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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a quick glance, some of the edits by Paul venter are not just edit warring, but clear reaches of MoS, e.g. [1]. Reverting in order to clearly breach MOS is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul_venter engaged in discussion on his talk page but has now blanked it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Berks105 has done his best to discourage Paul but Berks has retired and Paul continues to disrupt without discussion. The latest one is persistent removing of Lady in 1st line of Lady Phillips. When I raise it on his talk page, he merely blanks it. He is very stubborn. I request he is blocked 48 hours not as punishent but to prevent damage and disruption. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is to be left in peace to write articles without constant reverts and edits while I am busy on an article. For the latest example of this see Charles Collier Michell where Kittybrewster ignored an "inuse" tag and proceeded to edit. She and Berks have dogged my footsteps and specifically targeted me. For Kittybrewster to request that I be blocked for standing up to their vandalism and lack of courtesy, is extraordinary. I would appreciate intervention. Paul venter 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Berks has retired.

Berks105 (talk · contribs) has not retired. He continues to use Berks105 to make edits. He has made over 100 edits after announcing retirement on 18 March 2007. He has made 25 edits after moving his talk page to the archive with the comment, "(Archive (Preparation to actually leave; recent argument reminded why i decided to leave!))"[2] Of those 25 edits, six were the first edit after a change by Paul venter (talk · contribs).

--Kevinkor2 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I keep meaning to stop, but I wanted to get the issue of Paul venter's constant reverting of MofS edits sorted first. I feel that with Kittybrewster now getting involved this can be done, although venter still seems reluctant to realise he doesn't own articles. Anyway, I will make an effort from now to make no more edits as Berks105. --Berks105 10:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Be careful when bandying about charges of vandalism. Vandalism is narrowly defined as actions designed to damage or harm Wikipedia articles. There appears to be none of that going on by you, or by EITHER of the two people you have accused of vandalism. While I make no statements on the position of either side vis-a-vis the quality of their edits in this dispute, such edits are clearly not vandalism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After a night to cool down as suggested. I ask the admins to please look at what Widefox is asking for. He is asking for me to be banned from the Swiftfox page. For what? This is what he was seeking by posting the attack on my talk page in violation of WP:NPA. He thinks personal attacks are a way for him to win disagreements over editing an article in violation of WP:NPA. His solution is rewarding him for bad behavior. I have not attacked him in any way. But simply ask to be protected from more of the same. He sees nothing wrong with what he has done. He will do so again. His request shows he does not assume good faith. His actions on my page show he does not assume good faith.His actions on the Swiftfox page show he does not assume good faith. Maybe he should be blocked from my page and from Swiftfox since he attacked me in both places. At the very least, I believe he (Widefox)should be told that his actions were wrong. To stop attacking me and focus in on the issues and not me. That he should not repeat them, that he should assume good faith, and that a repeat of his actions will have consequences. Kilz 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The original problem of reverting my edits / calling vandalism is after I left Kilz to calm down for 3months. Widefox 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But you did vandalize the page, you removed tags without fixing the problem the tag was placed there for. While there was a discussion on the section. You also removed requests for citations on areas that were inmho original research by you. Reverting vandalism is an approved practice. I did it once a day. You also tried to put words in another editors mouth, and told me to be quiet on the subject as you sought to influence the discussion. Then when you saw that you were not winning, you posted a smear on my talk page and the Swiftfox page , in violation of WP:NPA. You did not seek help from an admin, you took it opon yourself to make a personal attack. Dreging up the most dirt you could think of, to smear me. You have used lie upon lie and imho you will do it again without at the very least, a warning not to do it. Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I now have attacks and lies about me that cant be removed from my talk page. Something Im sure Widefox knew would be the case, so he placed them there. Kilz 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Second offer - we work together on the page. Normal civil rules apply. Widefox 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You had that option, but instead you chose to break WP:NPA and attack me with a personal attack on both my page and the Swiftfox page. This was not sticking to the content, debating the content of the article. But a personal smear directed at me, dredged up dirt from your memory of the past. It had nothing to do with the current events. Exactly whats to stop you from doing it again? Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

admins - please see my 2 offers and Kilz responses. I close my defence now. Widefox 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that Wildefox should not be posting on Kilz's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary because it clearly irritates Kilz. And there is nothing to stop Kilz removing stuff he does not like from his talk page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Kittybrewster. I have been told that I am not allowed to delete things from my talk page. That I must archive everything. Are you suggesting that the attack be deleted. Secondly, if I do that doesnt it remove the record of what Widefox has done, and if he does it again I wont have proof to point to? Kilz 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, you should archive most things, but you may certainly remove and not archive what you consider to be personal attacks. The evidence will still be there, just provide a diff link. --Iamunknown 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown, I just archived the last few days of my talk page and removed the section that was an attack. I provided a link to the diff in its place on the archive page.Kilz 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Kilz diverts you with his user page, he is using 2 sockpuppets User:IDontBelieveYou User:Loki144 to edit war Swiftfox. FYI he is banned from Swiftfox forum [3] (I can provide more links to his swiftfox licence dispute he is in with the author of swiftfox - this in itself means he should refrain from editing Swiftfox). Please take action before this edit warring gets worse. Widefox 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a new tatic of Widefox. It appears that 2 other editors have in some way agreed with me. So widefox has labeled them as puppets of some kind so he can write them off. He is now ignoring consensus. Secondly, what may have happened in the past on the Swiftfox forum in no way changes my ability to edit the swiftfox article on Wikipedia and make sure that it is as honest and up to date as possible. As you see Widefox is using one tatic after another to win a content argument. Kilz 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I Opened RfC. The content dispute should be taken there now. I do want the start of this edit warring looked at - Kilz actions labelling and reverting my edits as vandalism is not acceptable. I am not a single issue editor unlike him and his possible sock/meatpuppets. Widefox 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your baseless accusations against me (using puppets) is a now reaching a personal attack level. It is an unfounded lie. You are using the accusation to win a content disagreement and to disregard the opinions of other editors who dont agree with you. I find I must respond to this in each place you place it and refute it, least you say that I agree with it in some way by silence. I suggest you stop accusing me of this before I open another incident report, using all the baseless accusations you have made against me as proof of malicious intent. Kilz 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

new sockpuppet of Kilz 130.111.76.121 - total 3 single issue editors +Kilz. Evidence weak - 130.111.76.121 has 2 edits 1. edit of Pabst Brewing Company of Illinois, Kilz state is Illinois 2. Swiftfox. These 3 sockpuppets show similar creation and editing patterns. Kilz has "restore edit of idontbelieveyou" [4]. Widefox 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, so? If I edit anonymously, does that mean I should be indefinitely blocked? No. Same with Kilz. His or her browser lost session data, easy as that. --Iamunknown 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - going along with you...that means 130.111.76.121 is Kilz's IP right? no, it's University of Maine. Kilz said he has a static IP of 67.175.233.209 [5] [6] (Comcast Illinois). Either coincidence about Illinois/Swiftfox or sock/meatpuppet. 4 single issue editors is quite a coincidence! Widefox 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - please see 1. Kilz admitting he is slurring Swiftfox out of spite "Maybe it is spite." [7] ...end of that thread he was told to take the argument off the forum mozillazine forum 2. Kilz was forced to takedown Swiftfox binaries for license violation [8] involving Ubuntu forum staff. 3. Swiftfox forum ban [9]. 4. complaint about Kilz bickering over Swiftfox in Ubuntu forum [10]. More links to more problems in Kilz talk archive. Widefox 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(unin

Anyone who edits and changes something that Widefox doesnt like is now a puppet in his opinion. My IP is static, the admins can check and see that it is still the same. That others are editing and changing things should be no suprize on Wikipedia. That they may disagree with Widefox has nothing to do with me. Even with the knowledge that one is from the University of Maine he still claims one to be a sockpuppet. Has Widefox filed any reports of suspected sockpupptry? Not that I can find, Why? Because he doesnt want to be proved wrong imho.Kilz 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Widefox's next tactic to win a content disagreement is to dreg up more old dirt. He cant prove that 1+1=3 though. He cant prove from my edits or position that I want anything but the truth and all information to be as truthful as possible. Kilz 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I need an admin to step-back and look at the whole picture - Kilz is a self-confessed slurrer of Swiftfox/Jason Halme [11]. What measures do I have, and you guys have to protect wikipedia Swiftfox from this situation? He currently has a green light to whitewash his user page! Widefox 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at your picture Widefox. In order to win a content disagreement Widefox reasorts to a ad hominem argument. Widefox has smeared and attacked me multiple times on multiple pages. Lied that I have been banned , said I have had problems on the Ubuntu forums where I have not(you only show baseless one sided complaints about me there, not any reprimands), said I am a puppeteer over and over(without filing any cases or reports). Written off consensus of 4 other editors(me and 3 others). Why? So that old, non reliable sourced, apples to oranges comparisons, and conflicting data can stay rather than be labeled so it can be replaced and updated. The so called slur (read in context)is reporting a license violation of foss code. The only thing I have removed from my talk is a personal attack, and per above instructions have left a diff link in its place. Kilz 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK we are getting somewhere - Kilz admits multiple complaints. None of which involve me BTW. Kilz - I repeat, see RfC for content dispute. I have provided links for all my claims.

Kilz has provided no evidence for the open claim of Vandalism on Talk:Swiftfox which has caused this escallation. Admins - Talk:Swiftfox please strikethrough that heading with my name in, as per WP:TALK. Widefox 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF says that we do not have to assume good faith with Kilz - a self-confessed Slurrer of Swiftfox[12], and liar (denying Swiftfox forum ban, problems on Ubuntu forum, claim I did Swiftfox (Pango), claims his IP was not blocked 48hrs etc). Widefox 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit nothing, do not put words in my mouth. Something you have a bad habit of doing. That one person on the Ubuntu forums may have made posts about me in no way makes them true. There was no slur on Mozillazine when the statment is read in context. I was not banned. That all this negitive dirt he (Widefox) finds doesnt add up to a hill of beans and is a ad hominem argument used to win a content conflict.Kilz 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Next, You did vandalize (blanking) Swiftfox by removing tags and requests for citations from the page that were placed there by me (requests for citations) and consensus of the editors (out of date and unreliable sources). He did so not to improve the article , but to hide the fact that statements he placed on the article were untrue. Some of those statements he later removed. Kilz 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg

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

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

Regrettably, Jayjg has decided to abuse his administrative powers by speedily deleting the image's placeholder from the English Wikipedia with the edit summary "enough is enough; restore the original image without your added commentary" [13]. He also posted to the talk page (addressed to me): "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." [14] Jayjg had previously played no part in the discussion on Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - this was his first edit to the talk page. (Added: the thing that has been deleted is a placeholder page categorising the image in two categories, not the image itself. The image is on the Commons. See my comments further down this thread for a detailed explanation.)

This is a blatant misuse of deletion authority for presumably POV reasons and is a completely unjustifiable personal attack as well. The map was not created for POV reasons. I've taken the time to explain every aspect of its creation and rationale on the talk page. As the talk page also shows, I've been working with the objecting editors to find a common solution, and I've directly asked them for their views ([15]) - how on earth is this "abusive"?. Instead, Jayjg has decided to short-circuit all of that by speedily deleting the image page, posting a personal attack and attempting to shut down the efforts to find a compromise. The deletion policy was ignored, bad faith was assumed and an unpleasant personal attack was posted out of the blue. As a former arbitrator (!) he of all people should know that isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Chris, Jay wasn't involved in the dispute and took admin action to sort it out. You were involved, yet you also speedied two of the images the dispute was about. On March 27, you speedied Image:Israel.png; Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg, and their talk pages, [16] [17] the first of which had posts about the dispute on it and probably shouldn't have been deleted.

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

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

Not so. I originally speedied because I uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. [18] Following the dispute over the categorisation, I modified the image to make the subject matter explicit (as explained at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png) and de-linked the original image on en:. I requested on the Commons that the image be deleted as it had been obsoleted; this was actioned yesterday. There was no need to retain a "placeholder" for a deleted Commons image here on en:. I also created File:Israel annotated topographic.jpg and uploaded that only to the Commons. Following comments on en:, I realised that the image name was both ambiguous and inaccurate - it isn't purely of Israel, and it isn't a topographic map (it's of the entire SE Mediterranean region and it's a satellite image). To resolve this I re-uploaded it to the Commons as Image:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg - the same image with a different filename and some more annotations - along with an explanation of its purpose (Image talk:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg). The original deletion requests are at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg. My preference would have been to move the images to new names and overwrite them with the updated versions, but the images had to be deleted rather than moved because the Commons software doesn't support moves (see Commons:FAQ#Technical questions). I did specifically ask about this - see Commons:Village pump#Image move request.

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

You deleted the Israel image twice; it's the March 27 deletion I'm talking about because the dispute was underway by then, and I don't really follow what you said above. CSD by author request where you're the author is fine, but only if there's no ongoing dispute. Can I ask why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png, which contained parts of the dispute? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. (Could you possibly post questions just in one place? It's a bit confusing if they're asked and answered more than once. Thanks in advance.) -- ChrisO 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

here's my personal perspective:

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

Since you've added your personal perspective, let me add mine. I've been creating maps for Wikipedia since 2004 for places as diverse as Greece, Ukraine, Niger, East Timor and Azerbaijan. Dozens of my maps are in use across numerous Wikipedias. I've never in nearly four years of editing had to face such a barrage of hostility over a map as I have over this one: "blatant idiocy" (sic) ([19]); "POV" ([20]); "attempt to place a POV" ([21]) and "increasingly abusive" ([22]). There seems to be a tendency among some users - you, Jaakobou are one, Jayjg is plainly another - to constantly assume bad faith on anything to do with edits on Middle Eastern matters that don't meet their personal POV. It's more than just inappropriate - it's creating a hostile and intimidatory atmosphere concerning the entire subject area on Wikipedia. I know people have strong feelings about the issues, but that isn't justification to constantly assume the worst of your fellow editors. -- ChrisO 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

(1) how does "What did you change other than the new POV title?"^[23] (by user User:Eric1985) was turned into just "POV" ?

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

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

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

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

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[24]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's evidently some confusion about exactly what's been deleted. The first version of the map, Image:Israel.png, was uploaded here by me by accident, but I deleted it immediately and re-uploaded it to the Commons. A placeholder page for that image at [25] was used by Timeshifter to categorise the map in the existing English Wikipedia categories Category:Maps of Israel and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. After it became clear that I had misnamed the file and the caption was insufficiently clear, I created a second version of the map, Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png, and uploaded that to the Commons. I requested the deletion of the original image on the Commons; this has now actioned and the original image no longer exists, which is why it shows as a redlink. I deleted the redundant placeholder page for the first image and created a new placeholder for the second one at [26]. This placeholder is what Jayjg deleted. -- ChrisO 11:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why you speedied Image talk:Israel.png? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 - Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. Don't forget the image was deleted from the Commons. I didn't think there was any point in keeping a talk page for a deleted image. -- ChrisO 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe as there was a dispute on it, it might have been worth keeping. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - at worst it should have been substed onto the talk page for the new image Orderinchaos 14:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's response

ChrisO was involved in a dispute about an image, and, from what I could tell, proceeded to delete the image and upload a different version, to further his own POV about what the image was about. I was not involved in a dispute regarding that image, but viewed ChrisO's actions as an abuse of admin powers, similar to his abuse of admin powers last week, when he protected the image while involved in an edit war over it, and subsequently deleted it. ChrisO seems to be playing fast and loose with his admin powers here, protecting, deleting and re-uploading modified versions of images when he gets into conflicts over them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the image is already on the Commons, and Future Perfect at Sunrise has since restored, then deleted the image, and Timeshifter has then restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this clear. First, I deleted the image from the English Wikipedia on 20 March, before all of this blew up, because I'd uploaded it to the wrong place - en: rather than Commons. The subsequent deletion of the same immage from the Commons was done by a Commons admin following an unopposed request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png. As the author of the image, I have an explicit right to ask for its deletion. Second, the accusation of "furthering my own POV about what the image was about" is utterly wrong - I said right from the start that the image was a map of Israel and the occupied territories. I then had the bizarre experience of users ignoring my stated reasons and in effect claiming I didn't know my own intentions. That's why I added an explicit rationale and statement of intent at Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png - to make it crystal clear why the image was created and what it was about. The change to the image caption and filename were similarly intended to make this clear. Third, you're mistaken (I'm assuming good faith here...) about your own previous involvement. I pulled this revert out of the edit history for Image:Israel.png: 03:17, 25 March 2007 . . Jayjg (Talk | contribs | block) (don't need a cat for one map).. Finally, the deletion of the placeholder page (not the image) at Image:Israel.png was undertaken because of the deletion of the image on the Commons. We simply don't need to have placeholders for deleted images.

But let's also get past your smokescreen and get to the heart of what this is about. You speedily deleted a page without giving any rationale beyond what I can only describe as an order directed at me. You were involved in a dispute over the previous version of the image. You issued a personal attack: "Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive." You assumed bad faith. You plainly had a POV objection, but didn't try discussing it with me or any of the other users on the talk page, who were trying in good faith to reach a common solution. I'm still not clear what your objection was, because you've never bothered to explain it to anyone (and still haven't). That sort of conduct would be unacceptable coming from any admin, but coming from a recent former arbitrator it's mindboggling. A few months ago you were voting to ban people who did exactly the same sort of things. -- ChrisO 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow mapmaker, I think I agree with ChrisO on this; he replaced an image he created and he uploaded with what he perceived to be a less POV version, and I personally agree with that assessment. My prescription for this is that we all sit down, calm down, and realize that after all of this discussion, deletion, reversion, etc., we seem to be exactly back where we were after ChrisO uploaded the new map and before Jayjg deleted things. In other words, I say we start over and discuss the merits of the new map, without getting into immediate accusations of POV and deletions. So, peace, y'all? --Golbez 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, frankly. :-) -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think ChrisO's latest version of the map may solve all the problems people had with the labeling and coloring of the map. Please see:

• Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png#Proposed new version. The new image is Image:Is-wb-gs-gh.png. --Timeshifter 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, much of the discussion on the map was editors telling you why it is not proper to unilaterally create a new map with an altered name to fit your new filename (the original UN map was titled 'Israel', which you reproduced in the first image, and altered to '...and the occupied territories' on the second), and then replace the original map across WP. That your response was to then delete the original both on WP and on the Commons (by proxy) is at the very minimum an improper use of your admin tools for the second time this week. For the record, between the new discussion and the still active one that you deleted, six editors objected to your move (Ynhockey's comments were deleted with the first page). I don't see how it is at all relevant to make presumptions of anyone's nationality (Three (presumably Israeli) users, your words above). I requested last week that you be more careful in using admin tools in content disputes - I can't say that these events show promise in that direction. Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself indefinitely here, so let me do it once more for the record: I created both images as an overview of Israel and the territories. I stated this explicitly at the time. Because the filename and caption were ambiguous, it promptly got jumped on by several users. I changed the filename and the caption to make the subject of the map explicitly clear in the image itself. -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the crux of the issue - you decided to modify/label/name the new images as "...and occupied territories", which is a content decision, despite the original UN image only being titled "Israel". That would be fine if discussion then formed a consensus declaring that a better description than the original UN image's, but instead you unilaterally enforced the change (with admin tools - deletion, hence AN/I) while the discussion was ongoing (Talk reflects that your changes are what "promptly got jumped on by several users"). That this comes on the tail of a previous misuse of admin tools on your part a week ago (on this very image) is why there is so much concern. Please show us that you realise what the problem is and that you'll be more careful about it. Tewfik^Talk 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tewfik here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well stated by Tewfik. Jaakobou 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I might take your comments more seriously if they didn't come from three members of a POV-pushing clique, the activities of which are well known to and deplored by a number of admins, not just myself (see also [27]). I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision as a cautionary lesson. -- ChrisO 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:CIVIL; your intemperate remarks are most unseemly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris0 for your side of the story, and the very enlightening links. As a participant in most of this, I must be seeing something completely different from what Tewfik is seeing. Tewfik's characterizations of what happened seem very inaccurate. To sum it up, you, Chris0 have been trying to create content, and to modify it at the request of discussion on talk pages. Tewfik and Jayjg have not been creating content. Tewfik has been trying very hard to eliminate this map category, Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. That has already been discussed on the incident board on March 26, 2007. Until recently that desire on his part to eliminate the map category is all he clearly discussed on the talk page for the map in question (Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png). On April 1, Jayjg deleted that modified UN map with the cryptic edit summary of "enough is enough." His comment on the talk page was, "I've deleted the image; restore the original, without your added commentary. Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough." That was his first participation on the talk page for that map. This was several days after Chris0 had asked, "Would it be more acceptable if the map was recaptioned 'Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights' - eliminating the collective term 'territories' altogether?" So I see great effort by Chris0 to discuss changes and to accommodate people, and little or no effort to engage in current discussion from Tewfik and Jayjg. It is all on the talk page: Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. Tewfik and Jayjg seem to be mad about some perceived problems from days before. I thought that was taken care of in a previous discussion on the incident board here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#Use_of_admin_tools_in_content_dispute --Timeshifter 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I call it as I see it. As I see it, many of the Middle East articles - not my normal subject area by any means - are being used as soapboxes by a group of editors (including a few admins) who are seeking to impose a specifically right-wing American/Israeli POV. In the process, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT are frequently being ignored or bent; bad faith is assumed of anyone who doesn't share their POV; attempts to fix problems with articles are being reverted without discussion; fringe sources are preferred over the mainstream; editors who aren't part of the clique are denounced as biased, disruptive or abusive. I should add that there are of course editors who are biased, disruptive and abusive in editing Middle East articles, but accusations of such conduct seem to be made at the drop of a hat.

As an example of a grossly bad article produced by this clique, I'll point to Muhammad al-Durrah - I've never edited it but it's plain from the article's history that the clique has been fighting off any attempts to make the article conform with NPOV and ATT. The entire article is written from a conspiracy theorist's POV, using fringe sources, with POV-pushers removing references to The Guardian and BBC News on the grounds that neither organization is a reliable source (!). That's comparable to writing Barbara Olson exclusively from the POV of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and junking anything CNN says on the subject because it doesn't suit the conspiracy theorist's POV. This sort of behaviour is totally at odds with our aim of producing neutral, reliably sourced articles, and it's going to end up in an arbitration sooner or later. If you'd like to improve Wikipedia in a small way, might I suggest that you try fixing that article so that it conforms with our basic policies? -- ChrisO 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, in fairness, you edit from a strong POV yourself. You're currently trying to suggest at Zombietime that only the United States regards Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, [28] and that the views of people who support those groups are only regarded as extreme in the context of U.S. politics, [29] which is demonstrably false. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the U.S. Several countries other than the U.S. regard Hezbollah or its external security arm as a designated terrorist organization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have seen what you are doing now many times from many editors and several admins. I ask that you apologize to Chris0 for the smear and slander implied by your above comment. If you don't see the smear and slander then I ask you to reread what you wrote, follow the links, and put everything in context. If you still can't see the smear and slander, I ask you to consider resigning as an admin. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to see why this is not a personal attack on my part. It is a formal request I am making on an administrators' noticeboard concerning the content of your remarks, and not about your character. Like Tewfik, you are inaccurately characterizing things, assuming bad faith, and generally assuming the worst about someone. I have lived outside the USA for several years. So I know somewhat of what Chris0 is saying. Chris0 is eminently NOT editing from a strong POV, as you say. Quite the opposite. He is being very NPOV. The fact that you don't see it is disturbing, but understandable. It is the reason for the existence of the project I linked to. --Timeshifter 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how merely pointing out widely available facts about a militant terrorist organization can be conflated to slandering a user.Bakaman 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest anything of the sort, as you very well know, and Timeshifter is right to characterise your comments as slanderous. Let me point out that I myself said that Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in several countries other than the US, including my own (see Talk:Zombietime#Terrorist organisations, well before you tried to pin this "terrorist-supporter" tag on me. The point I've been making all along is that there is no universal agreement on what is or is not a terrorist organisation. You and I happen to think that Hamas, Hezbollah etc are terrorist organisations. Others do not. This is a statement of plain fact, not POV. Frankly, you seem to make a habit of this sort of deliberate twisting of someone else's comments and ad hominem accusations of POV. Stop it now. -- ChrisO 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, what happened here is very simple. You posted a very critical post (some might even call it abusive) about a fellow admin, accusing him of abusing his tools. Other people spoke up, either in defense of him or pointing out similar behavior from you. You responded by attacking or dismissing most of them.

They may be more right than you, or you may be more right than them. Who knows. What is clear is that you seem to feel you may criticize people, but if they criticize you, it is outrageous. You may call other people POV pushers, but if anyone feels you also push a POV, it is slander.

All I can say is that whatever applies to others, applies to you too. If you are allowed to criticize, so are they, and I supplied diffs that clearly support what I said to you. I think you should take Golbez's advice (which you seemed to agree with) and let this go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with being criticised. I do have a problem with being criticised unfairly, which is what's happened here. I also do have a problem with being targeted by a partisan clique, and I do object to NPOV, OR, V and the rest being systematically trampled. Likewise I do have a problem when someone misuses his privileges for nakedly partisan reasons, which is why I posted here in the first place. I don't intend to reopen the dispute on that particular topic and I'll leave further discussions of the clique to possible future arbitrations, but at least for now it's on the record. Let's all take Golbez's good advice and call it a day for now. -- ChrisO 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't want to keep on posting about this, but I have to point out that shortly after my post above from today, you voted oppose to ATT, in part on the grounds that you are "concerned that some of the proponents may have ulterior motives in pushing this so hard. [30] That is so thoroughly out of order and below the belt it leaves me almost speechless. If you're talking about me, I've worked very hard to develop and maintain V and NOR for two years because I don't want to see Wikipedia publish unsourced nonsense. I worked hard for months to develop ATT because I feel it's a clearer rendition of the V and NOR concepts. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can't imply there was an "ulterior motive" without saying what and who and giving diffs; and it's not clear what such a motive could possibly be, given that the two pages say the same thing. I'll leave it to others here to judge whether your responses in this thread have been reasonable or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about you. If I was, I would have said so. I've seen claims that the change is being pushed as a means of undermining the policies rather than reforming them. I'm not inclined to believe that, but I want to take the time to be sure that there is no undermining, whether accidental or otherwise. You know as well as I do that unfriendly eyes are watching the debate and hoping that we stumble. We have to get this right. (I've updated my comment on the poll to make this clear.) -- ChrisO 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a proponent of ATT, and I was very troubled that you lodged that comment on the poll right after the dialogue on SV's talk page. I'm wondering who you were you talking about? Also, I just checked the poll, and I don't see that you've changed the comment; I wish you would because it is below the belt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We all know that the debate is being watched by people hostile to Wikipedia. There have been claims about Jayjg and SlimVirgin's involvement which I won't repeat here and haven't repeated in the poll, and which for the record I don't believe for a moment, especially not in SlimVirgin's case given all the work she's put into this. Unfortunately both Jayjg and SlimVirgin's prominence in editing controversial articles has made them a target for many unjustified claims of improper behaviour. If a perception develops among the Wikipedia community that such a fundamental change is being forced through for improper reasons, that's going to be absolutely disastrous for our reputation - far worse than the Essjay affair and potentially causing permanent damage to the community. We absolutely have to avoid this. I support the objective of streamlining existing policies, but we need to take more time, use more patience and get the politics right. My approach to this issue is a strictly Fabian one. Regarding the comment clarification, it looks like I posted it a matter of seconds after you posted your message above. -- ChrisO 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, this isn't fair. You're repeating nonsense from Wikipedia Review. For a start, Jay had nothing to do with developing ATT. Secondly, there is no fundamental change. Third, hundreds of editors have looked at it, commented on it, and helped to develop it, including editors who worked on V and NOR. I helped to develop V and NOR in their current form, so if ATT is tainted, then so are the others. You really are out of order. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not repeating WR (didn't I just say I wasn't citing or repeating any claims?). I'm saying that claims have been made by hostile parties, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that other potentially hostile parties - the media, members of the community who don't like ATT, the external trolls - don't buy into those claims. That doesn't mean I'm calling for you to step aside - absolutely not. It does mean that we have to avoid giving any impression that the process is stacked. Time, patience and better politics. -- ChrisO 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! After I post about smears, slanders, and not assuming good faith on the part of Tewfik and SlimVirgin, we are now into using mind-reading and comment timing as tools for assuming the worst about people. Please resign, SlimVirgin. You did not even bother with the courtesy of a reply to the substance of my comment. Instead, you escalated your personal attack on Chris0. --Timeshifter 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think demands for resignation are either called for or necessary. SlimVirgin is commenting in good faith, even if I think she's wrong in some regards. :-) -- ChrisO 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If SlimVirgin is commenting in good faith, then I suggest she needs to check herself. I also suggest that she, and as many other people as possible, join these wikipedia projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I wholeheartedly support WP:NPOV, and I am a member of all of those projects. SlimVirgin needs to step out of her clique in my opinion. And I am not a terrorist-supporting torturer who cooks kittens in the microwave. As these diffs suggest concerning SlimVirgin.... To quote SlimVirgin, "I supplied diffs that clearly support what I said". Oh, and here are some more ...

Back to the original topic. If people want to know the current and past discussion concerning the map modifications, then please go to: Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png rather than believing the inaccurate characterizations of Tewfik, Jayjg, and SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin wrote: "Other people spoke up, either in defense of him [Jayjg] or pointing out similar behavior from you [Chris0]." What actually happened was that there was a near consensus of admins who disagreed with Jayjg's deletion of the map. --Timeshifter 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the inflamatory rhetoric. You must exhibit minimal restraint. El_C 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was using sarcastic humor. SlimVirgin was using inflammatory rhetoric. Do admins get a pass? But I will desist in using SlimVirgin's tactic, even in my twisted humorous form. --Timeshifter 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Abuse of Images and POV by ChrisO

i've just had the idea of inspecting the original UN file attached on the image in question:

Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png

the original PDF was not only altered in the "green areas" but also in the "UN Title" which was changed from "Israel" to "Israel and the occupied territories".^{original PDF image}

perhaps, there is a case non the less for all the fuss around ChrisO's editing? Jaakobou 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the rather important points that (a) from the start I explicitly created the map as an overview of Israel and the occupied territories, not just Israel, so the caption needed to make that clear ; and (b) more fundamentally perhaps, we're not allowed to use unmodified UN maps. They have to be modified else they don't comply with the UN license, which I negotiated with the UN in the first place - see Template:UN map and Template talk:UN map. -- ChrisO 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the UN not allow us to use maps unless modified? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't mind derivative works, but they have a strict policy on the original maps: "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web." [31] Derivative works are OK as long as they don't claim to have been authored by the UN. -- ChrisO 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do explain how you personally overviewed^(a) the designation to disputed territories (a.k.a. "somewhat an attempt to place a POV" - User:Shuki) without abuse of this image and POV. Jaakobou 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

issue seems to be progressing for now. Jaakobou 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog

After AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made highly POV edits such as changing collapse to demolition, etc., and here as well then libeled a person here for which we have a bio in a seperate article (Larry Silverstein), I reverted this vandalism and posted a vandalism test level 2 warning on AumakuaSatori's usertalk[32]. AumakuaSatori changed 7 World Trade Center collapsed to 7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein. This wasn't an innocent mistake, it was an overt effort to defame Larry Silverstein and vandalize the article. Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then reverted my warning and instead added a welcome template to this same editors talkpage with the edit summary "replace inappropriate warning with welcome template". Guinnog then proceeded to my talkpage to warn me claiming he didn't see anything wrong "I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article."...as if libel is now an improvement I suppose.[33]. Guinnog has harassed me for about a day now about this, seemingly unable to see that there was nothing inappropriate about me warning another editor about obvious vandalism. It should be noted that Guinnog has made threats to further escalate what is much ado about nothing, I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error...in fact I did zero wrong and his removal of my vandalism warning to instead welcome an editor who libelled another person is highly inappropriate. His ongoing badgering about a lot of nothing is certainly not becoming in an administrator...his "guarantee to take it further" is also highly inappropriate and I see it as a threat to make a poor administrative decision on his part, especially since this is an article that he has had disagreements with me in the past, and his behavior in regards to this same article was a major issue by those who opposed his request for adminship. Perhaps someone can ask him to stop harassing me about a whole lot of nothing, and stop falsely accusing me of vandalism yet he does nothing about AumakuaSatori who libelled a third party. Guinnog was cautioned here about making threats of admin action during this ongoing nonsense.--MONGO 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please note, the user who reported is removing comments in support of Guinnog under the guise of "RV Vandal" see this diff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'm so special (talk • contribs) 10:23, 2007 April 1.

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[34]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think Guinogg exercised poor judgment in reverting MONGO and leaving a message on MONGO's page. Guinogg was involved in the article. It is inappropriate to act as both a contributor and an administrator as it has a chilling effect on contributions. At most he should have simply expressed his viw as an editor on MONGO's talk page without reversion and without an administrator warning. That would have given MONGO the choice of amending the warning to be more specific or taken no action. Guinogg's next choice should have been to bring it here for comment. But ating unilaterally was inappropriate considering his involvement. --Tbeatty 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely by User:JzG for blatant violations of POV and BLP. Clearly MONGO acted correctly and User:Guinnog was wrong to defend him. --rogerd 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AumakuaSatori made edits which were POV and BLP violations. No, MONGO did not correctly deal with those as POV and BLP problems, but rather incorrectly as 'vandalism'. No, Guinnog did not defend AumakuaSatori and was not wrong to tell MONGO to stop misusing the vandalism template.

Guinnog was acting, correctly, under the guidance of things like WP:AGF and WP:BITE... new users doing things they shouldn't may simply not know / understand. The proper response is to calmly inform them of things like NPOV and verifiability. It is certainly possible that this was a sockpuppet, troll, or new but equally intractable user who would never comply with policy... but usually we tell them about those policies and block them after they continue to violate them, not before. If we've reached the point where it is wrong to give new users the benefit of the doubt / tell them what is actually wrong with their edits we should ditch WP:BITE and rewrite WP:AGF to make clear that in only applies to 'established contributors'. --CBD 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a standard vandalism warning....indeed, the editing hisory of this probable sock account has at least one other BLP violation and vandalism as well. Replacing my warning with a welcome is ridiculous. AGF didn't seem to apply to me...so obviously "admins" such as yourself and Guinnog would rather AGF of vandals than established editors...how interesting.--MONGO 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just belatedly come across this thread (I'm travelling with limited internet access this week). The violation of WP:LIVING, WP:VERIFIABILITY/ATTRIBUTION, and common decency involved in posting that Larry Silverstein obviously blew up his own building on 9/11 is extremely serious. I don't care precisely what warning template is used, but assertions of that nature must never be allowed to remain posted on Wikipedia, much less being restored by an experienced editor or administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That assertion wasn't' "allowed to remain", wasn't "restored by an experienced editor or administrator", wasn't 'endorsed' by anyone, et cetera. Unfortunately, a less than accurate picture of events has been painted. --CBD 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see that "reverted" referred to the warning, not the original editor, so you can consider my concern modified accordingly. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing Guinnog's note on MONGO's talk page and then the words 'demolition' and 'collapse' I knew immediately what article was being talked about. I'd thought to try to educate him how readily recognizable AumakuaSatori's 'edit' was, but in finishing up my comment I found Guinnog had been at the page for quite a long time, and must know it was a bad edit. I backed off, not knowing what to think. And then re-reading his comment to MONGO, there was "I'd like to see you use discussion and references to reliable sources rather than labelling them a vandal. I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article." That shook me, because if Guinnog had been anywhere near the article for any length of time, and knew MONGO had been too, his comment was pure nitroglycerin. Given my perceptions at the time, and after checking around, I guess I have to take exception to any summarizing that Guinnog was acting correctly with respect with another editor, MONGO. Read the talk page, check the page histories, re-read his initial comment, Guinnog was being provocative. Shenme 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider the situation to be water under ther bridge now, so long as people will not spend hours badgering me about warning another editor about vandalism.--MONGO 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. To paraphrase Airplane!, "Looks like I picked the wrong weekend to move house...". I considered the situation to be already water under the bridge when I last spoke to MONGO about it on Saturday evening when I apologised to him. I admit (as I already admitted to MONGO) that I was wrong to replace his bad warning template with a welcome one; I should have also added a more accurate warning in the 15 minutes before Tbeatty did, instead of getting into an unproductive discussion with MONGO about it, and I thank Tbeatty for that. I never used or threatened to use admin powers over the matter.

The edit which I promised to take further if MONGO failed to correct it was his mistaken reversion with unhelpful edit summary of my (fairly non-controversial) attempt to edit the article, something I have incidentally very seldom done. MONGO explained that he "thought [he] was reverting the vandalism by the anon (sic)". A look at Help:Reverting might be in order; "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." and "Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly". One ought to at least read the edit one is reverting, I think.

I take heed of the opinions of others here, and I note with sadness that some have commented on the matter who clearly have not researched what actually happened. I have always understood that WP:BLP applies to users here as much as to anyone else, and vandalism warnings should not be misapplied by anyone. WP:BITE dictates that we assume good faith in newbie users; I found it instructive how little good faith was assumed on my part. As CBD says, if this is now to be the way that AGF is implemented, perhaps we need to edit the policy to make it clear that it only applies to established users.

Nonetheless I accept that I did not handle the situation in the best way. As JzG says, I should have sent MONGO a note querying his use of the template first of all, rather than changing the template. I thank I'm so special, Chacor and Newyorkbrad for alerting me to this centralised discussion, something MONGO failed to do.

Next time I see MONGO misapply vandalism warnings I think I will bring it straight here and let others who MONGO may feel are more neutral deal with it. As I already said, I sincerely hope there will not be a next time. --Guinnog 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time you harass me about nothing, and make the mistakes you have made over this affair, I won't waste time with an Rfc, I'll take it straight to arbcom. His edits were vandalism, read all about it. Nevertheless, JzG took care of that, he's blocked now, something you should have done yourself if you were an impartial administrator.--MONGO 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I... I don't know if I can say anything bad about someone who paraphrases Airplane!. You've caused quite an internal conundrum.

As for your apology, I will sheepishly admit that I missed it; I had looked through your contribs but somehow glanced right over that one.

But seriously, we don't need to issue total good faith to these folks. I very much doubt that, when pointed out that his theory was not welcome, he would have said, "Oh, pardon me sirs, I won't do it again, I'll go over here and edit an article on grasses". However, I cannot read his mind.

Perhaps a vandal template was the wrong thing to do. But a nice note saying that their theories aren't welcome here? That might be nice.

Either way, I apologize for the brash tone of my comments above. Thank you for responding. --Golbez 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was going to be the substance of my comment at the time to User:MONGO (which I also deleted out of trepidation at the situation). Not finding an applicable template, and knowing that editor's time is precious, I was going to suggest that for situations like this which could be foreseen, perhaps a cut-n-paste text from a sub-page would be helpful. Something that says this same subject edit has been made N to the N times before, and could the contributor please read the talk page archives first, then bring up any new discussion areas on the current talk page, as mere repetition is not a good thing (which is why the revert was done). Of course, maybe the user warning templates people just haven't edited pages where the same edits have been seen literally 20, 30, 50 times before? Could we suggest creating a new template, or else they have to watchlist these pages? :-) Shenme 07:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND at the top, clearly starts that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."...the edit made by the former contributor in question was overt vandalism in an effort to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...and libel. Guinnog has been backpedaling and goading the issue since he failed to act appropriately in his adminstrative capacity to ensure the vandal wouldn't make the same horrendus mistake again. It's hard to admit when your wrong, and Guinnog does so here only by trying to continue to falsely accuse me of misapplication of a standard warning template.--MONGO 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before (and I was blocked for it), and I'll say it again - can't we just let this go. Guinnog is obviously willing to do so -- I'm so special 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is filing a frivolous checkuser request the way you normally let things go? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

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

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

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

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

Oppose block. Let's see, I'm so special voices an opinion that is removed twice. When he complains, Chacor fishes up an edit that is a day old and you decide that warrants a 48-hour block? Blocks are preventative; your block prevented nothing. --Edokter (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The account is an obvious single-purpose trolling account - the diff was to prove that it's just another troll. – Chacor 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA and WP:TROLL are esseys, not even guidelines. I still fail to see how this block is warranted, especially since I can't even see any incivility from I'm So Special. I still think MONGO and Ryulong are out of line here. --Edokter (Talk) 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he/she actually is missing the point Chacor. I'm actually confused as to how that proves trolling? Could you maybe enlighten us? -- I'm so special 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has filed a checkuser request on Chacor and MONGO. (which has been marked as non-compliant) On another note, please tone town your signature. --Michael Billington (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me

Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody. Really sorry to be here again but his relentless creepy preoccupation with me just seems to have no end! Looks like clear misuse of the Editor Review process. Suggest a block so he really gets it that he should go edit articles or something and leave me alone. (He does edit mostly naval articles, I mean also better invest the time he wastes being preoccupied with me and misusing the processes here to pursue said preoccupation) Other than Barbara Schwarz a while back, he and I do not edit together!! Unlike User:Smee and I who do edit in the same articles and who have a beef over that editing that we are actually maybe getting somewhere with (see my talk). It has been suggested to me privately that, due to his name being analogous to mine and his preoccupation with me, that he might be an SPA with the sole purpose of getting me, the sole Scientologist that actually does anything in the Scientology articles, the hell off Wikipedia. Given this latest and his continued activity at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3, I am starting to agree with that unnamed Wikipedian. Also, there are also indications in his talk that he was also misusing the RfA process to "get answers". See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody and User talk:Anynobody#Comment on your RfA

"I've actually been trying to get people to notice the first WP:RfC and how it got deleted anyway, so even if I don't get accepted I can get some feedback about issues I've wanted for a while. It's kinda hard to explain, so if this isn't making sense I apologize. For now I'll wait to blow up on my Death Star to get some answers."

Now I clearly see the pattern. (Pattern of harassment, I should mention. (add 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC))) --Justanother 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (add 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

• Well, I won't block Anynobody for trolling, and I doubt anybody else will either. But otherwise I agree with Justanother: this Editor review is a mere troll. I was just thinking of taking it to ANI myself. It's an attack page, lightly disguised as a request for review of Anynobody's dispute resolution skills—and guess what, the example dispute turns out to be that between Anynobody and Justanother— very inventive! And as JA points out, it comes on top of some very strange use by AN of other processes, notably a rather frivolous RFA devoted to attacks rather than any realistic attempt to attain adminship. I should declare an interest here: I'm one of the people attacked, see especially the RFA talkpage. Anyway, I recommend people to take a look at this request for editor review, it's quite a document. In my opinion it should be deleted as misuse of process. Being one of Anynobody's targets, I won't delete it myself, but somebody might like to. Anynobody, please stop all this, leave Justanother and the other people you resent alone. Abandon the idea that you must triumph over your "enemies" at all costs, walk away. I honestly think you'll feel better. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I concur with the above opinion. It was my feeling that, even if the user is gaming the system, the system needs to be honored somewhat. If there were 48 hours without actual progress from someone other than Anynobody at the editorial review, I was going to delete it. If there were 24 hours without any comment from another party, then I would delete it. The point is that this is trolling, but trolls are best starved, not whacked. At the peril of again being misread, I suggest that these are virtual tarbabies: the more you strike them, the more you stuck you are, and so few people are listening or interested in what Anynobody is saying that I suspect it can fail with a whimper. Geogre 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's attack page

Upon recommendation from Admin Tom Harrison, I tagged User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) as attack pages, with {{Db-attack}}. These were promptly removed by Justanother (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), with edit summary: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem. In light of the discussion and subsequent speedy deletion of material relating to User:Justanother, it is in-line with this same sort of thinking to delete this attack page as well. Smee 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• The User was most recently blocked for: "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA" Smee 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Below is the entire exchange from Tom Harrison's talk page. As you can see Tom recognized my draft for what it was, preparation for a formal action on User:Smee. My comment below sums up my position. Thank you. --Justanother 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion

• You recently speedily deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody, saying at WP:ANI: "I have speedy-deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page." I would appreciate it if you would do the same for another attack page, User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see complete similarity - it looks to me like preparations for an RfC, but I could be missing something. You might nominate it for deletion with a {{Template:Db-attack}}, or take it to misc. for deletion. ^Talk 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Smee 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Tom. Thanks for your help with the phony Editor Review. Yes, you are right, that is the beginnings of an RfC or ArbCom on User:Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Certainly my user space is the appropriate place for me to work on it. It goes without saying that those are charges against Smee that I intend to pursue. Another editor has already added his experience. After Smee's promise to reform and as a sign of good faith (please see my User Talk) I have put it on hold. If I see a turnaround then I will save it off-wiki and delete the page. I must say, however that, so far, reviews are mixed on Smee. A couple positives but a few negatives too including misrepresentation on my talk page and her unwillingness to accept that I will not delete the page until I see some change. She very much wants the cart before the horse. But I remain hopeful. Thanks for your time. --Justanother 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova)‎. --Justanother 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF?

Tom Harrison:

• Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on Justanother?
• I was asking for a review of how I've dealt with Justanother, how can you see that as a back door RfC on him?
• Why did you delete it without contacting me?
• Did you even read it?

Please restore my WP:ER, asking experienced uninvolved editors for feedback on me isn't a personal attack because the comments are supposed to be about me. Anynobody 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 2 --Justanother 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team trolling/harassment

Please note tag-team trolling/harassment of me by User:Smee and User:Anynobody. Wherever one goes with his frivilous trolling activities the other follows in support and vice versa. --Justanother 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION Justanother how is asking for a review of my behavior towards you either A) Trolling or B) Harassment? Anynobody 04:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: - This was the edit summary of Justanother: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem - DIFF - Therefore, my taking it to AN/I is not "trolling" in fact it was simply respecting Justanother's wishes. Smee 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Basta

Honestly, this is one of those occasions where we really need to feed no food. People can prepare RFC's in their private spaces. People abusing the rules in order to simply say the same things over and over is no good. In fact, abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again" is abuse. Tom, don't answer. Smee and Anynobody, let go of your grievance. Justanother, archive your evidence, if those guys do as they have been urged/admonished to do. If folks keep going, we're going to escalate to blocking stages, and that would make me very unhappy. Geogre 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, your recommendation of archiving is an interesting idea. It should be noted that User:Justanother could be said to be abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again", as well... Yours, Smee 11:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Draft deleted by author

As a sign of good faith and in the hope that User:Smee can make her promised changes in behaviour, I have {{db-authored}} my draft RfC/ArbCom User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) --Justanother 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Katie Melua

There is an edit war happening on the Katie Melua page[35]. The dispute is about whether an article from the News of the World newspaper, stating that she has had a lesbian affair, should be used as a source on the page. Hera1187 14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With one more revert, the anon can be blocked based on 3RR. Rlevse 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I'm not sure if the anon user is right or wrong about the validity of the source. What is the policy on newspaper's allegations and their place on Wikipedia? Hera1187 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A tabloid newspaper that has been frequently successfully sued for libel shouldn't be used as a reliable source for that allegation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

blatant violations of WP:BLP by User:Zero0000

This editor has a content dispute with several other editors at United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, over the inclusion of some criticism of UNRWA. The criticism is sourced to a reliable source - the Weekly Standard, and to one of their journalists - David Tell. User:Zero0000, who does not like the criticism, has taken to describing the journalist as a "liar", an "unrelaible extremist" and "gutless", and decribing his work as "blood libel", "lies" and "trash"- all based on nothing more than his personal opinions. He has been warned to stop this behaviour several times. Isarig 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a reliable source but a trashy extreme-right rumor mill. Just because it publishes obvious lies about someone doesn't mean that we have to quote them in Wikipedia. Note that this rubbish appears in David Tell's vitriolic attack on a named UN official (a LIVING PERSON, just like David Tell, but that is fine, apparently). I'm entitled, indeed required, to maintain standards, which is what I am trying to do. I've asked repeatedly for a reliable source for these wild assertions, which is supposed to be an official document of the United Nations but for which not even a vague citation has been given. That's because it doens't exist. --Zero^talk 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, you need to be careful about calling the work of a journalist "lies," especially in edit summaries, because they're hard to get rid of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions of The Daily Standard, but it meets all the requirements of WP:RS, and is a reliable source. David Tell is a journalist , with a WP article. Do you think it would be OK to edit his page and add a paragraph that says 'David Tell is a a gutless liar and an unreliable extremist, whose work at the Daily Standard consists of publishing blood libels? ' If so, I submit you do not understand WP policy, and should not be editing it until you do. If it is unacceptable to write those things at David Tell, it is unacceptable to write them in edit summaries or Talk pages discussing him. Isarig 15:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if you don't accept that I've provided sufficient sourcing, labelling The Weekly Standard "trashy" and its reporting "lies" or a "blood libel" from an "unreliable extremist" on Talk and in edit summaries [36][37] is extremely unhelpful to any discussion, especially since the damning evidence consists of it being a "neoconservative political magazine" [and "favors subjectivity over objectivity", a mischaracterisation on your part of a half-serious interview on its WP entry], in addition to BLP concerns regarding the reporter in question, David Tell. Furthermore, it is not at all accurate that myself or Isarig included any [alleged] "vitriolic attacks" on anyone in the entry or Talk, and I take offence at that assertion. I truly hope that you will return to dispassionately discuss content on its merits alone without any of these kinds of statements. Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCann, Chief, Public Information Office, UNRWA Headquarters Gaza, writes, in part that: The Weekly Standard's characterization of Peter Hansen, UNRWA's Commissioner General as an anti-Semitic "peasant-in-chief" is pure slander and an insult to the intelligence of the magazine's readership. David Tell responds in part that: One of the books in question, for instance, turned out to include such evocative lessons as this: "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should beware of them"; UNRWA's researchers advised the State Department {{fact}} that the phrase could not fairly be considered offensive because it described actual "historical events." ^{(from [38], bold is my emphasis)} Perhaps this unsourced statement in good enough for the standards of the Weekly Standard, but I hardly see why they should be good enough for Wikipedia. Which researchers; what role do they hold within the organization; how did UNRWA leadership respond to this, and so on, are rather pressing questions considering how damning that passage is. It is well known that the PNA curriculum has taken an antisemitic turn in par with the Syrian one, but we do need more conclusive evidence than unsourced statements by WS alleging UNRWA's complicity, complacency, or whatever. El_C 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard clearly meets WP:RS; in terms of accuracy, it's much better than many British newspapers that are freely cited by Wikipedia without controversy. Zero has severe problems with the Wikipedia NPOV policy, and has had similar tendentious edits in the Israel Shahak article. Include the Weekly Standard cite and McCann's rebuttal and let readers decide. -- THF 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly "clear" and scarcely responds to anything I said. And at any rate, "McCann's rebuttal" is absent from the entry. El_C 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The TWS piece quoted is a response to that rebuttal, and no one ever requested it be included. This isn't really related to the post here, which is concerned with the disparaging language that is really out of place in any context, what appears to be the demands beyond those required by RS standards based seemingly on this publication being right of centre, and the removal not just of the "offending" sentence, which could easily be replaced with one of several phrases, but the whole passage, including parts sourced to additional references. Tewfik^Talk 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. El_C 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't see? Do you not see the disparaging nature of of calling a reporter a "liar", "gutless" and his work "blood libel"? Isarig 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that; I don't see how it "includ[es] parts sourced to additional references." El_C 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? I'm complaining about a BLP violation, not discussing the content dispute here. Isarig 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is alleging "slander" on Tell's part, the journalist whom you are quoting without qualifications. El_C 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is not a WP editor, and didn't make these claims on WP - I couldn't care less what he writes. WP editors can't make these kind of comments, or do you think I can go and edit David Tell and write "He's a slanderer", because some UNRWA official alleges it? Isarig 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like particularly rigorous scholarship, at any rate. El_C 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

again - what does this have to do with my complaint? Is it your opinion that it's ok to violate BLP, so long as we do it to people who allegedly don't exhibit particularly rigorous scholarship? Isarig 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'm no longer going to respond to this line of questioning. El_C 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by this response. You seem to agree that it is inappropriate to call journalists "liars", "gutless" or describe their work as "blood libel" - why do you find it so hard to say this? Isarig 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already said it is inappropriate. El_C 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But I also find it inappropriate to use that quote without applying more rigorous scholarship into what it alleges, while citing WP:RS as the deus ex machina for wer'e-not-going-to-bother. El_C 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia; Wikipedia editors shouldn't describe journalists as "liars", "gutless", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor should Wikipedia editors hide behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects. NPOV, remember? --Calton | Talk 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any Wikipedia editors hiding behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects on that article. On the contrary, User:Zero0000 has been encouraged to make the article NPOV, by adding whatever counter claims he can source to WP:RS. Instead, he chose to continue his inappropriate violations of WP:BLP. Isarig 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An unqualified charge of anti-semitism isn't an attack? What color is the sky on your planet? --Calton | Talk 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no substance to the claim that any personal attack was issued on anybody except for David Tell. His sourced piece being removed because he was "gutless", a "liar", committing a "blood libel" etc. undermine RS as well as BLP. Tewfik^Talk 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointing new users to external sites advocating wikipedia POV pushing

I'm not sure what policy this would fall under, but it seems like a really questionable thing to do. One editor here has been unable to insert his point of view into a particular article (COI as well) and has written an article on his website detailing what he thinks is wrong with wikipedia in general, and this specific article, as well as instructing readers to come to wikipedia and "fix" these things. That's his business, he has every right to do that.

But recently an editor sent a newcomer a welcome message that included a link to this advocacy page ("For a perspective from another author on paranormal coverage in Wikipedia, go here."). This seems like a big conflict of interest and encouragement to do POV pushing (both the new editor and the one have already engaged in some blatant POV edits, and this seems like an attempt to recruit potential bodies to help in revert wars and such). I'd appreciate if an admin would take a look at this and either make a recommendation or take whatever action is appropriate. At the very least, is it appropriate to remove the link to the advocacy site? --Minderbinder 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is advertising, pov pushing, biting(good way to get a new user in trouble)... I am sure it violates more rules if I think harder. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We've had editors use modified {{welcome}} templates and other messages to new editors in the past to recruit for POV pushing, editing conflicts, or policy disagreements. I haven't yet seen a case where such spamming is useful or acceptable. Warn, and keep us posted here. If he keeps it up, he will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the EVP thing again. There were three or four EVP related AN/I sections in the last month or so, and it's Tom Butler's POV-Pushing again, after he got smacked down for it before. It's all COI, it's all bad faith agenda oriented mavericking, he's been tlaked to before, ban him and be done with it. ThuranX 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if article probation can be imposed without ArbCom, but if so, Electronic voice phenomenon would be a good candidate. I don't edit there, but there have already been 3 checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppets, a clear WP:COI, meatpuppetry and ongoing recruitment of meatpuppets, recurring AN/I threads, 3RR violations galore, etc... MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Community bans can be topic specific, right? --Minderbinder 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd do any good at all. He's been warned, over and over, discussed ad nauseum, and he continues. He won't stop because of a community ban. For the record, here is a list of those previous discussions (in part, there are porobably more on talk pages, etc.): [39], [40], [41]. ThuranX 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer Minderbinder's question, yes they can. Durova^Charge! 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Tom has caused problems and still is advocating for changes on EVP (and now Psychic, at Martinphi's request), he has limited himself to talk pages recently. The new editor was pointed to Tom's anti-wikipedia page by User:Martinphi. After the message was removed, he defended the post ("And if I want to do it again, I will. It is not against the rules.") [42] and reverted the removal of his advocacy link, calling it vandalism [43] (he later self reverted this). For any editors or admins who have had to deal with Martinphi, there's a user RFC starting up over his POV pushing and disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. I'd encourage people to give their opinion there. --Minderbinder 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has specifically ruled that using new-user welcome messages for advocacy or wikipolitical purposes is completely unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info (although Martinphi continues to insist that he did nothing wrong with the advocacy link [44]). --Minderbinder 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Drieakko

This user keeps pushing biased versions in certain articles, for example leaving out Finnish names, and names in other languages too, in Finland related articles, wrongly using the word Finnic instead of Finnish[45] or using the Swedish name of a unilingually Finnish speaking city.[46] It seems to be pro-Swedish vandalism. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko_Sivonen (talk · contribs) has been blocked 12 times, and four for violating NPA. Last time was Jan 20, when he was blocked for one month. He started editing in March again, again aggresively targetting the same set of articles with the same arguments. Isn't it time to take some further actions?

Fred-Chess 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem: you can't use my past to argument against my actions in the present time. You have to direct your arguments in my recent actions which have been, unlike you say, reasonable, even user: Jdej said so[47]. I think Wikipedia should take actions against you, for example permanently banning you. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While using your past to claim your present actions are wrong would be an ad hominem argument, that wasn't what he was doing. He was using your past to claim that your present actions (which he is asserting are wrong anyway) deserve more severe punishment as a repeat offender. --63.173.196.33 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

On cool wall, we had the list of cars on the Top Gear Cool Wall. Leaving aside the question of whether show segments are actually encyclopaedic, the list of cars form the cool wall is, as far as I can see, copyright of the show, just as the script is copyright, the lists from "top 100 foo" shows are copyright, and the singles chart is copyright. I removed it. I'm sure some examples would be fine. I could of course also be wrong. More eyes, please, at Talk:The Cool Wall. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of facts is (by US law, maybe different elsewhere) ineligible for copyright, only a list based on opinion is protected. If these cars where in fact shown on the segment (verifiability may be your real problem) Then the list is fine. Otherwise, if theres no verifiable list, then its an opinion-generated list, and not allowed. The reason music charts are copyrighted is because its not a simple list of how often a record was played and bought, its a complicated procedure involving equations that arent public, estimation and research. -M^ask 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's complicated, and has equations, 'sweat of the brow', etc, does not in itself make the end result copyrightable in the US. (note: I am, as always, not a lawyer) --Random832 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BassPlyr23 removing ifd tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg

I would like someone to volunteer to communicate with User:BassPlyr23. He has removed the {{ifd}} tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg three times [48] [49] [50]. Based on the tone on the messages he left me, I believe he would welcome a third part opinion more easily than he would welcome my opinion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What the image needs is the good fairuse rationale since this historic and non-reproduceable photo certainly qualifies for the specific article. It is hard to expect a newbie user to be able to come up with such rationale and Abu badali, an experienced image handler, if acting in good faith for the good of Wikipedia, should have helped a newbie user to write a good fairuse rationale rather than act in a way that would likely discourage the newcomer and turn him away from Wikipedia. IMO, Abu badali actions qualify as newbie biting and it is Abu badali who is to be taken to a woodshed about this, not a user who tries to contribute and does not know the wikilawyering rules yet. --Irpen 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To Abu badali: meh, I don't watch the images I tag with {{ifd}} to make sure tag stays on them. I just watch the IfD page to make sure the section isn't blanked. --Iamunknown 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to write a fair use rationale for this image because I see the rationale for using it (unless our own convenience). Feel free to fix the image if you can see more than I do. I did tried to explain the user what he needed to do about the rationale, and about removing the ifd tag, even after he suggested that I want the image removed because I wanted to praise "Palestinian terrorists "[51]. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I saw that and was pretty disgusted. Good job on remaining civil, though. :-) --Iamunknown 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image seems to be at a pretty high resolution (1000 px width) - I rather doubt that this qualifies per the requirements for "web-resolution screenshots". Do we define anywhere what "web-resolution" means? I've always taken it to mean thumbnail-type images of up to 400 px width or so. -- ChrisO 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - is it from the film? Was the film based on a real photograph of the atheletes? Can we claim {{fairusein}} rather than {{film-screenshot}}? Hbdragon88 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the quality of the photo and provided a fair use rationale. I still do not understand what prevented all the good people involved to do it earlier Alex Bakharev 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos Alex, you beat me to it. That what the experienced user should have done in the first place rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts. --Irpen 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts" - This is a baseless accusation, Irpen! When did I threatened this user (or any other)? Provide diffs or retract this accusation. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, stop it. Now. You have lodging baseless ad hominem attacks against Abu badali all over the place. It's disgusting. --Iamunknown 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, baseless accusations in ad hominem is indeed ad hominem. --Irpen 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not. I'm addressing the substance of the argument, not the person making the argument. --Iamunknown 05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what exactly in my entry is an ad hominem. --Irpen 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'd love to. Per the Wikipedia entry, ad hominem, "An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument." Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument that this particular image should be deleted; in other words, you have directly replied to Abu badali's deletion argument an ANI post not on the substance of Abu badali's argument, but on Abu badali him(/her)self. Thus ad hominem. --Iamunknown 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the wikipedia article ad hominem is neither a reliable source nor a Wikipedia policy. WP:NPA is a policy and my entry did not violate WP:NPA in any way. I describe the matter as I saw it. My description was harsh but WP:CIVIL. Abu badali posted a complaint asking for a helping hand in the conflict. However, the conflict would not have escalated had Abu badali himself acted properly and courteously towards the users.

The experienced user greats the inexperienced one with a series of arrogant templates at her talk and posting the newcomer's contributions for deletion. This is not exactly the best way to engage the user, not familiar with a labyrinth of our image policy pages, into productive work. The contributor tries her best and she needs to be gently encouraged. The images, that she failed to properly tag, need to be examined, retagged when possible, deleted when necessary, with a friendly and helpful explanation on why we have to do the former or the latter. Instead, the user is communicated through templates that she, not used to the level of courtesy of some here, perceives as threats and intimidation. The user feels unwelcome as instead of a helping hand she gets the messages from what seems like someone who instead of developing articles like she does, goes around from user to user telling them what to do and claiming policies as an excuse to do that with impunity.

The inexperienced user starts looking for an explanation of such an unfriendly attitude and, since the particular topic is greatly politicized, mistakenly attributes the tagger's motives to the political agenda since she can't believe that someone would deal with her this way for any other reason (she was wrong at that and I don't think Abu badali's motives here are politically motivated.)

The bottom line is that should Abu badali have acted courteously and reasonably we would not have had the cause to discuss this incidents at WP:ANI. Stating this is not an ad hominem but simply an opinion on the matter. I am merely pinpointing the root cause of many similar conflicts in the past and want to prevent similar conflicts in the future. This is the reason of my post rather than, as you imply, some outstanding issues with Abu badali of which I have none. --Irpen 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I though the user would know what the templates messages mean, as he/she already has a couple of them in his talk page. Sorry if my judgment didn't lead to the most productive outcome. But is think that saying that I didn't act "courteously", "reasonably" is a little bit overreaching (considering I have even been linked to "Palestine terrorists"), but you're entitled to your opinion.

But you forget to address the main point being questioned. When did I threatened the user, as you accused me of in ""rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts""? Threats are not WP:CIVIL, and accusing me of engaging is such behavior requires strong diffs. --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, this might be relevant now. Your statements referring to Abu badali's person as opposed to his arguments are still ad hominem arguments and are thus irrational, irrelevant and false. Regards, Iamunknown 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Irpen was hasty in accusing Abu B of "threats of all sorts". That said, it's clear that the newbie uploader did feel threatened by the templates and the deletion nominations, and that communicating exclusively in templates and by rolling back their edits (with the automated edit summary "using popups", yet..!) is deplorable. Especially doing it to a new user, who is clearly doing their best to contribute... and then, when the user can't understand what the template is telling her/him to do (can't say I blame them), to repost the same template, for the next image they upload... what were you thinking? Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Now, I could be wrong about your communicating exclusively in templates, you have a lot of contribs and I may have missed something. But the only non-template post to this person that I can see is on the Images and media for deletion, obviously too little and way too late.

Iamunknown, I have to say you're not helping. Please provide examples and diffs for your repeated claims that Irpen is posting ad hominem attacks "all over the place", or else stop saying it. There's no ad hominem from him here, that's ridiculous. ("Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument"—er, no.) A common saying on this page is "Diffs or it didn't happen". I click hopefully on your links, to take a look a your evidence that these ad hominems happened somewhere, and find instead a clutch of internet definitions of ad hominem, plus our own page WP:KETTLE... Don't waste administrators' time in this way, please. Give diffs or it didn't happen. Bishonen | talk 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, last I was aware this was a dead issue. I can't imagine why you are bringing it up again just to waste admin time. --Iamunknown 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator inaction toward 3RR Talk Page Vandalism, or clarification of User Talk Page policy

I am posting here regarding a dispute with administrator User:Rlevse.

Background: User:Brain40 vandalized my talk page, reverting it 6 times. He was warned and continued reverting. He finally stopped when this 3RR dispute was opened.

However, despite the wording of WP:UP saying otherwise, User:Rlevse has proceeded to take no action, close the 3RR complaint, taken WP guideline pages out of content (using a section that applies only to other users' talk pages to apply to edits performed against a user's own talk page), and even stated on User_talk:Brain40 that he is going to willfully ignore the matter.

I would like another administrator's opinion on this matter. This is what WP:UP currently says about editing one's own talk page:

"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

I read that to mean that removing warnings (which is also sketchy, since "warnings" are not defined) is frowned upon but there is absolutely no rule against it. It's not considered vandalism, so one cannot revert removal of warnings by oneself under the vandalism umbrella for WP:3RR.

I don't believe that a block of User:Brain40 will be necessary unless he continues to vandalize my user page, but this matter ought to be straightened out and the administrator should be informed of correct WP policy. If the policy in practice disallows removal of warnings from one's own user talk page, the guideline page needs to be changed to make that clear.

I became aware of the policy as written when a warning I left on another user's user talk page was deleted by that user. I checked the rules to see if he could do that - and it's allowed. If the rule allows a user to revert, ad infinitum, another user's talk page to re-insert a warning, then an administrator ruling to this effect entitles me to do as much to this other user's talk page. I highly doubt that is the case. --Tjsynkral 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the new consensus was that it was okay for editors to remove warnings from their user talk pages and that said removal was considered ackowledgement by the editor that they had received a warning. If so, it could be that not everyone has gotten the "word" on this. Cla68 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a good idea if the guideline page was clarified, either way. Even though I think it is perfectly clear right now that removing warnings from one's own UP is allowed, some people need it spelled out in black and white. --Tjsynkral 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is for rewording any of the guidelines, but if someone could point me in the right direction, I could try to "get the ball rolling" on it. Cla68 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I resent these remarks made by tjsynkral, as soon as I made a comment on his talk page he blanked it before he probably even read it...though it is true I was in violation of the 3RR rule it was only to revert vandalism and repost my warning (ironically about 3rr) on this man's user page. Once the edit war got out of control me and another editor reported tj to an administrator. One is not supposed to remove warnings from talk pages as clearly stated by User:Rlevse TotallyTempo 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse does not make policy; Wikipedia policy pages define policy, and policies are made by consensus. Furthermore, you had no contact with User:Rlevse at the time you made the reverts, nor did User:Brain40. He was only introduced to the issue when the WP:AN/3RR issue was opened. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy certainly needs clarified and announced, it's too open to interpretation. Let's say User:ABC123 gets a valid vandalism notice, removes it from their talk page, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and then has to dig through history pages to find it? Hardly conducive to admins fighting vandals. Note the case in question was 3RR, this is just a theoretical example.Rlevse 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sad... as an admin it is your responsibility to check the history for removed warnings, and you've revealed that apparently you are loath to check up on these things. Even if it were against policy to remove warnings, it would still happen and you would be expected to look for that. Also, we are still left with a problem in defining a warning. If I went on your user page and warned you for vandalism, without any basis - would you be forced to keep it forever? --Tjsynkral 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse is trying to apply the guideline's consistently and it isn't his fault if they're vague. If no administrator action is required here, then I think the next step would be to take this issue to one of the community forums such as the Village Pump. Cla68 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines don't mention anything about removing warnings being prohibited (only that they are "frowned upon" - much like racism is "frowned upon" but not illegal). The best word to describe Rlevse's actions is arbitrary. --Tjsynkral 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is your point? State it succinctly, preferably, in less than 30 words. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can a user delete warnings from his own user talk page? Can another user revert the warnings back onto the page 4, 5, even 6 times, despite WP:3RR? Wiki policy says yes and no, but User:Rlevse says no and yes. This is a problem. --Tjsynkral 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to remove warnings, although it's better to leave them then to edit war about their inclusion. You should never revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. You should never characterise an edit as vandalism that is intended in good faith. It was a mistake for other editors to assert that the 3rr did not apply, but it was equally wrong for you to revert the page more than 3 times. If anyone should incur the penalty here, it would be you, since you reverted the page more than any other individual. So be glad for the inaction on AN3. Guettarda 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Read WP:3RR. I may edit my own user space as often as I wish. The sole exception would be if my edit violated WP policy, which it clearly does not. --Tjsynkral 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt 3RV applies to one's talkpage when removing warnings. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda and User:Rlevse. TotallyTempo 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

V A scarlet letter.

Don't mind me, just think this thread could use some illustration so we all know what we're talking about here. --Random832 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency measures on Richard Warman

Earlier today, I received a private complaint about libelous information being added to this page by User:Imstillhere. I reviewed the matter, and found the edits in question to be inflamatory, potentially damaging, and cited to a non-specific source: a clear violation of BLP. A few minutes ago, I took the emergency step of deleting the page, restoring it without its edit history, and imposing page protection.

I am not an entirely uninvolved party in this matter. I have been active on the Warman page for some time, and have reverted edits by Imstillhere on more than one occasion. Under normal circumstances, I would not have carried out these administrative actions myself; given the existence of BLP concerns, however, I decided that I would be justified in taking extraordinary steps.

Could I please request that:

• an uninvolved administrator review my actions, and determine if they were appropriate?
• an uninvolved administrator review Imstillhere's recent posts in the deleted page history, and determine if (i) they constitute BLP violations, and (ii) deserve some form of censure?

Thank you, CJCurrie 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref, but as far as I can tell it's a bullshit source. Has anyone attempted to find the supposed transcripts anywhere? Maybe even online? If the source can't be located by anyone, than I think you did the right thing CJC. Although you might want to restore all of the pre-BLP edit history at some point in the near future. Natalie 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Complains should go to the Foundation directly, that is what our office is about. Also, aren't hearings public? I mean, can't you go to some Justice site and download them? I agree that the comments can be considered libelous. I would suggest restoring all the edits that do not contain that information for the time being, and to send this issue to the office so that they can earn their pay ;-) -- ReyBrujo 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that raise GFDL concerns? Better to restore it all, stubify or it to create a stub from scratch. --Iamunknown 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. we'd probably need to either WP:FORGET or Oversight the offending diffs. 62.73.137.190 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping them deleted is fine, but as it stands the page violates GFDL. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters

User Stark1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears an uncanny resemblance to permablocked user and sockmaster extraodinaire Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the spirit of WP:DUCK, I'm posting here rather than going through checkuser, as it seems rather obvious from the article interest and POV. Thanks! C ^thirty-three 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Stark1 has now blanked this section of the page, also a very JP-like action. I'm a bit hesitant to block without checkuser confirmation, just because I've had a block proven wrong by checkuser in the past. If another admin is less hesitant, go on ahead, otherwise we should request a checkuser. Heimstern Läufer 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Has CheckUser been done on Jacob Peters before? If so, by whom? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're the one with access to the logs, Jayjg. Here's the page. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You would probably have to speak to one of the previous CheckUsers who confirmed sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To confirm that if he quacks like a duck, he's a duck? I don't understand where you and El C are coming from; is this really considered to be beyond the specter of blatantly obvious? Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail? El_C 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What details? He's a sockpuppet of banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly familiar with the Jacob Pattern, and I would say this chap is definitely him. He blanked his own checkuser page a while back: blanking the section here is completely in character. We need to be vigilant. I don't say this lightly, but Jacob Peters is deranged and dangerous scum. He tries to come back here, he needs to be kicked out ASAP. Good block. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that any editor deemed to be "Stalinist" is going to be blocked as "Jacob Peters." So, yes, we'll need details. El_C 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling even a banned user "deranged and dangerous scum." El_C 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I call Peters Stalinist? C33, who has found Peters' sockpuppets before, caught this one and requested a block. I reviewed his contribs and it was clear to me that this was Peters. I blocked a sock of his before and this time was no different, save the fact that all of a sudden my abilities at recognizing a duck as what it is are being questioned. If you honestly do not believe that is Jacob Peters, and that C33, Irishguy, Moreschi, and I are wrong, I can request more users who are familiar with him to come verify it. Would you like me to do that? Picaroon 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather understand the why you're certain it's him, specifically, but sure. El_C 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Check through the contribs of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters: this guy hits the articles - and related articles - that his previous socks have hit with exactly the same POV and exactly the same edit summaries. And how many "new" users would have ANI on their watchlist so they can blank a section when their name comes up? Even the edit summary he used for that was almost exactly identical to that one his of previous socks used when blanking his checkuser page! This is Jacob Peters, trust me! I know the pattern like the back of my hand. Other users who are also familiar with the Jacob Peters pattern all agree with me: we aren't all wrong. Sorry for the derogatory epithet, but Peters is not only been banned here: I also recently learnt from another user he's been kicked out of multiple history-discussion forums for disruption. And this user is certainly him. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure Jacob would agree, history repeats itself. Him going for Soviet war in Afghanistan and Red Terror (Ethiopia) is completely in character: his socks have gone for these and related articles, such as Mengistu Haile Mariam, before. As is his targeting of articles relating to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 07:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for disruption at rfcn

I have blocked for three hours User:TortureIsWrong for disruption at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Besides his comments that bordered on trolling, he listed Merzbow's username and then Cascadia's for review, out of spite or to make a point. Review and undo invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three hours only? True, his username may not merit a block, but trolling is an indefblockable offense. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the indefblock. The user has been trolling around RFCN all week, and has made decisions based on nonsense, included allowing a user name with the comment "I think it's funny". He has also been incivil (see his user talkpage). He also just made a point violation. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this 3 hour block is correct, I think indef'ing might be a bit harsh as this user was POINTing after his own username had been nominated for discussion on WP:RFCN. (→Netscott) 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last name was MoeLarryAndJesus. It's not a short-term POINT; that RFCN was about a month ago, and involved some trollery itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

File an RFC then... Im wary to indef block without making an attempt at rehabilitation. He seems like he honestly wants to contribute and got sucked into the drama. Maybe get a mentor for him -M^ask 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also some question of a variety of sock POINT names based off of his. While it is not clear, they could have been made by him to further his pointy trolling presence on the board. The Behnam 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TortureIsWrong acting disruptively

TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs · logs) has been using increasingly incivil [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] and pointy comments [58] at WP:RFCN. The user has now started nominating other frequent RFCN editors for RFCN [59], in response to the RFCN nomination of his own name. The latest, for Cascadia (talk · contribs) [60], is pretty blatantly against WP:POINT since Cascadia is a region, and the User states on her his User page that she is from there. I believe TortureIsWrong should be blocked for a short time to allow the user to reflect on WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, and on how to contribute without disrupting Wikipedia. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) has been blocked, per the above converstion filed while I prepared this report. I'm leaving this up for the difs. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the Male userbox on my userpage, ther flyguy! I know I'm a big guy and have long hair, but last I and my finance checked, I was still a guy. LOL! Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cascadio ... er, Cascadia. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Plainly wrong as the referral to an Admin has been found in my favor. I was right, not disruptive. TortureIsWrong 07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are trolling, plain and simple. Your first block was short because all first blocks are short. I would highly suggest not pushing your luck. - Merzbow 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would highly suggest that you add that comment to your user page that you're not the REAL Merzbow if you haven't done so already. I would also suggest that if you're going to take shots at other usernames you should make sure your own house is in order first. TortureIsWrong 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do stop trolling.Proabivouac 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• TIW, you seem to be bothered often by what goes on at WP:RFCN. I really think you will enjoy editing here much more if you avoid that place altogether, and concentrate on writing the encyclopedia. That seems more conducive to your happiness than getting frustrated in a place you don't even like. — coelacan — 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be said that, after applying for a change of name and having "TortureIsWrong" accepted, and then joining in discussions at WP:RFCN for some time, his name was suddenly (and without going through proper procedure) proposed for blocking by another regular at RFCN, immediately supporeted by a third. It seemed to me and to others there that this was not entirely a good-faith proposal. It included the claim (though rapidly struck out) that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to bondage-lovers, and other absurdities. TortureIsWrong's misbehaviour is not excused by this, but his frustration is understandable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nom was per policy; I admit that the trolling drew my attention to the username but the behavior in itself was not the reason for the nom. As far as procedure, the user replied at WP:RFCN before I could put a notification on his/her talk page, so I didn't see the point in a superfluous notification. I suppose I could have requested that the person change their name before nominating for discussion, but given the user's previous behavior and comments regarding their name in previous discussions, I saw the chance of that being a constructive conversation as being exactly 0%. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user is trolling again by inserting irrelevant POV into a policy discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Torture is most definitely trolling on the RFCN. He votes 'allow' on almost, if not all, cases, even if they are clearly against policy. The most recent was Mike J FOX (talk · contribs). Rather than arguing from policy he challenges its legitimacy. In addition to this he has been generally uncivil and caused disruption in the discussions. I don't know what is motivating him; perhaps he has been bitter about the board since they forced him to change his more blatant violating name. But regardless something needs to be done to prevent his continual disruption there. Thank you. The Behnam 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • I'd like to respond to that by referring people to the recent goings on in the [Byron Coley] article. Am I really the one being "uncivil"? I would also like to point out that my username has now undergone two affirmative reviews and some of the RFCN regulars are still complaining about it. TortureIsWrong 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is talking about your username, so I suggest you to stop hiding behind the nonexistent "there's nothing wrong with my username" curtain. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already said that I can explain the Bryan Coley thing for you, but you haven't made any effort to contact me directly. We won't distract this discussion with accusations against me anyway, especially since you have made little effort to resolve the 'faith' issue with me. Try my talk page, please. Thanks. The Behnam 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that admins look at the discussion for themselves. TortureIsWrong is flailing about, and apparently doing his best to disguise the fact that there's an unpleasant witchhunt against him, mounted by a group of editors whose approach to Usernames is via a narrow and doctrinaire reading of policy, and who reject any disagreement with their interpretation as being based in a misunderstanding or rejection of policy. Early mediæval Christianity offers some insrtuctive comparisons here, as does 20th-century communism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes, I see your point, Mel. Having a civil discussion about the appropriateness of a username is exactly the same as burning witches, the Inquisition, and the gulag. What was I thinking? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour -- misuse of reference desk

I am concerned that Bowlhover (talk · contribs) is causing unnecessary alarmism by posting, on the Humanities reference desk, that media are reporting a toxic spill in Toronto [61]. --Mathew5000 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. This user 'just' discovered it is was April Fool's day. Want to check their other 'contributions', at science and elsewhere? Shenme 06:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, Mathew. How does anyone believe such a thing could happen in Toronto (how do you get access to the water system)? Also, what date did I post the warning on? Check what the other users said and see whether I'm alarming anyone. --Bowlhover

You posted it on April 2. A message like that is bound to be alarming to anyone in Toronto with small children. --Mathew5000 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check again, and remember not everyone is living in the UTC time zone. Do you also realize that you're the only one complaining? Why do you assume "anyone in Toronto with small children" is bound to be stupid? --Bowlhover 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question was made at 04:07, 2 April UTC, corresponding to a few minutes past midnight on April 2 in the North American Eastern Time Zone. In another edit, 29 minutes later, you stated “By the way, it’s April 2 right now in Toronto.” Your initial post did not have the appearance of a “joke”; you did not acknowledge it was a joke when asked, and creating panic about contaminated tap water is not an appropriate April Fool’s joke in any event. Moreover, it was not even on-topic for the Humanities RefDesk. --Mathew5000 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the last time Mathew, did you notice that no administrator has taken action against me even though this notice was posted almost a day ago? No complaints either at the reference desk, except for yours. I have no interest in debating this any further. If you don't enjoy April Fools day, fine. If you always wish to assume bad faith, fine. Just keep your opinions to yourself and don't try to hurt any other users. --Bowlhover 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block. --Carnildo 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Moved back from archive

Hi there,

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

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

Thank you in advance for your help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I notice nothing has been done. Please delete all diffs of this article containing the suspects' full name. --Edokter (Talk) 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins cannot remove diffs from a page history, you should ask this at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Be sure in this case to ask them (if necessary) to remove the edit summaries as well (since they contain the full name as well). I have never had contact with Oversight, so I don't know if this is done automatically or not... Fram 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes they can, and oh yes I did. However, admins can still see the deleted revisions, oversight should still probably be contacted to remove them totally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade, I think keeping it out of public view will suffice. --Edokter (Talk) 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled User:MiszaBot II

It had stripped at least one closure template when it archived a discussion at WP:CN. I'm going through the board's other archives to see how often this happened. Durova^Charge! 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is usually caused by editors placing the top part of the template above the header, which is incorrect. This happens a lot because the templates lack any documentation. I added some basic instructions to {{Archive top}}, {{Discussion top}} and {{Debate top}} to stress users to use it correctly. --Edokter (Talk) 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Racist user page

Reverting vandalism I came across User:SPONGE's page. When I reverted I was surprised to see a vile and racist Klan page - can someone please blank it / delete it and block this user (who only ever did this page from contributions)? I will go blank the page next, as I don't want this up, but was not sure if that would be better for an Admin to do. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a link to this notice on the page. Here is the diff to see how it was before [62]. Ruhrfisch 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both user and talk pages. Not much to see on the latter. No point blocking if they're not around anymore. Bubba hotep 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ruhrfisch 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I've uncovered a series a sockpuppets that have been used to avoid scrutiny from other editors, and also votestacking in AfDs, both prohibited per WP:SOCK.

The timeline of accounts and contributions is as follows:

• El chulito (talk · contribs) - 22:55, 20 January 2007 - 16:41, 8 February 2007

• Jill Teed (talk · contribs) - 21:59, 8 February 2007 - 18:31, 9 February 2007

• Inthegloaming (talk · contribs) - 14:10, 9 February 2007 - 14:55, 9 February 2007

• Conrad Falk (talk · contribs) - 20:47, 9 February 2007 - 02:10, 17 February 2007

• Veronica Mars fanatic (talk · contribs) - 01:18, 18 February 2007 - 00:05, 1 March 2007

• O'Donoghue (talk · contribs) - 11:43, 1 March 2007 - 00:43, 23 March 2007

• Jill Teed (talk · contribs) - 11:54, 23 March 2007 - current

Almost all accounts use a non-standard format for links, in that external links are displayed like this - ([63]). Examples - O'Donoghue, Jill Teed, El chulito, Veronica Mars fanatic, Conrad Falk. The editor also edits anonymously from 216.194 prefixed IPs as can be seen by this previous ANI report. User:Inthegloaming recently made his first contribution since mid-February when he appeared to vote on multiple Irish republican related AfDs, editing the Hayley Westenra article. Shortly before that the article was edited twice by a 216.194 prefixed IP, the first of which introduced the unusual link formatting near the bottom of the 'International success' section.

The accounts were used for votestacking in the following AfDs:

• McCaughey
• Seamus Donnelly
• Tony Gormley
• Eugene Kelly
• Patrick Kelly
• Gerry O'Callaghan
• Declan Arthurs

Checkuser has come back "likely" for User:O'Donoghue and User:Jill Teed and various IPs, I didn't include all the accounts to avoid the problems of a previous checkuser plus it's only my investigation of the accounts since the latest checkuser that's uncovered all the evidence connecting all the accounts together timeline-wise.

This talk page edit seems to be an implied admission of guilt as well in my opinion. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, and by all means follow up with a full checkuser request. Like you, I've had difficulties getting checkuser requests approved for complex investigations. Really subversive stuff tends to look kooky in a short summary. Keep digging and keep me informed about what you unearth. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest checkuser confirms multiple socks, and I'm assuming there's enough evidence to block the ones that were too stale for checkuser? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the confirmed socks indef, and Teed as puppetmaster for 48 hours, as that's the one that's edited most recently. I imagine El chulito is a sock as well, but I don't see Veronica Mars fanatic being used in any of the AfD's in question? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, Veronica Mars fanatic didn't vote on any of the AfDs in question but is part of the series of socks, as the timeline shows. VMF does use the same non-standard link format though as demonstrated by the example (more can be found if needed), so given the timeline and that is there enough evidence to support a block? Also if you check the previous ANI report there's plenty of evidence linking El chulito and O'Donoghue together. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked El chulito, that one was pretty obvious as well, but I'm still really unsure about VM fanatic, especially given that she participated heavily in this AfD, and none of the socks showed up there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked VM fanatic. Recommend a full WP:SSP report on the older sockpuppets to clarify the situation for the uninitiated. Durova^Charge! 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a double disambiguation page

I am reporting here, since I don't know what would be the proper procedure to mend this situation. User:Arigato1 has moved Trelleborg to Trelleborg Municipality and made the old name into a disambiguation article into which he copied and pasted the content of Trelleborg (disambiguation). The result is a double disambiguation page. How should this situation be fixed?--The trollfighter 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted Trelleborg and moved Trelleborg (disambiguation) to that place. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• (EC) I was BOLD and just made a redirect to what I assume is the most common usage. Other than that, you can redirect to the disamb. Still need to check for double redirects, I will do that later or another can. --Justanother 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's now a double redirect Trelleborg (disambiguation) > Trelleborg > Trelleborg Municipality. I've copied the disambuguation text from the history of Trelleborg into Trelleborg (disambiguation). That should clear it up. --Edokter (Talk) 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I will go through it in depth later when I am not allegedly working. I like working on disamb pages. It is kinda like gardening, very soothing. --Justanother 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the main article Trelleborg should be on the town (the municipality), as it originally was, since it is the most notable use of the name.--The trollfighter 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is for you'all that are familiar with the subject to decide. I fixed the weird redirect in the disamb page. You can put it all back from Trelleborg Municipality to just Trelleborg. I assume that there was some logic behind the move though? --Justanother 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been observing Arigato1's edits for a while, and there seems to be some antagonism towards things Swedish in his edit history. I guess his main reason was that the main article was about a Swedish town, but that is only my theory.--The trollfighter 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, the 'antagonism' suspicion would have a good foundation. From one of their edit summaries:

There is no copyright holder. We are not that capitalistic here in Denmark. Just keep your hands off this image.

Trelleborg in Skåne was wrested away from Denmark only a few hundred years ago, so people are still pretty upset.   ;-)   Shenme 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the second part of your statement was ironic. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I will wait a few days before doing a lot of work cleaning up redirects as you'all may just put it right back to Trelleborg, which would be OK, too. After all Manhattan goes to the borough, we don't make Manhattan borough or Manhattan (borough) (except as a redirect) --Justanother 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• My dealings so far with Arigato1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (and his possible socks...) have not been very satisfactory... I'm not totally sure he's on board with our approach here, and I have blocked him more than once already. This incident seems another example of edits by him that are less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew editing in opposition to consensus.

At Template talk:LostNav#Bullets and Template talk:LostNav#Straw poll - bullets or lines? there has been discussion followed by a straw poll to determine consensus. Could an admin take a look at the page and make a determination if there's consensus or not? Matthew seems to be in the minority but is revert warring to his preferred version. I'd like to see the issue finally put to bed but that's never going to happen as long as editors ignore consensus and revert war. --Minderbinder 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, admins have no mandate to authoritatively determine consensus for others outside of policy-determined situations like XfD. You might want to try WP:3O, though. Sandstein 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have opinions from a number of different editors, and what seems to be consensus. The problem is that a couple editors refuse to accept that there is consensus and keep reverting to their preferred version in spite of all the editors who disagree with them (and I suspect they'll keep reverting regardless of how many additional editors came in from 3O or RFC and disagreed with them). Is there any solution to this? Without some sort of admin intervention, I fear the page will just turn into a revert war. I'd still like to get admin input on the situation, could someone please take a look? If an editor is editing in opposition to consensus, isn't that a policy issue? --Minderbinder 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, admins 'can enforce consensus in some circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions seems to apply here,

Closing of a consensus decision making procedure

1) It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As it turns out, the main dissenter here was also one of the main dissenters in that case. It looks like he's not going to admit consensus regardless of the arguments or how many other editors disagee with him. Could an editor please take a look at the discussion and determine if there's a consensus so this doesn't go on forever? Thanks. --Minderbinder 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Resolved

The edit history has accusations of 3RR violations, but the violations appear to be by multiple people, so I am unsure how to document a 3RR incident. The article needs to be locked to force the editors into dialogue beyond their edit summaries. -Amatulic 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected and those who have violated 3RR have been blocked. Rama's arrow 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And in keeping with the grand tradition, you protected the wrong version! (that is, the version of the person you blocked). -Amatulic 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Database and Belucci

Resolved

User:Calutuigor has vandalized the article Database by moving it - and its talk page - to Belucci, and turning Database into a redirect. I'm not sure how to repair this kind of move and leave Belucci undamaged (assuming it's not a new page created just for this purpose) and restoring its own content, talk page and their associated histories. Other vandalism on "Belucci" is ongoing. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I sorted this? Hope so. I think Belucci was just a page created for this purpose: otherwise the vandal-move couldn't have been done in the first place. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it — the csd for Belucci seems appropriate. Thanks! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems sorted. No problem. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit gaming and other things

I have to bring user Makalp to attention he is involved in edit warring to provide a WP:POINT the user Bohater added him self as the coordinator because he has been highly involved in Kurdish related articles all respected although Makalp is seen disrupting here, [64] his comment "Revolution;coordinator is died, long live new coordinator." one of many edits and reverts.

On the talk page of Ayran his sarcasm does not impress anyone and is disruptive, "Put you project template to CocaCola(also consumed in Syria" another WP:POINT violation and he removes Armenia and Syria in his attempt to remove other Wiki Projects [65], he only left Turkish projects which is very disappointing.

Others include voting for Afd basing on his contributions he was telling others to see his recent contributions in which were obviously Afd's to gain votes which is strictly forbidden. [66] [67] [68] and before these posts were the Afd articles, [69], Thank you, this was a case I have followed during my RC patrol alot goes on. Lakers 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This was talked about much earlier, his English skills are not very good and I don't think that he is harmful. In fact, "Revolution;coordinator is died, long live new coordinator." was kinda funny - even though it is a bit POINT. As for canvassing thing, it still shows that he is naive, because had he really wanted to he could have e-mailed many more people and is useless in any case since that AfD was already listed under Turkey-deletion sorting.. He generally does good work around Wikipedia (especially with templates and certain articles) so if you ever see him do such edits, just leave a note to his talk page.. That would be my two cents... Baristarim 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello I have but his recent contributions again are negative so I posted this, the first note I left was a friendly notice but he again does things that seem to violate WP:POINT, even though it is funny its not really appropriate and that falls under edit war gaming which may lead to a block. Lakers 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 65.96.109.49

User: 65.96.109.49 has been making inappropriate edits to articles over the past few days, particularly Brett. I don't know whether this is the right place to report him, but I thought I should bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia community. Many thanks. 81.158.142.232 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Turkey has been the target of a very persistent vandal who is using elaborate techniques to attack the article. He created 50+ user names, and is so persistent that the page had to be fully protected on March 27 - even the semi-protection doesn't work. It is extremely disruptive since he seems to be passing all the time he is awake in front of his article waiting for an opportunity to vandalize the article. It is an FA, and is really disrupting the work of many editors. No block seems to work, and I feel that something needs to be done since the block auto-expired just this morning and he already came back. I made another request for semi-protection, but what can be done if it continues? We cannot fully-protect the page forever.. Baristarim 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the vandalism/sockpuppetry methods and the fixation on eastern Turkey/Armenia match the style of banned User:Ararat arev. I think a checkuser's about in order here to nail whatever IPs or proxies he's using. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the vandalism is so persistent that even though the page just got semi-protected a moment ago he is still continuing to vandalize the page. Turkey page already got fully protected because of this a week ago, disrupting work - it is FA, therefore there is not a huge list of things that need to be improved, but it is very annoying. It is definitely Ararat Arev, all the IPs he has used have been confirmed as such in the past.. How are we going to proceed to a checkuser? Baristarim 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've filed for checkuser, and also semiprotected the article. Hopefully that'll slow things down to a tolerable level, at least. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected the article after his aged sock Arzeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.. Baristarim 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very weird redirections, etc by user

Can somebody look into Delat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions seems to be redirecting other people's pages? May be the same person who forgot older password or something, so I don't want to just blindly revert. But not sure if it is worthy of a checkuser yet. I asked on talk page also. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They were page moves, and I've moved it all back whence it came. The motivation is still not apparent, but it is believable that it could be the user trying to give the account a new name. I've seen other editors, notably vandals, do this multiple-move thing recently, but this does not fit the pattern. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Automotive hoaxer, possible sockpuppets

Recently we've had some problems with hoax articles on alleged future automobiles. There was one round of about 5-6 articles that went to AfD. Last week, we had another AfD about the same subject. These articles were created by User:Teddy.Coughlin (who also had a penchant for adding blatant misinformation to articles) and User:Hardlinger. Another article, Saturn Avaze, was created recently by User:Dathe remoncado, possibly in response to this. These articles were written very similarly, usually only one or two lines of poorly written BS. --Sable232 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was recreated again by Tony Nizwin. I deleted it and added a sock tag to Tony Nizwin's page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check and self conduct evaluation request, perhaps with a side of assistance with a user

Howdy! Operating as an editor, I'm having a bit of a problem that I'd like to ask for external input on. I'm posting here because I'd like to make sure that I've got good admin scrutiny of my actions, things are a bit catywonkous. Traditionally, this would just be a run of the mill content dispute, but I'm an admin, the standard dispute resolution techniques seem to be failing, and I'm wondering if anyone has some suggestions on how to fix this.

The article Aces High (computer game) has been recently edited by a gent named Scribner (talk · contribs) who has added some distinctly POV stuff (in my opinion), specifically Aces_High_(computer_game)#Derogatory_Online_Experiences. Originally, I zapped it because I felt it didn't belong (inherently unfixable NPOV issues), then when he restored it, I tried to engage him in conversation to see if we could find some sort of middle ground, because there were no references, and it doesn't seem terribly accurate. Over the course of the past day, he's reverted my unreferenced tags for the section, and has tagged the entire article as unreferenced, even after it was footed appropriately. I don't want to edit war, of course, and I've asked him to come to the table, but he's instead left 3RR notices on my page, deleted the conversation threads on his talk page, and more. I'm feeling a bit frustrated here, and if I were an admin coming into this conversation from the outside, I'd be warning the user to knock off the disruption, but as I'm an involved party, I've brought it here instead.

• Article: Aces High (computer game)
• Talk section where I asked for references: Talk:Aces_High_(computer_game)#Derogatory Online Experience Section
• Note on my page where he accused me of leaving "inappropriate messages" on his talk page: User_talk:Chairboy#Aces_High
• Note on my talk page where he accused me of 3rr after I counseled him on the risks of rv-warring:User_talk:Chairboy#Warning_3rr_Violation
• Section of his user talk that he's repeatedly deleted where I've tried to engage him in discussion: User_talk:Scribner#Aces_High (EDIT: Whoops, he's deleted it again. Here's the diff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
• And finally the two sections on his page devoted to 3rr, my counsel and a copy of his strange warning to me that he left, apparently in retribution: User_talk:Scribner#3RR

I don't think he's a vandal, I suspect instead (just my opinion, mind you) that he may have a grudge against the game or the company. He seems to be using the unreferenced tag as a bludgeon and using the article as an attack page against the online game referenced. I'd like an external set of eyes to help out. If I'm crazy and he's the soul of civility, then I'll take my lumps and learn. If he's being disruptive and incivil, he might benefit from an uninvolved person discussing the issue with him. It's obvious that he's passionate about the subject, I'd hope that he'd turn that energy into either beefing up the disputed section with good references or improving this/other article(s) instead of just leaving threatening messages. Finally, if there are any ways I can improve in how I balance the admin/editor role in situations like this, I'd appreciate the feedback. Thanks in advance, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main article is referenced quite well, and therefore I have removed the tag from the top of the article. The subsection has no references at all so I added some tags there. If references aren't provided within a couple of days, that section should be removed entirely. Unreferenced POV doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Verifiability is required. I put this on the talk page as well so hopefully Scribner will discuss his changes. IrishGuy ^talk 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the section and full protected the article. A citation to a forum thead is absolutely unacceptable, as is the possibly defamatory nature of the material. WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V all apply here. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babysbottom (talk · contribs) and others using talk pages to chat

Babysbottom's only edits to date have been to use a group of user pages and user talk pages as forums for chatting with other users whose only edits are also restricted to said chatter. Babysbottom is the most prolific among them and has been warned several times [70] [71] [72]. The typical response usually to ignore or avoid the actual issue [73] [74] and the same attitude is shared by others in the group [75]. The complete list of the group appears to be:

• Babysbottom (talk · contribs)
• Hamsterpoo (talk · contribs)
• Small Dodge (talk · contribs)
• Choclatemuffin (talk · contribs)
• Cherry01 (talk · contribs)
• Cherry02 (talk · contribs)

Though it should be noted that some of them have only made a couple edits. They don't seem to be receptive, and none of them have contributed constructively. I feel like any more warnings are just wasted effort. Leebo ^T/C 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I came acroos a page once when people were using it as a Myspace and then just blanked it and left Chat room-like comments removed by Tellyaddict (talk · contribs). Maybe this could be done and a explanation in the edit summary as it does violate WP:USERPAGE and WP:NOT. Any thoughts? - Tellyaddict 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been done, and some of the pages were deleted by an administrator, only to be recreated with more chatter. They have also taken to responding with personal attacks. I'm not sure how they misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose to this extent. Leebo ^T/C 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am filing a request at WP:RFP for Full Protection of the User talk and User page, this should prevent it as if blocked they are still able to edit their User talk page.Tellyaddict 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babybottom's user page is now proteted against recreation, but I've left the talk page until there is post-block abuse. John Reaves (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babysbottom recently blanked Small Dodge's talk page and continued the chatting. I'll revert it, but should action be taken with Babysbottom? Leebo ^T/C 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And User:Hamsterpoo created User:Hampstershite after being username blocked for the "poo" part, I guess. Leebo ^T/C 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hampstershite blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people get too light handed with this. All accounts blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Talk pages protected to prevent further conversation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

63.151.151.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and linkspam

Resolved

Apparently they've done this before in December and less ambitiously in March, hitting several articles with an external link to what resembles a myspace/blog-type site, not an information source. They've been warned before.

What drew my attention was the placement at Roman Catholic Church, which is overreaching at best. Does it seem reasonable to revert the rest of the placements? I see that even at Santería they've been removed twice immediately.

Moreover, would this rate blacklisting "www.santeriareligion101.com" ?

(Didn't know if I should ask here or Helpdesk) Shenme 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but.... If they are adding inappropriat links then warn them with (in this order) or continue on from previous warnings:

• {{uw-spam1}}
• {{uw-spam2}}
• {{uw-spam3}}
• {{uw-spam4}}

If they add more bad spam links after their final warnings then report them to WP:AIV but make sure it is all recent and their is not a large gap within the time period. Hope this helps.Tellyaddict 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Been done did - added uw-spam3 before coming here as they'd been contacted twice before by others. Same link, many articles the same. The question remains about the link - whether this can easily be considered obvious spam and therefore revertable automatically, and whether as such it the link should be added to blacklist. Shenme 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked the user a few hours prior to this notice for spamming. If it continues, the block duration can be extended. Only in the case when multiple ips are aggressively inserting it will I consider a blacklist request, however. El_C 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Crockspot (talk · contribs) is claiming "ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage." When I WP:ATT this claim the user wrote "rv. Are you being deceitful, or just obtuse?"[76] More opinions welcome. Arbustoo 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the title of the referenced article at abcnews.go.com is "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage". Seems a rationale for the edit, though a summary of the article would might be better, rather than just repeating lead. Shenme 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a review of a book by Mark Halperin, who is the originator of that quote. At any rate, I can't fathom how this requires administrative intervention; please keep it to the article's talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The second line of the title is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite".[77] The article is an interview/review of thr authors' book. If ABC believes what the authors said it isn't claimed. I posted it here as I was attacked by another editor on my talk, the page talk, and the edit summary. Rather than have an edit war, I thought it was better for others to give their opinion. Arbustoo 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again reverted[78] claiming the ABC News believes this. Arbustoo 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring on Drudge Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and says my 3RR report of his 4 reverts in an hour and 20 minutes was "deceitful"[79] because I (apparently) reported them in reverse order.[80] I asked for a retraction of the "deceit" charge and got none.[81] His unblock request is awaiting review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have opened an RfC asking a narrow pair of questions on this issue. I believe that some editors with a history of antipathy toward Matt Drudge are mischaracterizing the source in question. See Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: ABC claim. - Crockspot 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Arbustoo on the 3RR report, and fail to see how it was "deceptive". The reverts were listed in reverse chronological order, which is a bit nonstandard, but I saw that and read them from the bottom up anyway. Regardless, there were four reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A new wrinkle

It has recently come to my attention that Arbustoo is under ArbCom sanction for edit warring. Considering two prior blocks for 3RR, and an ArbCom ruling, I am concerned about his lack of understanding of 3RR; I have filed a report at Arbcom enforcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry?

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

---

I recently had a bad-tempered run-in with Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs). Shortly afterwards I received this message from Systemic_rant (talk · contribs), and a while later this message about a problematic AfD. I responded both times, but when I found that Systemic rant hadn't contributed to the AfD I was puzzled and checked his contributions; the account seemed to have been created largely in order to contact me about and to support Rama's Arrow. I left this message at Systemic_rant's Talk page asking him what was going on, and in under fifteen minutes received this furious message from Rama's Arrow.

Now, Rama's Arrow has had no (public) dealings with Systemic_rant, and I can think of no reason for the latter to be on the former's Watch list — so how did he come to see my message, and so quickly? I'm now more than ever suspicious that sock-puppetry's involved. So far as I can tell, no abuse has been perpetrated using the account; indeed, Systemic_rant aroused my initial suspicion partly because he avoided contributing to the AfD to which he'd alerted me. Still, if it is sockpuppetry it's at least bad form to use the sock-puppet to try to influence me in what can only be described as an underhand way.

What's the general feeling about this sort of thing in general, and this instance in particular? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can certainly see where you're coming from Mel, I think we should take Rama's Arrow at his word that the Systemic_rant fellow is not him. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A volcano has just exploded in my mind against Mel Etitis - he better thank God for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA... Can you "certainly see" where Mel is coming from? Then please tell me, 'coz I'm furious! This is the most ridiculous and insane thing I've ever been accused of. Now Mel Etitis, to this day, has not been a troll so I am even more infuriated than I would if a troll accused me. I have absolutely no idea what links this user:Systemic rant to me. As for his stupid suggestion of how I came to know of this - see this - I was alerted by user:AMbroodEY. And Mel - if you're so bloody suspicious, go ahead to WP:RFCU. I regard this nothing short of a personal attack from Mel Etitis. Rama's arrow 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, it was obvious how Rama's Arrow was drawn to Systemic's talk page. His attention was drawn to it by another user under the heading "Interesting" on Rama's talk page. Presumably that contributor and/or Rama had been watching your talk page. He obviously read your recent contribution just before he replied to you direct. Maybe you both need to take a deep breath. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFG is generally a good guideline... Khoikhoi 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath? Assume WP:AGF? Why don't you ask Mel - a frivolous accusation like this is nothing short of a personal attack. I have no idea what the devil prompted this assault on my integrity. For the last 5 months I've been fighting this kind of behavior. You guys at ANI better help me figure out Mel's insane charges. Rama's arrow 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to create a whole heap of trouble, but Mel, your far too quick to rush in and administer people, just relax and take your time to investigate things much more throughly and please start to consider if your post here or anywhere else is both of benefit to Wikipedia and is going to cause more trouble than it solves, especially where other people have to pick up the pieces. -- Nick ^t 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly honest - I am a volunteer, all respectable editors are volunteers. We do all this because something in our retarded brains makes us think this mad dream of Jimbo Wales will do something important. But I didn't go through 11 FACs and 2 RfAs to be accused of disrupting the very project I've worked hard for. When trolls accuse me of racism, bigotry, abuse, etc., I can take it because they are trolls. But when a guy like Mel, whom up till now I didn't think was a troll, takes it upon himself to personal attack me with incredulous accusation like this, it makes very, very mad. I will never take stuff like this lightly - I want Mel to be accountable for this. Rama's arrow 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]
Before Rama's Arrow (and one or two others) explode with indignation, note a few points:

1. I didn't accuse Rama's Arrow of being a sock-puppet, or of anything else — I accused Systematic Rant of being one. The only (intemperate, not to say uncivil) accusations have come from Rama's Arrow.
2. I didn't claim that he was Rama's Arrow's sock-puppet; I asked: "are you Rama's Arrow, or just a friend of his using this sock-puppet account to help him out?" A reasonable question, given Systematic Rant's limited set of actions.
3. I'm not sure what "administer people" means, but I can't see that what I did was any different from what most of us who have been here for a while have done many times: when we suspect that someone is a sock-puppet (and it's pretty obvious that Systemic Rant is one — moreover I see that his User page has just been tagged as such) we ask them politely if that's what's going on. I'm not clear what alternative is being suggested for me here: ignore the sock-puppetry, or simply block the sock-puppet without any preliminary discussion, or what? What "investigation" is suggested, apart from approaching the suspected sock-puppet and mentioning it here?
4. As for other people "picking up the pieces" — I haven't seen anyone doing that. I've seen a bit of finger-wagging based on false premises (perhaps by people who haven't actually loked at the details of the suituation properly), but I'm not sure that that counts. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, it's clear from the comment left on your talk page that User:Systemic rant is not a supported of Rama's Arrow.

Rama, your over-reaction to this rather helps prove Systemic's rant. Αργυριου (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT "overreacting" and I don't care about what this Systemic rant fellow says or does. I just want to make sure that Mel Etitis and others like him think 2,000 times before frivolously attacking someone's integrity like this. And forgive me for being a little emotional, for I am not comforted by the prospect of being wantonly insulted on a project I've worked so bloody hard to help build. There wasn't any reason on the face of the earth for Mel to think that this Systemic rant chap was me, except that we had a terse exchange yesterday. This is an incredulous waste of time and energy caused by Mel Etitis's most insane accusation. As I've said, one expects such behavior from trolls alone. Rama's arrow 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how your second statement is true in any way, shape, or form. Rama may be overreacting, but that isn't at all related to Systemic rant's rant. Personally, I have to say I see this Rama's way and can't imagine what caused Mel, a respected editor and administrator, to assume such incredible bad faith of another contributor (no matter who they are, really), without a shred of evidence (and in fact, a preponderance of evidence to the contrary). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Mel's incredible assumptions of bad faith and opprobrious allegations to be rather sad. I am certain Rama does not need to make socks to be respected across wiki, as his FA's and help on WP:INDIA, WP:BANGLADESH, WP:PAKISTAN and other projects can exemplify. Rather one can view Mel's outburst as suspicious, as it comes in conjunction with his vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda. He has made an accusation

“ and the attempt to delete it is clearly itself PoV and in bad faith ”

[82]. This is after of course, viewing the arguments presented before him and noting that Rama's Arrow voted delete. So these are two attacks on Rama's Arrow from Mel in a short amount of time. First call a respected admin a troll, then accuse him of sockpuppetry, then come whining to WP:AN/I. Rather peculiar conduct on the part of another admin.Bakaman 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama is NOT overreacting in any way. Asking a user "are you Rama's Arrow or just a friend of his using this sockpuppet account?" is extremely provocative. I can only read it as a barely disguised accusation of sockpuppetry — or a rhetorical question that seems meant to cause people to start doubting Rama's Arrow. Either way, it's a terrible slight against one of the best editors and admins we have, by another respected admin for God's sake, which gives the question/accusation a veneer of authority. If any number of other editors made such a comment, it could be ignored, but a fellow admin making a comment like that fully justifies Rama's response. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Systemic_rant is definitely a sockpuppet of SOMEONE, I can't see any immediate evidence to point a finger at anyone - all you know for sure is that it's someone watching similar pages to you. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit has blocked user:Systemic rant as a sockpuppet of user:Kuntan - [83]. Rama's arrow 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm contributing to this, since this is partly my fault. I received an email from the sockpuppet account a while ago, and meant to get in touch with Mel to let him know not to give the account much attention, for obvious reasons. I didnt, and this has blown up. I apologise to both Nirav and Mel.

Nirav: I've just been accused of sockpuppeteering as well. On this very page, a little higher up, it is suggested that we take a holiday from civility on India pages. Frankly, my hope is that either you dont react like this, or you make more of an effort to enforce civility when others are at the receiving end. Hornplease 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had some time to cool down so I'd like to leave my final comment on the matter - do I regret my heated comments? Not really - to me it is clear that Mel Etitis, who had no reason whatsoever to assume that I was connected to the sock account, thus made a personal attack and nothing less on me. He never attempted to obtain any evidence, did not file a report at WP:RFCU and thus this entire ANI report was completely bogus - sockpuppetry (especially by an admin) is a serious business, so Mel's conduct is irresponsible and suspicious. If he ever honestly thought that I was socking, he would have had the balls to go to RFCU and take some definitive action.

Accusations of any nature are a very serious business - as admins, we should know that best. I have no respect for Mel whatsoever from this point. The bottomline for this miserable episode is responsibility and accountability - Mel Etitis behaved like a troll would and a higher standard of conduct and responsibility is expected from him. If he has any enduring issues with me, it is his responsibility to discuss with me like a man, instead of dropping bogus charges and attempting to malign me. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, listen to your own comments. "I have no respect for Mel whatsoever". "Mel's conduct is irresponsible and suspicious","frivolously attacking someone's integrity", "wantonly insulted", "Mel Etitis's most insane accusation", "Mel, who up till now I didn't think was a troll", "Take a deep breath? Assume WP:AGF? Why don't you ask Mel", "Mel's insane charges", "A volcano has just exploded in my mind against Mel Etitis - he better thank God for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...", "his stupid suggestion",.....you're getting way too worked up, and you're borderline losing civility here. If you're going to be accusing Mel of being incivil, you should make sure that you yourself don't violate that first. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I think WP:KETTLE applies a bit here in regards to the civility (or lack thereof) displayed by both sides. The moral: don't go around making accusations without some sort of proof and try and take a deep breath before responding with vitriolic rhetoric that doesn't do anything to help the situation.--Isotope23 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect ur views, SWATJester and Isotope, but when I said "I have no respect for Mel whatsoever," I was dead serious - it is my candid opinion of him. Mel's charges and actions were "insane," and "stupid." WP:CIVILITY/WP:KETTLE are not supposed to prevent someone from saying that the sky is blue. And I will never cease to stress the gravity of Mel's irresponsible conduct. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate (for the umpteenth time) — I didn't make any accusation against Rama's Arrow, nor display any incivility; I asked a sock-puppet if he was Rama's Arrow or someone else... The explosion came solely from RA and one or two others here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in asking a deaf man to describe the music of a nightingale?

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

User:Weggie

When I can across Ian Paisleys page I noticed that it had the DUP party logo in the image, I then removed it diff as the image is a logo and fair use and not appropriate for the infobox and stated why, then I noticed that all the DUP MLA's had the image in the infobox I then proceded to remove them all, all of these edits where reverted by User:Weggie without stating why so I asked him diff and was called a vandal in his response diff and again diff --Barry O'Brien entretien 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie is obviously confused about what the image parameter in the politician infobox is for (an image of the politician, not the politician's party logo). While it's also true that there is no rationale for the unfree logo for that article, it is likely that a clarification at User talk:Weggie about what we want in the infobox would be the easiest thing to explain. Jkelly 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel extremely 'miffed' that a lot of my work has been arbitrarily ripped out without the common curtesy of an explanation of why PRIOR to the act. Also, this ai a collaborative project - what you want in the infobox may not be what I would consider common sense where no photo exists - hence debate then removal rather than an explanation of why I am wrong Weggie 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly this is less straightforward than I thought. Others' opinions on using logos as the image in biographical infoboxes welcome. Jkelly 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There’s an ‘every article must have at least one image’ (yes, unqualified just like that) faction out there, so somebody would probably argue that this is a good idea. However, with party logos being usually copyrighted (and non-free), there is absolutely no way that they could be used in articles on individual politicians (we don’t have an Apple logo in iPod, either). The reason is that per policy, we are to display fair use material only where it is not just not replaceable, but also necessary and used in a critical context and for identification. Party logos in biographical articles obviously fail this benchmark. Even where a logo is usable in terms of copyright, putting it into the infobox instead of a photograph would probably give the implied affiliation undue weight (assuming that the person is notable). —xyzzy_n 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie has removed messages from Barryob from his talk page regarding this with the outrageous edit summary of Would you like a chicken supper bS?. This is a reference to the dead hunger striker Bobby Sands, and is offensive to Irish nationalists and republicans, details here and here. He then removed polite messages regarding the civility of the edit summary from Vintagekits several times, with edit summaries of "b" and ",". Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie has also gotten into an edit war on the Ulster Unionist Party page. Trying to bury all mention of PUP/UVF or their illegal activities. --Eamonnca1 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Murder accusation

I dont take kindly to being accused of murder here, SqueakBox 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• "get away with murder" is an idiom. It isn't a literal accusation of murder. Uncle G 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's a figure of speech. Except when it was used in I Know What You Did Last Summer. But that was a bad movie. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing to see here, just a turn of phrase. And I hated that movie, and the sequel (was there more then one? This could be a modern, crappy, Halloween (movie). -M^ask 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Anybody else remember this comic? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Your links broken. I'm gonna cry :( -M^ask 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Paste it in directly or navigate to it from the main page. It's under the archive for 1999, very bottom-left corner of the gallery. --tjstrf talk 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
            • *snort* never saw it before, but well done, I laughed. -M^ask 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Either you're trying to make something out of nothing, or you need to seriously get back in touch with your English language skills. - Mark 07:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing another editors talk page posts

User:Minderbinder edited one of my talk page posts. [84] Admittedly, I made a minor clarification to my post after he responded to it (without changing it’s meaning at all), but I do not believe he had any right to edit my post even under those conditions. He continues to argue that he can do so, and I’d like to have someone clarify this for me. BTW, the discussion we were having when he changed my post was all about him changing another editor’s post. This seems to be a pattern with Minderbinder. Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt' edit anything, I merely restored the version that I responded to since it changed the context of my response. WP:TALK says not to edit your posts after others have replied (or to edit with strikethrough) which is exactly what Dreadlocke did.

The other edit was the removal of a comment on a user talk page calling a living person "Basically a self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant throwing anything and everything at his pet hate." WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I'd love to get an admin opinion on that as well, as Dreadlocke has argued that the removal was the wrong thing to do. Thanks. --Minderbinder 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring a different version=editing, Minderbinder definitely edited my post. My minor change was to replace the word "it" with what "it" was referring to: "the editor's opinion", which changed nothing in the context of either the post or Minderbinder's response. Even if it did, I don't think he had a right to edit my post. Nowhere in the WP:TALK editing other's comments guideline do I see where he can "restore" (edit) my post for the reasons he gives.

There's a whole discussion on the other issue here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Argumentum_ad_Jimbonem_in_defense_of_name_calling. Which is not a place I would have chosen, but Jimbo did give me advice on how to handle a similar issue. I was just repeating for the current case on how he said to handle such a thing. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that in a discussion about his editing other user's posts, Minderbinder edited my post. Fascinating. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• As good practice, one should not edit the post after it has been responded to. It may change the context of the response. Use strike thru. Additionally, WP:BLP should be adhered to. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your response. I do agree with you, but the main question here is whether Minderbinder can edit my post, even if I've changed it after he responded to it. WP:TALK does not prohibit my change, so I don't believe he should be editing my post under that guideline. Further, the minor change I made did not change the context of anything in my post or his response. And BLP doesn't enter into his editing my post, it has nothing to do with it. Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Henrygb (talk · contribs) and his sock Audiovideo (talk · contribs)

The Arbitration Committee has learned that administrator Henrygb has been operating a sock puppet, Audiovideo. This has been confirmed by unusually compelling checkuser evidence, and Henrygb has declined to provide any explanation to the Committee for his actions. We note that in addition to double voting in the current Attribution poll, Henrygb has been complimenting his own photography, supporting his own RFA, and double voting at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The Committee does not believe that such conduct is appropriate for administrators, and has encouraged Henrygb to voluntarily resign his adminship. Both accounts are blocked pending a satisfactory resolution of the matter. For the committee, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that before notifying the community, User:Henrygb was contacted privately by email by several arbitrators asking him to explain his actions. He was also contacted on his talk page. I fully support his voluntary desyop and hope he request this immediately. FloNight 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Was this discovery incidental while investigating some other person, or was it a complaint against him or his sock specifically? I would like to know whether it is useful as a general matter for admin candidates to have been on Wikipedia a long enough time that it is probable they would be incidentally discovered as being a banned user, having disruptive sockpuppets, etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was discovered incidentally. The discoverer's eyes bugged out their head when they realised what this was - David Gerard 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is disturbing. Henry has been around for a long time (indeed, his talk page still has a comment from me dated 2004!). This seems out of character, frankly, and I hope that he'll be forthcoming with an explanation. Regarding the remedy, is it normal practice to block the puppetmaster as well as the socks? -- ChrisO 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SOCK "Voting and other shows of support" is a forbidden use of socks. As such Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IrishGuy ^talk 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed the point about Henry voting for himself. That's an absolute no-no. Thanks for the pointer. -- ChrisO 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, as was recently argued in defense of someone else, a two-year-long Wikipedia editor !voting more than once, he may "not be familiar with the mechanics of !voting" and thought it was permissible. Shouldn't he get the "four warnings" to be sure he really understands it's wrong? (Checks calendar, notes with dismay that April 1 is past, strikes out entire paragraph.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is appalling. I think a public apology for abusing everyone's trust is a good idea. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, he screwed up. Badly. But please don't turn this thread into a ForestFire of condemnation like happened to Essjay. Those help no one. Picaroon 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let's not overreact. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1/0 thread and possible sock puppet

For some time, 74.211.85.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been posting on Talk:Theory of everything with bizzare screeds about the definition of 1/0. I've been assuming that they're a new user who doesn't grasp WP:NOR (though they're showing improvement in grasping talk page ettiquette, finally). Recently, Trovatore (talk · contribs) reverted such a posting as being from a probable sock puppet of Germanium (talk · contribs), who is banned for similar activities. 1) Can a sock check still be performed this late?, 2) If so, could someone perform one, 3) If there is reasonable grounds for concluding that this IP is a sock for a banned user, could someone put a sock-puppet template on it and 4) block it (if part of an IP pool) or ban it (if static)?

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas 01:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a painfully obvious sockpuppet of User:Germanium and I have blocked it for 24 hours. Anyone else can adjust the block to their liking. Grandmasterka 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You might also want to add the IP mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Germanium to the "suspected sockpuppets" category. --Christopher Thomas 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That report is closed, and it's not necessary to add new accounts to SSP reports anyway if they're as obvious as this, except for the sake of comparison. I've already created a category for this user's sockpuppets. Grandmasterka 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize the report is closed. I already saw the category you created, and was attempting to draw your attention to the fact that the IP noted from the January suspected-sock page is not in this category. --Christopher Thomas 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I added it. Grandmasterka 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings and sock template at User talk:Malamockq.

My welcome page. Nuff said.

This user plays games on the Nintendo DS portable console.

has on a few occasions attempted to remove warnings from his/her talk page, and the sock-puppetry template posted after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lengis. He/she is now edit-warring to maintain this removal. My understanding is that removing warnings and sock-puppet notices is not allowed. If one or more admins feels like explaining this to Malamockq, that would be appreciated. Alternatively, if I'm misreading the policy, I'm happy to be corrected about this. --Christopher Thomas 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Users can remove warnings from their talk pages. Sock notices go on their user pages, but I see zero reason to have one here, unless I missed something from my skimming. User:Lengis is not blocked or banned and has not edited since September 2006. WP:SOCK explicitly allows alternate or secondary accounts as long as they are not being used to evade bans or blocks or used to edit disruptively. Why is the sockpuppet notice, which implies some wrongdoing requiring its presence, there? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to look up the checkuser request to refresh my memory, as it's been a while. They'd been attempting to show magnified support for a particular viewpoint at Talk:Quasar. Nothing since then, that I know of, but I went on Wikisabbatical not long after, so I haven't been keeping track of more recent activity.--Christopher Thomas 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see the need for it now, as they have stopped using the Lengis account and are using Malamockq as their primary. If he/she begins using both accounts disruptively, then one of the socks should be blocked, and the user warned/temp blocked again. That's about it. One indiscretion (assuming it hasn't happened in the 8 months since) should not amount to a permanent scarlet letter, in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Comments from anyone else, before the thread is closed? --Christopher Thomas 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what would make anyone think such warnings had to remain up forever. Sort of an odd viewpoint, isn't it? TortureIsWrong 07:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for cases where abuse is continuing, which are the ones I'm used to. Otherwise you get way too much leniency for repeat offenders. However, in this case, I agree that it's overkill (as repeat offense looks unlikely). --Christopher Thomas 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Dreamz rosez is a disruptive sockpuppet who has been perpetually reverting on Rafida, as can be seen by his contribs. other puppets include: Solaariz dayz (talk · contribs), No problem 1254 (talk · contribs), Shadow gost (talk · contribs). in fact, Talk:Rafida is crammed full of documentation of other puppets of this user. editors have been persistently undoing "Dreams rosez" et al. for a number of months now, and it's frankly becoming quite a pain. administrator attention is needed. thank you. ITAQALLAH 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• the sock is still reverting -_-. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 week for revert warring and sockpuppetry. Indefinite is probably warranted, but someone more familiar with the situation can block further.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Marky48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This seems like a violation of WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is. After seeing some other edits of his, I've blocked him for a week. --Coredesat 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work almost every comment he made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination) was an insult!--Dacium 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And he's making more personal attacks after being blocked, too. *Dan T.* 04:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I just got quite an abusive e-mail from him. --Coredesat 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm pretty sure that's not English. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When I did a little research after my last run-in with the guy, it was apparent he was using Wikipedia as a new battleground in an off-Wiki fight: anyone who gets in his way is just collateral damage to him, it seems. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatW persistent personal attacks

This user: PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in personal attacks, escalation, and creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to editing to say the least. See diffs:

• [85] Calling an editor "dumb".
• [86] Despising NPA warnings in his talk page
• [87] Calling the same editor "hypocrite"

He has been asked numerous times to cool off, to no avail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan's incivility and personal attacks

The user MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. Diffs from the March Days and other pages:

• March Days, 00:46, April 3, 2007 (two full reverts)
• March Days, 21:19, April 2, 2007

• 01:44, April 3, 2007 "you cannot even lie well"
• 19:24, April 2, 2007 "I'm truly going to savor the moment your account goes the way of the dodo"
• 12:40, March 27, 2007 "quit pussyfooting around the issues"

He's been told to remain civil and not engage in personal attacks, POV and bias, but ignored those requests. --adil 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has been maliciously editing articles on Wikipedia for over a year, vandalizing them, locking them up, for every allegation of misdoing on my part, I can easily point to 10 more coming from him. He has been voted to be banned for a period of one year by an arbitration committee because of his disruptiveness on Wikipeda and hence, is now trying to destroy whatever he can with the short lifespan he has on Wikipedia.

All this, and he comes to this noticeboard every week to whine that some user has upset him precisely because of his provocative edits in the first place.--MarshallBagramyan 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove and disruptive sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.

This user has been disrupting numerous articles for quite a long time now. I believe that GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and recently NovaNova are all the same person. They use the same style of writing (grammar mistakes, spacing, etc.) and they all have the same subject of interest which are Dalmatia-related articles and removing or vandalising every mention of Croatia in them. I have looked around their history pages and I have found striking similarities in their reverts. I found out that these two members have been involved in numerous edit-wars where they have "collaborated" to such a degree that it took my attention right away. Looking closer I found out that they in fact made exactly the same methods and when there wasn't one there was the other doing the same revert and replying in the same manner. Some of the articles included are: List of Croatians, Giovanni Luppis, Francesco Patrizi, Benedetto Cotrugli, Andrea Meldolla and so on. If these are all accounts of the same person (which I am convinced they are) he is also guilty for vote stacking on as can be seen on Talk:Francesco_Patrizi, this page can also be observed for striking similarity in argumentation of these supposedly two people (it is in fact identical). Recently it seems he introduced another sockpuppet at Giulio Clovio named NovaNova, this article is also where GiorgioOrsini is involved in a edit-war for very long time and now he obviously introduced another sock to help himself. In short due to long-term disruption, vandalism, incivility and extremly striking similarity in edit style, argumentation and exactly the same interests I am forced to request an indefinite block or ban of this user and all of his accounts.

It is certain to assume that Giovanni Giove is the master account, as it is the oldest account out of the three. This person then created his other two accounts in a short amount of time - during November 2006. GiorgioOrsini and NovaNova are his two accounts which are used for rampant edit warring, and personal attacks, and they are also used to create the illusion that their is more than one person who holds these opinions. To get a taste of this report, please see that after a user gave him a legitimate warning, Orsini removed it and was uncivil. Also take a look at this threat/attack.

Looking at each user's contributions, it is highly likely that GiorgioOrisni was created by Giovanni Giove to create the illusion of support for his views on the article "Juraj Dalmatinac". Another point to notice is that GiorgioOrisni's first ever edit was to the talk page of Juraj Dalmatinac, where he immediately started repeating the same words spoken by Giovanni Giove, and immediately engaged in edit warring over that article - quite an unusual thing for a genuine new user to do. Both accounts edit the same articles - often edit warring with other users, most notably on Juraj Dalmatinac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Andrea Meldolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles of famous Croatian/Italian figures. Both account seem to have the single purpose of removing all references to Croatia or Croats on articles of famous historical figures, and claiming them as exclusively "Italian", while calling all other views "pseudo-historical". Both account use the same style of language in talk pages and edit summaries. The account GiorgioOrsini is also guilty of vandalism, by removing people from article lists and then adding words such as "falsifier" to describe someone[88]. It can clearly be seen that these users are in fact the same person.

Name changes/removals

All three users constantly move pages from Croatian names to Italian ones. All three remove sections of articles regarding name controversies and such - and always use the same or similar "reasoning" (e.g, "removed name nonsense", or "pseudo-historical nonsense".

Diffs:

• Giovanni Giove - [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94].
• GiorgioOrsini - [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105].
• NovaNova - [106], [107].

Neo-Nazism

In "their" mad fanaticism, "they" frequent the articles Neo-Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Croatia, and try to insert inflammatory POV, and more lies and falsifications.

Diffs:

• GiorgioOrsini - [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124].
• NovaNova - [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143].

Giulio Clovio

The Giulio Clovio article is a frequent target of this one user's heavy POV edit warring. He frequently removes references and text referring to the man as a Croat. On the talk page, and in edit summaries they are always uncivil, and usually use personal attacks.

Diffs:

• Giovanni Giove - [144], [145], [146].
• GiorgioOrsini - [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162].
• NovaNova - [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170].

Blocks

All three have been blocked at least once for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring etc. Giove obviously has the most blocks as this is the master account. [171], [172], [173].

Please look into this

And block the accounts accordingly. Thank You. Sock Buster 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User bringing the charge is:

• a Wikipedia:Single purpose account,
• an admitted sock puppet User:Sock Buster
• forum shopping: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) ; Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove WP:AN/I#Giovanni Giove and disruptive sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.;
• failed to prove the case before, and in fact, found reasonably strong evidence the two accounts were different: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove

All that said, the charge deserves looking into, but, sheesh. I'd appreciate if someone else did it this time, so he doesn't think it's just me persecuting him. I'll do it if no one else does. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Malicious redirects

I don't know what the correct response is. 205.200.145.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been placing redirects from sandbox and test area to articles and user pages, caused embarrassment to established editors and others. (I couldn't figure out why User:AAA! had gotten 3 bad edits in 10 minutes!) I have only placed a uw-vandalism2 warning, but it seems he has friends accompanying him that might pick up the same tricks. Shenme 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hit and run, leaving the redirects to cause problems for following editors. Nice. Nevermind, until next time. (Hey, it was an education for me (reverting) and another editor (apologizing) (look at the page title before hitting submit!)) Shenme 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV Abuse

Some editors abused DRV in here. These users voted endorse because they voted delete in the AFD. It says on DRV that it is about process not content but several endorsers based their votes on the content. Therefore, the conclusion has been biased by these abusive votes. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Haabet

Haabet has been hard-banned from Danish WP, and he appears make few valuable edits to English WP. His last edit was to add a picture of Gorm the Old to the article Guthrum the Old. His talkpage will show that several users find him problematic. Is it wise to allow him to edit on English WP?--The trollfighter 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We let editors be until they cause trouble here... But I can say that editors that are banned on other Wikipedias historically tend not to last very long here (isn't human psychology fascinating?) His Danish userpage with the ban notice and some kind of commentary are here; any Danish readers in the house? Grandmasterka 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, this guy's been here since early 2004 2003!! with no blocks... Just let him be. Grandmasterka 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably the most active Danish editor on this project. Haabet is the only editor that has ever been banned from the Danish Wikipedia. This was a near-unanimous decision from the Danish administrators (19 of 20 admins voted, 18 of these in favour of a ban.)[174] If I remember correctly, they had to change policy to make bans possible. This ban can be appealed by Haabet once every year. First chance is 15 September 2007. The ban was due to Haabet inserting a lot of OR in articles relating to history which was upsetting a lot of people myself included. Haabet's other main area of contributions relate to corsets and the history of them. I have no idea if these edits are sound or not. Haabet was a very dedicated editor on the Danish Wikipedia, but the admins got completely fed up with cleaning up after him. I've only had sporadic encounters with him and the first one was very negative, but to give him the benefit of doubt; some of the last edits I've seen from him look more sound. I haven't checked his recent edits in detail, so this is just a hunch. His user name means "The Hope" so perhaps there is hope after all? What is perhaps a bit more interesting is that User:The trollfighter's edit history is less than two days old, consisting solely of reverting edits made by User:Arigato1 and posting messages on talk pages, but this person already knows how to make posts on AN/I. Isn't this somewhat unusual? Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Valentinian, who is a user I respect, considers my activity to be suspicious and wishes to put me in a bad light, I hereby cease to exist as a user. Good luck with the project, and I hope someone else watches the edits of these guys, because I will not do that anymore.--The trollfighter 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your statement that you like my edits. I am honoured. If you perceived my post as rude, I had no intention of being so. However, if I hadn't written the way I did, people might suspect that you were a sock of me. I've had to take a lot of crap from Arigato1, Comanche cph and Comanche's IP-address, but had I not reacted now, I'd no doubt have to waste next week with new accusations that I was a sockmaster. I have no idea how many hours I've wasted on this nonsense. Perhaps I should simply spare the trolls the trouble and close my account myself. Oh yeah, and if anybody believes the sockmaster accusations, by all means run a CU on me. I couldn't care less. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem regarding the article OmegaT

On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Wikipedia author.

The ticket number is [Ticket#2007033110014917].

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Wikipedia user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Wikipedia is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

Another Arthur Ellis sock

 Done Could someone please block:

• Winnebago Warrior (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis. Kla'quot 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Continual removal of red links at Chesham

What is the current policy on red links? One anon user currently finds them offensive to the extent that they keep trying to remove them from the Chesham article despite requests not to by several users and a note being added to the top of the article saying why they are left in. This same user has removed all the red links from the article at least six times in the last month and doesn't appear to want to listen to requests. Is it possible to lock the article against edits by anon users for a bit? What else can be done to get through to this user? -- Roleplayer 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If a red link is to something notable that just doesn't happen to have a page at this point in time, then it should probably be left alone. Given that many of those links are to things that appear not to be notable, eg primary schools, it would probably be better not to wikilink them. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

194.9.5.10 (talk · contribs)

I want to report a severe personal attack. 194.9.5.10, a user with whom I've had considerably conflicts before, is an anonymous contributor. However, when you look at his "contributions" you'll see that the majority of his edits are him mixing in my discussions and always chosing the opposing side. In other words he watches my edits and tries to irritate me whenever he can. He wrote the following on Talk:Battle of Kiev (1941)

Dear gentleman, a little well-meant advice: Please refrain from discussing with Rex - it is not worth it, ie a waste of time. He is simply a choleric German-hating guy who is unable to argue systematically, coherently, academically and neutrally due to his limited mental skills and superficial knowledge as weel as to the fact that his mummy never really loved him.

He adapted this all out personal attack 2 times, before he removed it again. Nevertheless I do not want this clear personal attack to go unpunished, and I trust the dealing admin will understand this.Rex 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple {{uw-npa1}} template will suffice for this one, which I've done. I am slightly concerned, however, at this (since when was a dubious edit a personal attack?) There is another IP address involved, 194.9.5.12 (talk • contribs), which is probably the same user because of the similar IPs. x42bn6 Talk 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In that link the anonymous IP puts a NPA tagg on the word dubious, not me.Rex 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's my concern. I can't find any real issues but I am still looking (while helping out on other venues) other than this one. My advice: If he is continuing to be like that, then he might just be being disruptive; but you can always keep level-headed and don't get angry. This anon, however, has made several good faith edits so it is probably not just to harass you. x42bn6 Talk 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I cancelled the statement delibrately and immediately after I had inserted it as I came to the result that it was to aggressive. However please feel free to check all my contribution and you will not find any unpolite or unfair comment whatsoever. As for Rex`s contributions, I would hardly allege the same... Kind regards, (194.9.5.12 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO

Well, that was interesting. Archived. El_C 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Not-so-special disruption, in my very humble opinion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but I cannot understand whar you mean, can you say what you mean in more detail? Tellyaddict 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That checkuser request is, in my opinion, not a lot more than vindictive, disruptive fishing on the part of the person who filed it. As such it is disruptive editing. I mean, MONGO and Chacor, socks of each other? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was new, let's cut him some slack. The user is probably not happy that he got kicked around at an administrative noticeboard. Somebody should point him in the right direction. PTO 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. WP:AGF, this was not meant to be disruptive. I mean, many of us have been around long enough that it sounds like a ridiculous idea, but I'm going to guess that in 4 days our new editor doesn't know that. IMO, the checkuser was rejected and it's time to move on.--Isotope23 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think this is an alternate account of an old face, if you check the contribs. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Second edit and around 15th edit. But never mind, just saying that perhaps here AGF should expire a little earlier than usual. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wake up people...you're being trolled. He's not a newbie...look at his edits...he's probably somebody I blocked once upon a time.--MONGO 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned this so many times now. I'm not a troll, I am a newbie. But when I first joined up I researched how to use the site. I only came to ANI to report a racist edit comment which I never got round to doing. I posted a comment about MONGO's accusations against Guinnog - at which point I was reverted and called a troll. MONGO has never actually spoken to me ever, let alone explain why he's so hell bent on me being a vandal. I asked for the checkuser for the simple reason that MONGO and Chacor's comments were very similar here on ANI. If I'm guilty of anything it's that I didn't read the RfCU instructions properly. Shock horror! -- I'm so special 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New user? Please. It took him less than a day to find the administrators' notice board and display his fluency in Wikispeak by wading into a spat. I didn't even know there were administrators until I had been here for several months. This is someone with an agenda. Looking at his contributions, writing an encyclopedia is not a high priority. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you people serious? You are going to discipline me because I have found this page and because I know what I'm doing on this website. Is there an actual policy that says "knowing how to use Wikipedia in your first week is forbidden". Because if not, I think we are done here. -- I'm so special 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you remove that utterly ridiculous signature please. I'm inclined to believe you already know our signature policy. -- Nick ^t 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but disruption when, by your own admission, you know what you're doing, really is broken. So stop, because you're walking towards an indefblock. Not a threat, just a friendly warning. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'd just really really like to chat with MONGO, or anyone about what I've done thats actually considered to be vandalism. Any takers? -- I'm so special 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Filing a vexatious checkuser request and misrepresenting yourself as a new user will do for a start. (I know, that's not strictly vandalism, but it's in the same spirit.) Raymond Arritt 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, disruption. Please stop it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Genuine new users don't usually have such hideous, flashy signatures. And how many of us knew what a checkuser was (let alone how to request one) three days after joining?[175] ElinorD (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably some ED troll...Chacor and I have been accused there of being socks of each other...kind of hard since we are half a world away from each other, but oh well.--MONGO 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is leading nowhere. Indeed, Chacor hails from Singapore i believe while MONGO does so from the U.S. As for "I'm so special", i just don't mind if they are a newbie or not -many newly created accounts came here even before they edited 10 edits. Please consider archiving this thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed — are there no volcanos erupting in MONGO's and Chacor's heads...? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

repeated addition of false information on Nadine Gordimer

repeated insertion ([176], [177], [178], [179], breaking 3RR) of statement ( "home is protected by high-tech security equipment" ) contradicted by source provided [180], despite warning on article and user talk pages, by IP user(s) 75.212.126.146, 75.213.225.215 and 75.213.225.215. mirrors earlier edits ([181], [182]) by tendentious editor 70.23.199.239. Doldrums 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of User:Yakuman (and/or User:70.23.199.239), based on the timing and style of edits of Yakuman and the three anonymous Verizon editors today. --lquilter 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Solicitation of Interviews

John2429 (talk · contribs) is soliciting people to conduct paid interviews for a purported Grad School project. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Looking to Interview Wikipedians. Is this activity permitted? Should these be removed? Should any warnings be issued for this? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally would turn a blind eye as its for a non-profit organisation. Epbr123 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I brought something similar to this up a while back and the general consensus of the people who responded to my WP:AN post seemed to be to let it slide.--Isotope23 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of personal attack

Hope this is the right place. I fear it isn't, unless oversight is appropriate. Special:Contributions/172.164.50.47 shows a personal attack being added on two user's talk pages (claimed to be, and likely to be, the same person). But they have fake signatures. So perhaps this is really about attacking the person whose signatures they are. There has been intemperate discussion e.g. [183], Talk:Scotch_whisky#Map. Neither user is active at the moment, but they edit in bursts. I don't know what to do about it anyway. Would it be in order to just delete them as personal attacks, or is that out of order on another user's talk page? The IP appears to belong to AOL, so there's no profit in investigating that further. Notinasnaid 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned the IP, although if it belongs to AOL, it may not do much good. Heimstern Läufer 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Fbradish

This guy is already blocked for vandalism and is expressing his general contempt for the community by abusing his talk page. Not a crisis worthy of AIV, but worth making note of.. His 24 hour block expires in a little over 2hrs --Versageek 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. If he wants to remove warnings, that is his perogative, but he is not entitled to falsify posts by others. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to reset the block timer for the disruption and perhaps extend it for falsification of posts. I'd say an indef block on this guy is going to be pretty inevitable, he isn't going to grow up in 2 hours, is he. -- Nick ^t 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a vandalism-only account, why is it not already indefblocked? I'll do it myself unless someone gives a reason I haven't seen. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Block away. Watch out for vandalism from his IP, though: 81.153.33.130. That will surely follow. IrishGuy ^talk 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I've reverted and protected his talk page, btw. -- Nick ^t 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:63.151.150.82 on Vincent Fumo

User:63.151.150.82 appears to be a single purpose account, with the sole purpose of vandalizing (blanking) the text of Vincent Fumo, and replacing it with a BLP violation. The user has been warned once by a bot, and once by me, at User talk:63.151.150.82. - Crockspot 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a job for WP:AIV if he does it again...--Isotope23 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and Sockpuppetry

User [User:Khoikhoi| Khoikhoi] and [User:Beit_Or| Beit Or] began stalking and reverting all of my edits back to own versions without any comments or discussion here [184] here [185] here [186] here [187]. Suspected sockpuppet of user Khoikhoi who also has been stalking and reverting my edits consecutively[188], here [189], here [190], here [191]. --Oguz1 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppetry or stalking here. You have also been warned about this. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Oguz1 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for disruptive editing and WP:POINT violations. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation by 67.163.193.239

67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs) seems to be violating WP:POINT by scrubbing articles of fansite links. IP is upset that its own links have been rejected at Rule of Rose (lengthy discussion there). IP keeps blanking talk page, and has been blocked before for spamming & 3RR. Any help? Not a dog 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I looked at every single contribution, or that I like the possible pointiness of their actions, but I think some of their removals are valid. But again, I didn't check all of their contribs, and others may have a different evaluation. Natalie 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as WP:POINT -- in general, fansite links are discouraged. It isn't really disruptive and the "point" being made is largely supported by consensus. The user absorbed that information and is acting on it. Personally speaking, I'd be happy to see a lot of fansite links removed from articles. Cheers. Dina 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistant Spammer - Vanity edits

The following usernames all appear to be socks of the same individual, whose every edit is either link-spam, information about himself (Asa Dan Brown), or information about his company/organization (Insight Psychological Inc). I happened to notice this trend after watchlisting some random pages due to vandalism. I'm not sure what needs to be done, so I am bringing it to your attention here. The suspected usernames/IP, along with some representative diffs, are listed below. Thanks. Pastordavid 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Insight psychological inc. (talk · contribs · count) diff, diff, diff
• Psychological - insight (talk · contribs · count) diff, diff,
• Insight Psychological (talk · contribs · count) diff, diff, diff
• 142.59.133.152 (talk · contribs · count) diff, diff, diff

Drop by User:Shadow1 and ask to have the offending link/links added to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. -- Nick ^t 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. But should account creation be blocked on the IP? I am generally not quite so adament about vandalism blocks, but this sort of revolving account creation seems to game the system. -- Pastordavid 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind ... for now I am satisfied with the apology offered by the "staff of Insight Psychological", and will simply let the matter go for now. -- Pastordavid 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets

I've done a bit of research, pertaining to Bowsy and Henchman 2000 and I believe that enough of a pattern has been established to satisfy a WP:MEATPUPPET finding, as well as WP:CIVIL infractions. The evidence I've accumulated is at User:AKMask/puppets. Id like to open a disussion on this, with remedies being either some sort of restriction on them participating in the same XfD's as each other up to a block on one of the accounts and restriction to just one username, depending on where consensus says the evidence takes us. Thank you. -M^ask 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Probable socks, at bare minimum meatpuppets. Votestacking with these two account. Bowsy admits that it is a shared computer. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to consider asking them not to participate in the same deletion discussion. Such things aren't supposed to be decided strictly numerically, so it doesn't seem like much of a restriction, and will counter the notion that an opinion has wider support than it actually enjoys, since there seems but one opinion operating here. Demi ^T/_C 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLPC

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ZoreniaBlueLightning (talk · contribs)

This user seems just a tad suspicous to me, so I created this account to report without retaliation. Ignoreme 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable airport links

I recently rolled back all edits by Swilson86 (talk · contribs) due to highly suspect insertions of links to apparent airport websites and I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone wanted to double check my actions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)