything that said only admins could review UBRs =(. Yuser31415 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Yuser, on WP:BP, everything under "unblocking" is a subcategory of "Instructions for Administrators". I don't think you should be replying to blocking instructions if you are not an admin. Not only is it overstepping your authority, but it gives a false impression to a blocked user, who thinks their block has actually been reviewed by someone with authority to do something ahout it. This presents the possibility that they will not return to Wikipedia, thinking they are permanently blocked. Jeffpw 08:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also WP:IAR. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, Ryulong. Are you saying deceiving another editor simply because they are a vandal is improving and maintaining Wikipedia, and thus allowable under WP:IAR? While it is perhaps a pragmatic solution to a problem, it seems unethical to me. I would hope that administrators and those who aspire to adminship would hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Jeffpw 08:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If a job doesn't require admin tools, then it isn't an admin-only job. Denial of unblock requests requires no pressing of the shiny buttons. It is possible for non-admins to abuse the template; but then it is possible for admins to do so. In either case, a quiet word on a talk page solves it (or if not, it can go upwards). Adminship really is No Big Deal^TM - it's just a couple of extra buttons the community (s)elects people to have. It doesn't give the user of the buttons any more or or any less "authority" than someone without them. Yuser31415 should continue to do this thankless job if s/he wants to. 〈REDVEЯS〉 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Redvers, on the concept of adminship being no big deal (I certainly wouldn't want it), I disagree with you on this particular issue. Since unblocking somebody is an administrative action, it can logically be inferred that denying a request to unblock is something that also should be handled by admins. Further, though Yuser stated in his/her edit summary that s/he was not an admin, s/he did not do so in the user page, nor did s/he disabuse WWWUser of that false perception that an admin had reviewed the block (review the relevant talk page to confirm that WWWuser thought s/he was interacting with an admin). I feel Yuser has acted above his/her authority in this instance and others, and have left a message on his/her talk page to that effect. Jeffpw 10:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins can do things like close obvious speedy keep AfDs or deny obviously bad unblock requests. They should just expect to catch more flak if they make a mistake. However, boldness should be encouraged: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and administrators are just users with a couple of extra buttons. Kusma (討論) 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, Kusma, and closing Afds by non-admins (in some cases) is defined in policy (Yuser seems confused about that, too, but that's another kettle of fish). It is not defined in policy that non-admins can deny unblock requests. In fact, as I pointed out above, it seems from policy that it is supposed to be done by admins. Ryulong said that WP:IAR applied in this case, and has not yet responded to my request for clarification of how that could apply to a breach of ethics (as I see this situation). Jeffpw 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then somebody should change the template that says an Administrator has reviewed the block. And I would hope the reviewing administrator was not involved in the original edits that led to the block. I do think that only admins should be "officially" reviewing unblock requests; they've got the bits because the community trusts their judgment. Nothing against Yuser31415, but the same cannot be said for the gazillion other editors around here. Risker 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Risker. In the template section for "unblock review", the note is actually addressed to administrators: Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following: {{unblock reviewed}. This seems to make it pretty clear that unblock reviews are to be carried out only by admins. Jeffpw 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: Ryulong's citing IAR only because he used to do it himself when he wasn't an admin. Many people have raised it as a problem, but he always continued to do it. I believe this was brought up at a couple of his RFAs. – Chacor 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, is there a general issue with non-administrators declining frivolous unblock requests or is there an objection to the way Yuser31415 handled this particular request? I realise the genetic enhancements and nano-implants conferred by a successful RFA make administrators much more qualified for this kind of work, but—with the blocked user being already blocked—I don’t see a qualitative difference when answering an unblock request in the negative (assuming, of course, that this is done responsibly and after careful review of all relevant policies), until the user talk page needs protection. (Regarding the template verbiage, if it really matters, I’d just subst the template and edit it.) —xyzzy_n 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a fuss I've caused :). Well, I personally have no objection to responsible, reasonable community members using their best judgement and helping reduce the administrative backlog. Yuser31415 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's worth pointing out that the "not a big deal" phrase works both ways. If adminship's not a big deal, than obviously we're not asking too much to get the community to entrust you with the tools before one starts taking responsibility for making decisions related to who is allowed to edit here. Jkelly 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was definitely inappropriate for a non-admin to give another user the impression that an admin had reviewed the block. While Yuser is enthusiastic about wanting to perform many of these duties, the truth is the community has not entrusted him with that power. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, adminship is certainly not "power", it is a responsibility. I respectfully disagree with both of you, but will attempt to refrain from reviewing unblock requests before I become an admin. If you want to continue this discussion it would probably be more appropriate at either WP:AN or WP:VP/P (this is not really an "incident" that requires administrator attention). Yuser31415 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I approve of non-admins reviewing unblock requests. This is a wiki. It's not like said non-admin can protect the users talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see an issue, as above we encourage people to deal with most things which don't require the admin buttons, I can't see how this is much different. Pass RFA one day doesn't magically improve the quality (or lack of) your judgment (I assure you). As a non-admin who someday runs for adminship doing such things is "risky", unless it's a very clear cut request they are likely to get picked up on it at and RFA particularly in the case of a good contributor who may feel hard done by and needs to attach that to the RFA process. An editor with a declined request can always add another unblock template, email the mailing list and so on. --pgk 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Covering tracks

I notice that a person I was in conflict with some time ago - a person with an academic career, by the way - is now going to extraordinary lengths to cover his tracks, hiding some very intemperate remarks that he made. I will refrain from mentioning his name, but I question the ethics of these "concealing" edits. As one of the parties involved in the (past) dispute, I am mentioning the matter here, and suggesting that someone may want either to revert, or to make some indication on these talk pages that considerable matter has been cut. Please note that I am avoiding linking the material that is liable to reveal his identity: that is, I am not linking to where a username was related to his actual name.

• [100]: Throwaway account changes a name (which was already changed from his own name) to something else unrelated.
• [101]: Another throwaway account then removes massive material without archiving.
• [102]: Similarly, on another (related) article, after his original name had earlier been changed to something innocuous, a throwaway account now removes massive material without archiving.

There are two reasons I have a particular problem with this (beyond general principles):

• Several remarks of mine were removed in the process
• Other remarks of mine are left hanging, so that my annoyed but temperate response to his vituperation now appears to be directed at other people.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Yuser31415 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the editor is leaving Wikipedia. If so perhaps no action is needed. -Will Beback · † · 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have issues with them removing their own statements (at least without context). They can of course exercise their RTV and remove their user pages, rename their accounts, and retroactively go back and reattribute their comments, but to my knowledge they're not allowed to remove them outright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted Attack on User Page

User Thwaki added the following language to my (previously blank) User Page:

RAAAR! he is an awful admin and should be fired!!!! he deletes random quality pages and is a complete moron with no life!!!! he will burn!!!!

--Proofreader J-Man 06:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User warned with {{subst:bv}}. Cheers. Yuser31415 06:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I say indef block. I'll bet he has another account anyway. John Reaves (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. (I'm not an admin, so I can't block him ;). Yuser31415 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can and have. RAAAR! Proto::► 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD backlog: Philippine government images

{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} and {{PhilippinesGov}} have been turned into speedy deletion templates by Zscout370, causing an alomost-500 pages backlog in the speedy deletion category. As most of the images are logos or coats of arms that can probably be used under a claim of fair use, we probably don't want to delete all of them. However, they need to be dealt with. Image specialists, where are you? Kusma (討論) 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates have been reverted by Geni, presumably as they are clogging up CSD when they don't need to (if they need to go, just delete them - don't tag them for speedy and expect someone else to do the work). As nowhere near all of them should be deleted, mass-tagging them for speedy deletion was the wrong move. Go through them individually ([103]) and tag the ones that ought to go (ie, the ones that don't fall under a reasonable claim of fair use) for deletion, rather than dumping them all in C:CSD and expecting others to sort them out. Proto::► 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the template to indcate that the images need to be deleted.Geni 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I am getting a bit bored with three editors making personal attacks claiming individuals are biased. There seems to be a constant pattern with other people describing their particular edits as biased (which is fine, we all make bad edits sometimes) but their retort being by attacking individuals which isn't on. Perhaps they don't see the distinction. See for example User_talk:Zeeboid#3RR where User:UBeR, User:Zeeboid and User:Mnyakko are having a go at User:William_M._Connolley. Since I have also been accused by them of systematically biased editing by one of the three ("as I compile your comments and reverts throughout Wikipedia it seems more and more like a strong case of your own biases being exercised against content you do not agree with and users who provide that content." in a long passage at Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Reverted_edits) I don't think I should be the one to tell them to try not to play the person rather than the ball. Two other sysops also seem to have suffered this sort of low-level abuse. I actually think the issues they raise are quite legitimate but the manner in which they conduct themselves continually really undermines the WP spirit.

Anyone feel up to reviewing, taking on and giving some friendly advice? If you find my conduct has been to blame for antagonising them or anything, do say. I'd just like a nicer atmosphere --BozMo talk 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a peripherally involved party I have a comment, namely, don't lump User:UBeR in with the other two. UBeR is here to improve Wikipedia, though admittedly he sometimes comes on a bit strong. The other two are here to browbeat others and relentlessly promote their own point of view (apparently they host a far-right-wing radio show in "real life"). Raymond Arritt 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

More help needed to resolve ongoing Schiavo disputes (moved from WT:VP)

I moved this from WT:VP, where it was getting no attention. I am contacting the editor who posted it, but the situation seems to have cooled for now.--Kchase T 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation is not totally cool; This editor continues to distupt -not only me, but also others. Observe: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton. Thanks for the move. Any help is welcome.--GordonWatts 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

At this diff, we again find Calton causing trouble. He revered my edit, removing every single link that I put in, supposedly because of angst with one particular link that is a blog.

I don't think he is right to oppose that, but at least he makes a half-way argument about not being notable. (I say this to contrast the arguments Proto made about blogs not being acceptable; Of course, he is wrong: Many blog links had been in the article after his edit.)

I will be fine with any consensus by the community on the links in question -if for not other reason than to make Calton stop arguing, a worthwhile motive, but not the best motive, I admit. (We should have as motives simply to make an Encyclopaedia article with sufficient details -and references to back them up.)

So, in short, Terri Schiavo's article seems OK, but help is needed at the Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case article -specifically, the links section.

PS: Any user can look at my recent contributions to see that I am a responsible editor, just in case anyone wants to know. Plus, I was the one who created the pretty Table of Contents template you see at the top of the page here, which, for some reason, is needed: The Table of Contents doesn't automatically show like it used to. Anyone can help here??

In closing, if I am not around to vote, then my "vote" for each and every link enumerated is "add this link," but in the end, if some links are voted down, I would hope that at least some of them could stay -to strengthen the references section.--GordonWatts 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit revision and reverted to a prior stable version, but although I did not include the North County Gazette link, I want to clarify: My "vote" for each link is to "add" -including the Gazette link. I just wanted to clarify that I'm voting "for" its inclusion, and the only reason I don't myself add it is because I'm a peace-living person who does not want to be responsible for World War Three on this wiki.--GordonWatts 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Update; Things seem calm and better for now, but input is generally always welcome.--GordonWatts 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I renew my request for help on the Terri Schiavo page; Things are degenerating. Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, things are "degenerating" only in the sense that you're not getting your way: so far every single editor commenting has disagreed with you. All of them. 100%. Unanimous. One might even say, a consensus. This should be a clue. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of my request for help

Apparently, no one saw this, so I request above:

Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_Calton

Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. But as I have participated in the discussion already, and pointed out you were violating a good sized handful of Wikipedia policies, you've chosen to ignore my advice. Proto::► 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note I didn't say "no blogs should be linked to", I said a user shouldn't be citing their own AOL and Geocities pages as reliable source material, or even as external links. Proto::► 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well here's my answer to your request for help - your sites are unsuitable for adding to a wikipedia article. I hope that is of help to you. --Fredrick day 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, we all saw your requests, and you must consider them denied. The problem is entirely yours - it has been since the day you got here. And while your acts are certainly not malicious, it became abundantly clear a long time ago that you have little proper understanding or appreciation of Wikipedia policies and procedures and especially community norms. Many people have tried to help you in the past. Community patience can only go so far, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Starwars1955 evading block, violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT

Malibu55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the newest sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has violated WP:NPA on my userpage here, as well as WP:CIVIL. He wants to have links to 6 websites in the stats infobox on the Brett Favre page, and violates WP:POINT here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here. No one seems to be able to ignore him; he should have been blocked long ago. Please address. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious sock (first contrib was to the talk page of another sock of Starwars1955). I rarely say this about users, but I think we're at the point where calling this user "banned" would be appropriate - carrying on an edit war over what is in effect a single edit for two months, through multiple blocks, strikes me as severe disruption. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action. Furthermore, I agree with your conclusion. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it, and definitely agree. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried a little WP:AGF here, but he has not gotten the message. At this point I think it is time to talk WP:BAN as Mr. Darcy has indicated. This person has no interest in giving up their disruptive behavior after repeated warnings. Anyone care to try the WP:CN with this?--Isotope23 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am more than willing to. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:66.250.190.115

An anonymous user at IP 66.250.190.115 vandalized the Greenland article today. A last warning was issued on February 8. There is a history of warnings. It is a shared IP. —Largo Plazo 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind--I found the right place to post the report. Largo Plazo 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy user talk page

Please review the content of User talk:Daxsume. --Dweller 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, as the only contribution was "Greorge W Bush is a pretzel chomping bastard!!!!!" Must not laugh ... must not laugh ... Proto::► 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Phil Mitchell, Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) and Sonia Fowler

I was directed here by Ginkgo100 in this discussion.

My issue is with a persistant vandal, who as of 2007-02-13 has two known IP addresses, and ten user accounts. These accounts are used to primarily vandalise the articles Phil Mitchell (where the user persists in calling the character fat, a point of view), Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) (where the infobox image is constantly removed with the edit summary "I don't like the image", and insulting things are written about the character), and Sonia Fowler (where image captions are changed to call the character a troll).

This vandalism started on 2006-11-07, when nonsense was added to the article Phil Mitchell, and has continued almost every day since.

Four of the ten accounts have been indefinitely blocked, but I want to know whether there is any action that can be taken to stop this person creating new accounts.

Also notable is the fact that this user seems to have a personal vendetta against me (see this edit summary and this vandalism of my sandbox), and the fact that the user has stated that they will stop editing when the articles are semi-protected (see edit summary).

These are all current known incarnations of this user:

• 81.149.196.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Nonpayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite block
• 135.196.237.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Timewaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• How3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite block
• Lou22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thevandal999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite block
• Kburps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite block
• Notenough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OldMan50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Idontliketheimage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theman0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is getting to be a strain on myself and other members of WikiProject EastEnders, who spend a lot of time reverting this vandal's edits. I would be grateful if this problem had a conclusive solution. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Fossa/Daniel Quinlan/gaming

is User:Fossa/Daniel Quinlan/gaming appropriate even by the wide latitude given for userpages? Or is it overtly encouraging people to act in bad faith? Some might argue that it could be read as sarcasm, and should be perceived as advice on what you should not do if you want to behave well on Wikipedia. I do not believe that this is a correct reading: the section on diversions cannot be reversed to contain advice on how to be a better and more honest editor, and if the "Phrase statements in a neutral manner to be NPOV" sections was aimed at showing the harmfulness of the practices advocated, it would certainly point out that those practices are in fact explicitly against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. -- 192.250.34.161 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe in the healthy spirit of competition and that collaborative editing is the best way to improve Wikipedia, then I suggest you do not read this article

Looks to me like it has nothing to do with helping to improve the encyclopedia, which is (largely) what user space is for. Toss it up on MfD, since I don't think speedy deletion would be a good way of going. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to MfD, you may want to consider bundling User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming as well since this is pretty much verbatim from that subpage.--Isotope23 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

JFTR: Of course it helps an encyclopedia, if it is shown, how POV pushers indeed "play" this thing. BTW: I know of at least one additional copy. Fossa_?! 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it as tongue in cheek, but not everyone may agree with that interpretation. Regardless, if an MfD is opened all copies should probably be included if they can be identified.--Isotope23 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon re-reading it, I can see how it can be a satirical piece, but right out of the gate, it struck me as a pointed piece. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh good Lord, now we're going on Wikiwitch hunts on user pages? What next, kill WikiPig?. BabyDweezil 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as nobody screws with the Conch shell.--Isotope23 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, I did consider the "tongue in cheek" interpretation; I just couldn't find it as convincing as the "give those who want to cause trouble on Wikipedia solid advice on how to maximize damage" interpretation. Had the section that advises editors to add phrases such as "some argue" and "Many critics" for 'NPOV' contained some appropriate tongue in cheek acknowledgement such as "And of course, these phrases are in no way weasel wordings" then I could believe that the true intended message was "do NOT use these phrases because they do NOT make your POV statements suddenly NPOV." But given the general contents of the page I just do not believe it's a tongue in cheek way to say "Don't do these bad things", I believe it's solid advice on how to disrupt Wikipedia and push POV. -- 192.250.34.161 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, not everyone may agree with my interpretation and an WP:MFD is an option if you do not.--Isotope23 20:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s too long and badly formatted. Shorten, make funnier, copyedit and tag as {{humor}}. —xyzzy_n 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Take all such pages to MfD and Delete. Johntex\^talk 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming has already been taken to MFD twice and both times the consensus was to keep. — MichaelLinnear 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HotFlick spam

A user User:Hotflick recently created a template Template:Hotflick name to add links to there site. I warned them, and warned them again with no response so I blocked them temporarily (probably should have indef blocked for username). However, i just want to make sure this is not a valid site that I am unaware of bfore I revert the additions and delete the template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

alexander the great

hello, i am not adept on the computer, but i can report that the history page on "Alexander the Great" has been vandalized. I am confused as to how to go about fixing it and reporting the user that messed it up. thank you

Somebody has already fixed the vandalism. To find out how to do it yourself, see WP:REVERT. Thanks! Sandstein 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Need another admin to have a chat with a user

Would someone please have a chat with User:Captainbarrett. He violated WP:NPA here and here at this needlessly contentious AfD that I've managed to fall into See above. He is a new user that doesn't quite seem to get whats going on, and probably needs to just cool down, but he wasn't really listening to me when I brought the NPA thing up, and as I am the target of his attacks, someone else should really have a word with him anyway. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Those comments aren't very nice, but I don't think they're personal attacks (they are comments on actions, not the user), and they aren't a big deal. It doesn't seem like a productive thing to start antagonizing the guy any further or threatening blocks over the issue. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took it as such, thats why I wanted the other eyes. Thank you both for looking into it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I essentially reminded him of WP:AGF and commenting on edits, not editors.--Isotope23 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible 3RR violation

Hi, I'm an experienced editor but I'm not very familiar with the 3RR but I think a user has violated the it on the USA article, the user is called Wise. I didn't want to report it to the correct page as I'm not sure whether it would count or not so could an admin please take a look at the page history and tell me whether I'm correct or not. Thanks.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a violation of 3RR. 4 entirely separate edits in a row, and no reversions at all there. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DNA

Would someone be willing to consider a short semi-protection break for Today's Featured article, DNA? It is getting what seems to be more than the usual daytime vandalism, and I suspect it's probably school winter break somewhere in the USA, leading to more vandalism from youngsters out of school. It's been fairly hard to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It was already protected against moves. I have semi-protected it against anon editting as well. Johntex\^talk 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll start sorting out the edits and see if anything useful was removed in the vandal-bashing. TimVickers 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quieted down, so I unprotected in accordance with WP:NOPRO. I'll be able to keep an eye on it for the next few hours. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN

A community ban discussion has been posted over at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Suggestion for community ban. I know this is a fairly new board and I'm not sure how closely it is being watched at this point, but it would be nice to get some outside views on this.--Isotope23 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And now the editor in question is essentially threatening to continue disruption if he doesn't get his way... as I said before, an outside opinion from a couple of uninvolved admins would be nice.--Isotope23 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ck12 (part 2)

Ck12 (talk · contribs) I previously complained here about this user now archived at: [104]. The user uploaded a deleted copyvio image less than 5 hours after its removal: See [105]. User:Geni warned about not uploading copyvios on his talk page at [106] (though I think this was after Ck12 re-uploaded the image). I think a block is warranted this time. --MECU≈talk 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Issued a 48 hour block.--Isotope23 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

user fadix

Please look at user User:Fadix and his language. It is not first report about him [107] he is cursing and threatening with war of edits--Dacy69 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, yes. Has he been warned about this? Yuser31415 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong i suggest leave him alone instead of reporting this to every admin, he didn't threatent or really say anything you know better, since you violated the 3RR on that article 5 times.Nareklm 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that (a) the behavior of one does not excuse that of the other, and (b) personal attacks are much more serious than violating 3RR. Yuser31415 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very nice, but using sock puppets is annoying dacy, adil, atabek, and batabak are aware of this i would have done the same thing. Nareklm 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are threatening to disrupt the encyclopedia, you will be blocked. There is no excuse for making personal attacks. Period. Yuser31415 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that stop throwing words in my mouth. Nareklm 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You specifically said, "i would have done the same thing". Also, be civil. Yuser31415 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to be Civil, i said i would have never said i will or would done. Nareklm 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL it...--Isotope23 20:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic: I have warned Fadix. Quite a nice warning, considering the magnitude of his attacks. Yuser31415 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is worth to look at nareklm activity as well.--Dacy69 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to draw the attention of administrators to the following notice I posted on Wikiquette_alerts, which wasn't addressed yet:

User_talk:Khoikhoi - Please, check this page. User User:Nareklm not only persistently attacks other people, such as AdilBaguirov and several others, including myself, accuses people of being sockpuppets, but also uses foul language, such as the following: Who the fuck is this guy? he comes out of no where and starts supporting these guys they are sock puppets! Nareklm 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Please, address the issue, as this user's activity is very disruptive. Thanks.[ [User:Atabek|Atabek]] 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[[108]]

I hope the admins will finally draw attention considering the disruptive attacks by User:Nareklm above. Thanks. Atabek 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User maintaining page of personal attack in user space

Please have a look at a page maintained by Elizmr (talk · contribs) in his/her userspace. The page is a series of quotations taken out of context from heated discussions that I have been involved with (the content dispute at issue is currently under mediation). The quotes are taken completely out of their contexts in order to portray me as some kind of abusive editor while censoring the comments of the other editors I was responding to (Admins User:Durova and User:CSTAR, among others, are familiar with the context of the disputes). The user has already used the page to make a point on my talk page. I think the page is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:LIBEL, and WP:Harassment, perhaps among other policies. csloat 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a {{db-attack}} tag on it. Yuser31415 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to your past over-enthusiasm in this area, I ask that you refrain from editing other user's namespace. This is not a clear cut policy issue. - WeniWidiWiki 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I maintain that this page does not meet the standard of WP:CSD and that Yuser31415 is acting unilaterally without consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is really up to the admin who decides to review this.--Isotope23 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that WWW removed my previous comment. The problem was that I once removed attacks against IPs from his userpage, and he is upset about that. However, this page does meet CSD G10. I would politely request that WWW show why the page does not meet that requirement. Yuser31415 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem - a rampant over eager effort to get patted on the head for "laying the smack down" on editors and then throwing policy jargon and acronyms around to justify his actions. Archiving discussions on ANI, "slapping templates", ending AfD's prematurely contra policy... - WeniWidiWiki 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks more like evidence gathering in preparation for a mediation/RFC/RFArB than an attack page. Especially since the user is not disparaging anyone; it is a list of someone else's statements. I have unspeedied it. -- Avi 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not. We are already in mediation, and the user has cited none of this so-called "evidence." The quotes are all out of context, without links so that the original context cannot easily be consulted. They are also all months old - one of them over a year old. The user has used the page once in a conversation with someone else on my talk page, and the user used the page to disparage me during the conversation, not to start mediation. If s/he wants to engage in another mediation, some indication of what dispute we are mediating would be a good idea. As it is, the only purpose of this page seems to be to disparage me. csloat 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - [109]. Yuser31415 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article while speedy deleting attack pages. To me this clearly appeared as an inappropriate use of userspace, so I have deleted it. I welcome other admins to review and comment. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The user would be strongly advised to keep links to diffs where the comments were made, or at links to the appropriate section of a permalinked version of the page. Isolated, incomplete quotes taken out of context are at best useless and at worst deceptive for use in an Arbitration case. Keeping links back to the original quotes and context would also defuse any criticism that the page could be interpreted as a misleading smear job. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User: America America

I have blocked this user because all their contributions were photos of 'them' in their underwear. Not sure where policy on porn spam is these days, but hopefully it's not radically different from a few months ago when I last blocked someone. TTFN, The Land 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no real reason to have those pictures here anyway, and it doesn't look like the user was going to do anything besides upload them. I deleted the rest of the images shortly after you blocked. Shadow1 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia is neither a free porn host nor a blog. Past experience is that while the person usually claims the images are "of me," they're usually a few obviously different models, or even have watermarks indicating they're copyrighted by some site or other. *shrug* – Luna Santin (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

IP user 4.245.121.179 (talk · contribs)

See this diff from a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not banned yet, but he is making a strong case to be at WP:CN. I've blocked but he's a Level3 dynamic IP (presumed dialup) so it just makes him redial. I have to say an rangeblock is very tempting here.--Isotope23 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik messing with my AFD nominations

Per the incident report above, I wish to report, separately, Evrik messing with my AFD nominations. I have never been so angry about the behaviour of another editor as I am at this moment. Even with the whole Abu badali mess I was generally able to keep calm but I am absolutely furious right now.

As outlined in the incident report I created a group AFD nom for four Amazing Race contestants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman. I did this when I was checking through the Amazing Race contestants category checking the use of fair use pictures. Yesterday when Evrik created David Conley, Jr. and Mary Conley I also created a combined afd nom for those two people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conley, Jr..

I have just logged on and found that Evrik has created individual noms for each of the people included in the two group nominations, basically usurping my nomination. He moved them all to the same AFD page (James Branaman had previously been logged at 8 Feb and the Conleys at 13 Feb) and created a sub-heading, basically messing up the entire AFD log page.

I have never in my entire time on Wikipedia faced somethings so calculating. I have no idea about the policy regarding this because I have never heard of it happening before, but I feel that as the original nominator I have the right to revert all these subversive actions, which I have already done.

If what Evrik has done is outside Wiki policy (and to be honest I am not certain that it is, even though I feel it should be) I would request that you please take action against him. I feel he has violated WP:POINT and I am feeling persecuted and harassed. I also wish to make it clear that I am taking the entire incident of the past week to Request for Comment as I feel I should not have to put up with what I have. Quite frankly I feel pissed off and miserable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I thought I was helping to clarify the situation. I checked the policy. I checked with a couple of other editors. This is the last place on the Feb 13 page where they were still all grouped together, here. These are the articles for deletion:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conley Jr.

---

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Conley
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Denk}
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Bentley
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Holliday

They were all listed under the Branaman and Conley entries. I thought this was confusing or misleading - I also thought they had been listed incorrectly and was trying to add clarity. No ill intent or maliciousness was involved. If I violated policy - I am sorry. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Conley}} {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Denk‎ }} {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Bentley}} {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Holliday }}

They were all listed under the Branaman and Conley entries. I thought this was confusing or misleading - I also thought they had been listed incorrectly and was trying to add clarity. No ill intent or maliciousness was involved. If I violated policy - I am sorry. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you thought you were "clarifying the situation" you were messing with my nomination and you had no right to do so. If you wished to do this you should at least had the courtesy to propose it on the talk page first. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I never edited your comments. I was under the impression that each article nominated for deletion deserevd its own entry and not be grouped. --evrik ^(talk)

• • As nominator that was my decision to make and I decided to make group nominations. You had no right to change the nominations as you did. -PageantUpdater

• In Evrik's defense (and I may not be seen as objective), the afd's were done in a confusing manner. As far as I can tell, there is no right to make a group nomination, at least not the way it was done. The nomination should have mentioned the names of all the articles being deleted. In my mind, PageantUpdater did not list the articles fro deletion correctly, and Evrik was trying to fix it. Was Evrik the right person to do it - maybe not. There has been so much drama created here (primarily by PageantUpdater) that this whole thing should be dropped. However PageantUpdater should get some sort of warning for WP:STALK and [[WP:POINT}}. --South Philly 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis sock to block

Grarg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of of the banned vandal JarlaxleArtemis (see WP:JARLAXLE). His edits fit the pattern of JarlaxleArtemis's latest behaviour, namely, posting what he believes to be personal information about me,[110] and mass addition or removal of template notices almost exclusively on articles which I've created.[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] Please block. —Psychonaut 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and insults by Gardener of Geda

Please see how Gardener of Geda violated WP:CIV and WP:HAR here. I can't believe that, I understand that sometimes each one of us can be tired, stressed, but I never insulted him personally, I also tried to be kind. --Dr. Who 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, his comment is uncivil, but yours wasn't, well, exactly anticlimatic. Perhaps just staying away from each other for a while is the way to go. Yuser31415 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I didn't insult him. I might be regarded as a bit sarcastic sometimes, but I'm not used to insult.--Dr. Who 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong as such - certainly no one is going to throw you more warning templates :). Yuser31415 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanx.Dr. Who 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may just say something. I shouldn't have called him "disturbed". Silly thing to do, and I'm sorry I said it. This is just the (I hope) culmination of a 2-week period of awkwardness between the two of us which started on the talk page of a music article here , and here. And which went on to here.

Today, he blanked a message I wrote from my talkpage here.

Later, he "stalked", and blanked one of my edits here.

This is all most unfortunate. Though I'm sorry I called him names, he does seem to have a very short fuse, so I hope things go well. For my part, I hope never to have to talk with him again - which, if he stops stalking my edits, I will never need to do. Sorry to all concerned for the trouble. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Peace. Dr. Who 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rights of those with sanctions?

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them have to go? I was asked by User:Lovelight to help with a template they were working on template:911cd. I added the events of 9/11 to the template, as the collapse of the World Trade Center is directly relevant to the theory that it was done by controlled demolition. That edit was removed by a user, user:Arthur Rubin with the following message "Removing events which SHOULDN'T be in this template. Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time.)"[136]. This involves no talk page discussion, no message on my user page to discuss it etc. So where do people with rulings have to go that gets Arbcoms attention to stop users from harrassing them? --NuclearZer0 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice I check my watchlist to see this gem: "Return to ct; cd template is being vandalized by Nuclear" [137] What can be done about this? I added a template to an article, one that is directly about it, adding a Controlled Demolition template to the Controlled Demolition article, and I am being called a vandal? --NuclearZer0 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They even removed: September 11, 2001 attacks & Collapse of the World Trade Center, are those not relevant as well? I feel this user is following my watchlist and harrassing me. I was even accused of tenitious editing for letting them know that I complained about them.[138] They are attempting to use my hearing as a weapon. I ask an admin get involved as I am being harrassed, and threatened. --NuclearZer0 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This user has now called me stupid: [139], can an admin please intervene. --NuclearZer0 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear, you really need to calm down a bit over this. You are being stupid - no, maybe foolish is a better word. This can be settled by calm negotiation, or if necessary through dispute resolution. Please do stop taking this quite so personally. Take a deep breath and remember there is no deadline. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should calm down. However, I see absolutely no reason to automatically assume that Nuclear's edits are "vandalism", as Arthur Rubin has consistently termed them, nor any reason to use administrative rollback on them. This is, at best, a content dispute, and should be resolved that way instead of using administrative privileges and threatening ArbCom sanctions against others. I must be missing something here... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you think I can approach this. I would be willing to but I do not think Arthur Rubin is assuming good faith for it to begin, yet another issue that needs addressing. I am not sure why I would be told I am being foolish when I am being called a vandal simply because I have had an Arbcom hearing. And its clear that the edit was not vandalism. --NuclearZer0 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I do see them as essentially moot. The template looks likely to be deleted, and that is probably the best result for the encyclopaedia since we have {{911ct}} which is more comprehensive and stands some chance of including articles sceptical to the 9/11 conspiracy twaddle. Above all, Nuclear is escalating this. Discourse, debate, negotiation, call it what you will, the fact is that Nuclear is being excessively passionate and the other editor did not call him stupid, quite the opposite. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering comments like this [140] I really do not appreciate you appearing as totally uninvolved as well. --NuclearZer0 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This isnt about the template, this is about an admin calling me a vandal for an obviously non vandal comment. Its about him waving my Arbcom around as a weapon. Even if you do not think he was calling me stupid, you are totally negating the rest of my points. You voted in the TfD which I ask you now to excuse yourself from this discussion as its now a conflict of interest for you. If its still being reccomended that I seek some sort of mediation. I ask where to start when the party is assuming bad faith, and calling me a vandal? --NuclearZer0 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

#Wikipedia Ban

I'm an experienced user who has been with Wikipedia for over a year now. I've worked with the Counter-Vandalism Unit to combat spam, flooding, penis-posting, and generally random acts of stupidity, so I know what warrents what response. That being said, I entered the #wikipedia IRC room last night and tried to explain to an admin the importance of an article to an online thing that's going on (said thing has reached front page of Digg). I didn't expect to sway him or get the article unprotected, but I did want him to understand that it wasn't just some stupid spam sites going up. Without warning, he (Zscout370) opped himself and kicked me. He also set +b *!*@*.pivot.net, effectivly blocking all PivotNet users from entering #wikipedia. I filed a complaint with him about his douchebaggery. I was upset - I had been a very, very active participant of #wikipedia for a long time. The complaint was "archived" (I can't find it on any of the archive pages. Can you?) I'm not looking to get the article unprotected, and I'm not looking to get Zscout370 in trouble. I am, however, looking for *.pivot.net to be unbanned. Thanks. --TonySt 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... this is something that has nothing to do with this noticeboard. In other words, you're not likely (or supposed) to find help on that matter here. You need to go to #wikimedia-ops and take it up with them. I should also mention that calling someone a douchebag is highly rude and disrespectful (WP:CIVIL) and is probably less likely to earn you an unbanning. --Pilotguy push to talk 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning me from a community I've been with for so long is far, far ruder. Thanks for telling me where to go - some folks in #wikipedia told me to come here. --TonySt 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I told him to come here, because I thought he was talking about one of our Wikipedia admins having done it, not one of the unrelated channel ops. Greatest apologies. The conversation went something like this:

* tonyst (n=rollinth@unaffiliated/wptony) has joined #wikipedia
tonyst 'lo.
yuser31415 hello
tonyst What are the proper channels to go through to file some sort of complaint against an admin?
tonyst I'd rather not make it as messy as arbitration - it doesn't deserve that.
yuser31415 WP:ANI
yuser31415 Just make sure it's a *founded* request
yuser31415 tonyst: If you haven't already, try Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents
tonyst yuser31415, alright.
tonyst thank you.
yuser31415 no problems, tonyst

Bother =(. Yuser31415 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. #wikipedia is sometimes a cesspit, I am not a fan. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what Pilotguy said (this page doesn't have any jurisdiction over IRC) and note that your conduct on-wiki isn't going to help you. This response – including such gems as "Your adminship...does not give you the right to have a 20-foot stick up your ass. don't be an asshole...don't be an asshat...." – is never the right way to deal with a dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)