Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Betacommand tagging images for speedy deletion

User:Betacommand used a bot to tag hundreds of fair use images for speedy deletion last night, because they didn't have fair use rationales. While it would be preferable for all fair use images to have rationales, this heavyhanded approach caught many images which clearly qualify for fair use. In these cases it would be far less stressful and uncivil for a human to simply add the rationale, rather than pasting hundreds of threatening messages on talk pages. In addition, the bot's edits broke several articles including here and here. If Betacommand does this for another round, a discussion of blocking him and rolling back the contributions seems to be appropriate. Rhobite 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been discussed to death already. All fair use images require a specific justification in addition to the boilerplate templates, its not just "preferable." It is neither the duty nor obligation of any user to write these justifications; presumably the people most interested in the articles will be in the best position to do so. Feel free to add specific rationales to the images you want kept, according to Wiipedia and Foundation policy. Thatcher131 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the point of adding more text to the description page of images like Image:DickMorris RewritingHistory Cover.jpg? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a specific fair use rational for each page it is being used on. See WP:FUC. ^(H) 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this badly-written bot is breaking links when it tries to leave a template inside infoboxes, potentially leaving disputed images as orphaned and liable to being deleted by Orphanbot. This is completely unacceptable, which is why I have hit the bot shutoff button. -- Arwel (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hay stupid unblock the bot. I made those edits. I dont want to screem ADMIN abuse but that is what your doing. CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING. look at who made the edits, It was me and not a bot. /me sighs yet another person who doesnt know policy, and doesnt check their facts before acting and is an admin Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked your bot. Please remember to be civil, even in difficult circumstances. Thank you. --BigDT 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you actually saw that your edits were damaging the articles, and yet continued editing? Words fail me - we can understand a bot messing things up, but human beings are supposed to have the ability to use common sense. If you saw the articles were being damaged, there is nothing so pressing that articles and images have to be tagged now -- the world will not end if you wait a few days and found a non-damaging way to mark disputed images. -- Arwel (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite; tagging valid images that can be used under fair use only because now they need a rationale is really disruptive. You can't expect to have all the fair-use images uploaded since Wikipedia's creation to get a rationale in one week. Many users that uploaded those images don't contribute to the Wikipedia anymore, and can't place the rationale to those images. I think a bot-tagging for such images is necessary, but not marking them for deletion. A team of volunteers should try to place a rationale on the reationale-needing tagged images whenever possible, or place a deletion tag otherwise.

Anyhow, Betacommand's edits are far from the ideal way of handling this, and the user has proved not to be open to contructive critic. My 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

we have let these images slide for over 3 years, that is way too long. we need to take action and fast. its not my responsibility for FUR. its the uploader. tagging for deletion gets people off their butts and gets them going. All im doing is enforcing policy. the tagging and letting others come back later is a bad idea. we do the same for pages lacking source with {{nosource}} we have pages tagged that date back to 2005. for copyright violations such backlogs cannot be created. they need to be dealt with quickly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you still don't get it. Nobody is arguing with you about policy. It's you method at addressing the problem that irks people. Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody with the technical knowledge to actually write a good, functioning bot to automatically add rationale to established fair use images like album covers and sports team logos? Where should I ask for this bot? Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could write it if were possible but per policy a bot cannot fill in the details needed for a valid FUR. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a bot that automatically fills rationale for every image without a fair use rationale. The person who runs the bot should be discriminate. I don't know how to run a bot, but the bot user obviously only runs the bot for images that share the same, yet specific, rationale. Like album covers or sports team logos. Blueshirts 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even then a bot cannot do that. bots are not smart enough to write a valid FUR as EACH must be unique and specific to the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is this? Also, yes, bots are smart enough to write a valid FUR for certain kinds of acceptable fair use. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff bots cannot be that smart. Trust me Ive been trying to make a smart bot for a very long time. see WP:FURG we need a detailed explanation of why me must use the image every time we do use it. A bot cannot be programmed to be human. Also read WP:NONFREE Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several types of images that could have a highly generic fair use rationale (chiefly: album and book covers). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Betacommand. I've been working on images for the last few months, as have others. The best things that have happened to the image situation in that time have been BJBot and Betacommand's tool. And the reason why is that they wake people up by moving large quantities of non-conforming images into deletion categories so that they are noticed.

I would oppose any attempt at creating a bot to automatically fill in fair use rationales. If a bot were going to do that, what's the point in requiring a fair use rationale for each use? Just put it in the template. Corvus cornix 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that he has chosen to improve his tool so that it notifies the uploaders when he tags the images, since technically that is not required. There seem to be some users working hard at WP:NR to address this issue, but it isn't clear to me that they were doing much before Betacommand got his tool working.

It's not like these images are gone forever. If 6 weeks from now, you come across an album page and you think 'This used to have an image on it': check the history, find the deleted image, prepare a rationale for it, and take it to Deletion review.

I expect and hope that the volume of image tagging that Betacommand is doing will drop off in the next couple of weeks because the backlog of images get fixed or removed. After that hopefully the folks working on rationales now continue to monitor new images to help less experienced users bring their images into compliance with our guidelines when they are uploaded. ~ BigrTex 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you can provide a valid rationale for an image, I don't see why you'd need to send it to DRV. Just restore and add the rationale. We're not a bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, in fact please don't take them to deletion review. (Deletion review requires you attempt to resolve it with the deleting admin first...) --pgk 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been something that has annoyed me for a while. Orginally, WP:CSD said that an image could be speedied for having no rationale only if it had a generic tag {{fairuse}} or {{fairusein}}. That statement was removed without discussion and for the stated intention that {{fairusein2}}, {{fairusein3}}, etc, should also apply. It was never intended to apply to all fair use images, only to those with a generic tag.

The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.

If the image obviously qualifies for fair use and is only missing a pro forma rationale, please, just FIX IT rather than having it deleted. Creating extra busy work serves no purpose. By all means, if it is a promo photo or so-called historic photo or something like that, kill it dead and if lack of a rationale is the excuse, that's fine. But we don't need to go around killing logos, screenshots, or other things where there is nothing meaningful to say beyond what is on the tag. --BigDT 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, the issue is we cant just have the images because it makes the page look better. the images are copyright and we need to explain why me must inculude the image. Does the article HAVE to have that image? if not remove it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no Wikipedia policy, standard, or guideline which states that all articles need an image. Free images? Sure. But if the article has a non-free image just so it can be there, or just to show a picture of the thing which is already obviously the subject of the article (and yes, I'm looking at you too, album and book covers) is outside of current policy. The fair-use rationale explicitly requires critical commentary about the image in the article in every case excepting logos. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, every case excepting logos. If any logo can be found to be fair use for the article on the organization that the logo is representation of, then all logos are fair use. It's pretty simple, really: a logo is fair use because it's a logo; a logo is an important visual representation of an organization that serves to immediately identify that organization in the real world and it serves exactly the same purpose on Wikipedia. If we can write up a fair use rationale for one logo, then the exact same rationale will apply to all other logos as well. Betacommand, however, is indiscriminately tagging logos along with all the other things he's tagging (actually, he said he decided to start with logos, which plenty of people have explained are the least troublesome fair use images we have). Lexicon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but for right now, the standard is that in basically every article about a company or school, we have the logo of the institution in the upper right corner of the article. Do we have to do it that way? No, not really. But still, that's the standard. As long as it remains the standard, removing logos piecemeal is silly. For anything uploaded prior to the last six months, at the time they were uploaded, WP:CSD said that only {{fairusein}} had to have a rationale. So deleting these things instead of fixing them is bad. If we want to change our policy and use NO logos unless the logo itself is a source of controversy and we are offering commentary on it, I'm all for that. I think infoboxes would look nicer with photographs anyway. But that isn't how we do things right now, and tagging these things is just creating busy work.--BigDT 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place where we really, truly differ is on the amount of time it takes to "fix" an image. I believe, and I think Betacommand does as well, that the current system of tagging an image and notifying the uploader is most likely to see results within the first seven days; if it does not, then it is better to delete the image so that someone can start over. We all seem to agree that non-free images need a fair-use rationale, and that we should do something about making sure that happens. This isn't as big a dispute as it would appear, on the whole. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's something you are not considering. Take for instance image Image:Cybersix.jpg; from {{comicpanel}}, Cydebot changed it into {{Non-free comic}}, and then Betacommand into {{non-free use disputed}}. The problem here is that we lost the info that this is a comics image without proper fair use rationale. Wasn't it a lot easier and useful to chenge the {{Non-free comic}} template to reflect the new policies, instead of replacing the tag for god-knows how many low-res comic images?

This makes life harder for anyone trying to add rationales to a kind of images of a topic he knows best. --Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NONFREE no template can be a fair use rationale. you cant create a template that is a valid Fair use rationale. /me feels like a parrot repeating himself 10 times a day</rant>. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get my message. I'm not saying we should be using templates for automatic rationales; I'm sayin we should use different templates for different topics, so specialized people can try reationalize the image of their field. Such tags already existed but you chenged them for one single rationale-less tag, losing valuable information in the process. It seams you are more interested in deleting all imgaes that don't have a rationale instead of obtaining a valid rationale for the images we have; that is the attitude that pisses of so many users, and you seam not to understand. --Mariano(t/c) 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing, I have added a fair use rationale for one of the tagged images, and would be interested in whether it is considered sufficient. [[1]]. It is not a template, but a similar rationale could easily be developed for a great many images. Euryalus 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is. Lexicon (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating Betacommand's effort to require fair use rationale for images. I do want to point out, again, that the bot is leaving garbled posts on talk pages which do not adequately inform editors that images have been tagged for deletion. When Arwel_Parry mentioned that fact above, the only response from the bot's author was name calling. The author of a bot bears the responsibility for ensuring that the bot works before running it, and certainly to respond more appropriately when users point out the problems that the bot has caused. For example, see this talk page for an article which I wrote, on author Hy Turkin. The bot attempted to paste two templates, notifying the editors that an image linked in the article was missing source information and a fair use rationale. The code was malformed, so neither template was rendered correctly. Additionally, the name of the linked image was malformed (the underscore in the file name was transmuted to a space). People who are watching this page see what looks like garbage text, and unless they take the time to deconstruct what this code is supposed to say, they have no idea that an image within the article has been tagged for speedy deletion. The end result is that a change will be potenentially made to this page without adequately informing the editors. The bot puts the burden on them to figure out what Betacommand meant. That's a huge disservice, not just to the editors of affected pages but to the entire wikipedia community. I'm assuming good faith here, that Betacommand wanted to take action to address the rampant problem of images without proper attribution. The burden should rightly be on the people who uploaded them to address the issue. However, by running a poorly written bot, what will happen is that tens of thousands of images will be speedily deleted without the authors of affected pages knowing what's going on. Anson2995 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it's really disappointing that nobody is willing to respond to the issue of the bot screwing up pages. Debate the Fair Use policies all you want, but I'd still like to see somebody take responsibility for the problems the bot caused by writing malformed code all over wikipedia. Anson2995 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's approach is both extremely burdensome and unfair to all Wikipedia users. I spent about 3 hours providing a fair use rationale for every La Toya Jackson album and single cover after Betacommand nominated several of them for speedy deletion. It's ridiculous that it requires a fair use rationale anyway, since album and single covers are already fair use under U.S. Copyright law, but to expect every album or single cover to get a fair use rationale in a matter of days is simply ridiculous. If Betacommand wasn't using a bot, and truly was posting these tags by himself, he could have easily provided a FUR instead. It took only a few seconds to write one that could apply to every album or single cover that I worked on this morning. All I had to do was copy and paste the same FUR into each image's page, changing the names of the pages on which it appears and the album or single for which it represents. This seems like an abuse of admin power and a good way to annoy people to the point where they will stop contributing to Wikipedia. Rhythmnation2004 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point in where in the Copyright Act "album and single covers are already fair use?" I seem to have missed it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not try reading the album cover template? Rhythmnation2004 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(I assume you were replying to me). I read it - it's not there. Again: Can you please tell me what in the laws (statutes or even case law) of the United States makes our use of "album and single covers" automatically fall under fair use? --ElKevbo 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is automatically fair use, every fair use image needs to meet all the requirements at WP:FUC, the template does not supply essential custom information such as copyright holder. ^(H) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, since it appears you can't read the album template, here is the direct quote: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Rhythmnation2004 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:FUC?? The template covers only some of the criteria. ^(H) 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. The reason EN wikipedia is many times bigger than the rest is the fair use images it has. Ever browse JA wikipedia? It's just pages and pages of text. Bleh. Rather than just nuking everything why not set up a campaign to fix all the the pages. It isn't like WP has been sued. -Ravedave 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR -- never thought I'd quote that page for what to do. I hope I'm not the only Admin who has been typing out the word "obviously" many times over the last few days. -- llywrch 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Administrator David Gerard recommended to leave the material here (see [2]). Here it is:

User:Northmeister seems to be identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW. I cannot assume good faith any more. These are the facts:

• A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page) such as Wilkes, Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material from Elvis Presley (see [3], [4], [5]), Graceland (see [6], [7], [8]) and Memphis Mafia (see [9]) that was not in line with his personal view of the megastar Elvis Presley. Similar material was frequently removed by Wilkes in former edit wars.
• Northmeister has copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass user Onefortyone alias IP 80.141.etc. See [10]. This is exactly the same material that multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [11], [12]. Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit wars at that time?
• Northmeister falsely claims that user Onefortyone is identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of edit wars with Wilkes. See [13].
• The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [14]. This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes alias User:DW and his IPs and other sockpuppets.
• Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with user Onefortyone on the same topics. See [15].
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed Onefortyone in this heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg. The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• In the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. See also these comments: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

• Some excerpts from comments by others:

... is it possible that this could be more efficiently resolved at WP:SSP? ... -- Seed 2.0 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

... I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be further added that Onefortyone alias IP 80.141 was on heavy fire by Ted Wilkes and his sockpuppets from 2005 on, and it was Wilkes who requested this arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter (see this case of December 2005 and this newer arbcom decision) which proved that Onefortyone's edits are O.K. Consequently, Wilkes was banned from the topics in question. For instance, in the case of 2006 the arbcom said that Ted Wilkes has "repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Wilkes was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and he was placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Wikipedia for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley."

• IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes. Wilkes repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. IP 209.247.5.139 is also talking about "outright hateful fiction" and "lies" about Elvis. See [37]. Like Wilkes, IP 209.247.5.139 denigrates sources he doesn't like (see [38], [39]) and applauds Northmeister's deleting tactics. See [40]. Like Wilkes, he attacks user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's" [41]
• Interestingly, User:Steve Pastor also repeatedly removes sourced content he doesn't like from the Elvis page. See [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. And he repeatedly placed hyperlinks to fan sites in the text of the Wikipedia article. See [56], [57], [58], [59].
• Part of the Elvis fan group endeavoring to whitewash the Elvis article may also be one-topic editor User:Nigel77 who frequently includes hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles. See [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].
• Northmeister now continues to whitewash Elvis-related topics removing well-sourced material from the Memphis Mafia article. See [73]. Similar material was frequently removed from older versions of the article by Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, [74], [75], [76], [77]. Northmeister even removed the same external links that Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted in the past in favor of two websites of Joe Esposito and Jerry Scheff. See [78], [79], [80]. Significantly, Northmeister now put exactly the same two external links in first place that Ted Wilkes preferred. See [81] and [82].
• Northmeister put material about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place on Graceland which was formerly included by banned user Lochdale (alias IPs 192.136.45.2 and 200.30.130.19), who also frequently removed contributions by Onefortyone from Elvis-related topics. See [83] and [84], [85], [86], [87], [88].
• Other users criticize that important and well-sourced paragraphs I have written have now been deleted from the Elvis article. See [89].
• This edit shows more than a thousand words which kind of trivial information Northmeister wishes to have included in the Elvis article.

All this is certainly not a coincidence. To my mind, there can be no doubt that Northmeister and presumably some other IPs and sockpuppets are identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW. Northmeister, as a sockpuppet of Wilkes, clearly placed material related to Elvis Presley'a alleged homo- or bisexuality in Talk:Elvis Presley (see [90] and removed a well-sourced quote dealing with Natalie Wood's remark that Presley and the Memphis Mafia members might be homosexual (see [91]). This means that he has clearly violated Ted Wilkes's probation. The arbcom says that Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See [92]. May I ask some administrators to put a stop to the disruptive behavior of this user. 80.141.228.157 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that while Wilkes used to edit from Memphis, checkuser shows that Northmeister is editing from somewhere else in the US (per IRC chat with Dmcdevit). Obviously Wilkes could have moved, or found another way to access Wikipedia, so the determination should be made by behavior, not technical evidence. Unfortunately I will be largely inactive until Monday so I can't do much to investigate this myself at this time. Thatcher131 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes alias DW has used many different IPs in the past. Therefore, it is quite clear that he must have found several ways to access Wikipedia. To my mind, he has also created many more sockpuppets he can easily use when some others are blocked. This would also explain why my edits are frequently deleted by new sockpuppets. 80.141.211.45 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppetry by the person filing this complaint

The anonymous IPs seem to be sock puppets of Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). An indication bad faith by this complainant, I am quoted out of context above: my concern is that the person filing this report is the one doing the trolling. This complaint seems to have been filed by Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a/k/a Anon 80.141.et al. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, and User:Duisburg Dude. Oddly, the above IP resolves to Germany, the same general location as Duisburg. Onefortyone was topic banned from Elvis Presley on April 27, 2007 for two months, but the ban was lifted because of sockpuppetry by one of the users requesting the ban. I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. To me, it seems that the puppet master may be setting up multiple identities to argue and dispute each other, to create havoc and waste our time. This same disruptive complaint has been cross posted to other boards. [93] Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to assert that User:DW and User:Onefortyone are the same person? Corvus cornix 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything is possible. This could be one person operating multiple socks, or several people in collusion, or maybe several independent puppetmasters. I think this needs to be investigated, and if Onefortyone is indeed venue shopping, filing bogus reports, and operating multiple socks to disrupt Wikipedia, then that user needs to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking, Jehochman. It is well known that 80.141 is the dynamic IP of Onefortyone. I have used this dynamic IP in order to avoid that my opponents harass me, as they frequently do when I am using my user's name. Would you please stick close to the facts given above. There are several big questions to be answered, like: are other users allowed to remove large blocks of well sourced material from article pages simply becaue this material is not in line with their personal opinion? Are users allowed to include hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles? Are other users allowed to use different sockpuppets in order to harass others and to avoid the 3RR and remove well-sourced material they do not like? I don't think so, but this is what my opponent(s) frequently do(es).

Just one example. Northmeister first removed this passage from Graceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitute this one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See [94], [95]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see [96]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removing these passages from the article. This is not O.K., and it is certainly no coincidence that the same deleting tactics were used over and over again by Ted Wilkes in former edit wars. 80.141.211.45 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could it even be that User:Rikstar is identical with Northmeister? I hope not, but what looks very suspicious to me are some edits of 22 May 2007 concerning the Elvis Presley article. This edit by Rikstar included double content. Therefore, it was immediately removed by Northmeister in the very next edit three minutes later, as if Rikstar corrected himself by unintentionally using another user account. Significantly, all subsequent edits were again by Rikstar a few minutes later, except for an edit by User:Steve Pastor, who also seems to be somehow related to Northmeister (see above). Northmeister did only one or two other edits that day, one of them removing, as usual, sourced content from the Elvis page. See [97]. Interestingly, some hours after Northmeister had posted his negative statement about Onefortyone on 19 May, Rikstar also took the opportunity to formally register his "own dissatisfaction with Onefortyone" on the Elvis talk page, thereby (?unintentionally) removing the name Onefortyone from an edit by IP 209.247.5.139 against Onefortyone, as if he wanted to add some further details to this edit of IP 209.247.5.139, but changed his mind in order to put a comment by Rikstar in its stead. See [98] and [99]. All this looks very suspicious, because all these users are now very active rearranging content and removing critical material from the Elvis page and attacking Onefortyone, simply because the latter would like to include some well-sourced material in the Elvis article that is not in line with the opinion of the fans. 80.141.252.204 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, if your "enemies" wikistalk you, there are plenty of "neutrals" who will stop them if we believe you are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, I think you have lost the assumption of good faith by:

1. Filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues.
2. Making excessively long, incomprehensible arguments, instead of following that directions that require succinct posts. I suggest you start with your very best evidence and see if anyone sees the logic in what you are saying, then follow up.
3. Using a blizzard of IP addresses instead of your main identity. I wish you would always post under your user name. In my view your use of multiple IPs, makes it difficult for us to track all your cross postings and complaints.

Please see Wikipedia:Tar pit and know that I am trying to help you, and hope you will prove my suspicions unfounded. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As you can see, I have not contributed to tbe articles in question for more than a week, although my opponents continue to delete well-sourced material I have written. I am now only collecting material in order to prove that I am still the target of my old opponent Wilkes and his new sockpuppets. See also this older statement by administrator Redwolf24 who said that Wilkes and Wyss were harassing me, "and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." The arbcom was of the same opinion. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the same deleting tactics concerning the same topics now continue. The arbcom clearly says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [100]. So why are my edits frequently removed by one or two other users? The problem is that there seems to be no administrator who is willing to take the trouble to carefully investigate all the diffs I have given above and all the sources I have used, as this certainly will take a lot of time. The other message I put on the administrators' noticeboard some days ago has been removed. Nothing happened. This means that there are not plenty of 'neutrals' who will stop my opponents. That's the reason for "filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues." I am using several independent sources for my contributions, among them standard biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era, publications by eyewitnesses, modern university studies, journal articles etc. etc. (see [101]), but my contributions are frequently deleted. Instead, the other editors are including hyperlinks to fan sites in the article. Do you think that this is O.K.? I am at a loss what to do. 80.141.248.223 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently user:Northmeister wasn't informed of this matter so I've posted a note on his talk page. I've known of Northmeister since he first started editing. I also had some familiarity with Wilkes. While I haven't reviewed this Elvis Presley material, I don't see any other behavior in common. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

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

---

There appears to be a mis-understanding at WP:AMA. Can someone please explain this entire thing about making it historical. I didn't see any RfC's and there is actually a discussion that is happening on one of the page and right now user:Aeon1006 is saying they're closing the thing. The constant need for re-directing all the pages is truly disruptive to our discussion on the board at AMA. --CyclePat 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but it's history - no-one uses it anymore. I think it's best to let it die in peace. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed. Let's try to make this happen in a way that's not as messy as Esperanza and Concordia were. Sean William 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. Show me the community RfC and I'll be happy. Until then I find the actions highly disruptive as we try to rebuild the AMA and work on various cases. Could an administrator please revert the changes back to something quasi functional. Thank you! --CyclePat 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD'd - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (second nomination). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, a MFD was just closed earlier today. Sean William 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit out of process one could argue. Nonetheless, AMA needs to be killed with fire, sooner rather than later. Dragging this closing/historical/deletion process out is only wasting time and delaying the inevitable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't realise an MfD had closed today for it, I've got no objections to it being closed early - but there does seem to be a clear consensus for it's closure. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whether it's tagged as 'historical' or not, it certainly seems to be historical. Has the AMA helped to resolve any sort of issue recently? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Its historical. It should be marked. Navou 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comparative analysis... Though I don't think these things ever work as well as I would like them to. The WP:AMA and all our subpages have actually seen a lot more activity than WP:EA. Should WP:EA be considered historical? No... The use of each group have their use. If I want a question answered I'll go to EA... if I want someone to help me out and talk for me I go to AMA. I would like for someone to please explain how you measure the worth of a page as being considered historical, because I really don't see it in this case? --CyclePat 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like WP:AMA hasn't had any cases taken in over two months (see long list of unclaimed cases at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/By Date Filed/list), whereas WP:EA has had cases followed up as recently as today. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is only up to date as of the last edit by the bot to it - the backlog is likely to have risen in the tme that I've taken the bot offline. Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the extent of your 'activity' appears to be to hold "elections" for a "co-ordinator", rather than actually responding to the people requesting assistance and cleanup. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the constitution which they spent a long time writing, earlier up the message board... Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, please drop it. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm open to consensus and, if people don't like us, we're out. It's simple. But I'd like to know if it wouldn't be better to have an RfC to have people's opinion on this matter. Don't you think? I know there's people wanting me to be the coordinator and so on, but I honestly don't have any interest in leading something that simply doesn't exists and no one wants it to exist. Do you agree in doing this last and definitive step? Or am I just dreaming and it's absolutely useless? --Neigel von Teighen 10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes lets close the AMA down it did its duty but now it has become bogged down in process and red tape. I nomed if for MfD eariler (the one that was closed as invalid due to it being tagged as Historic) and I'm thinking of sending the invalid MfD up to Deletion review to have it restarted so we can end this before it becomes the circus that the EA debate became. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see it deprecated, I think it's counter-productive. I think the first mfd showed a pretty clear mandate for closing it down and don't really see the need for an rfc. As someone who went to hell and back over the Esperanza deletion, I don't really want to see a repeat of that, it would be better if the mistakes made there could be learnt here and we could just gently deprecate it. I admit I'm currently involved in probably the last case involving an advocate, so people will have to work out whether that biases me, but from my experience it just doesn't work. Steve block Talk 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The historic tags are back up on it, Killerchiuauha replaced them. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I myself accept our fate and hope all ex-AMA will do the same. --Neigel von Teighen 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel, just because 3-4 people decide to gang rape does that make it right? Just as it is wrong to be sexually assaulted, to kill someone, or any other moral reason, it is inherently wrong to first allow it just to happen and then to think nothing more of it. (ie.: "ex-AMA") You are talking as if you have lost your membership. *(secondly that statement, when you think about it is quite paradoxal). How can you be an ex-AMA, prior to accepting this alleged faith?. Cheer up chum! AMA is as active as we use it! And right now, I'm feeling a little anxiety. 1) because our conversations at the AMA are reverted... 2) because our conversations are reverted 3) because I know there is something wrong. Trust me! --CyclePat 07:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

AMA spent a week fighting an MfD (which failed) and since then has been putting its effort to correct the issues brought up there. Closing a group for being inactive at its core function because it was compelled to devote its efforts to its own persistence is the peak of disingenuity. The whole thing stinks, horribly and moreover, unwikily. The PTB want AMA out because it made it too hard to exert minority control over the project and its members. When the MFD failed, the AMA's sincere attempts to resolve the issues were instead used to close it down? Unbelievable, and unconsensual. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user User:BalanceRestored

User:BalanceRestored has been warned by multiple editors to not use Indian caste system as a soapbox.

• WP:NPOV and WP:RS by User:Utcursch: [102]

• WP:SOAP and WP:RS by User:Abecedare: [103].

• WP:RS and WP:NPOV by User:Lucasbfr : [104] and WP:SOAP: [105]

• Even a Helper (User:Commander Keane) she tried to involve could not figure out what point she was trying to make: [106].

• I issued a Level 4 unsourced warning: [107] and then my final warning as vandalism: [108]

Despite all of these warnings, User:BalanceRestored just made the same edit again to the article: [109] I think the user should be blocked. Buddhipriya 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Edit was proper, You can block me if it is appropriate. But, I know what I am writing. I am ready to be killed. I know you all are wise. I am re-editing BalanceRestored 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, the user has just made the same edit: [110] Buddhipriya 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that's a POV not with that edit.BalanceRestored 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then where is the source to back it up? --Haemo 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What source is needed? Everything is sourced. Please point objectionable editingBalanceRestored 07:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My simple objection is that you use <br> tags instead of <ref> ones. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You say, in that edit, that this is a criticism - well, where is a source backing up the fact that people criticize it on that basis? --Haemo 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the user has been warned sufficiently and had no interest in abiding by WP:CONSENSUS. As such he has been blocked for 31 hours for continued edit warring after several warnings.--Jersey Devil 07:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's just a little confused, and doesn't speak English very well. --Haemo 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I think it is more than just an English issue. I am accustomed to working with quite a few Indian editors for whom English is a second language, and this is more than stumbling for words. :) Buddhipriya 07:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct a bit, I did not issue any formal warning, but I answered a {{helpme}} request on his talk page. I tried to explain our WP:NPOV and WP:V policies to him, but it seems he did not understand it in the end... Maybe the block will set things straight. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it that all these users with names that imply they are here to Right Great Wrongs turn out to be problematic? No, wait, I think I know the answer to that. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the answer is that those usernames are POV? → Let the facts/usernames speak for themselves.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has apparently created a sock Roughandtough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as he had threatened earlier [111]. He is continuing to insert his unsourced POV and commentary in the Indian Caste System article [112], [113], deleting material and expressing sympathy with himself [114] :-) Abecedare 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who may not be familiar with the edit wars that take place on Indian articles, please note that a major effort to recruit sock and meat puppets has been underway for some time, and these clone warriors are now the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2. This article is one of the battlegrounds where the socks and puppets operate. It is part of a much larger problem. Buddhipriya 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Roughandtough has been filling the Indian caste system page with religious nonsense and commentary.Bakaman 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a bit of a problem. I have no issue with his contributions overall, other than his apparent desire to use Wikipedia as a personal family genealogy site, but he dismissed as "assinine" a note not to strike other editors' comments on an AfD for an article he himself wrote, and it seems to me long past time to correct his behaviour. I have given him a short block, as a pause for thought. So: modifyng others' comments, apparently having been asked before not to do so, and rudely dismissing requests not to repeat this (the actual problem - this seems in fact to be part of a continuing pattern of rudely dismissing any kind of criticism. It really is time he understood that he is not immune to criticism. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are also strong concerns brought by Doc glasgow and Giano, among others, that the family history which Kittybrewster has used to source his articles is thoroughly unreliable. Mackensen (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if the family history in question is written by one of the family (is it?) that wouldn't pass the "independant" bit required by WP:N. This Arbuthnot saga is one miserable mess. Moreschi ^Talk 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking some Arbuthnot pages, if Mackensen is referring to Memories of the Arbuthnots, that is written by one of the family, so hardly relevant to notability. Moreschi ^Talk 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There remains a problem of WP:COI and the fact that we seem to have more articles on the Arbuthnots than on the Kennedys or the Saxe-Coburg Gothas Windsors. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three seperate but interconnected issues 1) the notability of the Arbuthnots - that is a matter for the use of AFDs and the like and letting those processes take their course - I don't see anything in particular there that requires admin intervention. 2) The COI - that should be strongly discouraged. 3) Incivility and altering other comments - that is an admin matter and the "get a clue"/block button has been used correctly in this case to try and bring this editor in line. --Fredrick day 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that a small number of editors (including me) have been reviewing the Arbuthnott mess and nominating various articles for deletion. Since Kittybrewster is so personally attached to those articles (and has an obvious WP:COI) the dispute has tended to look personal - and he's been less that cooperative. Don't get me wrong, some of the subjects do merit inclusion - its just that he indiscriminately writes stubs without proper sourcing, and they often tend to be more interested in genealogical considerations that anything encyclopedic - and some of the 'claims to notability' really don't stack up under investigation. What would be useful is if those of us who have been fairly involved with this back off a little, and let others review the remaining Arbuthnott empire a little more dispassionately. But beware, everything may not be as it seems on a quick read. You'll find them all in the ridiculous Category:Arbuthnot family (which is ridiculous because it is really a category for people with the same surname - related or not). Any volunteers to take this up?--Doc^g 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

*checks cat* - Blimey - I don't have the time to take on that challenge - we need a task force to take a look at that (not so) little lot and see what needs to be nuked from space. --Fredrick day 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Arbuthnott-related edits, does KittyBrewster do anything else? I wonder if this problem could be ameliorated by encouraging his work in other areas, or asking him to consider doing so if he hasn't already. Another solution might be to ask him to prepare his Arbuthnott articles in his user space and invite others to review them prior to publication. The conflict of interest problem, and the related elevation of trivia to article status, are a problem for the encyclopedia, but it seems to me that they arise from what Kittybrewster had been working on the encyclopedia, and if he starts working on something else the problem will go away. --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that approach ever works - SPAs generally only see wikipedia as a useful venue for talking about *their* interests. I don't think I've ever seen a SPA develop into a successful general editor. --Fredrick day 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster has also been a meat-puppet of User:Astrotrain in a bunch of IRA AfDs a while ago, and a rather obnoxious one, at that. In particular, see the AfDs for Martin McCaughey and Raymond Gilmour. Αργυριου (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you hardly come out of these discussions yourself with clean hands: [115]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• As the one who originally made the AfD nomination that started the latest round of this sorry mess can I jump in here. Looking over my history, I've actually !voted keep more often than delete on Arbuthnot, but I'm starting to come to the Vintagekits position that this has got out of hand. I've no problem necessarily with our having so many Arbuthnots - however they get here, if they're valid articles, they should be kept. (We have more articles on British than Chinese schools even though China has a hundred times as many - that doesn't mean British schools are more important, just that we have more people who've bothered to add them.) However, Kittybrewster's repeated blanking of any faintly critical comments from his talk page, apparent unwillingness to take advice from anyone regarding even the most non-notable Arbuthnots, apparent unwillingness to find reliable sources for any articles (his pages generally cite a book by a family member, plus two websites containing information cut-and-pasted from that book, as the "multiple sources") as well as the the history of personal attacks (it's not long since he added "This user is a member of the Irish Republican Cabal" to the userpage of everyone who disagreed with him) make me think something needs to be done about this whole saga as it will continue indefinitely. Maybe a final arbcom ruling on whether "Memories of the Arbuthnots" is or isn't a reliable source? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's also a COI report here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've been watching this situation from the sidelines for a bit and I generally agree with what User:Iridescenti said. The problem isn't having articles on Arbuthnots... the problem is Kittybrewster's insistence on creating poorly sourced articles and then arguing with everyone who points this out rather than trying to source the articles.--Isotope23 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• It may be that MrDarcy has something to contribute here, given User_talk:MrDarcy. - CarbonLifeForm 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this will all end in a messy Arb case - it would be nice if it could be avoided but I don't see how. Half of the problem is not just Kittybrewster churning out these non-notable and flawed pages but also his friends who will argue that black is white rather then see even the most obvious error. They will do nothing to improve a page once they have created it, even for the more notable pages where the internet is crawling with information. They prefer to sit and scream at those who disagree with them. Here is a good example [116] the page concerned is a stub on AFD - it is probably notable and easily saveable but rather than improve it and save it, the authors sit about calling those who vote to delete "suspects" I have also seen them called far worse, including - members of terrorist organizations - it is ridiculous and it needs to be stopped, and stopped hard and fast. Personally I think all Kittybrewster pages should be deleted without exception unless they have been taken way beyond the stub stage by other editors - then I would trust them - at the moment I suspect they may have quite a bit of erroneous or exaggerated information in them. Initially, I tried to help Kittybrewster - improve pages, recommending he take some into user space and generally giving the advice of a largely main-space editor of three years experience. He does not take advice. I also began to find a worryingly large number of errors and inconsistencies within his pages. I privately informed a couple of highly reputable admins of my concerns, and, after some initial understandable doubts, their own sifting through his edits largely confirmed my thoughts.

I realise though deleting all his pages, however desirable, in such a way is not going to happen - so we need to find a solution. I think, we need a panel to be set up consisting of some highly reputable admins with a knowledge of the peerage and history. If they are masochists they may find their work easier, to go through with delegated and final powers to delete as required. Beyond that I don't see how we can trust these pages - there have been too many exaggerations and mistakes in the many which have already been deleted. I do not say Kittybrewster has done this deliberately but his sources and/or research is badly flawed. The other problem is that we know who Kittybrewster is in real life, we know he has a brother who is conservative member of Parliament currently serving. There is already a warning on Jimbo's page about Private Eye and another matter, we don't want the "Curse of Gnome" descending here too or worse still on the unsuspecting and undeserving brother. So let's weigh all these factors and find a solution. Giano 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I got involved with this during the COI on his autobiography. While there was a lot of agreement among respondents Kittybrewster refused to explicitly agree to stop the behavior that had caused concern. (I believe he may have tacitly agreed, but since he won't say one way or another it's hard to tell.) He consistenly fails to give notice of his involvement or interest in topics that come up, whether AfD on his articles or guideline proposals. For example, he proposed an MOS change that would've directly affected his brother's biography but he never disclosed that relationship.[117] I think this editor has followed the principles of COI, both in terms of adding links to his own website and in terms of editing article where he has a conflict of interest. Worse, he won't engage in useful conversations about that problem. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arbuthnots and circular referencing. I hope that when Kittybrewster returns he'll be more willing to listen to the community on these issues. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a background to this issue which almost all contributors to this discussion seem to be unaware of, and has been previously summarised by me here. In summary, in response to various AfDs nominating members of the IRA, certain editors have been taking a close retaliatory interest in WikiProject Baronetcies, a situation which I have previously drawn attention to here. Once Kittybrewster's identity became obvious from a (probably) malicious AfD, a trawl has uncovered his interest in his own family ancestry. It seems to me:

• There is obviously nothing wrong, per se, with editing articles about which one is familiar or in which one has an interest; and,
• The issue as to whether the articles are properly sourced or 'light' is separate to the issue of authorship.

The argument about having some 'conflict of interest' seems spurious to me, because it could be extended to anyone of us who has an interest in a particular subject. The whole basis of Wikipedia is that those with specific interests share that knowledge.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• We all have real life names and personalities we can either guard them, be careless with them or openly reveal them. Kittybrewster has made no secret of his identity - so let us not have any of this reticence and pretence now. If he wishes to retreat back into anonymity he can easily create a new account and do so - perhaps he already has. That he has "an interest in his own family ancestry" is fine no problem - good for him. That he chooses to write articles for wikipedia about non-notable members of that family is a problem. A further problem is his reaction and and that of his friends when those non-notable members are nominated for deletion. That in a nutshell is the basis of the problem we are discussing here. In short he can conform to wikipedia standards or he can not. The choice is his but it no use complaining when others object to his choice if it is against the established practices of the encyclopedia. Giano 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your comment that Kittybrewster was somehow 'careless' of his identity is quite wrong; it became apparent during the AfD. I'd urge you to have a look at that page, because it is apparent that certain editors are targeting him. I am concerned that you might be inadvertently exacerbating the situation. I'd also point out that pages such as this and this, which you appear to be relying on, are hardly objective: check the 'history' pages! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No you are mistaken, I have used neither of thosw two pages as references. I am totally unconnected with the Irish problems, and indeed have little interest in them. If an editor wants anonymity that is fine. Identities can only be revealed if someone is either careless with them or reveals them on purpose. Writing copious pages on non-notable members of one family is always a bit if a clue and could be described as careless. Kitybrewster as a name is a further clue. The fact that he has not created a new account intimates he is not that bothered by it either. Giano 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, Giano, but I think you are becoming part of the problem. The individual concerned, who I know, is mature, a well-regarded editor, and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Fairly obviously he's on Wikibreak (it's a Bank Holiday weekend, after all). You have been posting across various forums on this subject (on one occasion despite being asked not [118]). Whether you realise it or not, you are advancing someone-else's agenda. Harrying other editors in this way is neither necessary or desirable. Please calm down a bit.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all aware of the dispute between Kittybrewster and the IRA-related editors. It may have helped trigger the investigation into Kittybrewster's other activities, but otherwise they're not related. While Kitttybrewster has appeared reluctant to clearly state his relationship to the Arbuthnots at appropriate times, his identity was known long before the AfD mentioned AfD. The creation of that article, an autobiography, is central to the COI problems we're addressing. Kittybrewster was told in January 2006[119] that it's inappropriate to add links to one's own website, but he's ignored that guideline dozens of times. There's nothing spurious about having a conflict of interest regarding oneself or one's immediate family. The problem of adding links to one's own website as a source (without even mentioning the connection) isn't spurious either. There are other Wikipedia guidelines that this user has ignored, in particular WP:NOT. None of that has anything to do with the IRA-related disputes. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow is now trying to redirect the Sir William Arbuthnot article without even trying to gain consensus, SqueakBox 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is being sought here [120]. The redirect would give the subject the anonymity he requires, especially as there is nothing of note beyond holding a fairly recent baronetcy to report. Giano 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Atze Schröder

Please protect the page. People (mostly IPs) are trying there to abuse wikipedia as an instrument in a campaign of protest against a German court decision that confirmed the artist's anonymity rights. The real name of the artist has never been encyclopedically relevant, since he always kept it private, and only in the context of the inappropriate protest against the court decision as alleged censorship, common knowledge of the real name was forcibly pushed. That's stalking by the masses and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not become an instrument of these masses. --rtc 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• If his real name is verifiable, I don't understand why we wouldn't include it. --OnoremDil 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • His real name is public record in germany thanks to a trademark filing. Also german court decisions do not apply to EN wikipedia, as has been proven in the past.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Whether German court decisions apply is irrelevant. What is relevant are our content policies, which apply strictly to biographies. The biographical content is improperly sourced, being sourced to a trademark filing where person X happens to file a trademark with the same name as this comedy figure. (Ronald McDonald has been trademarked too. Clearly, the name of a trademark holder on a trademark filing is not conclusive evidence that person X has name Y.) It's obviously controversial, too. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I've removed it. Any editor who wants it in can best spend their time finding a reliable source that gives the real name of this person. Uncle G 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this topic, I know nothing about him, but a) couldn't you print who copyrighted the name without coming out and saying it is actually his name? b) if the statement stays that he sued a newspaper after they printed his real name, then it stands to reason a good source would be whatever the newspaper printed as his name, wouldn't it? If my name is Bob and a newspaper prints Charlie, I wouldn't sue them for printing my real name since it isn't my real name. Or am I missing something here? --Cheers, Komdori 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is this: This German comedian, who goes (only) by the stage name Atze Schröder, is in the habit of suing anyone who publishes his real name. A Berlin court has granted an injunction prohibiting this against a newspaper; the verdict is being appealed. The name can probably be verified through reliable sources, notably the court verdict at issue. De.wiki has decided not to carry the name. This is probably something to be decided at Foundation level, but until at least a complaint is raised against the name's publication on en.wiki I fail to see why we should not carry the name. Sandstein 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you could in principle find a valid source for that name, and I have no doubt that it is correct. However, this name has become known only because of a court dispute revolving around someone who disclosed the name without permission that was previously explicitly kept private. The artist has always been anonymous, and hence his name is not relevant information. There are also some remarkable differences to the Tron case. 1. Tron was dead; 2. Tron was widely known by his real name and not anonymous or strictly pseudonymous (his name was just not spelled out entirely before his death); 3. Tron also used his full real name for publishing his thesis; 4. Tron's article was about his person himself, not about a fictional character played by him. In fact I agree that Tron's full name should be mentioned, but the circumstances are completely different here! Further: Such details about the person's name dispute certainly don't belong into an article about a character played by him; they don't have anything to do at all with that character. Further, I'd like to point out that it is obviously schizophrenic to claim a name to be relevant for an encyclopedia if it became public solely by a source that was judged as an illegal invasion into the person's privacy and anonymity rights. If you exclude that source and the sources created by people who incorrectly think that this is censorship and should be protested against by civil disobedience, by pushing his real name in as many places as possible, then you don't have a relevant source left that makes an explicit connection between the character and the real name of the artist. The trademark registration mentions his name, but the connection is not explicit; by itself, it could as well have been the name of his agent. So the trademark register by itself cannot be a source for the connection between his name and the character he plays, and we are only left with a publication of his name that has been deemed illegal and the attempts to controversy it provoked. Finally, Even if the article was a biography about the artist, which it isn't (compare it to Captain Picard), it is clearly the desire of the artist to stay anonymous and keep his real name private, so please respect WP:NPF and "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". The artist is not notable for his real name, and hardly for the naming controversy, but entirely for the character he plays. Of course the naming controversy is moderately notable among active internet users, and one could give a small note about the original court case, but that's it—please don't mention the name and please don't give hints on where it can be found. This group of internet users is really only a negligible minority compared to the number of people who know the person only by the character he plays and hence doesn't justify basing the whole article mainly about that issue. --rtc 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we could note the name of the character is copyrighted by whoever holds it, right? If the actor hadn't gone around and sued people it might not be relevant, but now isn't he starting to be known as the guy who sues when his real name is published? Perhaps paradoxically it seems that might make his name relevant to the character itself. --Cheers, Komdori 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that it is clearly wrong. What becomes perhaps moderately relevant about the controversy is that he has successfully sued against the publication of his name. What has not become relevant is his name itself! Referring to the trademark registration can only have the intention of giving hints about his name to circumvent the ban on publishing his name. The information in this registration by itself does not make the connection that the trademark owner is the same person as the artist. If you cannot give the original source and the name directly in a faithful way, then please be aware that using such 'tricks' is not any better. In fact, using the original source would at least not be as dishonest by playing such tricks! As a side note, please make a difference between copyright and trademark law. They are entirely separate and independent and must not be confused. The name is trademarked, not copyrighted! --rtc 22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of rtc, I'd like to say that his argument is the correct one; the information is clearly contentious, and were this artist to hear about it it would make him sad. We aren't here to make people sad. I don't buy the argument that the name in this case is potentially incorrect, as it is a matter of public record, but in my view that is not what trumps the case. --Edwin Herdman 05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your point Edwin and it gives me pause to consider... but the problem I kind of have with the whole deal (admitidly only for a day here) is that if someone reads that he sued to protect his name (which is clearly notable), then a reader's first instinct is to want to try to find out what the name is. While I'm not a big fan of trivia based sections of wikipedia, the name of an actor portraying a character seems intensely encylcopedic, and it seems odd to send them scurrying off to another source of information because of a lack of completeness. Just a thought. --Cheers, Komdori 10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User blocked

Rtc has been blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "Three-revert rule violation: repeated 3RR violations with no sign of stopping". The user is requesting to be unblocked. I believe the block was valid, but also that it should have a clear, finite period of time. Since this issue is already being discussed here, I welcome comments. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinately because I see severe edit warring in his edit contributions... his recent behaviour on Atze Schröder (5 reverts in a couple days) is just one example.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any 3RR violations in his (recent) contribs. Edit warring, perhaps, but no violations so an indef seems strange. Trebor 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Added to that, the change he was trying to make was arguably valid (or at least should've been open for discussion) and has now been made by Uncle G anyway. This seems odd. Trebor 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user is clearly edit warring (and a block would be warranted for this), but I don't believe an indefinite block for an apparently nonexistent 3RR violation is appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well possibly (although it's usually harsh to block for only a couple of reverts), but the block reason is wrong and the length way too much. I'd endorse unblocking now. Trebor 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hours should be the penalty for 3RR. Then grow it if it repeats. Indefinite for what appears to be the first block in some months seems excessive. Orderinchaos 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User clearly violated 3RR, but the block is out of proportion to the violation. Give rtc 24 hours. --Edwin Herdman 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Urgedspana's odd edits

Resolved

 – User was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Jagjagjagjab.

Kyoko 12:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was checking my watchlist, and I noticed that User:Yan guien's page had been altered, hiding its suspected sockpuppet tag of User:Jagjagjagjab, an indefinitely blocked user. More importantly, it was altered by a new user on his/her 3rd edit to the site.

I've reverted the change, as well as another edit the user made to Collège Édouard-Montpetit.

It just seems odd to me that a new user would be aware of another editor who was a suspected sockpuppet, but I didn't want to go straight to WP:SSP. I'd appreciate your advice and vigilance about Quebec-related articles. Thank you. Kyoko 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:64.126.24.12

64.126.24.12 (talk · contribs) is canvassing for votes on the Gracenotes RfA. Corvus cornix 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody is concerned about this. Corvus cornix 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of image being disputed for two months, no resolution

In March of this year, User:Argos'Dad uploaded Image:HellenicNavy.png for use on Template:Hellenic Navy [121]. Subsequent to this, significant discussion ensued which can be read at Template talk:Hellenic Navy. At the time, User:Argos'Dad indicated the image had been published in the United States before 1923, thus clearing it of copyright concerns. I requested he provide proof of that, and gave him instructions (OTRS) for doing so (see template talk page again). It's now been two months since that discussion, and he has yet to provide any evidence of his assertion. I therefore retagged the image as a non-free logo, and tagged it as orphaned fair use since it is not used in any actual encyclopedia articles [122]. Shortly thereafter, he reverted the orphaned tag (but not the non-free logo tag) indicating this was still under discussion. The discussion ended two months ago. I left him a message on his talk page regarding this [123], and restored the orphaned fair use tag [124]. Per my statement back in March on this and per my statement left on his talk page today, I am referring this matter to WP:AN/I.

The non-derivative image is available at http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/agen_en.asp, which has a copyright tag at the bottom of that and the rest of the site.

Another version of the image is located at Image:GEN Greece.PNG, which is also marked as a non-free image.

My position at this time is that

• The image is clearly a derivative of the source work,
• The uploader was informed of this, and responded that the image was published in the U.S. prior to 1923
• The uploader was asked to provide evidence of this
• Two months have elapsed since this request and it has not been done
• The image is therefore appropriately retagged as a non-free image and marked for deletion as an orphaned image.

I'd appreciate it if an admin would review this image and make a determination regarding its status and inform the respective parties. Thank you, --Durin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HellenicNavy.png deleted, Image:GEN Greece.PNG kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations

User:RicoCorinth has been consistently reverting edits to Homeowners association and Community Associations Institute, in order to reinsert his bias against homeowners' associations and the CAI. He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries; I've also discussed my edit to Homeowners association on the talk page, yet he continues to revert. He previously attempted to go to mediation; I explained my unwillingness to work with him due to his incivility and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV there. Αργυριου (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Stealth AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Using this page states, "please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed."
So why didn't Argyriou inform me of this report? -- Rico 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Report — Wrong Venue

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute resolution states, "Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content."
Should this report be deleted as improper? -- Rico 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice in section title

The title of this report is, "User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations." This pre-assumes that I am guilty just because Argyriou says so. Can this be changed to "RicoCorinth's alleged NPOV violations" — or "Edits of RicoCorinth that Argyriou alleges violate NPOV" (since he's the only one making the allegation) — or "Alleged NPOV violations: Argyriou or RicoCorinth" (since we both accuse one another of NPOV violations)? -- Rico 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absence of Due Process in Homeowner associations

• A year ago, Radiojon wrote in an edit, "Homeowners may be victimized without due process or appeal."
• On February 20, Argyriou challenged Radiojon's statement with a {{Fact}} template.
• On May 7, Argyriou deleted Radiojon's sentence.
• On May 22, I replaced Radiojon's deleted sentence with text that I attributed to a reliable source (a law review — case law — written by a supreme court justice, and published by an accredited university).
• Twelve minutes later, Argyriou deleted — without discussion, much less consensus — the sourced paragraph that I had replaced Radiojon's sentence with.
• I reverted Argyriou's summary deletion, and we went back and forth like that for two or three days.
• On May 24, Argyriou (who had previously threatened that "[he] will not work with [me] on articles"), and banned me from posting on his talk page, finally initiated a discussion on the article talk page — and simultaneously, unilaterally deleting the sourced text again! Unfortunately, Argyriou didn't write why — in Argyriou's opinion the paragraph violated NPOV. Argyriou just stated Argyriou's opinion as a fact that people, I guess, were just supposed to accept — because-Argyriou-said-so.
  
• Wp:dispute_resolution states, "try talking privately to those involved." That's kind of hard to do with Argyriou, after Argyriou:
  • Announces that Argyriou will not work with me on articles.
  • Bans me from posting on Argyriou's talk page. (I'm not the only one.)
• Nevertheless, it was on Argyriou to discuss and seek consensus. Argyriou was the one trying to delete content that was attributed to a reliable source. Once Argyriou saw that I was not going to allow him to summarily delete the well-sourced material, it was incumbent upon Argyriou to take it to the talk page and seek consensus.
• Argyriou has never written that the sourced text was harmful, or that it was "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons [and therefore] should be removed immediately and without discussion."
  

— Rico 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here which requires administrator intervention, as it is a simple content dispute, unless you want to have both of you blocked for WP:3RR violations. Please try to agree on a neutral wording for on the article's talk page. If you really can't come to an agreement, try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. —dgies^t_c 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Associations Institute lobbying organization

• This started on May 7, when Argyriou prefaced material attributed to a peer-reviewed textbook that was published by Yale University Press, with "According to McKenzie, the author of a book critical of common-interest developments," providing no source that establishes that Professor "McKenzie [is] the author of a book critical of common-interest developments."
  Argyriou's edit summary is, "clarify bias of source" — so Argyriou admits that Argyriou's insertion of the unsourced material is to make the author of the book, an academic, out to be "biased".
  It is not necessary to preface the sourced material with "According to McKenzie," because the statement is obviously "according to McKenzie," because Dr. McKenzie's book is cited in a footnote immediately following the material.
  But the article is not about Professor McKenzie. It is about the Community Associations Institute trade association. I could have just as easily written, "According to Professor McKenzie, the author of a book that won the 1995 American Political Science Association prize for best book on urban politics."
  The difference between Argyriou's content and my content would have been that I would have attributed mine to a reliable source.
  I could have just as easily written, "According to McKenzie, the author of a book that is currently in use as a textbook in accredited universities that are highly ranked by US News & World Report's annual America's Best Colleges article."
  But the article is about the lobbyist, not Dr. McKenzie.
• On May 22, I removed the unsourced material.
• Three hours later, Argyriou reverted my edit.
• On May 25, Argyriou finally writes, on the article talk page, "stop removing the description of Evan Mackenzie (sic) as a critic of homeowners' associations". So Argyriou's edit is to write that Professor McKenzie is a "critic of homeowners' associations"? I could just as easily describe Dr. McKenzie as a professor at the University of Illinois, that also teaches at The John Marshall Law School — in other words, he's an academic — but the article is about the CAI trade association.
• May 25, Argyriou is blocked for editing abuse on the Community Associations Institute article.
  The administrator's comment? "Clear violation."
  

-- Rico 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you're asking for that requires administrator intervention. Page protection for an editing dispute? 3RR block? Block for some other reason? —dgies^t_c 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything, beyond what I questioned in my initial replies. I'm not the editor that filed this report. -- Rico 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's vandalism

The {{Verify credibility}} tag produces "[this source's reliability may need verification]."
This tag is listed as one of the dispute tags.
Argyriou summarily deleted the tag, with no discussion, even though there was no verification done of the source's reliability.
At the time, Wikipedia:Vandalism stated:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
[…]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

-- Rico 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries

Argyriou wrote, in this report, "He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries."

1. The Wikipedia community does not indicate that edit summaries are the proper place for discussion. That is what the talk pages are for, where all the editors of an article can discuss the article and come to a consensus.
2. Argyriou uses edit summaries to call me names, so I can't be expected to accept them as Argyriou's substitute for talk pages.

-- Rico 15:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Buy out the Foundation"

Resolved

 – General consensus seems to be that we shouldn't feed the troll, nothing more to see, move along... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, not sure whether this belongs here, but I thought it may be worth drawing attention to the intention of Jeff Vernon Merkey to either "buy out the foundation" or "put in enough resources to move it away from the hostage situation", presumbly referring to financial resources. Does Wikipedia, or the Foundation, have any established process for handling situations where an editor professes an intent to bypass the site's normal workings by applying financial pressure? Jeff has repeatedly stated that he expects certain concessions as a "major contributor" towards the Foundation's costs - is there any chance the Foundation could make some sort of statement one way or another as to whether it intends to honour those concessions (and to what degree Mr. Merkey has actually contributed)? --YFB ¿ 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is blabbering away doesn't mean we have to care. :)
(seriously, though, I don't think this is an issue; if it was Bill Gates, I might be worried. Just ignore the troll.) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The foundationseesm to be doign well enough for the moment, no one can force them to sell. I estimate that it would take multiple tens of millions of dollars to render the foundation independant of ongoing contributions, and soemhow I doubt that Merkey gives or will give anything like that much. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that the conditions outlined on his userpage would make it impossible to block anyone, there is really no chance that it will happen. Just ignore it until he does something disruptive enough to be blocked. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "not blocking anyone" include not blocking the trolls who stalk him, who he's often insisted (sometimes successfully) get blocked? *Dan T.* 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it says pretty clearly that anyone must be able to edit without having to worry about being banned. -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• The "buying out the Foundation" thing could be construed as a veiled legal threat, but he seems to have good (yet quite misguided) intentions behind his comments. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that is streaching, the only thing he is arguably threatening to do is not give money, or not ask others to give. Abnyone is free to say "do this, and I'll give you money" and if it isn't an illegal act, that's fine. No one has to take such a payment. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The only sort of threatening part is the fact that he wants to use money to "move it away from this hostage model" Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We can pay him in blocks, will that be enough for him? -- ReyBrujo 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a troll who attempts to set impossible conditions for the Wikimedia foundation to achieve before allegedly donating. Nothing to see here, move along. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. It is not a company that is outright "owned" and can be sold. It is held to its mandate and ran by committee. ^(H) 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Evula closed this, but looking at the RfC, it's nice to know that trolling your own RfC gets you out of it scot-free. ThuranX 15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi

He's reported me here today, might as well do the same, eh?

In all seriousness, though, I've had it with this user. To cite a recent incident as just an example, getting these user to answer a question on Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is like trying to pull teeth from a cheetah. He has continually insisted that he has sources to back up his claims outlined in the Name of this article discussion to reach consensus section, let is absolutely refusing to answer the question. These refusals come in the form of recommending the article simply be deleted (after which he would just recreate it under his title and this BS would start all over again), personal attacks, and more personal attacks. He only gives actual sources once, and the two sources have nothing to do with his claims. This is not the only problem. This user has a fundamental disregard for any type of policy, guideline, or rule that isn't shoved down his throat by the force of several other editors. Add onto that the severe WP:OWN issues he has with not only that page, but basically everything he does. See #User:Someguy0830 for people pointing this out. I'm honestly not too concerned with the method in which this behavior is dealt with, but it's disruptive and needs to be stopped. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user does not realize that he does not have to follow me from page to page. The above user has had a "problem" with the way I work in many different pages with admin present. However, the person has taken it upon himself to be the one to edit out, revert, and do all sorts of other harassing actions upon my posts in order to cause me emotional distress.

I have tried walking away from him and posting in places that he is not there, but he keeps following me. The above user is not following NPOV rules and is taking things personally. The only way this can be dealt with is if the user is forced to stay away from me and leave me alone. The user has no actual information on the topic posted above, and does not own any of the material discussed in the book. However, he wishes to pass judgment on a project that conforms to the Wiki rules.

He has even come to my own sandbox to "correct" me. If I wanted another use to adopt me and correct every single mistake, I would have gone to a wiki based around such. Last time I checked, this Wiki isn't based around that. SanchiTachi 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above I had hoped we'd be able to resolve this without Someguy0830 also reporting SanchiTachi but, as mentioned, I believe he is well within his rights too. My comments above also apply here and the rest is played out on the talk page. As it stands requests for SanchiTachi to clarify claims or address suggested solutions are being met with accusations. As a result attempts to hammer out some mutually satisfactory path forward are stalled. The entry is locked until such an answer can be reached and, as it stands, I am not confident that such a solution can be arrived at, at least not involving SanchiTachi, and without them all that is going to happen is this situation is going to be revisited once a week or so. What could have been solved quickly and with little fuss has spiralled out of control and spread all over the place almost entirely down to SanchiTachi's actions. This all seems a pity as the entry (as it was started, by him I should) had a lot of potential. (Emperor 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Note that I specifically didn't want to report this here, and tried pointing out to the user that I felt he could reform (see here). His answer was to blank the entire section. I didn't want to deal with this, but by this point I feel some heavy-handedness is the only thing that brings results. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As for unwillingness to cooperate or provide sources, one need look no further than this edit summary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not blaming you, I was hoping ti could have been fixed sooner but I have run out of ways to say the same thing. As those edits you highlight (and others) show, it is almost impossible to actually have some kind of ongoing dialoue which is an essential foundation for arriving at a solution. There aren't actually many options left other than this. (Emperor 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

[125] As you can notice, Someguy felt the need to impose himself on an argument between an admin and myself. The above user, Someguy0830 feels that he personally needs to be a vigilante force upon Wikipedia. Need I remind everyone of WP:EQ: "Forgive and forget." "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." "If you're arguing, take a break. " Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism." "Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you.""

The above user has followed me to different threads, he has imposed his own bias against me, he did not take a break (though I did, hence I created the page which he followed me to), he felt the need to revert and delete without consensus, and I doubt he wants me to follow to each of his pages and complain about different violations whether on naming, linking, or the like.

He did not: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said." He decided to move and delete without even asking. He has no knowledge of the topic, yet he proclaims he knows how the topic should be written.

I have asked the above user to leave me alone many times. What does he do? Constantly follow me from page to page and try to start fights with me. If that is not a WP:HARASS violation for stalking, then Wikipedia is not protecting its members. SanchiTachi 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot a main point:

"If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."

He is clearly violating that. SanchiTachi 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of incivility and hypocrisy: User makes an ad hominem attack, then claims the user he's attacking doesn't know what it means and makes the same attack again. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that a user is friends with User:Someguy0830 and is not approaching the topic without POV as required is not adhominem. Calling a user stupid, making fun of religion, etc, are personal attacks. What does the above user wish to do besides point out where he had his friends criticize me on my talk page? SanchiTachi 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the concept of friends is quite foreign to you. I did not ask them to point out your faults. They feel obligated to do so on their own. To immediately assume they have ulterior motives is a lack of good faith and a personal attack. It also shows that your position is so week you must belittle the character of your accusers rather than assess the situation on its merits. On that note, user makes baseless accusations regarding me. He also apparently thinks everything I do is out of spite. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Without poisoning the water, please review my recent exchange with SanchiTachi:

• I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within.
• I step in, without prejudice, to support one of Someguy's edits (stripping of non-free content in a list) and try to explain why it happened.
• Half of the conversation was deleted (several times), but I've archived it all at User talk:Gunslinger47#Need I Point Out.
• Following the final association fallacy, I posted {{uw-npa2}} to his talk page along with a brief comment finalizing the conversation.[126] That too was deleted, repeating for the third time the attack on my objectivity in his edit summary.[127]

–Gunslinger47 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez. It is almost unimaginarily self-centered to think that other users are conspiring against you. SanchiTachi, you seriously need to step back, take a chill pill and walk away from this for a time. JuJube 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So Gunslinger47, who was not a part of the original page (that has only existed for one day now), just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that? Or are you ignoring this, this, this, this, this, this, this and on and on and on. Now, I would ask you, JuJube, are you seriously implying that there was no prior relationship between Gunslinger47 and Someguy0830? Please strike your comment accordingly. Thank you. SanchiTachi 03:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, you caught me commenting on mundane issues. What amazing deductive skills. Now prove that my rapport with this user proves your point that I'm allying him against you in some grand scheme to spite you. I suggest you not comment unless what you type is more than heresay and conjecture. Note the previous post aas yet more proof that this user is not only incapable of assuming good faith, but resorts to taking conversations out of context in order to build a conspiracy around himself. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"…just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that?"

Umm... yes?

My prior correspondence with Someguy0830 is only relevant in that your using it to attack my objectivity is a violation of WP:PA. –Gunslinger47 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someguy0830 and Gunslinger47 appear to be friends, yeah. I'm friends with Masamage, does that mean that I'm conspiring with Masamage against everyone on Wikipedia that dislikes me? Seriously, think about what you're suggesting here. JuJube 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no way he could have just coincidentally stumbled on the page. He was either brought there by another person, or was searching through the contributions of Someguy and followed him there. Either way, he was operating under biased interest, and it was proper to ask him to recuse himself from commenting on the situation. SanchiTachi 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi, pay attention to what Gunslinger wrote. "I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within." It's two paragraphs above this line. You're accusing Gunslinger of things that he admits to openly. Do you think that will better your position? Because he found your conversation does not mean he commented on it to gang up on you with me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement. Sanchi Tachi, you are being self-centered, and pretty much the whole community is requesting that you stop. JuJube 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a pattern of behavior, Sanchi has been very contentious over 40K articles. He has made the same claims, and furthermore believes that he is the sole arbiter of what is valid and relevant and what is not. He also believes his interpretations and usages supersede those of Games Workshop usages wrt 40K. No one has ever seen these sources he claims cited, and dialogue is indeed impossible. Resolution of these issues has been to either give in or let them peter out. MSJapan 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article, not articles. I was contentious over the changing of one section without asking for consensus. It was the main page of the Warhammer 40,000 group and I wasn't the only one who had a problem with the change. I would, however, point ou tthat MSJapan was on the opposite side of the argument. MSJapan claims that I had no sources, but if MSJapan is refering to the previous debate at Warhammer, I provided sources for all of my claims, and if MSJapan is claiming that I haven't provided sources now, it is because the person is either directly lying, or unwilling to see that I have indeed provided sources. Seeing that a company calls them "Graphic Novels", provides articles about the characters, provides miniatures released by the same publishing company for those models, providing certificates and rules for those miniatures, and then writing articles for the magazine revolving around the miniature game which discusses the rules, armies, and the rest. However, it is obvious that MSJapan is saying what they are saying now because of the previous argument where MSJapan did not have their way. Please see WP:EQ where it says to forget the past, or to get over issues.

Furthermore, you can see that there are many contributors over at the Warhammer group who have thanked me for my work and my contributions, and that I rarely revert people unless there is clear vandalism or if its dealing with a contentious issue on the Warhammer 40,000 page. SanchiTachi 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan can agree with you an a particular stance while disagreeing with how you argued it. This is not a conflict. The entire reason we are here right now is not because of any particular dispute, but how you acted (win or lose) during them.

…and for the record, thank you for your contributions. –Gunslinger47 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous section break

• I was on WP:RPP patrol earlier (as I do :) ) when a request came in from Someguy0830 to move-protect the List_of_Warhammer_40,000_graphic_novels article. I reviewed it, found out that there was a move-war in progress and move-protected the article. I left a polite note on the talk page, asking the relevant editors to work towards consensus first. It was largely met with assent (apart from one person). This then led to the following comment on my talk page. I tried to answer as best I could. Having moved on, I later found out that the article needed subsequent full-protection as the war escalated. It seems to me that SanchiTachi is taking this whole matter way to personally - Alison ☺ 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Anyone checking out SanchiTachi's talk page should probably look closely at the edit history - Alison ☺ 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on your response, Alison, you feel that people who are self admitted people who don't understand the original use of graphic novels with the topic, nor had any experience with the topic, are some how better to determine where the page should have been than the naming guidelines based on the wikiproject page or the only person who contributed to the page sources and verifiable information? Furthermore, your implication of pointing out my edit history appears to be an attack upon my removal of entries on my talk page which I have every right to remove. Why would you point that out? And why would you ignore the fact that the people causing the most problems now have nothing to do with the original topic nor have any knowledge, sources, or the like on the topic? How would you feel if someone came to your pages and started saying that the labels were wrong, that you didn't provide adequate resources, etc etc, when they had not one clue about the topic? It appears that you did not, actually, examine the situation and instead protected based on the first person that came to you. An admin's job is to be unbiased and to look at the facts, not jump on the band wagon of the first person that says something. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for proving my point. Yes, you're completely overreacting here, you're assuming bad faith on my part and your discussions seem to be descending into some sort of strange paranoia (seriously!). You've also been sanitizing your talk page - yes you have - you're not exactly performing maintenance/housekeeping over there. It's pretty obvious, actually, as to what you're doing. However, let's leave others decide. I've been largely uninvolved in all this and have actually zero interest in your article but frankly, I'm disappointed in your accusations of bias here and your suggestion that I "did not, actually, examine the situation", etc, etc. - Alison ☺ 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing; "How would you feel if someone came to your pages" - I don't have pages on Wikipedia, though I've created hundreds of articles and edited thousands. As has been constantly pointed out to you by all and sundry, you do not have any articles. Please read WP:OWN to understand why - Alison ☺ 04:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you shouldn't be reminded that AGF and ABF do not apply to dealing with criticism. I have not stated that you are intended to destroy the project. I am pointing out your mistakes. I am asking you to explain why you made those mistakes, which is within my right. You are assuming bad faith by claiming that I am not assuming good faith. If you would have examined the issue, you would have seen that there was no asking for consensus before the move, that the move was contentious and the procedure was not followed, and that user Someguy was revert warring improperly without consulting the Wikiproject on the matter. I am the one disappointed in you, because admin are expected to do research into what the situation is, not randomly attribute blocks and leave the situation as a flame war that was obvious to erupt from the first movement from the original page without consensus. I thank you for encouraging Someguy and inflaming the situation. You have provided assurance into the admin as being able to resolve issues before they become problematic. SanchiTachi 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And Alison, when did you lack a user page or a user talk page? Oh, while you were preaching about assuming good faith, you ignored what my question was and instead tried to construe wording into a claim of rule breaking. That is a violation of good faith and etiquette. Could you strike your comments now? Or am I the only one left on Wikipedia with the courage to strike comments that are false or no longer apply to the situation? SanchiTachi 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Here's what I think; dude, you're waaay out of control. You need to take a break and have a cup of tea or something. You've burnt through a ton of goodwill & inflamed a large number of editors. I don't like your attitude, I don't like your baseless accusations, your wikilawyering nonsense, your passive-aggressive tone nor your complete and willful disregard for rules nor the concept of working in collaboration with others. I'm not about to strike any comments, frankly, and your final, ridiculous false dichotomy really tops it off. I don't normally speak in this manner but ... you're way out of line here. Your emo rant on my talk page earlier was your first contact with me & guess what - it was deleted by another admin with the words, "Please keep your emotional problems out of Alison's talk page, thank you". I chose to restore it and respond to you politely; give you the chance and to try to help, somehow. In retrospect the other admin was right. Silly me - Alison ☺ 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"out of control" is a personal attack. I have taken a break and the person followed me to another page. I have not burnt through good will, as most of these people have nothing to do with my wikiproject or have anything to do with the pages that I have edited. What you seem unable to understand is that most of these people are friends of the above user or have come only to join in a bandwagon. The other admin was not right. The other admin did not have the right to delete my text like that. You had the right to only because of Talk page guidelines. It seems that you, and other admin that are your friends do not seem willing to respect the rules of being an admin. This is very offensive. I have issued a serious complaint about your action, and what do you do? Say that I am out of line. Why? Because I criticized your actions as not being justified when you have yet to justify your actions appropriately? You have not given a legitimate reason for ignoring the rules of consensus and approving of a move that was not following the move guidelines. Heaven forbid someone challenge someone else of inpropriety in a forum which says at the top that you have the right to issue complaints on administrative actions. But see, you are unable to see this objectively, which is the source of the complaint. You have personally attacked me. Prove you are here for good faith and strike through your insults. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to strike through anything. Please. File a complaint about me, by all means. You're just so not listening here. - Alison ☺ 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that she thinks you are out of control and in dire need of a break isn't a personal attack. Personally, I would also say that you could use some milk and cookies and a nice nap. (That's not condescending, by the way; that's what I'll sometimes do when I'm too agitated or cranky for civilized company.) You could well have some legitimate grievance about something going on somewhere on Wikipedia, but your behavior here gives me no reason to think so. You are doing yourself no favors by declining to spend the morning on a long, long walk. Once you've done that, I'd start with WP:NAM. William Pietri 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits do not require approval from a Wikiproject to be done. And edit warring is bad, period. It doesn't matter if everyone else is on your side, it doesn't even matter if you're right. You can not edit war. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I left any page that User:Someguy0830 was editing under, but he decided to follow me anyway. Hence, the Wiki Stalking complaint above, which no one seems willing to respect. A major part of WP:EQ is leaving users alone and not harassing them. You can say AGF all you want, but if I feel harassed, it has obviously gone beyond innocent action. This is a large project. I have proven that I have moved to another place. I only work on the Warhammer pages. I have contributed a lot to them, revamped a lot of stubs, added tons of resources and cleaned up tons of random vandalism. If you are going to claim that I need to try and move again, where should I go? And what is to prevent Someguy and his friends from following me and doing the same? You have an obligation to protect users from other users. Unless Wikipedia wants to claim it doesn't. If thats the case, I will just go over and contribute to the Warhammer Wiki instead and abandon these pages. They are more strict on who they let in and they would keep someone like Someguy from following me around. SanchiTachi 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just remember Sanchi. I moved the page in good faith. You edit warred because you have ownership issues. I also edit warred, and for that I apologize, but you won't listen unless your options are limited. As for your striking thing, you're the only person willing to strike comments because you're incapable of resolving disputes. Your comments are still relevant. You just can't admit when you have no position to argue from. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but with all these accusations and constant cross-posting you've done, I didn't even see that complaint. I'll have to see if it's justified. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please scroll up for the listing of Someguy0830, thanks. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, complete disregard for WP:AGF, instead jumping to the worst possible conclusion and assuming everyone's out to get him. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear this is almost getting too easy. Yet more cross-posting in an attempt to garner support for his position. User poses a vague hypothetical on the village pump, which I reveal and other users also point out. User proceeds to tell both to "stick to the topic", and post etiquette warnings on both user's talk pages. This kind of thing proves his inability to listen to what others are telling him. He just expands his efforts to bypass it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Sanchi's behaviour is the focus of this thread I'd like to post a diff to my talkpage here where he just admonished me regarding my post at the Village Pump. I've never encountered this editor before, and almost feel like the term "browbeating" might apply; I really think Sanchi needs to ease up on the throttle a bit. Doc Tropics 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is proper to ask people to stay on topics and to remove off topic material from discussion pages and talk pages. Your comments to me at Village Pump Policy were off topic and did not seek to answer the question that I asked. SanchiTachi 04:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I was hauled into this debate by a post on my talk page which fits the profile of the "browbeating" Doc Tropics received, I will also comment that I am disturbed that SanchiTachi posted a message at the Village Pump without context and actually admonished people for attempting to provide context. We are trying to get a handle on what's going on so we can help you; telling us that attempts to illustrate the character and nature of what looks like a run-of-the-mill personality conflicts was "inappropriate" indicates to me that you consider yourself able to own discussions. That is not so.

All this fuss from SanchiTachi has, incidentally, been extremely at cross-purposes to his intended goals, since I have been occupied with responding to apparent misconceptions of Wikipedia policy, and unable to review the actions leading to this complaint. I would attempt to parse the questions at the Village Pump, but the basic truth of hypothetical questions is that they often do not contain enough information to make a good judgement.

In short, if you must ask questions about basic Wikipedia policies regarding harassment, it would be wise to ask yourself whether you have the breadth of knowledge to be criticizing others' understanding of policy. --Edwin Herdman 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that you are complaining because I asked you to stay on question about a topic, then accused me of all sorts of violations in a very inappropriate place. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Look particularly at his own edits of his Talk page and you see that he has deleted several messages from several Wikipedians (myself included) who asked him (some rather stridently) to modify his uncivil and disruptive behavior. But even if one looks only at the messages that he has not deleted from his Talk page (at least as of the last time I checked), he has attracted a remarkable number of disagreements with his conduct in the one month that he has been active on Wikipedia. Also examine his contributions, especially on all types of Talk pages, and you will see for yourself why SanchiTachi's behavior has drawn the reactions it has. His conduct here also does not reflect an appreciation of WP:OWN. SanchiTachi's responses to others, including his edit summaries, accuse his critics (including admins) of conspiring against him, of trolling, edit warring, of being unqualified to participate on HIS projects and pages, and of violating such WP policies as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POV, etc., which are precisely the Wikipedia values that his own conduct ignores. His behavior rejects and ignores other Wikipedians who disagree with him on edits, policies, or his own conduct. I considered initiating an WP:RFC about his behavior; however, given the amount of feedback that he has already received and ignored, I concluded that an RfC would be futile. I hope something can be done to change SanchiTachi's behavior on Wikipedia so that he can become a productive member of this community. Frankly, I cannot imagine how his participation on Wikipedia up to now, with so many others criticizing and blocking his actions, can be bringing him satisfaction. Finell (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user, Finell, edited my user page. I removed it. He complained. I asked him to cease editing my user page. He complained to an admin that I removed his text from my user and user talk pages. He claimed I broke rules. As you can see above, I have the right to delete items at will on my talk page. It is obvious that Finell is attacking me. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone file an RfC - let's see what the community, as a whole, has to say about the behavior by the involved users here. Maybe a resounding affirmation of one side or another will finally be a wake up call to settle this. --Haemo 05:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, unfortunately, it won't. SanchiTachi has not been persuaded by the comments that many editors, including admins, posted on his own Talk page, on project and article Talk pages, the responses to his posts on other editors' and admins' talk pages, and the overwhelming expression of opinion here. Perhaps if enough admins reason with him here, it will get through. More likely, that will not persuade him either. I sincerely hope that he proves me wrong about this. Will you, SanchiTachi, for your own good as well as for the good of the community? Finell (Talk) 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  Swatjester has offered to straighten Sanchi out. As Swat's voice is perhaps the only one capable of reaching Sanchi, let's hope he can do what all of us have failed miserably at. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this personal attack absurdity. SanchiTachi, please calm down. No one is attacking you. Please stop treating us as if the world has a vendetta against you. —Kurykh 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait

Is this seriously about whether the page List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels should be called List of Warhammer 40,000 Graphic Novels instead? Because that's what I'm getting from the talk page there. --Haemo 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. It was prompted by that, but I've dealt with this user several times before and encountered the same. From one simple move, several pages of complete refusal to cooperate in the least with other editors, threatening to isolate his page from any project that would dare question his will, and finally an ignorant obsession with having facts yet stonewalling anyone who asks for them, we come here. The length to which behavior is tolerable has to end somewhere, and after a 3RR and an ANI report on me by this user which achieved nothing, I filed a report I was hping would make this user realize just how little his behavior is accepted. Sadly, that hasn't happened. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like what you have to do is clear; file a Request for Comment, outlining where and what happened, and allowing him to reply. I also think that everyone just chilling out and working to try and solve the underlying content disputes might allay the extraneous conflicts which arose around them. --Haemo 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though I've never filed one before. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The move was part of how Someguy0830 was exacting a campaign to follow me to pages that I edit and further harass me. The impropriety of Alison's protection without seeking a consensus on the name and unwillingness to prevent a problematic situation, even though it was clearly mentioned on her talk page, is what created the situation that you currently see. Please see the above complaint about Someguy0830 for more details. There is no way to "chill out". The page was created by myself to "chill out." I didn't expect it to be moved and edited by the guy who was previously causing me complaints just mere hours after being put up. SanchiTachi 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is a way to chill out -

• Alison doesn't need a consensus to protect a page; she's a admin, that's her job. Protecting a page does not endorse the current version - all it does is stop a move war. That's all.
• No one, not even Someguy0830 is trying to cause problems for you. All that has happened is that he edits in a similar part of the encyclopedia, and appears to have slightly different views.

Does this make sense? Does it engender a sense of calm? Hopefully it should! --Haemo 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo Haemo's comments, but wanted to add something else. In the paragraph I'm responding to, you blame the current situation on everybody but yourself. First, seeking blame is rarely particularly productive. Second, focusing on others' faults exclusively puts them on the defensive. And third, it takes two to tango. So after you have found some actual calm (hint: you won't do that while continually reloading and editing this thread) consider starting out by a) acknowledging the ways you have contributed to this foofaraw and b) suggesting some ways forward that you think might work for all involved. Good luck, William Pietri 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about that article or its title. It is about the behavior of User:SanchiTachi wherever he touches Wikipedia. His behavior on List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels and its Talk page just happened to be what finally pushed some people over the top. Finell (Talk) 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got a very easy solution for this.

Let me preface this by saying that I've had a fair amount of experience with SanchiTachi. He's an enthusiastic editor who has a genuine desire to edit and improve Wikipedia. In his enthusiasm he makes mistakes, but I've never yet seen one that I could say was not in good faith. Sanchi Tachi has often come to my talk page to get help with editing disputes: he's also taken my advice when I don't feel that a dispute would likely go in his favor. For instance, he had an editing dispute on a topic that shortly after, received an OTRS complaint. SanchiTachi was not likely familiar with OTRS, so I told him that it would be a good idea to leave the article alone for a month, and he did so. Sanchi Tachi is hot headed, and can take things personally. Show me an editor who has not done so. Hell, I could show you a dozen administrators who do so. So let me mentor Sanchi Tachi. I'm already helping him out already, and I will fairly and impartially help him become a better editor. If you get into an editing dispute with him, instead of needing to go through the trouble and stress of an RFC, or an AN/I complaint, just let me know on the talk page. If SanchiTachi is in the wrong, I'll help him realize what he did wrong and how to fix it, or if extreme case, I"ll take the appropriate admin actions.

Sanchi Tachi is a good editor. There's nothing gained by stressing him out until the point that he gives up and leaves the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but he's got to accept this too. --Haemo 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about the offer to mentor, I think it should be seriously considered. Swatjester does a lot of good work and has a good rep; he might be able to help. Doc Tropics 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Saves me from figuring out the RfC. I do expect something to come of it, though, as this whole charade would make any other editor say to themselves, "Wow, maybe I really did screw up." You don't get this many complaints and think nothing's amiss. Specifically, I expect him to actually address the questions he's asked, and not to fall back on quoting policy all the time. If anything, he shouldn't be allowed to quote it at all. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved a bit towards helping SanchiTachi understand the policies better; you can see my last contribution here. While I've been congratulated on this writing, it seems that it rubbed SanchiTachi the wrong way, and he has proceeded to ignore me. This might be helpful in making comments that help move the process along (which is why I'm posting this, not because I feel neglected). --Edwin Herdman 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Someguy0830, when you say "shouldn't be allowed" you are coming dangerously close to proposing that there is a "correct interpretation" of events. It just ain't so. I think comments like that and a few other arguable snipes have helped this situation reach critical mass and forced SanchiTachi to grope for some policy to back him up. While all of us may agree that there were some issues, I certainly don't agree with some of the comments that have been directed at SanchiTachi. In fact, if I had been more thoughtful I would have mentioned straight off my final comment on the logical process that I link in my above paragraph, as without it the reader is left wondering how I could reach the conclusion I did. --Edwin Herdman 06:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that is going a bit too far. However, he likes to fall back on it when his assertions fail, which is why I want him trying to actually discuss things. As others have pointed out, he has a "my way or the highway" mentality in a lot of cases and that needs to be discouraged. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect assertions are not going to illustrate to SanchiTachi what is appropriate. A classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right," if I ever saw one. Some law needs to be laid down - don't make redundant badgering comments on other editors' discussion pages when you repeat those claims on the overall discussion page - but they need to be dealt with individually. --Edwin Herdman 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Last comment for the night here (I hope). I've a lot of respect for SwatJester and appreciate his mediation here. I was about halfway through filing an RfC here but will hold off if you think this will work. My position on this is that I want the guy to have resolved whatever is going on here, to de-escalate this situation and to be a happy and productive editor. That's all. I've no doubt that he's a good editor. If you think mentoring/mediation will work, then let's give it a go - Alison ☺ 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're done for the night then. If there's no objection, I think we can consider this closed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be new but with Shane Ruttle article, I think there should be some boundaries or given to him. He is completely bent having his way with the article no matter what discussion happens.--CmrdMariategui 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More WP:BLP drama involving DRV

Two incidents tonight throw a little more fire on the ongoing war between DRV and BLP. First, User:David Gerard deleted and protected an article that DRV closed as restore history and redirect. Discussion here and here reveals the same arguments both sides have been using in this debate up till this point. The pro-DRV people are saying "we are following consensus and you are wheel warring" while the BLP-ists are saying "DRV is invalid plus respect for people's personal lives trumps everything else."

The second incident involves User:Tony Sidaway [closing] a DRV he voted in, and called the nomination "trollish" and "stupid" and subsequent revert warring over whether he should be allowed to close it after making such comments. The DRV itself also has other BLPists weighing in, with users such as (once again) David Gerard insisting BLP can be a speedy deletion criteria even in excess of CSD:A10 [128] and BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was. See also [[129]]. -N 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues concerning how BLP and related concerns should be addressed in connection with this general type of articles are extremely significant. I would prefer to see them discussed in the context of the relevant policy pages and as appropriate in specific cases, with an eye toward gathering experience and building consensus, rather than in the crucible of a multi-pronged and bitter arbitration case, but the latter is becoming more and more unavoidable if this keeps up. The excessive name-calling that continues to pour in from lots of experienced Wikipedians who should know better is not helping matters one bit. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it discussed that way too, especially since I refuse to participate in arbitration cases. But Arbcom was unavoidable the first time someone said "No, you can't contest my BLP deletion!", because our dysfunctional dispute resolution process has absolutely no other way to impose sanctions on long-standing contributors who at least can make a believable claim that they are acting in good faith. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, the problem is it's not being fought in appropriate cases. People on both sides are fighting battles over EVERY ARTICLE where the subject wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion without the one bad incident, even in cases where reliable sources are available ad infinitum and the articles are carefully written to avoid making disparaging comments beyond mere recitation of the facts. -N 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the whole point is that the mere naming of the article after the subject of the one-off incident is a problem, because it's certain to be the number one hit on the search engines for their name. Wikipedia happens to be ridiculousy powerful on the net, and the BLP policy was put into place pretty much as an "or else" by Jimbo and the Foundation for damn good reason. That's why policy and practice ever since the introduction of WP:BLP was to shoot such articles on sight and shoot them again every time they rise again. I'm at a loss to understand how anyone ever got the idea it was otherwise, or that a DRV straw poll could override it - David Gerard 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(And by the way, WP:BLP came this close to mandating sympathetic point of view, in direct contradiction of the fundamental content policies, rather than being an expression of them. Check its early history - David Gerard 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

The way it's currently being interpreted, it pretty much does mandate sympathetic point of view. That's one of the fundamental problems with it. *** Crotalus *** 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what it mandates is that we don't allow our encyclopedia to be converted into an attack vector by way of "biographies" which use reams of wikitext to list every single possibly bad thing a person ever did, right down to the time they listed that $20 donation to the Salvation Army twice on their tax return. Minorly notable people who have only been in the public eye because of a single incident in their lives cannot possibly have balanced, encyclopedic biographies written about them and thus Wikipedia becomes a permanent Internet record of that single incident masquerading at their entire life. FCYTravis 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was." You've stated it absolutely succinctly: product is more important than process. BLP is a content policy formed of fundamental content policies turned up to 11; DRV is a process aiming to work around problems of another process, AFD, to deal with maintenance - David Gerard 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to see the cases not decided by those who would interpret the principle in the most restrictive possible way, which is the way things are being done now. The admin community, I believe, understands, agrees with, and believes in the principle, and should decide these in a consensus manner. The way things are being done now leads to not only incorrect decisions but also a REALLY LARGE amount of Wikidrama. Mangojuice^talk 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not agonise over these fripperies. This was my close and it will stand, proceduralism and wikilawyering notwithstanding. My only contribution was to give the community a chance to end the silliness now.

This isn't a hard discussion to close. There are living people involved here who have had no part in what happened to them--they were days old at the time. The arguments that say essentially "this subject should be covered" are valid. But we also have a policy on Biographies of living persons and its guiding principle is that of the hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.

This subject, that of the terrible damage caused by hospital mishaps, can be covered adequately without creating articles about individuals who have been the subject of such mistakes and must live with them. Wikipedia is a top ten website, and such entries would follow these blameless people wherever they might go.

Numerically there is already a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. Morally, and I do not use that word lightly, there are unimpeachable reasons to endorse without prejudice to the information being used, sensitively and with due attention to balance and privacy, in other article. But we do not have the material to write a biography. These are private individuals.

In the name of Wikipedia and in the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy, this deletion stands. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If policy and consensus rule here, your decision will remain overturned. Who's side are you on? and why do you continue to cite a policy you've never read? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh a little bird told me to close it, and dictated the wording. I'm on your side, Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could have fooled me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your closure and I would do it again. It is clearly inappropriate for you to close speedily, just as it would be for me to do it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was David Gerard's edit that you reverted. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not write an article on the hospital mishap itself, and make the two names as redirects to that article? *** Crotalus *** 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That might work. We could conceivably produce an article on the incident that did not unduly reveal personal identities, but cited reliable sources that may do (and in most cases necessarily so otherwise they wouldn't be much use). But then why would we keep the redirects? The individual identifies are not relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion is not the way to make such a change. That's the whole point. The way, the truth, and the light 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What he said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The close was not a deletion. The article has been deleted and there is a clear consensus to keep it deleted. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Now you're simply making things up. No legitimate deletion rationales have been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There quite clearly isn' If you would stop vote counting for a second you would notice that DRV is about deletion policy. The cited reason for deletion is quite clearly invalid - there was assertion of notability irrespective of wether you think it was notable or not. The second issue of BLP is clearly under attack as well - apart from the fact that that was not the reason given for the articles deletion in the first place. Viridae^Talk 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rightful aim is to be a respectable and freely-available academic resource and, as such, a force for global intellectual enlightenment. To become a theatre for gawking at the mishaps and misfortune of private citizens, or worse still a platform for their communal ridicule as with QZ, would be a gross and intolerable perversion of that goal.Proabivouac 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, none of us disagree with that goal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make the news, it only records it. We didn't cause QZ to become an internet meme. We didn't cause Crystal Gail Mangum to make a false accusation of rape and thus become notable. For us to fail to record those facts because they may be unpleasant is, in my opinion, a breach of that aim. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Were we a news outlet, you'd have a very good point. To state a principle which should be obvious, merely appearing in the news does not make one notable enough to merit mention in a serious encyclopedia. Sources are a prerequisite, not the justification, for an article.Proabivouac 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty in this encyclopedia that is far too trivial for a normal encyclopaedia, but wikipedia is not govered by matters of space so ther si room here for an article on anything the community judge notable and can write about in an encyclopedic manner (NPOV, referenced). Similarly some of the community may find some topics to be too much fluff/too trivial so they are quite welcome to take the article to afd for disussion - but not delete it out of process citing bogus reasons. Viridae^Talk 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an observation, the bio on Gail seems to meet WP:BIO on several points; WP:BIO is longstanding and has broad consensus. If people want WP:BLP to trump WP:BIO's generally-accepted guidelines on inclusion, they should bring up the issue there, as well. --Aquillion 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Biographies of living persons (BLP) is far more important, and has much stronger teeth, than Wikipedia:Notability (people) (BIO). This isn't an issue. BLP is, however, far more controversial than BIO. Obviously not having ever read BLP or BIO I cannot undertake the task of education. I can however predict the result of this struggle: BLP will win hands down, every time. Skimming the top of BIO, which is the most I ever do, I see this statement: "if the subject is living, we must follow our policy for biographies of living people." Being the brainless gadfly that I am, I assume that this ends the argument. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP:BIO doesn't really have much going for it against BLP; policies generally beat guidelines. What does is that Wikipedia is not censored. There is a difficult line to draw between the two. Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but "not censored" has never meant "not edited." We exercise responsible editorial policies and selectivity in the subjects that we cover and how we cover those subjects. The fact that "Wikipedia is not censored" does not now and has never been interpreted as issuing a free pass to write anything on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) There are a number of things that concern me about this entire situation. Wikipedia is run by consensus. Not only the utter disregard for consensus, but the (seemingly) sheer contempt for the masses that some editors have shown, is deeply and utterly disturbing to me. While libel guidelines are important, they do not excuse unilateral action. While policy permits, and demands, that material failing the three core policies be removed from BLP articles, the actions under discussion here are of another scale and scope. The admin forum and biography noticeboard both provide appropriate places to discuss potentially controversial, disruptive or counter-consensus actions. No individual sysop has the ability to lay down office action-like demands. If after discussion on AN or BLP/N, there is a lack of clear support for the action, it should not be undertaken. The Foundation can be contacted if there is truly a BLP concern that both consensus and further on-wiki discussion have not addressed. There are plenty of appropriate avenues to take regarding these issues and they should be used. Of course, that's my own view and you're welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the actions in question demonstrate that Wikipedia is maturing into a responsibly : written and edited encyclopedia. If there ever was a time when it was OK to write fundamentally and permanently unbalanced "biographies" of people on Wikipedia simply because "they're bad people" - well, that time is over. The article on Crystal was the account of her creation of an unfortunate and scandalous newsworthy incident, along with whatever other tidbits that reporters dug up could be found to insert. That is patently not a biography. A true biography would involve multiple interviews, lengthy research and repeated trips through editorial review, and would be written so as to place that incident in context within her entire life. There is no published biography of her to provide such a source, and we can't do it ourselves - thus, we cannot have a biography of her. It's just that simple. FCYTravis 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. If that is the new requirement for biographies in Wikipedia, you will need to delete over 90% of the biographies, because most of them don't have bloody books written on them. That's not realistic. Horologium talk - contrib 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Maybe we should. We cannot create entire biographies for people based on news reporting surrounding a single incident in their lives. That's not how biographies are written in the real world, and Wikipedia exists in the real world. FCYTravis 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are establishing a standard that does not exist in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Articles about people are biographical, but there is no standard that says they must be proper literary biographies. The standards say that outside sources must have treated them as worthy of notice, that the information included in verifiable in reliable sources and that the presentation is a neutral reporting of the available facts. Additionally, I hardly find it to be a sign of maturity when people take it upon themselves against the rules and principles of Wikipedia to enforce their view of a rule. WP:AN allows sysops to confer openly with other sysops. WP:BLP/N allows an admin to seek consultation on BLP issues. The Wikimedia Foundation has a process for reporting and resolving BLP concerns that cannot be resolved through consensus and discussion. What requires the need to short circuit these available avenues? Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"A neutral reporting of the available facts" is no longer enough. Articles about people which focus entirely on a single negative incident and fail to place that person's actions into context are fundamentally unbalanced and place undue weight on negative aspects of their lives. If we cannot create an article which encyclopedically and biographically explains a person's entire life, not a single incident in their life, we should not pretend to have article on them. "Good enough for now" is no longer acceptable when it comes to living people. FCYTravis 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this explains why existing avenues of discussion and appeals to the Foundation need to be short-circuited. Our policies and guidelines additionally do not reflect a position as strict as you espouse. Again, what creates the need to ignore consensus and available avenues of recourse? Vassyana 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation is MIA. In an ideal world, they would be combing through all this cruft and removing all potentially libelous or otherwise damaging material about living people. Here in the real world, if we won't do it, it will, in the best case scenario, ultimately be done for us by some combination of lawyers, legislators and journalists. In the worst case scenario, it won't be, and we'll wind up hurting a lot of innocent people.Proabivouac 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them. Removing all potentially damaging material is hardly ideal. Should the articles of convicted murderers (as a clear example) have all mention of their wrongdoing removed because it is damaging to their reputation? BLP already allows, and has allowed, the immediate removal of poorly-sourced negative information to protect people from unfair accusations and false statements. There is no good reason, outside of clear speedy deletion or BLP violation, for well-sourced articles to be deleted against consensus without open discussion and other available options. Vassyana 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them."

Just because someone isn't currently aware of a Wikipedia article about them or hasn't yet complained to the Foundation doesn't mean we're not responsible for what we publish from now until they are/do.Proabivouac 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I never said we were not responsible for it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that there are avenues that already address this. Again, what requires a need for unilateral action outside of policy against consensus, without using the other avenues of resolution available? Vassyana 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus takes time to obtain under the best circumstances, and this conversation is proof that the community's decisions - especially when hobbled by a view of "consensus" which asks for considerably more than a simple majority - don't reliably produce the appropriately responsible answer. Most cruft has a constituency which can produce a local bloc large enough to thwart a "consensus," if not a majority. This is bad enough when the material is merely flippant and irrelevant, but unacceptable when the well-being of innocent people is concerned. At the end of the day, and in the real world, "but there was consensus on Wikipedia!" isn't really much of an argument compared to "I lost my job due to false rumors," "my son committed suicide due to constant ridicule," etc., anymore than is, "but it was ultimately deleted after our elaborate processes had taken their due course!"Proabivouac 07:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were false rumours, the material could be immediately removed for being poorly-sourced negative claims. That would be well within policy. If something has multiple non-trivial reliable sources, to be a bit cold, it doesn't really matter how the subject feels about it, provided we properly report what sources say about the person. I am sure a lot of people would like that kind of information to go away. I'm sure Michael Jackson doesn't want the coverage of child abuse allegations, for example. You can argue all you like that M Jackson is somehow different because he is famous. Notability is not fame. He is still a human being with the same feelings as other human beings. However, it is a subject covered in multiple non-trivial sources, so there's little to no question that it fits out inclusion criteria. I will again ask: What requires these issues to be handled outside of policy, outside of process, outside of on-wiki discussion and outside of the available appeal to the Foundation, when these avenues are available? Vassyana 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I think you're linking to the wrong page: the relevant page for libel is Wikipedia:Libel. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page. I apologize for being less than clear. The strict guidelines found in BLP are founded on concerns of libel, hence my allusion. Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to point out these recent edits by Tony, one of which is in my userspace. He blanked userboxes in userspace protesting out-of-process deletions: diff on User:Disavian/Userboxes/Out of Process; diff on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User admins ignoring policy. Both of the edits had the edit summary, "This user is against inflammatory userboxes." Now, these userboxes had nothing to do with the ongoing BLP "fight" (for lack of a better word); they refer to the mass userbox deletions on anything that was remotely inflammatory around the time WP:TGS was invented and implemented. Now, I know there's no policy that says someone can't edit another person's userspace, and that inflammatory content may be deleted, but I think these edits violate WP:DICK and that the boxes are hardly inflammatory. Silencing someone else's respectfully stated viewpoint is no way to argue your point. In summary, I'd prefer it if all of this BLP drama stayed out of my userspace... but I fear that is too much to ask. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... that's not BLP drama, that's idiocy. I'm quite frankly at a loss to why someone won't just block him for disruption (but I do know it won't happen). -Amarkov moo! 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure, i'm thinking about making that block right now. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm really annoyed that I've sworn never to begin an RfC. The problem is, I know I have a good reason for it, and it's not worth violating to get disruptive things stopped faster. -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I personally feel nearly all userboxes useless at best, at least those are related to Wikipedia, and, though I utterly disagree with their editorial statements, I do not find them particularly inflammatory.

However, I cannot see neither how these edits would merit a block, or what they have to do with this discussion. Restore and ignore.Proabivouac 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

After I copied a bunch of userboxes to my userspace oh so long ago, I've put them aside and focused on real editing. Sometimes I wish I'd never gotten involved in TGS, but while I've got 'em, I might as well do a little to maintain them, ya know? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these ubx's are stupider then most. Thank him next time. -M^ask? 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read through two DRV's this whole thing, all the links in here that weren't to policies i'd read before, some policy, and at the end, as a regular editor and as a regular observer here, I see Tony Sidway getting away with BLP = IAR, consensus be damned, with a big fat side of 'And if you don't like it, I'll delete your obvious sign of opposition, so PH3AR me'. This is a very disappointign showing to a regular editor. Sure looks unethical that Tony got into the DRV with a clear intent, and ignored the massive discussion and, as I saw it, reasonably balanced number of people on each side, to get his way. the fact that those on his side were eventually resorting to 'sod off' instead of discussion hardly does anything to make me more sympathetic to their side. Like another editor above, I know Tony won't even have a handprint on his own hand for this, much less serious review, but there's one more editor who sees less and less good every day when it comes to admins policing each other. The blue wall's building here. ThuranX 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. I couldn't agree more. It worries me that so many experienced Wikipedians are using BLP as an excuse to ignore others and do as they want. Unless the material is libellous, then this kind of decision should be open for discussion and debate. We shouldn't have biographies on some people, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere, and this line is not clear-cut. And the debates should be conducted fairly, which includes not being closed by people involved. There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure - speedying sourced articles, early closing any debate involving DRV, closing debates they're involved in, etc. Even if their POV is right (which it often is), the way they're going about it seems designed to piss off everyone who disagrees with them. Would it hurt so much to follow process occasionally (particularly when the article itself has been deleted, so there's no immediate BLP concerns)? Would it not save time in the long run by avoiding tiresome meta-discussions on the validity of previous discussions? Just because you're convinced you're right, doesn't mean you're not sometimes wrong (in the eyes of the rest of the community). Trebor 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You suggest "There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure." This is the case if the situation is grave enough. You can take them to arbitration if you think they're getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• In one of these cases, the one I submitted for review, I don't think the situation qualified as "grave" enough to bypass the AFD process. I find it troubling that administrators are apparently so highhanded and feel they have a right to bypass the usual procedure that would allow for discussion and a consensus vote. I think speedy deletion is appropriate in cases where there is clear libel of the subject or where no sources are provided. I've nominated articles for speedy deletion in those cases or where notability was in question. None of those criteria were met here, in my opinion. I am glad that Tony Sidaway or someone else decided to overturn his original decision to close that review and allowed the discussion to continue. I also appreciated Tony Sidaway's apology for calling my nomination of the speedy deletion for review as "trollish" and "stupid." --Bookworm857158367 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  It was certainly incredibly stupid. I apologise for implying that any malice might have been involved in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but the situation isn't grave once it's at DRV. The article is no longer there, so there's no immediate problem. There should then be an opportunity to review the decision. The problem is when you decide that you can also force through the review by closing it yourself. Discussion is good (unless you're suggesting you're infallible at this). Since when were we encouraged to go straight to arbitration? Trebor 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I echo that. I think David Gerard should be commended for a one hundred percent correct decision. Whether BLP was invoked for a good enough reason certainly can be debated further, but DRV is not a supreme court of deletion, and the decision can still be appealed to and overruled by the Arbitration Committee. El_C 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The right to appeal BLP decisions to ArbCom (if that were the only way, which it isn't) would seem a bit vacuous these days, considering that even when Doc & Tony (representing one extreme) and Jeff (representing the other) want them to accept a case, they teeter on the edge of refusing it. Fortunately we still have DRV, which can't override BLP policy, but is fully empowered to decide what things have BLP implications and what things don't, just like any other place where editors seek consensus. Vadder 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And another

The DRV closed improperly last night (here) was closed again properly as 'undelete and list'. 30 minutes later, this was reversed and the articles deleted again. The way, the truth, and the light 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported my actions to arbcom, and am willing to defend them there.--Doc^g 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As per your talk page, that re-close was quite ridiculous. There is nothing in BLP that stops these articles. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is consensus to overturn, may I add?--Wizardman 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See my closing reason. I was not being the judge of consensus, the close was procedural upon consultation with the deleting admin who had admitted her (honest) mistake in deleting something as an A7 when it is not. Viridae^Talk 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even Badlydrawnjeff is now saying your closure was out of process. So, I guess it was right of me to undelete.--Doc^g 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, if the DRV closes again with the same result, undeletion would be in order. And we know how you feel about that. The way, the truth, and the light 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is there consensus to delete? Not a single worthwhile delete argument has been made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc did the right thing. He will not be sanctioned for this. Viridae, please carefully consider your responsibilities as an administrator on a top ten website. Treating such obviously problematic articles as routine "procedural" cases is not the right path. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop already, Tony. Unless you have evidence that the articles were problematic, of course, which ahsn't been forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problematic nature of these articles is not in question. It has been very widely discussed and is fundamental to the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Do you want the brief explanation or the full one? The brief explanation is "Wikipedia is not Jeffopedia", the full explanation is that the subjects of the articles are private individuals who were only newsworthy because they were switched at birth. This isn't a tabloid newspaper and we don't do human interest stories, and we most certainly are not about to invade these people's privacy by putting an imprimatur on articles in their name. The material can be used, with due respect for their privacy, in appropriate articles in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is why it's patently false - your policy analysis is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat in this case. We are incapable of invading their privacy, as we write from sources. If it were unsourced, you wouldn't see me complaining as much, if at all depending. You must read the policy for anyone other than disruptive people to take you seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you forgot about the part where these news stories, such as they are, were forgotten along with all the rest of yesterday's news - or they would have been, except for the fact that Wikipedia had articles on the two people purporting to be "biographies," meaning that anyone browsing one of the world's top-10 Web sites could stumble over their whole sordid history with a few mouse-clicks for all of eternity. FCYTravis 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an overly-detailed article on Terri Schiavo, an article for Michael Schiavo. Should these not be deleted also? Gtrevize 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the above is deceased and both became involved in a major public debate over the right to die which involved everyone up to and including the United States Supreme Court. These two boys... were not. Next? FCYTravis 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Bartman, Juanita Broaddrick, Brian Chase, Dog poop girl (photo), Trisha Meili, Shazia Khalid, Earl Washington Jr.? 24.118.58.205 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance, Broaddrick and Meili are clearly encyclopedic biography subjects - Broaddrick publicly accused the president of the United States of rape, while Meili is a rape victim who has written a memoir and speaks publicly about overcoming sexual assaults. Washington, Jr. is probably a candidate to be merged into an article on overturned capital murder cases. The article on Bartman is probably far too detailed, and should either be ruthlessly cut down or merged. FCYTravis 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The incident is notable... the people aren't. Their "biographies" are basically only about the incident... another one (from the same article) William Hammesfahr. Gtrevize 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite debatable as to whether we should have a separate article on Mr. Hammesfahr. That article, we should take a look at merging. Maybe there's enough to merit a full bio, maybe not. FCYTravis 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that sometimes notability overrides privacy. In that case, what level of notability is sufficient is a legitimate question. The way, the truth, and the light 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We also consider the fact that Mr. Schiavo made repeated public statements on his own behalf, and has now written a book about his experiences. He is in no way an unwilling participant. These two boys have not done anything to place themselves in the public eye - the only reason they are known is that their mothers filed lawsuits. FCYTravis 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And Schiavo differs from QZ...how? He may have not been originally willing, but he certainly is attempting to capitalize upon it now, as an adult. Horologium talk - contrib 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about QZ? FCYTravis 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Some questions. When does notability overcome privacy? When there notability for only one event, or a very limited set of circumstances, where is the line between the event being notable and people being notable for the event? What is the line between unflattering sourced information and harmful sourced information? On merging as a solution to claimed harm, won't the name and incident still rank high in search engines if the data is there, regardless of the name of the article? How does merging minimize and/or prevent harm? Thanks for you time and consideration. Vassyana 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pankkake, continued personal attacks

This user continued to personally attack me past his fourth warning. See Pankkake's personal attacks and corresponding warnings. His behavior is annoying at worst, but since he has not heeded any warnings, administrator intervention may be more effective against his behavior. --Leon Sword 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

uncalled for, but a lot of this was provocation. He was clearly nonplussed by using impersonal templates (as most wikipedians are) and instead of putting a personal message telling him to cut out the personal attacks, you slapped more generic templates on his page. Thats goading and baiting a clearly upset user who got more upset each time you ignored his requests to cut it out with the templates. Shame. -M^ask? 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled that entire section off of his talk page. Both of you can cut it out and give it a rest for a while. To paraphrase a well used Wikipedia philosophy, if a user makes you annoyed or depressed, ignore them. -M^ask? 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've left me confused. I was using the correct templates which were specifically designed to warn other users of such behavior. If I am the one who is going to get blamed for that users bad behavior for using these templates correctly, then what is the purpose of those templates, they might as well be deleted. --Leon Sword 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates are optional. Most editors will tell you that a handwritten message is much more effective. In this case, the user told you he rather disliked these, they made you seem like a bot, etc, and you put more on his page. He became even more dismayed, so you put more templates on his page. At no time did you try to solve the dispute but seemed to bait him on. This doesn't mean the personal attacks were appropriate, they clearly weren't, but you had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation, yet clearly made it worse. Think when using templates. If they work, they work. They dont always work. In this case they even made things worse. Dont adhere to something just because, make sure it's doing what it's supposed to, and if its not, try something else. -M^ask? 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous IP 207.81.56.49 who may or may not be Mayor Quimby

207.81.56.49 (talk · contribs) from earlier (see thread above) is calling loudly for yet another unblock review. I've already declined one but he's still at it. Can someone new pop over there and re-review his block again, please? - Alison ☺ 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• His talk page is a mess of unblock reviews so this may just be his second - Alison ☺ 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reviewed. Appears to be a sock/meatpuppet, judging from a few factors I'd rather keep private, in case they show up again (email me, if you really must know). Nothing too exotic, but it smells of beans. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat blocked

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

I have blocked CyclePat (talk · contribs) for 72 hours due to his obsessive and disruptive edits regarding the shutdown of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates which has included using Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to try and ban an editor against him in the dispute ([130], [131], [132]), and using Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to block the same user under false pretenses ([133]).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The user also tried to get a whole class of editors banned from dealing with AMA, so that is the reason why I have removed it from the CN board twice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And me once. I endorse his block for edit warring, disruption and failure to assume good faith, per my initial warning (which was not heeded) and endorsement at User talk:CyclePat. Given he continues to spam his ban request on his talk page, I'm thinking protection would be nice, as he shows no inclination to appeal (but rather continue to disrupt to prove a point). Daniel 08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat does little aside from being disruptive. His efforts to support Cplot via AMA even long after it was made obvious Cplot was a troll, shouldn't be overlooked either.--MONGO 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While that instance took place, this has no bearing on his current block (persé).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, Ryulong, however, there is a pattern here and it deserves mention. Otherwise, your 72 hour block would have been a bit excessive, I believe.--MONGO 08:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He had been blocked for similar reasons before; 24 hours to 72 hours is not a major step.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the prior blocks.--MONGO 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I seem to be running out of excuses for Pat. I think he is not evil but suffers form an excess of enthusiasm, however it's hard to escape the fact that his contributions in recent months have been a net drain on resources. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Since WP:AMA was supposed to help people in dispute, from Pat's attempted enforced merge of WP:EA into WP:AMA, to this current episode, it appears to actually be far better at escalating dispute and disruption. Perhaps the block will help things cool off. --pgk 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, btw, page protection in place for his talk page due to spamming of same materials he got blocked over and the blanking of the entire page after the block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block, damnit. We could all see this coming and did he listen? Nope. This disruption is ridiculous. Moreschi ^Talk 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Concern about certian user

DarkMasterIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keep your eyes on this user, although he is not a "pro vandal", he has been swapping images with some near explicit versions (I am aware of the "Wikipeida is not censored" rule, but someone is using and abusing that) --Dynamo_ace 11:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm reverting his edits, as he's uploading copyrighted material without a source, and orphaning fair use images we already have. Big no no's. -N 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this resolved or what? He's not active anymore. --əˈnongahy 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

Can an objective administrator please review the above-referenced page. It is massively POV, written in the first person and an advocacy piece originally created by a student from his/her own thesis. I fixed as much as I could but it remains subject to revert warring. Thanks!!216.194.0.76 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block this IP as a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the suspected sockpuppet category will show this anti-Irish POV pushing editor frequently edits from 216.194 prefixed IPs. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, that article does need a neutrality check -- just not necessarily from an administrator. I read the article before I looked at the diffs and the user's contribs, and the exact same sentence that I am now very tempted to excise was the one that the IP took out: "Rather than isolation, the Irish Emergency represents a bold celebration of coming-out of Plato’s cave and of walking independently among the men and women that cast their shadows against the wall, casting Ireland own shadow against the wall of history alongside them." That is pretty darn POV, and putting a neutrality-check tag on it is less anti-Irish and more pro-WP:NPOV. I find one silly edit on April 7th, but the rest of the IP's contribs seem to be good.

I'm not sure about the sockpuppet patterns of that particular puppetmaster, but the message, if not the messenger, seems to be legit here. I would assume good faith until I see true signs of maliciousness ... though the immediate resort to ANI after a grand total of seven edits, six of them today and one of them here, would make me watch this editor carefully. --Dynaflow babble 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the edit. Regardless of who he is, his concerns about the article are quite correct. The way, the truth, and the light 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merits of the edit, the editor in question is community banned and I reverted per WP:BAN. There is no obligation to assume good faith with banned editors, especially if you see this requests for comment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know for sure s/he's a banned editor? I see no evidence of sockpuppet warfare on either the article the anon legitimately tagged for an NPOV check or the NN housing project s/he prodded for deletion, so it can't be a return to familiar articles that's tipping the hand of a puppetmaster. Familiarity with process and an IP in the same rather huge range that saw past manifestations of puppetry aren't surefire enough proof of sockpuppetry to revert every one of an anon contributor's contribs, as seems to have been done. How does this fit a pattern, is what I'm asking. --Dynaflow babble 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[from User talk:Dynaflow:] See the IPs listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According ARIN, 216.194.0.0 - 216.194.63.255 belong to MetTel in New York City. An IP editor in that range taking an interest in Irish articles shouldn't strike anyone as suspicious -- do you know how many Irish people live in New York? --Dynaflow babble 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had experience of dealing with this editor, you would know that a 216.194 prefixed IP, making edits such as that to Irish related articles, and immediately making ANI posts about articles are three red flags. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've had that article bookmarked for a while and have considered nominating it for deletion. The primary article author says on the talk page that it originated as a college essay, and it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It either needs stubbing down or outright deletion and starting from scratch. —Kurykh 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • I just redirected it to Irish neutrality, which seems to cover the same topic in a more neutral manner. If this is controversial we can go to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion. I have always agreed that the tone was POV. However, the content is strict NPOV. As it stands, I believe that all it lacks is "retoning" to remove the argumenative style as per How To, specifically the section on undergraduate essays: "Articles that are not written in an encyclopedic style should be rewritten that way, or at least tagged {{cleanup-tone}}." While I only tagged it with clean-up today, I posted to the talk page agreeing that tone was a problem.

In response to Kurykh, I never said that the article doesn't even come "close" to meeting the requirements of NPOV. What I said was that the tone does not. These are very different concepts. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have done it (redirected) if it hadn't been for the comments by Crotalus and Kurykh above. Why don't you read Irish neutrality#World War II and see if there's anything enycyclopedic in your essay that's not already there? The way, the truth, and the light 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I've read those article - you hardly believe that I would comment on the merits of content that I know nothing about? Who would do that? In any case, I believe this to be a matter for relevant editors to resolve rather than an administrator issue. I'm sure you agree. If you are proposing a merger or a deletion of the article, it should go through proper process.

Which do you prefer? Merge? Or delete? Though of course I would prefer to follow policy. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See my previous reply. If you insist on restoring the article anyway, we'll have to discuss it on AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, "delete" it is. I'll restore it, place the appropriate tags, add it to AfD and notify the relevant communities of editors (contributors, History of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, The Emergency, Irish Neutrality, WP:IE etc.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

In addition to have certain problems with images - see his talk page (and my logs, damnit), this user also seems to have problem with refraining from personal attacks - see this, which was pretty bad. Extra eyes needed on this one, I think, and the way he's going he'll get blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for that edit a block is needed, which I have now provided. User's second block for personal attacks, so it's 72 hours. Sandstein 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196

Resolved

 – Blocked by Jpgordon

Jampop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone block his latest account please, confirmed as open proxy by checkuser. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Moreschi ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

24.190.179.181 / Cmm 394

24.190.179.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also Cmm 394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) -- could someone talk a good look at the edits here? Wildly imaginative page moves, insidious changes in information in articles, but mixed in with other stuff that's (presumably) correct. Expert eyes needed. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is at it again [134]. I have undone their last move and warned them again, but I think administrative intervention will be necessary here. --VirtualDelight 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Islas De La Bahia (Deparment) (!) is another one of his, but I can't fix it. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More Linda Christas FoonenGammen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student-First Accreditation Is it possible to get this AFD closed sooner rather than later? It's starting to show signs of turning into another filibustering sockpuppet fest like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School - Richfife 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's only one user doing all the trolling and filibustering; I've blocked him since he's a clear SPA and more than likely a sockpuppet of the user responsible for the SPA flood on the Linda Christas AFDs. --Coredesat 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Antuenna

Resolved

Antuenna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet. The user created the hoax Detective Stroker (TV Series) (User:RobertsonRooby, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, also created this hoax, only it was Detective Stroker and it was nominated for AFD.). Pants^(T) 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information on this vandal, see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him and deleted his hoaxes. MaxSem 17:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Screech123

Screech123 (talk · contribs) uploaded Image:Ravenp20070508155551.jpg and placed a PD-SELF tag on it, although he/she also clearly added that it was taken from here. I tagged it as a copyvio and removed it from Andrew Turner (director). I also warned Screech123 about putting false copyright claims on images he/she uploads. He/she then removed my copyvio tag, removed the PD-SELF tag (thus leaving it with no copyright tag at all), and re-added the image to the article. Corvus cornix 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:77.176.245.163 alleges that Merkey's edit warring again

Despite having been warned, having appeared here twice for exactly this behaviour, Having an Communit Sanction proposed, and an RfC... [135] and surrounding edits.77.176.245.163 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging sections and asking for citations is not edit warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but deleting content, as in the diff linked above, when that content makes it perfectly clear that the Southern Cherokee Nation is not federally recognised, purely because that content contains the words "Southern Cherokee Nation", and despite it being in perfect context with the relevant part of the article, is. You have repeatedly stated that you will delete any references to the Southern Cherokee Nation on sight. And there you are, doing it.

If they are referred to as "Southern Cherokee Group" its ok. "Nation", "Tribe", or "Band" implies Federal Recognition. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The text in the diff above that you removed even states there was an attempt to get recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" (with quotes!), so even if "Nation" implies recognition, it is understood in that context that it is not recognized. BTW, anyone can call themselves a "Nation", whether recognized or not. What something is called is what it's called, and if that conflicts with the federal government's idea, so be it. Lexicon (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I'd like to submit a couple diffs, and as what is the next step for the dispute between Mr. Merkey and I (and others?). Mr. Merkey has a viewpoint of WP:V which says that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)). He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page). In the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely. Having done so (much to his ire), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this. This conflict makes it very hard to edit Cherokee, although it must be said that Mr. Merkey has a record of very strong edits. Given his refusal to go through dispute resolution, I am not sure what my next course of action is, and I bring this here mostly for dispute resolution advice. However, the nature of the dispute is relevant to the incident at issue, and perhaps understanding the dispute as a difference of opinion on WP:V will better help the community deal with the situation. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's pretty extensive discussion of these issues on Talk:Cherokee, which I haven't read fully, but it looks like Merkey has an odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Peer-reviewed academic material is almost always a good source for an article. Mediation could be helpful here, if we can persuade Merkey to participate. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and we were very close to agreeing on mediation with this comment. But then he archived his talk page, and further discussions on potential mediation were rebuffed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) has been actively participating in our normal dispute resolution processes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Please do likewise. Uncle G 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that RfC wasn't a separate enough issue that I shouldn't get involved there. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Uncle G's advice, I have placed my comment at the RfC discussion page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking only at this discussion, and taking for now no opinion on the substance of the dispute, I see User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey civilly and rationally discussing his area of expertise as would a serious academic. and I am at a loss to see why he has been demonized on this noticeboard.Proabivouac 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another User:Brya sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Trebor

These sock puppets have not been blocked. I went to the sock puppet board and followed directions and policies noted there for having sock puppets of banned users blocked. One user, not an administrator, responded with an extraneous issue showing he/she had not bothered to read what was going on and did not know Wikipedia sock puppetry policy. If this is the wrong place to post, please tell me where to post and I will change the WP:sock puppet board to alert other users. Brya's sock puppets waste the time of the few botanical editors en.Wiki has by forced us to devote resources and time to reverting his/her edits. Please simply block the Brya sock puppets. If Wikipedia policy has changed and Brya is allowed to use sock puppets to circumvent his/her block, then please let me and all other banned and blocked users know this, so this too can be changed on the sock board. Thanks. KP Botany 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OLD

User:Brya is so busy on Wikipedia Commons reformatting everything to his/her desire, I would think that en.wiki could simply be left alone. Still, the same italicizing of taxa higher than orders and hidden by edit histories that claim the edit is something else.[136] Exactly what caused the discussion about a community ban in the first place. Please block this sock puppet. Block history, there is also a lengthy RFA somewhere and reems of commentary on this editor.[137] Thank you. KP Botany 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to post the sock's user name User:Groosy. KP Botany 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please block the User:Clyb Brya sock which we let slide last year on AGF, but has begun, with the other two, to revert to Brya styles, which the community has jointly and repeatedly decided against.[138] KP Botany 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in the WP:MOS against his format? I dont know to much about the area, but this looks like an editing dispute, not blockable offenses. -M^ask? 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned users[139] are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, so there is no editing dispute with this user.[140] KP Botany 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both. Trebor 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Little vandalism "gang"?

this odd little unblock message led to to User talk:Kfusion, which seems to be a chat page for vandals and socks accounts. I'm not sure how many of them there are, I'm tempted to block pretty much everyone who has chatted there (not, obviously, placers of legit warnings.) Thoughts? Dina 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Without looking carefully through the contribs yet, on the talk page there are certainly at least a couple of clear-cut blocks that could be laid down for sock-puppetry. Pastordavid 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One them them User:RockRNC appears to have fine contribs, but clearly knows the vandals. Or is one as a sock. *sigh* Dina 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I indef blocked User:Polevault101 as a vandal and admitted sock of User:Griddle123. Can't quite bring myself to indef User:RockRNC or User:Kfusion as their contribs don't merit it. Dina 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked User:Kfusion (about to look at User:RockRNC), given he has made various junk articles, had warnings for that and other vandalism, was blocked on 10 May and since return has continued to make absolute nonsense edits (at best garbage at worst libelous) and then proceeded to add some of them to BJAODN, I think it's pretty clear that building the encyclopedia is the last thing he's doing. --pgk 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You say iconoclasm, I say idolatry

I have renamed this section from "Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details" for obvious reasons. Picaroon (Talk) 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is currently facing ArbCom. Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war here to blank out details.

Ironically, he is armed with vandal-fighting tools. What do I do? Anwar 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the user has begun another revert war here inserting links from fundamentalist portals and here with his POV. Phew! Anwar 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him a note asking him to discuss. Meanwhile, you should not engage in edit warring either, and try dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to discuss. There was already a consensus to use iconoclasm rather than idolatry on Talk:Hinduism. Idolatry is not even used in the context of Hinduism, see Hindu_iconography. In fact Idolatry begins with "Idolatry is considered a sin". The implication anwar wants to give is that Hindus are sinners. I'm merely taking the same line of action with this user that Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and Nobleeagle (talk · contribs) did in the recent past.Bakaman 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, in a brief search, I couldn’t a discussion of “iconoclasm” on the Talk:Hinduism page, much less a consensus determination on its use in favor of “idolatry”. In fact, I would be surprised to find such a consensus, since the term “iconoclasm” is nothing like a synonym for “idolatry.” I believe the word you’re seeking is “iconolatry”. Perhaps both of you should consider taking this term back to Talk:Hinduism as a candidate neutral (and more correct) term than “idolatry”, which is a pejorative term assigned from an “outside perspective,” as the first stage of the dispute resolution Dmcdevit has wisely suggested. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a page for Hindu iconography. As for reinventing the wheel I have done that at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F. I will put it forward that I regard anwar as a troll, as do respected wikipedians like Blnguyen (talk · contribs) [141] & Ragib (talk · contribs) and respected former wikipedian nobleeagle (talk · contribs) [142]. Askari, I found a discussion here (Archive 16), here (archive 14), archive 14 again and probably it will be found on the Hinduism notice board. I question anwar's behavior and not so subtle predilections of a religious nature.Bakaman 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Bakasuprman; I was searching on the word "iconoclasm", as you suggested, and could find no usage of the word on the talk page or in the archives. In any case, as I and Proabivouac (below) have noted, neither "iconoclasm" nor "idolatry" are appropriately used. And again, this is a content issue, not something that the admins here can resolve – at least not until the issue has duly made the rounds of Wikipedia's conflict resolution processes. If a consensus for "iconolatry" could be achieved on Talk:Hinduism, this would have the desired effect without going through more formal layers of mediation and arbitration. If you would prefer for me to propose it as an uninvolved and neutral editor, I will be happy to do so. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Iconoclasm is the destruction of icons, not the use thereof. An icon isn't an idol, but a picture. Whether that term is appropriate to Hindu art and religious objects, I don't know. However, the use of idolatry is pure POV - in this case, Islamic POV which here equates Hinduism with the (purportedly) idol-worshipping Meccan pagans. When User:Anwar saadat writes, "Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war to blank out details," I gather that he wants to tell the world the awful truth' about Hinduism: exactly the kind of edit we don't need.Proabivouac 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a pure POV term. Ironically in this case (and not iconically), it's an idea most common to the the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum: see Buddhas of Bamyan. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:WOPR

Could somebody please block this unauthorized bot? Corvus cornix 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was approved for a trial, updating the links to the users new username [143]. --pgk 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where there was an approval on that page. Corvus cornix 19:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WOPR. See the bots userpage. It is also linked there. -- Cat ^chi? 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a request, not an approval. Corvus cornix 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where it was approved for trial. Would you please throttle it down? Corvus cornix 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Throttle it down? Sure, what speed should it run at? It currently has a 4 edits/min. In order to complete 1500 edits the bot would spend 6.25 hours as of its current speed. -- Cat ^chi? 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page. Or you could just not run it at all, since it really serves no useful prupose. Corvus cornix 20:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unable to comply, "anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page" is not a valid speed/rate parameter. -- Cat ^chi? 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat, forgive my ignorance on this matter. I don't know much about bots. But, is it possible to both increase and decrease the rate? That is, it's currently doing 4 in a minute, every minute, right? Is it possible to do, say, 16 edits within very quick succession, but then no other edits for the next four minutes? So that the bot's edits would appear as easily-ignored blocks? Bladestorm 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, due to the mounting complaints here I decided to turn the bot off for now. As for your comment. I have not seen such an option on the bots configuration. It only tells me how many seconds should it wait between edits. -- Cat ^chi? 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the bot is approved, it'll get a bot flag, meaning that it won't flood RC (if you ignore the bot edits). This is effectively a non-issue, as it is only a problem in the interim between now and its approval. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I keep running it? I do not really want to bother people. -- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in this. It serves no useful purpose. I suggest you stop running it immediately. -Pilotguy hold short 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot, WP:BAG or both ? Nick 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

People have done this before after a username change, though usually if there was a real name involved. Is there any particular reason, Cat, that you wanted to change all of these links? If not, since your old name redirects anyway, it hardly seems worth the trouble. But perhaps there's an issue we're all missing? Chick Bowen 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons.

• I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
• In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time.
• Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

The bots edit rate upset a number of people watching the RC feed. I have since adjusted the edit rate to compensate.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat unrelated question: do the IRC watchers ignore admin edits by default? CMummert · talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe PGKbot posts admin edits though with lesser detail since admins are expected not to vandalize. At least that was the logic I followed when I came up with the algorithm which PGK adapted to his bot. I am unsure if it was changed since. I have not been involved with IRC bots over a year. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes block

Per [144] User:Mycroft.Holmes was improperly blocked by admin User:BrendelSignature. The case lists four reverts, but the four reverts were outside of a 24 hour time period, and therefore, there is no violation of WP:3RR, which is what the user was blocked for, as proved [145]. I am suggesting the Mycroft.Holmes should be unblocked as this was an unwarranted blocking for no violation. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the spirit of 3rr is to discourage blocks. It isn't a license allowing 3 reverts/day. -- Cat ^chi? 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

the reverts are near enough to a 24hr period that I would suggest that clearly falls under Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. . At worst, this is going to make that editor more inclined to talk things out - let it stand I say. --Fredrick day 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Roxas and personal attacks

User:Roxas has left several messages on my talk page consisting of the following: threatening me with death, telling me I have a mental condition, and being an annoyance. I'm not in any particular mood to deal with this, so any assistance would be welcome. ' 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats? He's asking for a block... --DarkFalls ^talk 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. Hit my talkpage if it continues. I don't see that as a legitimate death threat so much as just a kid talking smack. Regardless it is not acceptable.--Isotope23 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ' 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite wants to out other users. Acceptable?

Resolved

User:Hipocrite is demanding personal info from other users in order to edit his talk page in a way that strikes me as trying to out the identity of other users. This is not acceptable as wikipedia standards do not demand that we reveal our identities in order to post at the pages of other (as it happens anonymous) wikipedia users, indeed it allows us to protect anonymity, SqueakBox 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Not an admin, but a user who tries to understand Hipocrite's sometimes coded language) Is this the diff you're talking about? I see it as typical Hipocritabolic sarcasm and nothing else. I don't think he's demanding anything really, except perhaps not to defend a particular website on his talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's just being sarcastic, he is not trying to invade anybody's privacy. No admin action required. Picaroon (Talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk Archival bot is eating data and not archiving it

Resolved

 – The bot operators said they intend to fix this, and I agree this is not a matter for urgent admin attention. nadav (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the current status of the Reference Desk pages and also note Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Humanites_May_24 and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Bot did it again, or actually did it NOT!. Thank you. Root⁴(one) 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean/what the problem is. Does it need to be blocked? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is just removing the data instead of storing in an archive like it has always done. The links to the supposedly archived ref desk questions are red. nadav (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contact the bots owner, this isn't a high-speed bot or anything, so I don't think it needs to be blocked. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For now, you can place the data in the archive by using the history of the page. Od Mishehu 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:Brya socks in general

I am running through all of the plant families, then will move on the plant taxonomy articles, using the categories to find them. I found another Brya sock. The socks are obvious, not clever, they do exactly what Brya did, he/she doesn't try to hide the fact that the account is an obvious sock of a more experienced Wikipedia user, and none of them protest being blocked. The edits are rather elaborate Bryafications of plant taxa and plant taxonomy articles.

Is this usual, that people with blocked accounts produce multiple socks (4 found so far) and make a few edits? What's the point?

Is there anything that can or should be done other than labeling or blocking all the socks as they are discovered? She/he is quite busy doing pretty much what got him banned at other language Wikipedias, the difficult writing (which caused us to think the user was a non-native speaker of English, but the user uses English in all his/her non-English wiki accounts, just difficult, jargon laced, incomprehensible English that must all be edited here), changing everything to APG II (something I would like to do in en.wiki taxoboxes, but the community disagrees with) without consensus or community input--the latter going on right now on commons.

Is there any preventative for this, to get User:Brya to stop making the sock puppets? I think I know the answer to my own question, but I would love to learn otherwise.

Thanks.

KP Botany 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only solution is to have the IP address blocked. Ask at WP:CHECK to have this done - at the lower section, I believe. Od Mishehu 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppetry

Based on a routine CheckUser of a vandal account, I Heart Vandalism (talk · contribs), it has been conclusively determined that this is the same person as Rackabello (talk · contribs), MostCover (talk · contribs), and ThaBigCunt (talk · contribs), at least one of which appears to be a regular editor. Also see Special:Undelete/Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers. Administrator attention requested. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked indef.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if they were not socks, I would have blocked due to username violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User covering up bad behavior by deleting warning messages

User:HanzoHattori has a tendency to upload images of questionable copyright status and as a result has a lot of warnings posted to his talk page. He recently deleted all those warnings in this edit. Then when he was asked why he did this his response was to simply delete the question. It seems very much like he's trying to cover up the fact that he's been warned about copyright issues repeatedly. Is this considered kosher? 81.20.21.67 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By removing them, he has demonstrated he has seen them, if he continues he can't plead ignorance of the copyright problems. --pgk 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Software piracy links

Not sure if this is the best place to post it, but User:203.113.159.24 in this edit added links to a file sharing site to Adobe Photoshop to pirate the software. I reverted, but I'm not sure if totally wiping them out of the history is good, and what sort of clever ways admins have of preventing this in the future. DreamGuy 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting the files as illegal to rapidshare might be a good option, as they will then be able to remove them from their servers. (See directions here.) --tjstrf talk 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

I am trying to "update" all my older sigs with the aid of an approved bot in the aftermath of my username change.

• [146] Ned Scott reverts bot edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [147] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [148] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)

User is revert waring over me updating my sigs including on pages like my own RFA. User has a history of involvement with me even on a wiki he has very little involvement with (see: commons contribs commons:User talk:Ned Scott or Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03) (admin only access) (deletion log)). He also has a lesser history with me here: [149] , [150]. I find the users current tone unnecessarily uncivil and dense.

I know signatures are not worth fighting over much less revert war over. I however find Ned Scott's involvement disruptive due to his past history with me.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to be changing your sig on archive pages, where it potentially places the conversation out of context? --tjstrf talk 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See the WOPR section here. I do not believe altering a sig can place the conversation out of context in any way. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by that link, I see I'm not the only one with this concern.

Yes, the sig replacement can indeed place a conversation out of context, since it no longer links to your name as User:Cool Cat, resulting in confusion if someone refers to you by that name in the course of your conversation. The redirect avoids this problem, but only if the archive still contains the redirect link.

So yes, stupid edit war, but please stop editing archived discussions in a potentially harmful manner. --tjstrf talk 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Friedrich Nietzsche

Over the last few days, an anonymous editor using six different IP addresses has persistently added an unsourced quotation in an inappropriate way to the entry on Friedrich Nietzsche. The edit seems to be an attempt to push some kind of pro-Polish anti-German barrow. The edit is identical each time, and the IP addresses have not been used for any other editing. Warnings have been posted on the talk pages, see User talk:83.22.79.54, User talk:83.30.49.70, User talk:83.30.30.35, User talk:83.22.69.61, User talk:83.30.44.30, and User talk:83.22.82.2. However, the anonymous editor has ignored these warnings, most recently here. This editor has now made clear their intention to continue vandalising this entry, and I believe a block of these six IP addresses is now warranted. Any assistance would be appreciated. FNMF 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)