Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing and Leonig Mig had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user. User:Vox Humana 8' talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he was perfectly justified in having the message, removing my messages completely unreasonably, and reverting at least seven times. Also relevent is his arbitration case, in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done? J Milburn 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonid is now also reverting his userpage, as well as vandalising Pigsonthewing's with links to page differences showing old personal attacks from Pig to himself himself to Pig. J Milburn 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remains Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack I cited was from you to him, but it was a long time ago. Check the diff. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. J Milburn 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are worse accusations he could have hurled. For example he could have called you a liar and gotten away with it. 86.135.80.68 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then rise above it. There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse. Your case suddenly becomes somewhat weakened when you yourself have behaved in an unreasonable manner. J Milburn 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse." - Indeed; and I haven't. Andy Mabbett 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not insist that there was no problem. There very much is a problem, as described on my user page. Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We have more than a million articles and four million users. Would all the litigants please go off and do something else for a while and stop complaining, stop insulting each other and stop posting notes here, there or anywhere. That's a very simple solution that will end this dispute. You're fighting about nothing! Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I don't see how multiple WP:NPA and 3RR violations as well as a probable violation of Arb Comm rulings can be reasonably described as "nothing". Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Pigsonthewing's stubbornness and refusal to compromise and the frustration his behaviour engenders in other editors - several of whom feel that he is, if not "stalking" them, then certainly monitoring and reverting their edits more closely than is normal (hence the reason I'm not logged in to post these comments). -- 86.144.101.215 07:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sockpuppetry. Andy Mabbett 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether that user is a sock-puppet or not, what they say is entirely accurate. J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why nothing has been done about this? This is a blatant violation of no personal attacks and the three revert rule, not to mention going against an ArbCom ruling. Why then, do I post this here, leave it overnight, and only get someone suggesting that posting here was an immature action? This is actually rather ridiculous. Why do we have this board, if not for situations like this? J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm I notice that the reverts were in his own user space where the three revert rule is restricted and that at least one administrator was making the same reverts as he was. Whilst I am one of several people irritated by Andy's posts in projects where I belong and I sarted watching this thread as I initially hoped he might be made to shut up at last, I now have come to believe that your posts here are on a similar level to his posts on his page re Leonard Mig that you tried to remove. Can further posts here be restricted to uninterested parties (sock puppets need not apply) or to responses to specific accusations by the person accused. --Peter cohen 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually find that rather offensive. I was originally asked to look into this matter as an uninvolved administrator, and now I am being shufted to one side as if I am 'trying to get one over' on an 'enemy' of mine. I got involved, find myself to be somewhat in over my head due to the excessive amount of reverting done, and obviously I have no interest in breaching the three revert rule myself. I am honestly not sure why Ryulong made that revert- I can only assume it was a mistake, or he was reverting the actions of an obvious sock puppet. I am not quite sure why 'uninterested parties' would ever post; perhaps you mean 'uninvolved parties'? That's what I was originally. And, in completely good faith, no offense meant- who in hell are you to say who is and who isn't allowed to post here? The only reason I have continued to post is because no one has responded here. This is a CLEAR case of disruption, why is everyone so unwilling to do anything about it? J Milburn 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The message is now back on Pigsonthewing's userpage. Could an uninvolved admin please do something about this? As Peter cohen so politely told me, my opinion no longer seems to be valid, and it is not like Pigsonthewing has any respect for the removal, simply reverting without explanation. This is disruptive, and is causing considerable friction. J Milburn 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also regardless of whether his revert parole applies to his own userpage, he made two reverts to another editor's userpage, which is in breach of his revert parole. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone for deleting shit like that. Not even Pigs. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that if you look here various uninvolved editors are attempting to get the information off both userpages, yet Pigs persists in reinstating the information on his page while removing it from Leonig Mig's page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does appear hypocritical, although justifiable when using a particular logic and interpretation. I strongly suggest that the sections be removed from both user pages, but I would also suggest that arguing about it (and blocks) will cause more trouble than the original problem. JPD (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here is strongly compelling that PoTW should be blocked for the behavior he has shown. In particular I first point out that conducting 7 reverts in a single day on his own userpage while not violating the letter of the law with regards to WP:3RR, when taken in the context of removing personal attacks and his parole for reverts is still in effect is very convincing by itself. Second, that PoTW twice attempted to remove similar personal attacks from the userpage of the person with whom he is in disagreement is an unequivocal violation of the same parole. That PoTW insists on behaving in this manner despite multiple people requesting him to stop, despite the prior ArbCom ruling against him for this behavior shows his inability to function appropriately within the confines of a community based project. This user is severely trying the patience of Wikipedia in general. Taking into account his block log, I am hard pressed to understand why this abusive user is being treated with kitten paws. I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted for taking action because they are so embroiled. This effectively undermines the ability of administrators to take action in this case. This has gone on far too long. A block, and a long one at that, is entirely appropriate and should be placed immediately. --Durin 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one find Andy's entire attitude to discussions on Wikipedia unhelpful and wrong. This is not the only incident where he has wasted hours of editors' time trying to push his point. Even if he's the only one who believes as such, he will still claim lack of consensus (ie. I don't agree = no consensus). He will remove comments for no reason (sometimes the token WP:NPA, which in his eyes is anything remotely critical of him) and refuses ever to compromise. For all the helpful edits he makes, he makes far more unhelpful edits and his stubbornness on many issues means that arguments such as this can drag on for weeks wasting everybody else's time. If he is blocked for breaking revert parole, I support the block. He needs time off to learn humility. Centy – – 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your disingenuous reference is to the debate about infoboxes on the Composer and Opera project's talk pages, where I have demonstrated that there are around a dozen or more editors speaking against the supposed consensus. Your "I don't agree" statement is therefore dishonest. Andy Mabbett 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a dozen or more editors putting the boxes back. I haven't even noticed that number commenting. Oh, and off-topic trollfests get archived. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed people stating that they're leaving the project because of the hostility shown to them? I have; just as I've seen you censoring discussion by archiving it within minutes of being posted. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so archiving a discussion that drifted completely off-topic into outright trolling is censorship, with productive discussion finished long ago? Moreschi ^Talk 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea, but archiving relevant, on-topic discussion, just because you disagree with the point being made, two minutes aftrr it was made, as you did in the case in question, is censorship. Andy Mabbett 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involve microformats. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him. --Folantin 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your continued ad hominem does you no credit; it merely suggests you cannot support your arguments otherwise. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to further point out the rapid accumulation of evidence in support of what I said above, where I said "I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted". Since my above posting, three other editors have commented in regards to PoTW's behavior. Results: User:CenturionZ accused of being dishonest, User:Moreschi accused of censoring him, and User:Folantin accused of ad hominen attacks. It seems blatantly evident that PoTW refuses to learn lessons from prior sanctions against him and remains a highly disruptive presence on the project. --Durin 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaking cause and effect. There is no evidence to support your claim. Andy Mabbett 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recognize and fully expected you to disagree with me. I'm not interested in whether you disagree or not. It's a given that you would. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you because your past and current behavior has shown you incapable of working within a community. I've been providing the above commentary to show to others why you should be blocked, not for your edification. --Durin 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you'll want to blame me for your ad hominem outburst as well? Andy Mabbett 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've just proved the point, Mabbett. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other news this week, Pigsonthewings has again put back the offending material after Newyorkbrad took it out. He's also made a right royal nuisance of himself by disrupting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: after his off-topic ranting gets archived, he immediately shouts that he's being censored. I cannot take action myself, due to personal involvment, but I would suggest that someone does. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigs has continued to revert. Could someone please take action? J Milburn 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Peter cohen, I'm finding J Milburn's campaign here a little shrill. Andy's message does not appear to me to be an attack, but merely a statement drawing attention to the dispute. (Although I question the word "abusive" in the first sentence - Leonig's admission that he is stalking does not appear to be abusive, although stalking might be abusive. Ah, I see Andy's point on abusive. My bad.) Attempts to shape Andy to your conceptions of wikiquette, J Milburn, are bound to fail, border on pointless, and are as likely as not to make matters worse. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yes, because it is only me who thinks this is disruptive. (And they aren't the only people...) He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. He refuses to remove these, continues to revert several established editors and administrators without discussion, breaching the 3RR massively, despite previous ArbCom rulings. I see no doubt that he should be blocked, and the only people speaking in support of him appear to be people such as yourself who see the matter, think it is minor, and disregard it. It was minor, until he insisted that there was nothing wrong with him having those comments, continually reverting, and continuing to attack everyone involved, mocking typing errors, picking up on minor mistakes and even edit warring over the userpage of the person he claimed to be his stalker. It isn't like I have seen this and come running straight here- I and another editor worked with him for a short while, and I only came here when I realised that he was intent on being unreasonable. J Milburn 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are in no way uncivil; they are a factual report of the circumstances. I have attacked no editors. I have mocked no typing errors. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get dragged into this debacle, seeing how it's affected everyone else so far; but this seems somewhat incongruous with the claim that "I have mocked no typing errors". -- Codeine 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mockery there; that's the correct way to cite text which is know to be incorrectly written; see sic. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I fail to see how "he's acting like a cunt" can be regarded as anything but abusive. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. We'll be putting WP:AGF to one side for this discussion, will we? Go and take the beam out of your eye, JM. You've made your point at very great length. Now let's see if other more experienced admins pick up on it or, as I suspect, let sleeping dogs lie. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I am not putting AGF to one side, that's all they have served to do. You will also note that other, more experienced admins have also said that they support a long block of Pigs already. J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[{WP:AGF]] states quote clearly, (with the emboldening in the original: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. Given that Leoning Mig has called me a "cunt", called me "a prick", recently vandalised my user page and admitted editing only for the purpose of stalking me, I'm satisfied that that criteria is met. Why are you not? Andy Mabbett 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's block log speaks for itself. Disruptive obnoxiousness and This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia being the most apt descriptions of his behaviour in my experience. I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. --Folantin 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Will somebody please just block him? J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. He has been. Currently he is not. What do you want him blocked for, JM? Disagreeing with your view of wikiquette and having the temerity to be the master of his own userpage? Being a curmudgeon? Annoying the fsck out of us all by his style of argument? Not being what you would want him to be? You are - by analogy - poking someone with a stick, and then whining "oh, won't someone ban him" when he bites back. I just cannot fathom why you've mounted this campaign, beyond the dislike that you have of Andy. And that's just not a good enough reason for a ban. Don't you have anything better to do? --Tagishsimon (talk)

There is far more of a personal attack in each of those quotes, and in Folantin's use of them, than in the disputed text from my user page, which contains no PA. Yet he is allowed to continue unabated... Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. I have again removed the offensive paragraph from Pigsonthewing's talkpage and warned him that if he reinserts it I will block him. However, Leonig Mig's comments that provoked Pigsonthewing were highly unacceptable and I have left a warning for him as well (I note that a number of other users have also asked him to improve his civility in this matter). Hopefully the matter can end here. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's just reverted his user page yet again after you gave him his last warning. This is typical Mabbett behaviour: he just ploughs on like a bulldozer until he gets his way or gets banned. Hopefully the matter can end here - sadly I don't think this is ever likely to be the case. --Folantin 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. Much more of what? Of Andy not agreeing with your world view? Perish the thought. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. But since there is apparently some dissent, instead of act unilaterally I request input on the proposed block. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully support, as I have done from the start. The fact he continued to act after a blatant final warning just strengthens the case. J Milburn 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support the block, I would say 24 hours, and protecting his user page in the meantime, so he cannot continue to edit war when he comes back. SirFozzie 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just block him for as long as possible. Some of us have had to put up with over two months of this kind of behaviour. There's no point offering him any more chances, he never takes them. --Folantin 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel a block is justified because Andy continues to be disruptive (I'm thinking more of his behavior toward the opera project members, though his activity on his userpage is not appropriate, either). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend locking his user page for a month and not blocking him. Were he to move the content to his talk page then would be a good reason to block him, SqueakBox 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. What does that mean. Is it the disputed message that is causing disruption? If so, what is it disrupting? If not, what exactly is the complaint, other than that we don't much like Andy and his style of argumentation? Is that a sufficient reason for a ban? The whole storm appears a nonsense to me; the ban threat little better than concerted bullying. --Tagishsimon (talk)

(outdent) I have blocked User:Pigsonthewing for 24 hours, per 3RR violations mentioned above. I did so as an admin action to prevent this discussion over-heating. Please would the above participants attempt some sort of consensus in this period. Also, if anyone unblocks or reduces the period then fine, there will be no wheel war as I am off to bed! LessHeard vanU 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that no attempt at such consensus was made in my absence, and that another editor who supported me by reverting my user page was blocked for doing so. Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that I gave a reason of "harrasment" in my block edit, but I had intended to cite 3RR... I was tired, I guess. LessHeard vanU 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I support a lengthy cool off period. Tagishsimon, you must realise we are not bullying Andy because we just want to pick on him. He brings it onto himself by dragging any of his critics down to his level and then forcing them to engage in a horrible sledging match. If you carefully read through the history of this debate you will see that this is just one and many similar arugments he has caused. In this particular argument both J Milburn and Newyorkbrad assumed good faith and approached Andy with civility. He then responds with his usual stubbornness which includes censoring comments that are in any way critical of himself. It's highly ironic and hypocritical then when he accused Moreschi of censorship when he merely archived rather than removed a discussion. See Durin's post about the examples of how he brings any editors critical of him down to his level. The fact is any 3rd party who tries to resolve this either has to be pro-Mabbett or be cajouled into a heated discussion with him where you are then accused of bullying the guy. It appears that his new tactic of argument is to call any attack on his behaviour and ad hominem attack on him.

It is this unhelpful attitude that I think should warrant a lengthy ban. He was after all banned for exactly this behaviour in the past for 1 year. He hasn't changed one bit. Centy – – 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All that may well be so. But this - WP:ANI - is not the place, and the above discussion is not the process by which such a sanction is determined. At best this is a kangaroo court, at worst a lynch mob. If findings of stubbornness and hypocrisy and whatever else can be proven in the appropriate place (dunno - Arbcom? RfC?) then so be it. Take it to that appropriate place and run with it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You need not worry on that score, though consensus on ANI is a perfectly valid rationale for blocks. Moreschi ^Talk 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's never had any hesitation about hauling other users in front of ANI when they've done something to offend him. And I'll always remember how, when one of his ANIs wasn't going quite the way he wanted, he went on a WP:POINT spree against Project:Opera by suddenly insisting that all operatic terminology be rendered into English forthwith (that was on May 1 of this year). He also has a habit of branding any comments he doesn't like in discussions as personal attacks and deleting them, so this user page controversy is the height of hypocrisy. Forgive me if I find all this "Andy is the victim here" talk quite unconvincing. --Folantin 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a complaint about a 6 or 7 week-old opera dispute really pertinent to the current problem? And I don't think it can all be chalked up to Pigs interpreting comments he simply doesn't like as being personal attacks. For example, one of the inclusions in the 'Stalker' section was when his entire user page was replaced with a link to this. That's a personal attack, and vandalism. No room for dispute on that one. And calling someone a cunt certainly qualifies as well. Whether or not this stalker section is a good idea is a separate issue. I don't find it terribly helpful, and find the declaration that he no longer feels it necessary to explain edits very troubling. But outright blocking when there clearly wasn't even consensus on whether or not he should be allowed to include the box was premature. And rehashing old opera arguments is entirely unhelpful. Bladestorm 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't "old" opera arguments, they're part of the same campaign of disruption which continued until yesterday. They are proof Mabbett knows nothing of the subject at hand. I have no idea why he is editing in this area beyond a desire to push through his beloved microformats. He was disrupting the Opera Project page right up to yesterday morning in an attempt to restart a dispute that has been dragging on since mid-April. We had just agreed a moratorium on the issue when Mabbett burst in trying to re-ignite the whole argument. Those who have had to deal with the user page issue have experienced his behaviour for just one day; some of us have had to endure this kind of thing for weeks. That's why I want tougher sanctions against him. --Folantin 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no "POINT" spree; that's a lie. Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was, by any reasonable person's definition of the word. Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent) The user has now reposted the comments that were the source of this incident on his talk page. Yet another user has restored it to his user page. Judging by the length and intesnity of this debate, (and speaking purely as an uninvolved party), this appears to me to be a case for WP:RFC. Codeine 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I find Andy annoying, being a pain in the neck, in itself, is not a reason for a block. This current issue was stirred up by the entry on his user page where third parties to that particular argument seem to be split, some restoring, some removing the entry. An RFC would be an appropriate way to deal with that. If he continues to argue the different point on the opera or classical music pages, that two can be dealt with as a separate issue. --Peter cohen 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm Andy's long history of being involved in ugly disputes, and that this is not simply about the stalking entry. Often his behaviour is not the ugliest in the dispute, but it would be too much of a coincedence without the explanation that his behaviour in some way leads to this state of affairs, dragging others down to his level and further by focussing on criticisms of behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Unless Andy decides that this is a problem worth fixing, there seem to be two choices: blocking Andy for a long time, or avoiding the trap of discussing behaviour and ignoring any comments along those lines as much as possible. It might be clear which option I consider preferable, but either would be more productive than stopping to argue about whether the paragraph on the user page is ok or not, blowing that particular problem out of all proportion. JPD (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since he's continued with his WP:DE, and thumbed his nose at the various parties who were trying to work with him, I have changed the block duration to 72 hours and protected his talk page for the block's duration to keep him from readding the information. SirFozzie 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments about the Opera & Composer projects are to - legitimately - point out that the claimed consensus for the wholescale removal of infoboxes does not exist; I've provided evidence to that effect. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Andy Mabbett 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My editing was not disruptive, and your block on my talk page, after reverting it to yoru preferred version, was an unaccpatbale act of censorship. Andy Mabbett 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After you had broken 3RR on your user page (and been blocked for it), to just move it to your talk page was WP:DE in a nutshell, and considering folks above were calling for a longer block, I'd say you got off quite lightly. As long as the paragraph in question does not reappear on your pages (with or without your ok), I consider the matter closed. SirFozzie 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"article"-ban proposal

• Proposal - I would just do this, but the conversation here involves many... this user is under revert-parol from his arbcom case in 2006. I recommend a simultaneous "article" ban and deletion of his userpage enforceable with lengthening blocks per the remedy demanded by the arbcom rulling. "Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator." - I am uninvolved and I am determining that he has violated his revert limitation. I am requesting support for this remedy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Supported. Entirely appropriate. Regardless of justifications, PoTW has been engaging in highly disruptive editing. --Durin 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As an involved non-admin, I support this. People should be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as Pigsonthewing has basically admitted circumventing his previous 1-year ban. Fireplace 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have admitted no such thing! Good grief, your user page says you're a legal student. God help your clients, if that's what you consider a confession of guilt! Andy Mabbett 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if Leonig Mig (talk · contribs) faces heavy sanctions for continually baiting PoTW. I looked at PoTW's unblock request this morning and Leonig Mig's block log and my response was "Why the fuck is Leonig not banned". I think someone has taken their eye off the ball here, so I would be looking for Leonig Mig to be banned from interacting with PoTW (and vice-versa) with a further ban on either party reverting each other (using their own accounts or by proxy) anywhere in the article namespace with blocks of increasing length for both parties. Nick 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just clarify here please, Nick? I've looked at Leonig Mig's block log and as far as I can see there isn't a single item in it [1]. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? NB: I have no doubt it's a good idea to keep that statement off Leonig Mig's user page as well. It's currently removed anyway. --Folantin 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem, if action had been taken against Leonig Mig, we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. Nick 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left Leonig Mig a note: if he makes one more PoTW-related edit, I will not be best pleased. He should realise he's not helping here. What ban exactly are we proposing here, BTW? Moreschi ^Talk 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. I sincerely doubt that. Mig hasn't exactly been a model of civility but the two serious PAs on Mabbett date back to 2005. Mig has hardly edited Wikipedia at all in 2006 and 2007. More importantly, it's worth noting that Mabbett was found guilty of harrassing Leonig Mig by ArbCom (vote 8-0) [2]. But, yeah, we should use sanctions against both users if need be to put an end to this two-year old dispute. --Folantin 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonig Mig,, by his own account, edits using another account. For all I know, he could be posting here; he could even be you. I have harassed no-one. Andy Mabbett 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, I'd echo Moreschi by asking what ban are we proposing here exactly? --Folantin 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I proposed banning PoTW and Leonig Mig from each others talk and user pages, plus banning either party from reverting (either directly, or by proxy (as far as is possible)). I'm not convinced allowing either party to interact at all is a good idea but I'm fine with permitting civil conversation between both parties on article talk pages only. Any breaches of these parole conditions would be met with blocking of extending durations. Nick 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "article ban" in question means not adding that section any more. I'm hesitant to delete the user page, because of that one section,that's like 5% of the user page. Basically, he knows that that if he continues to insert that paragraph anywhere (user page, talk page or any subpages), he's going to get a lengthy block anyway (because of the tendentious nature of his editwar). (and yes, Leonig will have to remove anything similar from his user/talk page as well) SirFozzie 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you object to? Me pointing out that Leonig Mig rejected of my offer of mediation? Hi ddid do so, as shown at that link. Or do you object to me pointing out his statement that he was stalking me, and that he called me "a cunt"? Or that he called me "a prick"? Or is it that his abuse continued in June 2007 ? Andy Mabbett 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I object(ed) to you ignoring all requests to voluntarily deleting the paragraph after you were asked repeatedly to remove it, reinserting it after it was removed FOR you (breaking 3RR), and then immediately upon being blocked, inserting it onto the only page that you COULD edit. As I said above. Since you have not added the paragraph since the temporary protect has expired, as I said above, the matter is closed. SirFozzie 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not closed; you have yet to answer my question - what, in that paragraph, did you object to? And those were hardly requests for voluntary action, given the subsequent heavy-handed enforcement, with no supporting consensus. 3RR does not apply to such material, on a user's user-page. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Actually,, as was explained to you when your request for an unblock was declined (please note, I was not the one who placed the original block, nor the one who declined the unblock request), 3RR did and still does apply. SirFozzie 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what WP:3RR says. I'm asking you for a third time: what, in that paragraph, did you object to? Andy Mabbett 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained what I objected to, and you continue to argue. "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose", apparently. SirFozzie 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your continued failure - which I shall now take as a refusal - to answer my question, Answering a different question does not change that. Andy Mabbett 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating another user and religious attacks

Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken text I wrote on one talk page and posted it on another talk page(midway down the mixed edit), effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the [3] talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Is there anything that can be done about this? I really feel he's trying to escalate a bad situation beyond a tenable discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming... We're dealing with blockable and bannable offenses here by a user who refuses to accomodate BLP and NPR concerns from several users (including myself) regarding Metta Bubble's behavior. If necessary I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard and try to get Metta Bubble sitebanned for gross impropriety. No need to waste time on a ArbCom RfArb, when any admin can simply make a block or ban. There are other users who will back up this effort. -- Fyslee/talk 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming..." The diffs I posted above speak for themselves. What possible legitimate reason could you have for posting my comments and signature to another page? How would you like it if I went around posting your signature to things?

Your content issues do not warrant admin intervention. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. It is your behavioral issues that may require blocking or banning. I never attached your signature to anything. I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) and my replies (thus preserving the context). You start out here by making it sound like I forged something and then added your signature to make it look like something you had written:

• "... this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself."

You did post that information yourself on my talk page. I only moved it in context. They are your words and signature and time. Don't try to make it sound otherwise. I would never "post(ing) your signature to things" you had not written, and I would not take them out of context and add them to another discussion of another subject. I was only keeping the discussion on the same page, especially since the context also involved other users and your accusations against them. As my response below explains, I am prepared to drop this matter if you don't restore you personal attacks and BLP violation. Otherwise I will go higher up and have a very strong case, since a previous editor who made the same false charges got banned, partially for showing intention (without even doing it) to out another user. That was the last straw after they had already repeatedly publicized private information about myself and made false and unproven COI allegations. You have already outed AvB, but since you may not have understood the seriousness of what you were doing, AvB is being very generous. If you heed his request and don't go there again you may be spared this time. -- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you openly admit it and still don't see how it's wrong. Can someone please explain how Fyslees actions (in his own words "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) ") are inappropriate. I'd truly appreciate this. I'm really sick of this user harassing me and I thinks it's gonna get ugly if someone doesn't set him straight on the appropriateness of copy-and-pasting other users signatures. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to false charges and misuse of this board

I see that Metta Bubble has continued her disruptions, personal attacks, and BLP violations against myself and User:AvB at the Talk:Stephen_Barrett page, and has now escalated the matter by making false charges here. This false charge concerns ONE word which Metta Bubble wrote about me, and which I refactored to a more accurate word (which makes Metta Bubble look more charitable!), and then noted why I did it. The word was a repetition of a false charge from a RfArb. (That RfArb resulted in a banning of my accuser.) That charge was never proven and a repetition is simply a gross BLP violation and personal attack against myself. Making COI charges is a serious matter. Rather than take the matter to the BLP Noticeboard, I simply changed it and explained why, since I saw "no need to make waves." Metta Bubble decided to escalate the matter and reverted it (restoring BLP violations is a blockable offense, IIRC, while deleting such isn't even covered by 3rr) and deleted my explanation. Metta Bubble then took the discussion to my talk page, which I felt was problematic as it split the discussion, removing it from the relevant spot, which also involved other editors. I therefore copied very precisely and carefully (no "impersonation" at all, so she is deceiving this board) Metta Bubble's ensuing comments (they were indeed her comments!) and my own replies and placed them in the existing thread where they belonged, so others would know what was going on. Otherwise it would not be understandable. I also wished other editors to help me keep the BLP violation out of Wikipedia, and I made such a request.

She has also vandalized MY heading and is making a big issue out of it with another user (even claiming it was her heading).

Now she is calling me a vandal here (by wikilinking my name to "vandal"). She is getting more and more agitated and is attacking other users as well. Please get her to calm down and just leave the more accurate "POV" instead of the false "conflict" (COI) word in place. That will settle the matter for me.

In the meantime I will continue to remove the BLP violation against me in accordance with the requirement ("must") for any Wikipedia editor to do so if it pops up again. As of the time of this diff, the state of this word matter is acceptable to me.

These edit histories tell part of the story:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&limit=500&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Metta_Bubble
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fyslee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Avb

-- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee considers it a BLP violation that it's my opinion his edits reveal a conflict of interest on the article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Admin comment

• Why has this user been allowed to get away with impersonating me? Have I brought this to the wrong page? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you summarize your complaints in 100 words or less after my comment. Right now, this is an argument between the two of you that has spilled over onto this board. There is nothing we administrators can do without knowing what the hell is going on.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fyslee (talk · contribs) copied my user post to an article talkspace (replying, inserting my message, then making a religious attack)[4]. He admits his behaviour here, stating "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all)." He also deleted my posting about his Arbcom identified conflict of interest, claiming it is a BLP violation. I respected his refactoring though he was already cautioned. Some days later he continues to post religious attacks on me. I see his behaviour as wilfully inciting hostilities. I take impersonation and religious attacks to be critical community issues. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Metta Bubble continues to falsely charge me with "impersonation." If I had written a message and attached Metta's name to it, then that would indeed be impersonation, but I didn't. I simply copied a complete conversation, including sigs, to the existing thread on the article talk page so the discussion didn't get split up, and also because other editors were being attacked by Metta Bubble in that particular thread. Since everything related to that discussion was relevant for others to read, I just copied it. There was nothing remotely related to "impersonation" or any attempt to misrepresent, take out of context, or otherwise do anything improper. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The other accusation about COI is misplaced. The RfArb listed my interests, but no COI was every proven. A shared POV does not a COI make, otherwise no one could edit here. Even a COI does not prevent editing if it doesn't affect the actual edits.

Her COI accusation was clearly a personal attack, as defined by the NPA policy:

• using "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [5]

-- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Religious attack"? Only pointing out the hypocrisy so evident. I admire the ideals of Buddhism, and when a Buddhist so evidently seeks and pursues conflict it seems rather hypocritical to me. She should live up to her ideals instead of making a mockery of them. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Response to Fyslee's perspective: You can see in my second diff above (the insertion diff)[6] that Fyslee made no attempt to identify he was citing text from another talk page. To any other user it would have appeared as if I had posted the comments myself. He is not merely citing me as he states, he is making it appear as though I was conversing with him on that page. Need I also note he continues his religious attacks above? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirdy party comments

• Although not a party to this specific conflict, it is a bit of a spin-off of a conflict between Metta Bubble and me and I am mentioned above. Ryulong, if I can help, please let me know. I am still considering whether or not to ask an admin to step in and explain to Metta that "outing" and damaging another editor's real-life identity are blockable, sometimes bannable offenses. Apparently they do not accept this from me or other editors who have tried. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Avb (talk · contribs) has a conflict with me and seems to be the reason his friend Fyslee (talk · contribs) started attacking me. I haven't outed anybody and never posted information beyond what is already public on wikipedia. If these users want to pursue their accusations I'm happy to answer with diffs to refute any and all claims. However, I see this behaviour as tag-team filibustering. I can't imagine any forthcoming context for justifying impersonation and religious attacks on me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that several points should be considered here. (1) Fyslee may be hypersensitive to the words like "conflict" or "COI" since the ArbCom findings of fact[7] he has been specifically ArbCom cautioned to "avoid the appearance of COI" (2) I think that it was not a good idea to involve religion in his discussion much less criticize another editor about it, (3) perhaps Metta should give more explanation of the form(s) or type of "conflict" meant or addressed, (4) I have questions about Fyslee's aggressive refactoring and claims of BLP on Metta when He [Fyslee] is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits.[8]. Fyslee may want to reconsider how others might perceive his rather totally involved status with things QW, related blogs, and conventional therapy (e.g vs QW counterparties and chiropratic) as to what constitutes COI vs pronounced POV.

I am unclear (on a prospective basis, not hindsight) how much Metta could have improved Fyslee's citation method that is part of the impersonation complaint and his refactoring of her comment to make her point (quit aggressive refactoring, be even more careful, ask first) w/o getting some flashback from Fyslee. Perhaps he should have broached it with her first rather than *insisting* it was a BLP. His reverting the wording change w/o prior acknowledgement (from Metta or another editor/admin) seems a questionable approach under the circumstances. Hopefully both can draw a breath and consider patching this over.--I'clast 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Metta_Bubble_refuses_to_acknowledge_"outing"_another_editor. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Is this blockable? Corvus cornix 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, just lame. Riana (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this user is a minor revealing a great deal of personal information about himself on his User page. Corvus cornix 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of those restrictions on minors revealing personal information ever became policy.--Chaser - T 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's totally MySpace-y & is userbox hell. Dunno if the personal info aspect warrants it, though. I'd love to delete it on the grounds of aesthetic offence, however ... - Alison ☺ 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not policy. Just common sense. Riana (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy says Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate and Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.. Corvus cornix 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"... in appropriate cases ..." - define "appropriate". In this case, the fact that the guy reveals his full name concerns me here, but everything else seems reasonable at a glance - Alison ☺ 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The city he lives in and the school he goes to? Corvus cornix 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - I'm deleting that - Alison ☺ 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. ☺ Corvus cornix 07:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deleted. We have to have some limits. Riana (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is blockable, technically, although a block probably isn't really necessary given the implausibility involved. He appears to be threatening to have his mom sue wikipedia for not removing that image. That would be a legal threat, albeit a very lame one... we could ask him to clarify, though, if it isn't clear. --Aquillion 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cooled down that dispute before this thread started. And the "legal threats" were just grasping at straws, so just dismiss them as empty talk, at least for now. —Kurykh 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this might be considered another legal threat/rant: [9]. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And I thought recruiting an admin into my discussion with User:Hornetman16 would defuse things... seems that his objections to the photo is not founded in anything other than an intense desire to have it removed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

About his userpage? He's just gone up the foodchain a bit [10] Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which I would imagine wont do him much good at all, I left a link to his talk page so if Jimbo really wants to he can get an explanantion there, SqueakBox 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The only method of getting him into constructive conversation was to appeal to his religious beliefs, which was laid out quite blatantly on his user page. Unorthodox, yes, but if it works, hey, what the heck. —Kurykh 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image removed under the biographies of living persons policy

Without expressing an opinion either way as to the existence of this image on Wikipedia per se, I have removed it from one of the articles in which it was being used, under our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Its use in that article was an entirely gratuitous publicization, that added no information to the article, of a living person who is not a public figure and who can neither defend xyr own rights or grant consent, and thus unacceptable. See Talk:Nackt Radtour#Image removed. Please note that any attempt to edit war or to re-include this image without making a strong and compelling case beforehand that these specific children need to be personally identified in an encyclopaedia article about a bicycle race will lead to loss of editing privileges. Uncle G 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see mention of OTRS on the description page, are we sure that the naked man has not granted consent? Viridae^Talk 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The owner of the website on which it was displayed claims copyright and has granted GFDL rights. The child in the photograph has not consented and probably could not. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no "probably" about it, Tony. That kid can't be more than three years old--that's too young to give consent in ANY country. I do have to wonder, though ... the name of the child wasn't included. If it was, then that would be totally inappropriate. But is merely including a picture of a child the same as identifying her (and it definitely looks like a girl)? Just wondering for future reference ... Blueboy96 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • In most countries, the legal guardian (presumably one of the parents, possibly the very person holding up the child in the picture) could have given consent which would make the matter perfectly legal. However, whether this particular picture enhances the article in any way (given the other pictures), especially given that our society has issues with displaying images of nude children, is a totally legitimate and relevant question.--Ramdrake 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, I can understand that perspective--especially since no race action was portrayed, or it wasn't clear that the guy holding her was the winner of the race. On those grounds, the picture should have been removed. But it's still not clear (to me, anyway) whether the girl was identified. I'm a journalist by training, and I agree it is totally inappropriate to identify a minor without the parent's permission. Seems a bit too broad to suggest that merely including a picture on a high-traffic Web site would be considered identification. I just want to make sure we're not setting a bad future precedent.Blueboy96 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • IMHO, that's a distinct possibility. That's why I'd drop the WP:BLP pretense (which to me doesn't apply too well), and just say that the merits of adding this particular picture to the articles are doubtful, considering the possible controversial nature of the contents (depicting a nude chld). Purely subjective, but if there's consensus behind it, I'd say it becomes fully justified. Otherwise, if we accept that WP:BLP applies because the child itself couldn't be old enough to consent, we'd need to remove all pictures of children belowe the age of, say 7 years old from Wikpedia, which would be counter-productive.--Ramdrake 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • My thoughts exactly. I may be a pentecostal/charismatic Christian (though somewhat more liberal than the guy leading the charge for that picture to be spiked from WP entirely), but I'm no prude. I realize that per Jimbo, we seem to have adopted a very broad interpretation of BLP, but this is carrying it too far. That said, the picture should stay out of that article--it's not clear whether the guy holding her won the race, and portraying nude children in a nongermane manner is unencyclopedic. Blueboy96 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Indeed if it doesnt go in Child nudity it shouldnt go anywhere, and if it isnt linked to any articles it should be deleted, SqueakBox 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have moved the image to Commons. And I'd like to point out the three IfDs [11] this image has gone through. There is plenty of consensus to keep the image. Acting unilaterally otherwise goes against the community will. I believe that counts as the strong and compelling evidence Uncle G asked for. -N 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, then it shouldn't be deleted (nor was I suggesting that it be). The only thing I was suggesting was that the image's place in the article should be judged independently from the WP:BLP standard, which I don't feel applies here. It might be useful in an article on family nudism or somesuch. But putting in a picture of a nude child to point out that their presence in this particular event is rare - is it just me, or is it counter-illustrative?--Ramdrake 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, as I pointed out on the article's talk page, most of the keep consensus was based on the image being in that article. It's a nude bike race, those are pictures from the race. Europe is incredibly lax on public nudity, even of children. If pictures from a nude bike race don't belong in the article on the nude bike race then something's wrong. Of course it could also be well-placed in other articles. -N 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I would have considered it be kept in the article, but for two reasons: 1)the article (which isn't that long) already has several pictures of the racers and 2)the caption of the image said children are rarely seen at that event, which means the image is atypical rather than really illustrative of the event. Under these circumstances, I would question its inclusion.--Ramdrake 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I've moved it to Commons. I'm perfectly content with that as a solution in the meantime, and waiting for the uploader to return to Wikipedia and see what they want to do. -N 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is nothing of the sort, as already explained. As yet, no strong and compelling evidence has been presented that this image need be used anywhere in the entire encyclopaedia.

    The Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy most definitely does apply here. I find it dismaying that editors, including especially those who profess to be journalists, are not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the fact that they will result in a living person, who had no choice in once being photographed naked as a child, being labelled in the future as they grow up by friends, schoolchildren, employers, and complete strangers who recognize xem from xyr picture as "that naked little child in the encyclopaedia".

    This is why journalists have editors. I suggest that Blueboy96 run the idea past xyr editor of choosing between two pictures to illustrate a published print article about a bicycling event: one that contains solely consenting adults capable of giving consent, making their own choices, and defending themselves, and one that contains a child in a pose that can cause that child embarrassment and distress in the future as xe grows up. I expect that Blueboy96's editor, if xe is competent, will have strong words to say on the subject, and explain to Blueboy96 that conventional journalism ethics is to do no harm in such cases. If xyr editor is not competent, there are plenty of discussions of journalism ethics around, as well as plenty of explicit codes of journalistic conduct, that will explain what one has to think about with regard to pictures of identifiable children.

    As an alternative, consider how you would each react to embarrassing and distressing photographs of yourselves as children being used in an encyclopaedia as you grow up. We are not constructing private photo albums of baby photos here. We are constructing a public encyclopaedia for the whole world's use. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts: three IfD against this image have all resulted in the image being kept, as per Wikipedia consensus. This is as strong and as compelling as evidence can get on WP, barring direct intervention from Jimbo Wales. Your WP:BLP argument would hold water if the child was identified and/or readily identifiable. Neither applies: the child isn't identified, and the picture of the face is taken in such a way as to make formal recognition very difficult, if not almost impossible. It's just a casual image of a naked child, about as anonymous and unprovocative as can be. The argument about the child not being able to make its own choice is also moot: if a legal guardian has consented to the picture, that counts just as if the child him or herself had accepted being photographed. None of these arguments are appropriate to remove this picture from the article.--Ramdrake 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Come to think of it also, I fail to see how this would be any more traumatic than say, your mother showing pictures of you as child, naked in the bathtub, the first time you bring a girlfriend over to dinner to meet your parents. Sure, it's embarrassing, but it's far from being the life-long trauma you seem to depict.--Ramdrake 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And something else. That picture was taken in 2001, and has presumably been on the original site since then. Germany has stricter privacy laws than the States ... seems if there was a concern, it would have been raised by now. In either case, I stand by my argument that keeping it off on BLP grounds sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Thedeadmanandphenom

Having some problems with Thedeadmanandphenom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been leaving profane, incivil and occasionally threatening (though not realistically threatening, more in the 'I hope you die!' type commentia range) on the page of Darrenhusted. I think he needs a time out. Could someone put him in the corner for a a couple hours? --Thespian 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past he has disrupted pages [12] and blanked sourced material [13], and after having numerous warnings [14] for editors other than myself he has now decided to attack me personally for PROD-ding an article he created [15], [16]. I don't know if he is here to constructively edit, and I have tried to assume good faith, even tidying up the article he created [17] but I think that some kind of block (may be for 12 hours) may be needed to try to reign him in. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Darrenhusted 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone ever gets around to looking at this issue, I'd also request a checkuser on Lostinspace123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been mucking with my talk page and Darren's, entirely with snarky comments about Darren's sexuality and facetious sounding comments about Thedeadmanandphenom. --Thespian 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ETA - slurs from Lostinspace123 invectives have now gotten racial in addition to being sexual. He's on a bit of a tear. --Thespian 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef for a "death threat" as well as general harassment SirFozzie 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[18] Thedeadmanandphenom is still trolling my page, even while claiming to not know Lostinspace123 who re-registered as Lostinspace1234 to get around the block [19]. Darrenhusted 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel and Sandpiper

I was't quite sure what to do about this so i thought i'd better put it on here. These two users, User:Folken de Fanel, and User:Sandpiper, are engaged in edit warring over a number of harry potter related articles such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Horcrux, R.A.B., Kreacher etc, and neither seems to be able to resolve an issue over article content, instead, the same arguments keep being repeated over and over, if another user becomes involved, like i did, still no consensus or compromise is reached, the user just gets sucked in too. Judging from their contributions, it seems that all they do is revert the other ones edits. Can anything be done about this, or will we just have to wait for the book to come out and settle all the debates.--Jac16888 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

and i forgot to say that they don't appear to actually be breaking the 3RR, which is why i haven't reported it there.--Jac16888 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what we would refer to as a "slow-motion edit war" and yes, I agree that it is a problem. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Centrx and my sigs

Centrx (talk · contribs)

User:Centrx is mass reverting my modifications of my own signatures which is explicitly allowed as per Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. Centrx failed to convince Grutness that he has valid points. In addition a 3rd opinion was filed and was responded to, feel free to have a read of it.

Centrx is engaged in a revert war over my sigs on multiple pages including ones inside my userpsace. Centrx believes that I have a malicious intent for modifying my sig. I believe that also violates WP:AGF.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy talks about removing personal information. It's not like you used to use your real name, so I see no way that you could call Cool Cat something personal and identifying. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly desire to change my sig. Thats all the policy expects. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think resources is an issue and its my time to waste. At least according to the devs I talked to. En.wiki receives several thousand edits per day. Centrx is wasting more of our resources by repetively revert waring over this. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, here's an exact quote of policy: "If you feel strongly about personal information no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." The username "Cool Cat" does in no way, reveal your personal information, so there is no personal info for you to feel strongly about. Because of that, policy doesn't allow you to do what you're doing. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets say you are right for the sake of argument, there still is nothing prohibiting from fixing my sigs. I am allowed to change my sigs and even comments on non-archived talk pages by default. Although discouraged, I am even allowed to remove my comments altogether if I do so desire - especially in my userspace. -- Cat ^chi? 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason in changing your past sigs other than aesthetic effect? —Kurykh 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am sorting my sigs by year. It is particularly helpful for me. I can explain additional reasons in private if you like. Though, I would like to add (no offense), I shouldn't really need a reason aside from "my strong desire". :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrx did not say he believes you have a malicious intent for modifying your signature. Regardless, why is this topic back here? At least Centrx has been kind enough to keep this trivial matter off the AN and ANI. Seriously, why is this so darn important to you? (And, to Centrx as well, why is this so darn important?) It takes two to tango; one of you just stop already. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move your mediation committee page? Is that really necessary? And what was the purpose of blanking the origin page and re-adding the same content? Was that in an attempt to make moving the page back more difficult? (If that was your intent, that doesn't do much). -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am more than allowed to move old references to my former username. I did this before with my first RFA. I forgot about the mediation case till recently. Why should I even need to provide an explanation? The complaint is Centrx's mass revers btw. -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still rather pointless to continue to 1) remove references to your old name and 2) revert war over it when all it is, is your signature. Damn near everyone realizes that Cool Cat = White Cat at this point. Even if people didn't realize it by the signature, they could equally just check the history of any page you edited and it says White Cat now. — Moe ε 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the MedCom nomination from editing and moves. I think it's generally best if closed nominations not be edited in any way, and this includes their location. Daniel 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? What difference does the title of a medcab nom have to its content. Who is the candidate? Is it a lie to say that the candidate is me? -- Cat ^chi? 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have been an issue if the second involved party hadn't started reverting harmless changes. I think going back and editing your old sigs isn't really useful, but any argument against it (server load, disruption, etc) can be equally made against reverting edits to old sigs.

Anyhow, this isn't prohibited, and User:White Cat shouldn't have to justify themselves in re. this. It's a personal choice, not a community one, and there's no reason that a personal (albeit retroactive) aesthetic choice should be made by committee. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-06-25 01:03Z

He's been warned about this, twice. Originally he had a bot doing the changes in mass. He is editing community talk pages, so it's not just up to him. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but why oh why does anyone care what he does to his own sigs if he's not being incivil or disruptive or trying to hide who made the comments? (he's actually making it more clear who made the comments) Someguy1221 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he's repeatedly been disruptive about it, and repeatedly told not to do it. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being involved in the previous discussions concerning this, but....why has he been told not to do it? I am straining to rationalize the edit wars this is causing. Someguy1221 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Wikipedia and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish, if you look at his userpage. He's actually making it easier for anyone reading old archives to find out the username currently being used by Coolcat, as well as still being able to see Coolcat's contribs (linked to right from White Cat's userpage). I still believe a mere redirect from his old userpage to his new one would be oh so much easier (I'm not finding it possible to comprehend why that wasn't done, looking through old discussions), other users have done that upon changing username. Someguy1221 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish - Not what was claimed: he's clearly trying to whitewash his reputation, given that the simplest thing he could have done was put a redirect at User:Cool Cat -- which he not only hasn't done, but has had the page protected so it CAN'T be done. Presumably he's trying to obscure something like [this. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was all to hide my block log. Man am I exposed...</sarcasm> Seriously have you actually seen my userpage? I link to that very log and far more (not that I am expected/required to do so). Also my sig does not link to my block log. Me fixing my sigs is more like "admitting guilt" if anything. Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.

Zscout370 I am not making this hard on myself. There is a person reverting me on multiple pages. And not just any pages but discussion pages (article content isn't in jeopardy) including the ones in my userspace.

If the precondition for me to fix my sigs is my leavening of the project, that can be arranged - though I believe such a demand would be out of proportion. I dispute the validity of those "variety of reasons".

This is a complaint on Centrx's behaviour. Strangely almost no one seems to be commenting to that end. 3rd opinion and Grutness's conversation with Centrx is pretty clear on this. The policy is also clear on this even though people are interpreting stuff not written on it.

I am not the first person to fix his/her sigs people...

-- Cat ^chi? 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point, but I also don't see what the big fuss is about. If Cat wants to make a fresh start, great, as the old Cool Cat account had more blocks than a daycare full of toddlers, and I can thoroughly understand that. Is it obfuscating GFDL by changing all those talk page attributions? If it isn't, then Centrx, let him do what he likes. Neil ╦ 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I really need to give an explanation for it - just to set the record straight...

• I desire not to be associated as "Cool Cat" from now on. I want to however be associated with the edits (good or bad) of "Cool Cat" since I am the same person. As you pointed out, I have a depressingly long block log. I made no attempt to hide it. In fact I advertise it more than I should. If I desired to "hide" anything I would merely register a new account without using any associated with this one.
• Deletion of User:Cool Cat went to MfD and later deletion review only because User:Ned Scott repetitively recreated the page. He even revert wared with multiple admins over the closures of the MfD. You may not have noticed this but my former talk page is actually a redirect.
• I intend to clear all of the material in the userspace of "Cool Cat" (all of them are redirects) but the talk page. This is maintenance related and does not have any other purpose at least not to my knowledge.

The very point of a signature is to "identify" the person making the comment. Updating it is to better represent/identify the person making the comment. Mediawiki software currently does not have the capability to update users sigs as it is updating their contribution history after an account rename. I think of making a sig to match the username that appears in page history to be good practice.

I also ask you to be civil. No one is "bitching" about anything.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit point

• Am I the only one who thinks this is getting really ridiculous? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think this is simply the case of a user trying to achieve legitimate intentions (look at User:White Cat if you doubt this) in an absurdly inefficient manner, leaving aside for a moment the bot issue. Please, please just redirect the old userpage before more WP:LAME worthy material is created, although I do believe that reverting White Cat's sig changes is utterly pointless, whatever policies say (aren't we supposed to ignore those?). Someguy1221 23:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  I do not believe Centrix's action has any policy basis, on the contrary he is contradicting some such as Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username explicitly allowing what I am doing. I do not desire to have a redirect at my former userpage. I do have a redirect on my former talk page which should be adequate for people stumbling on my former userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Although it applies by the spirit and not by the word, lets review m:Right to vanish

  "If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection."

  1. Y "Change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you"
     • This is done as per my request. Page implies this is the "hard part".
  2. N "Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username"
     • Centrx is reverting edits in parallel with this.
  3. N "Delete your user and user talk subpages"
     • It is being implied above that I must have a redirect on my former userpage contradicting the logic behind this.
  4. N "Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name"
     • It is being implied that I need to comply with this in order to be allowed to commit the two (#2&3) items above.

  What I desire to do is in parallel with the logic above minus #4.

  -- Cat ^chi? 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Besot.PNG

Resolved

What exactly is this image? I am blind so I have no idea what it is. The reason I ask is that 68.122.0.3 and 67.188.45.126 have added the image without explanation to Cumhal, Sad Sack and Wooper, with some other nonsensical edits. The image was uploaded without a copyright tag. I'm wondering what it is and what should be done with it. Graham87 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a sprite comic. By the time you read this, I will have deleted it.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Graham87 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shonikado (talk · contribs) iswas using its relative, Image:Besot.png (note the lowercase), to try and convert people to "Besotism". He uploaded the original Besot.PNG as well, according to his talk page. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs and Wikistalking

User:Baseball Bugs has been following me around and will not leave me alone. Some of his comments are rather benign, but his activity is very counter productive. He has commented on a number of articles that clearly have little to do with what he is interested in and everything to do with what edits I make. I just want the guy to leave me alone. Can someone please help? //Tecmobowl 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the allegation, and it is legitimate: Baseball Bugs has edited several articles (not reverted, just edited) minutes after Tecmobowl has edited. ArbCom precedent in the RickK vs. TheRecyclingTroll case has established such behavior as a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.

I'll give Baseball Bugs a stern warning. If he persists, please report him to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 or here again. Shalom ^Hello 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is a very touchy situation and all i want to do is get the content on here better. //Tecmobowl 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• It might be time for an admin to step in here. //Tecmobowl 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has a history of contentiousness with many users, with being blocked for edit warring, and for engaging in sockpuppetry to get around that block. We have both edited hundreds of articles on baseball, and our crossover has been on very few of them. He has filed numerous complaints against anyone who dares to challenge his edits, and none of his complaints have come to anything, once the admins learn the whole picture of his behavior. After being asked by Shalom (who has since decided he wants nothing to do with this matter) to stop "following" Tecmo (the same complaint Tecmo's sockpupper User:El redactor had made), I have further backed off from engaging him. However, I reserve the right to edit pages that are of interest to me, even if they happen to coincide with pages that Tecmobowl edits. Baseball Bugs 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leave me alone. I am not a sock, you believe that I am ... those are two different things. Stop following me around. Editing pages that interest you is one thing, following me around is another thing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! //Tecmobowl 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence shows that you have engaged in sockpuppetry. And since you never have the courtesy to notify me directly about these complaints of yours, I have to monitor your "contributions" list to find out about them. Your goal, apparently, is to find a way to prevent me from editing any baseball articles that you also edit. In fact, there is very little crossover in our respective articles. But you do not have the right to "own" any page, nor to arbitrarily exclude someone from editing a page just because you don't like that editor. Baseball Bugs 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE READ WHAT I AM SAYING _ GET THIS GUY TO LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!! MY GOAL IS TO GET HIM TO STOP TALKING TO ME AND STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND>>>MY GOAL IS TO MOVE THE FUCK ON>>>AM I MAD - NO >>> AM I TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO GET ATTENTION -> YES!!!!! GET HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!! //Tecmobowl 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One curious recent incident is Tecmobowl's editing of the user page for User:El redactor to remove the information about El redactor being Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. This is in keeping with Tecmobowl's tendency to blank out his own talk page (this, for example[20]), which is considered impolite (and uncivil... see above) under wikipedia standards. Editing of user pages by anyone other than the page's owner is generally frowned upon, and removal of such notices is against the rules. However, Tecmobowl's editing of El redactor's user page in general is arguably OK, since he has been demonstrated to be that page's creator. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerdon13

Jerdon13 keeps formatting articles according to his personal aesthetics. This is his summary for one of his edits on the Curtis (50 Cent album): "Easier to read (LEAVE IT THIS WAY)". See here, here, here, here, and here. There is probably much more, but I only named the articles that are on my watchlist. That is incorrect formatting, and I have seen many other Wikipedians format articles the way I am trying to format them, even admins, so it must be right. Speaking of admins, Jerdon13 didn't even listen to Mel Etitis when he warned him to stop formatting that way. He thinks that articles are "easier to read", but the rules are obviously there for a reason, so his preferences on formatting are irrelevant. Oh yeah, and I gave him a warning too. Then he did it again. I think a warning is not enough for this user. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what the problem is. I reviewed a number of these edits, and I had a lot of difficulty seeing any difference between the two versions. I would not recommend a block over a WP:LAME edit war.

At the same time, if you can clarify why this is a problem, it's clear that the user has been warned enough times, and a 24h block would be appropriate to make it clear that formatting articles against consensus is not acceptable. Shalom ^Hello 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I am a bit new at this. The thing is you are not allowed to use <br>s in InfoBoxes like he is doing, you are supposed to use commas. This is actually important, as some users have been blocked by some admins because they were doing this. That is the problem, it is anti-WikiProject formatting rules (for albums). He was told not to do it. He did not listen to me, or the admin, something must be done. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Metta Bubble refuses to acknowledge "outing" another editor

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonating_another_user_and_religious_attacks

On Talk:Stephen Barrett Metta Bubble has "outed" my real-life identity, damaging both my Wikipedia and real-life reputations, brought assorted unwarranted COI accusations presented as "questions", also violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I responded to the questions and explained about the various blockable offenses. I hoped that my explanations would be understood and taken to heart and let it go, under the impression that Metta wanted the conflict to end (see my talk page e.g. here) and had realized there was, indeed, a problem with their behavior. I myself had also responded somewhat irritatedly, and I assumed this was more a question of temper than one of extreme policy violations - lessons learned all around (although I do not believe I have violated any policies here. If so, please let me know).

However - I regularly look at problems here and on the BLP noticeboard to see if I can be of some help. Yesterday I noticed this AN/I report where Metta was accusing one of the other editors they had accused of a COI worthy of an ArbCom arbitration and tried to resolve the conflict. Being mentioned there, I posted some background in the Metta's report. Their responses opened my eyes to the fact that there is no discernible learning curve here.

Here are some relevant diffs (a number of intermediate posts not included):

• post by Metta Bubble
• response by Avb
• response by Metta Bubble
• Avb posts defense against allegations
• more by Avb
• attempt by Avb to explain and resolve the problem
• Avb refactors Barrett talk page to remove WP:BLP/WP:NPA violations & repair "identity outing" etc. now that it has been discussed
• attempt by Avb to discuss the issue
• Metta Bubble denies the problem
• more explanations by Avb
• Metta Bubble denies the problem on AN/I

I would appreciate it if an admin could explain the problems here to Metta and ask them not to "out" other editors?

Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS My user page history (the real-life info had been lifted from an old version) has just been deleted at my request in order to prevent repetition. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, investigating a possible COI, finds information in your User Page history then mentions it in a discussion about a possible COI. You remove the information and delete your User page's history, and note that you want this information kept private. Has Metta revealed this information since you removed it? –Gunslinger47 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it probably a year ago by blanking the page/adding new contents. It was useful at the time as a declaration of my possible COI since I was editing related articles back then. But (as always) it remained somewhere at the bottom of the history. Other editors are not supposed to use it, and that's what I told Metta very early on. Instead of removing it from the article and disengaging from this specific line of questioning, they expanded on it. Regardless, simply editing user page info out should be sufficient. I never expected another editor to do dig up a very old version, let alone doing something like this. As a result of this experience I then had my user page history removed. I haven't heard from Metta since then. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Circular accusations of COI have been a staple of Stephen Barrett and related articles for some time. I must say that the "evidence" here is extremely weak (i.e. you are a health-care critic, so is Stephen Barrett, therefore you have a COI). And digging through year-old userpage diffs and then posting identifying information in article-talk space, in service of such a weak COI accusation, bothers me substantially. I've been previously heavily involved (and now very occasionally involved) in Barrett-related pages, so I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate this situation as an outside admin, but I would urge an uninvolved admin with patience and a streak of masochism to review this situation carefully. We've already had one such conflict on these pages end up in a prolonged and nasty ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta was being extremely silly there. The evidence proved the converse (example: it lists many chiropractors). For the rest, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". And the reverse is also true; I simply want this user to understand the situation and never do something like this again. Mastcell and others who have helped to explain this so far, thanks a lot. AvB ÷ talk 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to accusations

• I have never posted information a user asked me not to. AvB posted <text removed by AvB> where they stood for months. It was me who first raised these affiliations in a general question. AvB <text removed by AvB> outed himself by posting links <text removed by AvB>. I subsequently posted links also. <text removed by AvB> Then Avb urged me to reread his links. (see last paragraph). He was reluctant to discuss the issues and had hoped his links spoke for themselves. [21]. His explanation was more than enough for me and I was ready to move on. Over the ensuing days Fyslee (talk · contribs) got progressively more aggressive at me, attempting to fan discord about this issue and ultimately resulting in me filing an incident report here. It appears my incident report has fueled this incident report as though the two are related. They are not.

My line of questioning Avb didn't come out of nowhere. We had been discussing each others neutrality for a few days. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Early on he said to me "I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them." [27].

I know making COI assertions is a serious business and I don't shy away from this. However, there has already been at least one Arbcom case regarding the Stephen Barrett article involving COI (I think more than one) so I don't see it as breaking propriety to raise the issue during talk page discussion that civilly migrated towards the topic of COI. Thanks. p.s. Please don't split my post ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for admin comment

"Outing" (linking someone's real life identity with their Wikipedia user name) anywhere on Wikipedia is not allowed. Doing so to make accusations is worse. Doing so to make unfounded COI accusations is even worse. Quite clearly, Metta Bubble still does not understand the problems caused by outing (esp. linked with accusations like "smell a rat" - "COI" - "Arbcom"). She still denies any wrongdoing, and feels free to do this again, even on AN/I (I've removed some of it). This flies in the face of current Wikipedia practice. Metta Bubble also removed the explanation given by User:Hypnosadist on her talk page here with the edit summary (Thanks for letting me know but actually you're relying on gossip and heresay. Good luck with the policy).

Hypnosadist, thanks for explaining to Metta. Would you agree with Metta that you were relying on gossip and hearsay? If you simply responded to my request to explain why outing is not a good idea, could you or another uninvolved admin click through to my diffs given above and give an opinion whether or not this type of public investigative journalism/OR/advertising is acceptable behavior?

The point is not that real-life info can be found somewhere in a corner of the internet; it's being advertised on a live page on Wikipedia, the world's #10 website. Should I be monitoring all Metta's contributions here on Wikipedia now for a repeat? She thinks doing so would be OK. When something similar or worse stays up for too long, banning Metta will not repair it. We really need to hear her say she won't do anything like this again. AvB ÷ talk 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Partial rebuttal

(1) Everyone is invited to read my diffs which tell the full story before MB rewrote it. (2) The COI assertions came out of the blue. MB had been questioning my neutrality for days [28] [29] [30] [31] [32], not vice versa as claimed. (3) The "outing" was done by info in Metta Bubble's (unsourced = BLP violation) "general question" (=COI attack #1) linking me with a history at a domain name. Note that mere links are not a problem; it's the context of someone saying e.g. "his website" and unjustified criticism that makes it dangerous.

Some concerns

Editors should not make things easy for the dark side. Seeing my real-life ID connected with "where you vacation" suddenly makes such details (scattered throughout Wikipedia) dangerous. The mention by Metta of these and other details, such as "the size of your family," sounds quite ominous. Suddenly there's the possibility that lunatics who hate my guts on Wikipedia could be waiting for me with a gun around every corner. Also note that this outing goes two ways. It informs lunatics editing Wikipedia about my real-life ID just as readily as it informs lunatics from both the past (now dug up by Metta) and the present about my Wikipedia ID. AvB ÷ talk 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing a copyright violation

There are a very large number of links in a small number of articles to the "official" Tate LaBianca murders blog. All link to content which is copyright and identified as such, the site makes no claim to any right to publish this material. Rather the opposite, actually. I have removed them from Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and will remove them from other articles when I get time. I am aware that last time these links were removed it stirred up a shitstorm. Hopefully the explanation on the talk page will prevent that happening again. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems completely correct to do. I've edited Paul Watkins (Manson Family) to remove all the offending links (plus several YouTube links that also violate copyright). -- Merope 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've got them from Charles Manson, too. That appears to be all of them. -- Merope 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that saved some effort :-) Guy (Help!) 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by HeadMouse

Fresh off his latest block [33], HeadMouse (talk · contribs) is calling the editors he is in a dispute with "uptight power hungry ass holes." [34]. His talk archive (which was re-archived just 50-odd minutes ago) shows at least four warnings for personal attacks so far this month. Can an admin do something about this? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where? The diff you provided dates back several days, and his edits today don't seem overly problematic (although his edit summaries suggest he's turning beet red and steam is coming out of his ears--appropriate, given the articles he's editing). Exploding Boy 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question. At least he isn't disrupting the article right now. Right now being the operative term. Chris Cunningham 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've left him a message. Exploding Boy 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I appear to have inserted the wrong diff link. The correct on is here and I also fixed it above. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I've left him a message on his talk page and I've refactored some of the posts on the article talk page in question. He hasn't made any new edits for some time now, so for the moment there's not much else that can be done. If he continues to be incivil or if he begins to edit war, then he can be warned or blocked again. Exploding Boy 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was said above that HeadMouse (talk · contribs) is not currently disrupting the article. I would argue that is not the case, as a careful screening of the edit history shows that HeadMouse has reverted every edit made to the article today by other editors ([35], [36], both a revert of Maelwys and some text changes, and both a revert of TREYWiki and an image addition). The disputes over the article have been so mild today because those of us who care are being inextricably ground down. I mean, what is the point when HeadMouse has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in reading (let alone following) WP:MOS and WP:NOT, and that he will revert any edit he sees fit in order to make the article "have CLEAN, ACCURATE, READABLE, information." (See this, this, and this for his un-compromising, obstinate dispossession on full display.)

At this point, I am at a loss as to what can be done. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the coloured fonts in the description of the trains. I thought that was weird when I looked at the article in the first place. He hasn't made any edits for 2 hours now, and I have to say I really see very little problem with his edits, unless I'm really missing something, which is certainly possible. He's insisting that the "R" in "relations" in the subheading "Customer relations" should be capitalized, which I think is debatable, but otherwise the diffs you're providing don't show me much... Just edit the page per talk page consensus, and keep an eye on things. If he's really being a problem editor he'll be blocked one way or another. Exploding Boy 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User continued abusive behaviour and was subsequently blocked by me for one week. He continued altering another person's signed comments on his discussion page and so the page was protected for 24 hours. This will hopefully give this user a chance to cool down. One unblock review has already been performed and of course, unblock-en-l is open if he desires another one. Hard to imagine any admin being willing to unblock this user, though. --Yamla 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to hijack my account?

I have just received two password reminders: from IP address 203.218.104.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on 23 June, 8:47, and from 218.103.168.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today, 12:22 (both of CET). One such request could be an accident, two mean it's intentional. I'll list the addresses to be checked for possible open proxies; is there any other action I should take? - Mike Rosoft 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them look very proxyish to me from RBL checks of the IP. You may want to change your password to keep it secure. SirFozzie 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what? There is nothing wrong with Mike's password. Any idiot can send password reset messages and they do nothing unless acted on. If you log in with the new password it will become your new password, but it was only mailed to you so the idiot never sees it. If you ignore the messages, your old password remains active and the idiot never sees it. Just ignore the emails. Thatcher131 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best way to go. Although if you do have a weak password you may want to strengthen it, on the off-chance that Mr. Idiot presses any further. --Masamage ♫ 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just scanned both of those IPs, and neither of them have any open ports. Sean William ‹‹‹ 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay; and I presume that even if he had made 50 password reminders - which is no longer possible, I presume - his chance of guessing it would be remote (and repeated attempts to log in to my account would first require entering a "captcha" code, and eventually be blocked altogether). I remember having received many new passwords in a row from 146.145.148.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the other day, but it probably wasn't a hijack attempt, either - just an attempt to annoy me. So there's no need to worry; I was just being paranoid after multiple accounts were taken over by vandals. - Mike Rosoft 18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An added bonus to this might be the discovery of 218.103.168.56's contributions: Contributions/218.103.168.56. All two edits are directly related to Louielim2007 (Who awarded Mike Rosoft a barnstar a bit earlier. Sean William ‹‹‹ 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I get these 2 or 3 times a week. If you use a strong password, it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter anyway because only you can see the e-mail. However, when I do get them, I check the IP's contributions to see if there are any. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Small Problem

we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.Marioman12 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seek a Third Opinion --> WP:3O. If that doesn't work try mediation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a third oneMarioman12 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

pardon? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

third OpinionMarioman12 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of album cover images

I have been removing album cover images from discographies in the bands' articles, and have encountered quite a bit of opposition. Where is the discussion on this specific subject that I can point the objectors to? Corvus cornix 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing the same thing--it's a surprisingly prevalent problem. In my edit summary, I write "remove excessive Fair Use Images; see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8" and then I put a note on the associated talk page. Let me know if you're still having problems. -- Merope 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty thorough explanation here.

Jamie L.^talk 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD also specifically covers this in the discographies section. --Yamla 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Corvus cornix 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge sockpuppetry problem

We've been dealing with a load of sockpuppets screwing with the Witton Albion F.C. recently. They have odd usernames like Mane trim and Noon went. At the same time, it appears that Northwich Victoria F.C. is being attacked by socks with names like Mane mane and Tree three. When both articles are protected from new users...the socks start coming out. A brief look through the attackers of both articles will show that the socks are made on the same days. This guy is making about ten to fifteen accounts every two or three days and waiting to use them. The most recent wave to attack both articles were made on the 7th of this month. This guy has patience. Any ideas what to do? IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try "Requests for IP check" at WP:RFCU to identify and block the underlying IP, if possible. Many checkusers will list other obvious sleeper accounts when performing a check. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is using a static IP. He only brings out the sleeper accounts when he needs an older one. If there is no protection on a page, he just uses brand new accounts. Everytime they are blocked, he just makes a new one. As you can see here he even taunts Come on boys, set your best Checkuser on me. because he knows he can switch IPs. IrishGuy ^talk 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's nothing that can be accomplished via checkuser (and I'd still recommend giving it a shot), then I don't know what else can be done other than semi-protection and revert, block, ignore. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried to get the IP addresses blocked? Assuming it isn't possible to block the underlying IP address got me once. I finally got fed up and submitted the user for an IP address check and got some ranges blocked. Since then the user has been pretty much non-existent. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He has used an IP address a few times. They were 86.139.246.131, 86.139.244.206 and 86.139.240.167 that is how I know it is the same person on both articles. He can change it so quickly that individual IP blocks are useless. I don't know how big the range is so I feared collateral damage with a wide rangeblock. IrishGuy ^talk 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd still submit them for an IP check. Let the person running the check decide if they can block or not. You may also want to request the person keep a record of the IP addresses so you can file a report at WP:ABUSE and maybe get BT to shutdown their account. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the IP checkuser came back with: IP is different every day, across several A class ranges. Any other ideas? The whack-a-mole thing is getting annoying. IrishGuy ^talk 02:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this[37] stay in borders of WP:CIVIL?

This edit just cropped up in my watchlist and I felt It could use a comment from admins.--Alexia Death 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, that falls under WP:CIVIL like the Pope falls under Judaism: i.e. it doesn't by a long shot. Will ^(talk) 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and UserPage vandalism by User:PageantUpdater

Resolved

On June 18, User:PageantUpdater left a message on her user [38] and talk pages [39] [40] asking the project to "f*ck off".

One day later, June 19, she updated the messages explaining she was leaving Wikipedia [41] [42].

But just 2 days after her goodbye message, on June 21, she came back in an DRV discussion to call fellow Wikipedians "F*KING IGNORANT" , "IMBECILES" and suggested that Wikipedia has "gone down the toilet"[43]. She said that it was that what brought her to leave Wikipedia.

Just on they later, (June 22) she was apparently back to normal editing, when she created one article [[44] and added a free image to two articles [45] [46]. All very good!

But today she just came back and, apart from some apparently normal editions, called Wikipedians "imbecile" [47], showed intentions to ignore WP:NPA when she see fits [48] and vandalized User:Fuzzy510's page [49] to call him (and another user named Carlton) a "f*cking arsehole" and to ask him to f*ck himself and to go to "hell".

Also today, she updated here userpage to say that "everyone here is a f*cking arsehole" [50].

DISCLAIMER: I have to let you know that this user is involved (but not very active) in an Arbitration Case against me, so, I may have a bit of personal prejudice on how I read all these "f*ck you" in her comments. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this crap doesn't fly with me. User was warned, persisted in doing it anyway, and is now blocked for 24h. -- Merope 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy: Insults are not necessarily personal attacks. Only if said insults are used to dismiss arguments in an ad hominem form does it qualify. Under WP:NPA, threatening behaviour also qualifies. See personal attack for the nuances of the term.

That said, the PageantUpdater is definitely having some trouble with Wikipedia:Civility. –Gunslinger47 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't now if any of this is really a personal attack per se, but the Fuzzy510 diff (which appears to be in response to an AFD notice Fuzz510 left at PageantUpdater's talkpage) absolutely warrented a block. I understand that it sucks to see your work get nominated for deletion, but that sort of response simply is not helpful. The "everyone is a fucking arsehole" bit I'd just chalk up to frustration...--Isotope23 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least calling the other parties in an DRV discussion "F*KING IGNORANT" and "IMBECILES"[51] is an uncivil ad hominem argument, right? Anyway, thanks for dealing with her. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked due to the editor apparently having calmed down and promising not to be disruptive or be uncivil. Obviously if this promise is broken a block is in order. --W.marsh 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone had brought my attention to this section earlier, although perhaps its better that I have come to it with a clear head and a desire to move forward. I apologise for my atrocious behaviour, although in all honesty I cannot apologise for the essence of my message. I hope the former is enough for now. I promise that I will refrain from incivility in the future and keep my head down for a while. I found that I love editing too much to go... although the collaborative side of Wikipedia is certainly not as much fun as it once was. PageantUpdater 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Isaiah13066

Resolved

 – 7 day block.

Nandesuka 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across this edit by Isaiah13066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and warned him against making personal attacks. He continued (the user's last name is Cox but Isaiah13066 is calling him Cocks). So I gave him a final warning to which he did this to. The user was previously blocked 48 hours for making personal attacks. Paul Cyr 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs would prompt me to block him, but I note that they're all from 2-3 days ago. His more recent edits, while uncivil, seem slightly more constructive. I'm feeling like blocking him for those older posts now would be punitive rather than preventive; however, I'm all for having a zero-tolerance policy from here forward, given the inappropriateness of those earlier remarks and the fact that he's been adequately warned. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also notified Isiah of this discussion on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that my posts were ok. I was trying to stay civil. But in any case, I actually did apologized to him on his Talk Page if I upset him. If it matters, I'd vote to not block him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Michaelcox 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit, on 28 June, seems pure vandalism. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That edit is from 28 February, methinks. Unless you're with the Precrime Division... MastCell ^Talk 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry (not really) about my zero-tolerance for stupidity Isaiah13066 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

7 day block due to my zero-tolerance for incivility (see user's talk page history, as well). Nandesuka 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good block, we don't have to put up with this.--Jersey Devil 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good block; I'd have done the same once he made those further edits. MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and forgery by Cberlet

There have been edit disputes going on at Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche for several weeks now. The discussion on the talk pages and in edit summaries has been fairly heated on both sides of the disputes, although I would say the worst incivility has come primarily from User:Cberlet and User:Dking. I and others have asked the editors in these disputes to tone it down. However, today an incident took place which I think crosses the line. In this edit, Cberlet deleted a comment by User:Don't lose that number and substituted a different text, so he effectively forged a post by Don't lose that number. I think this incident requires some sort of administrative action. --Marvin Diode 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not forgery, that's refactoring. The link you provided shows Cberlet changing the heading of the poll he started and refactoring the comments of another user to conform with a poll. While I don't think polls are generally helpful, I've seen this done frequently before where someone adds a comment to a "vote". Regarding the incivility charge, the "pro-LaRouche" editors, particularly NathanDW (talk · contribs), have a habit of making negative personal remarks about Cberlet and Dking [52][53], and have been warned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A different text? Qué? It's exactly the same text. Did you not scroll all the way down on the diff, or something? I think your charge of "forgery" here on ANI requires some sort of apology to Cberlet. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I would prefer that Cberlet not edit an article in which he has such a strong personal vested interest (he is named several times and his publications are cited as sources). However there is nothing wrong with that diff. Thatcher131 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As many have pointed out, a problem with our COI guideline is that it penalizes editors with known affiliations while exempting more anonymous users who may have equal or greater conflicts. The LaRouche-related articles have long been the subject of attention from pro-LaRouche editors (and their sock puppets). Overall, I'd say that Cberlet may have less of a COI than many of the involved editors, but there is no way of unequivocally establishing that fact. Removing "anti-LaRouche" editors while allowing the "pro-LaRouche" editors to remain would not result in better articles. The alternative we're stuck with is dealing with protracted, and sometimes rancorous, disputes on these pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On rereading WP:COI, I see it does contain exemptions for those in Cberlet's situation.

• An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.
• You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.

I believe that Cberlet and Dking have complied with WP:COI. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet created an entirely new poll question and signed Don't Lose That Number's username to one of the answers. This was apparently intended to mock Don't Lose That Number for his previous comment -- Cberlet's edit summary was "(Is this formulation of your views correct User:Don't lose that number?)." Then, Don't Lose That Number's previous post was added as a "comment" to the new poll. This is not "refactoring." Don't Lose That Number later removed this creation with the edit summary "not my doing." Please take a second look at this edit, and you will see that it was not just an innocent moving of text. The creation of a new poll question and the adding of the username to an answer adds up to attributing an opinion to Don't Lose That Number that he apparently does not subscribe to. --Marvin Diode 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by anons on Talk:Mudkip

Over the past month or two, a dispute over an internet meme from 4chan has been debated on Talk:Mudkip. When I joined the argument (against the meme), things turned south quickly, leading to several long arguments on my talk page and Talk:Mudkip, partially because I was playing the "hardline policy" card. About a few weeks ago, two anonymous users - 64.40.60.55 (talk · contribs) and 64.40.53.240 (talk · contribs) - have been playing devil's-advocate on the page, and seem to be doing it to get a rise out of myself and out of Ksy92003 (talk · contribs). Is there anything that can be done to stop this madness one way or another? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll put in a request at WP:RPP to semiprotect the page so that anonymous users cannot edit it. Such action is unheard of for talk pages, but it's justified in this instance. Shalom ^Hello 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have another note to add: 64.40.60.55 tried to impersonate Ksy92003. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk, but seeing as most IPs anywhere on Wiki can't even be bothered to read comments, I doubt anyone's going to take notice. Will ^(talk) 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The IPs that care do, and have been so nice as to rebut me in no uncertain terms. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible external link spam

User:72.181.40.126 has been rapidly adding links to "thebusinessmakers.com", which appears to be a podcast series, to multiple articles - see the contributions list. The links tend to be tailored to the articles to which they're added (interviews with article subjects, etc.), but the sheer number is beginning to become alarming. Could use some admin attention. JavaTenor 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned; adding links like that is never OK. I'll be watching their contributions and seeing if they start up again. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If this continues, please make a request on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Naconkantari 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit (preventative)

This Wrestler and his family have died under unknown circumstances. From previous experience with the deaths of famous (or semi-famous) people, the dingbats and fuckwits soon follow to put their own stamp on events. Do a couple of admins want to put this on their watchlist - because a little prevention goes a long way... --Fredrick day 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been preëmptively semi-protected, which should help keep things under control. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I should point out I'm not actually into wrestling but saw it mentioned elsewhere - the other reason it might be trouble is that (from what I can gather) the WWE is currently doing a storyline where the head of the organisation is pretending to be dead (yes yes I know) so it's likely we would get lots of "OMG THIS IS FAKE!" stuff. --Fredrick day 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It isnt a storyline he is unfortuntly dead and I can't get over the bad timeing with the Mcmahon is dead storyline ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Nothing is showing up anywhere on the internet or the MSM except on the wrestling blogs. Probably worth the protection anyways, but so far nothing substantiates this story as real news. ThuranX 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)laright, it's starting to get coverage now. ThuranX 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Even TNA has reported it and ther a rival company they would only do it if it was real like with Eddie guerrero ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An Atlanta TV station has picked it up [54]. Sadly, it's real. SirFozzie 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As well as the major Atlanta paper [55]

darn I wish it was fake I can't stop crying. But even other tv shows have picked it up ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling's a touchy subject with news, especially with the McMahon "death" happening very recently. I'd be happy with a major news source picking it up, but I guess we have to accept it only with the minor sources. Will ^(talk) 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Mcmahon just admited that his death was fake so theres no way anyone would confuse chris death with a storyline ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not any more, at least. The news in Benoit's home town/province are picking up the story now. It's legit: [56] Resolute 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't belive his son was that young I think im going to be sick ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: link to the AJC says murder-suicide, edmonton sun says homicide. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't put the AJC link into it because there's no source listed (named or unnamed). there's no confirmation elsewhere as well about the possible murder-suicide (I've heard it was mentioned on MSNBC and Fox News, but that's hearsay) SirFozzie 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to do a speedy on a quite distasteful image that a user is suggesting we add to the article --Fredrick day 09:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked.

[57] - and extreme incivility at best. Corvus cornix 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, hope it's static. WHOIS traces the IP to Ontario. Any known public enemies from Ontario? Grandmasterka 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Might want to ask User:Utcursch if he has any ideas. Corvus cornix 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Most probably this is same as 74.117.108.166 (another IP that traces to Toronto, Ontario) -- I had blocked the user for 24 hours. The user had vandalized the same article (Ball). utcursch | talk 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Probable disruptive sock

Japastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created this AfD (which I closed early). The user in question had no other contribs outside of making the AfD, and tagging the page. Any comments as to who? Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't remove the AfD tag from the article. Corvus cornix 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminding me. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers.  :) Corvus cornix 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Juppiter

I don't want to issue a block for a dispute I'm involved in, so I encourage someone else to look into it and block. Here's the story:

• He was blocked on July 3, 2006 for 24 hours for vandalism of User:OrphanBot after receiving a message about an image he had uploaded.
• He was blocked for a week on July 4, 2006 for personal attacks such as this
• Today, he posted this, and I warned him with this
• He came back at me with this

Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• He also moved the OrphanBot page. Seems like he just flipped out. --MichaelLinnear 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he might, just might, be a sockpuppet of banned User:Karmafist. That sort of conduct is totally unacceptable -- uploading inappropriate, and illegal images, is not a "content" dispute. --Haemo 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Karmafist had extensive checkusers run on him in the past. Juppiter is probably just his friend. --MichaelLinnear 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. -- Merope 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by User:Angus Lepper

Resolved

He keeps vandalising the poverty in Pakistan article to push his POV and makes threats against me in his last few edit summaries.Please do something about this troll.-Chowk 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that it is you who are adding POV statements. You continue to add the unreferenced statements: Many in Pakistan have turned to Islamist terrorism and antisemitism because they see the west and the jews as a scapegoat for most of their social and political problems. and it is, correctly, being removed. As Angus Lepper noted on your talk page, please read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. IrishGuy ^talk 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Add WP:AGF to that for good measure.--Atlan (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie copyvios from AOL IPs

Be on the lookout for copyvio plot summaries being added by AOL IPs. I have just reverted a bunch of additions by 172.147.50.92 (talk · contribs) and 172.164.171.148 (talk · contribs) that were just movie reviews from wire services. In the case of the latter IP, the descriptions were added on June 18 and have been sitting there for a week. --BigDT 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dragon panda from the west - Removal of DB-nonsense tag

Dragon panda from the west (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) insists on removing a DB-nonsense tag from a (probably) nonsense article [58]. Has been warned about this [59] & has continued to do so [60]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You gave him a last warning, after which he hasn't made any edits yet. Report him to WP:AIV if he removes the tag again.--Atlan (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry i don't see that as Patent nonsense What I see is a probable hoax, and there are good reasons why merly probable hoaxes, as opposed to admitted or velrly confirmed ones, are not speedy targets. I'm going to remove the tag, replace it with {{hoax}}, and prod it. DES ^(talk) 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

75.117.51.131

This IP address has repeatedly posted unsourced information about "upcoming" virtual console releases. They will not stop, even after a message asking they not to was left. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=75.117.51.131 LN3000 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lamename, that's a violation of WP:3RR. Next time you see that, you should report the offender to WP:AN3RR. The standard remedy is a 24h block for the IP address. Shalom ^Hello 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Looks like a continuation of this behavior. He left a comment on DDima's talk which I found to be a bit agressive (it looked to me like it was directed at DDima). I replied to it on both DDima's talk page and Ghirlandajo's talk page.

A few hours later, I got a message on my talk page accusing me of trolling. I asked Ghirlandajo about it, but didn't get an answer.

It looks to me like a violation of the warning mentioned here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo warned. This user's history of disputes is mentioned here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that a violation of an ArbCom warning has serious consequences. I would suggest a block, but I'm sure administrators know these policies better than I do. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like an extremely petty content dispute that is getting blown out of proportion, and I can't see how this should lead to anyone getting blocked. You've cited an RfC that appears to be largely irrelevant, not an ArbCom case. But what do I know. Grandmasterka 02:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the diffs--thank you for providing them--and see no need for blocks or other actions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You were a bit agressive in your comment (really more of a warning) on Ghirlandajo's talk page... so it's not surprising that he didn't respond super-politely. I personally find his stance on infoboxes to be annoying but whatever... nothing wrong with having an opinion. It doesn't really seem like he's done anything wrong here. --W.marsh 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd rather be safe, that's why I posted it here. Thanks for commenting. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NPAs, reverts, sock/meatpuppetry, pseudoscience continued

Continuing this archived thread, I am really disappointed to see that things are again escalating:

Alexander the great1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka "alexander veliki" in maknews) is now:

• persistently reverting/adding un-encyclopedic information on the previously stated articles, sometimes obviously unlogged.[61] [62],
• also here where he is removing bot html comments for unknown copyright images (among others) and calling people "vandals" for reverting his edits [63] [64], [65] [66]
• spamming across 3 talks some totally unworthy sources as "western references".[67] [68] [69] (commentary on the source here)
• has the firm belief that countries dictate what should be written in history books (or Wikipedia), which leads in absurd claims... See Template talk:History of the Republic of Macedonia for an example (and a laugh -sorry).
• calling people names off-wiki repeatedly [70]
• and soliciting organized reverts (link above)
• and asking for lawyers in their site (having seen our previous ANI thread linked in the beginning of this comment -again the same link as right above)

I just described how my evening was like today. There is really very little I can do to stop what is an apparent case of rampant nationalistic edits ad absurdium. I'm going to bed. NikoSilver 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not persistently reverted anything within a reasonable time period. I have reverted articles twice maximum.

I only reverted the Alexander the Great article twice because it sounded more neutral and once because someone deleted my source.

I did not create the History of Macedonia template

I have not spammed anything. That link was related to the talk pages.

I have nothing to do with the forum you posted

Alexander the great1 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The user "alexander veliki", which btw means "alexander the great" (lit. "ancient alexander") in your language, says otherwise:

He posted on:

• Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:54 am: "They have now banned me from editing articles on Wikipedia because they don’t like the fact that I correct articles." [71] -and-
• Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:55 pm: "They just banned me from Wikipedia for "correcting an article more then 3 times in 24 hours"." [72]

Your block log[73] reads:

• 22:45, June 19, 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Alexander the great1 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (revert-warring continued)
• 16:38, June 18, 2007 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Alexander the great1 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation)

And the log [74] of one of your proven sockpuppets user Balkan balkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reads:

• 16:26, June 23, 2007 Akhilleus (Talk | contribs) blocked "Balkan balkan (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of User:Alexander the great1 used for edit warring)

Which means those "announcements" you made in that site were 17 minutes (in the first case) and 9 hours (in the second) after your received blocks. I fail to see why he would lie about you (or even how he could have a clue about block logs).

The particular user "alexander veliki" made an off-wiki legal threat in that forum (among many other on-wiki and off-wiki violations). That threat was after he was already informed of that policy and looking at the previous AN/Incident (which he linked in that forum as well). His denying of the identity proves that he now understands the gravity of the situation. The full text of the legal threat follows:

Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:42 pm: [75]

"lol, I think we crossed a nerve with the Greek/Bulgarian propagandists on Wikipedia!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Low_lives.22...

It seems that some of them have been spying on us hear at the forum and are outraged that they cannot control what we say as they can on Wikipedia. They have made a list of Macedonians that they want removed from the site for correcting articles. They also seem to believe that Wikipedia has a “policy for off-wiki collaboration and insults” they believe that Wikipedia can control what we say anywhere on the internet! They never cease to amaze me.

They are also upset that “The discussion there continues unobstructed” on Maknews (as if Wikipedia was supposed to due something about their complaints). They are also upset that we want to promote Macedonian academics to moderator status, isn’t that racist? They also seem to be afraid that we might organize “a class-action lawsuit “.

Are there any lawyers on the forum?" [emphasis added]

I see no room for doubt that alexander the great1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the maknews user "alexander veliki" who made those off-wiki legal threats (and other violations, including off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppetry by even posting lists of articles concerned for organized reverts, extensive on-wiki sockpuppetry, off-wiki personal attacks, previous 3RRs, off-wiki POV-fork suggestions, and repeated POV inserts in various articles). NikoSilver 10:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed disturbing. Wikipedians are not expected to recruit supporters on their nation's off-wiki forums in order to promote their all-too-predictable agenda in this project. Such actions fuel incessant revert-warring that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you NikoSilver but Wikipedia’s job is not to police what individuals write on forums on the Internet. Besides the fact the I already stated that I am not connected to the forum you posted, you continue making allegations. I also question your motive for posting your complaint, as I have not broken any Wikipedia rules. What’s more is that in your previous complaint as you alluded to, you singled out all of the Macedonian users that have contributed to a Macedonian article and in affect asked for them to be banned for some top secret “collaboration” that they might be planning. That was a crazy accusation as that has never happened and there is no record of them ever planning to do so. So all of this leads one to believe that you are attempting to silence any user that is Macedonian and contributes to a Macedonian Article. This is quite apparent as one can easily sense the prejudice in the tone of your writing.I really hope that this stops as it goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Alexander the great1 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the criticism, I'll seek to ameliorate myself using your advice. In the meantime, do you care to respond why the guy in that site says "I was blocked" twice right after you were indeed blocked? Why he has essentially the same username? Why he edits in the same articles? ... NikoSilver 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you that I have nothing to do with that forum

Alexander the Great is a popular Macedonain name

Many people edit articles, you and Mr.Neutron edit the same articles

Besides all of this, It is not Wikipedia’s place to monitor forums, as they are not related to Wikimedia Alexander the great1 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not of course police other sites, it polices itself from organized pov-push though. Read the linked policies. You forgot to respond on "Why the guy in that site says "I was blocked" twice right after you were indeed blocked?" NikoSilver 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see any “organized” POV-pushing, people edit articles when they feel the need to fix them. You are again making accusations with no evidence to back them up, which leads one to believe that your accusations are an act of prejudice.

I do not know what the person said on the site, because it does not concern me. Anyone can view user pages and talk pages and see when someone has been blocked.Alexander the great1 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So some other compatriot of yours (who btw shares entirely the same views and discusses there about the same articles) decided to frame you? What would that serve? And how would he find out about your new existence here; or worse about your blocks and those of your proven socks in 17 minutes?? NikoSilver 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole thread and you will find that everyone there shares the same views.

No one decided to frame me because no one said they were me.

Again it is not my concern as to how people know of my “new existence here”, how do you know of my “new existence here”?Alexander the great1 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious omission: Nobody else editing Macedonia-related articles was blocked; apart User:Alexander the great1 and his socks. NikoSilver 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you are so concerned about what someone wrote on some forum as they said that they are myself, and I have never claimed to be anyone on that site. Alexander the great1 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's patently obvious that you're "alexander veliki". I'm really not impressed by your protestations, and your editing record speaks for itself (unfortunately). To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll make this clear to you: if you continue edit warring, POV-pushing, repeatedly reverting articles and generally disrupting Wikipedia, you will be blocked again for a substantial period. It's not acceptable conduct for any contributor, and right now you're not contributing anything of value. I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Five pillars and take note of what it says. -- ChrisO 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To Alexander the great1: Perhaps then we should obtain the IP address of "Alexander Veliki" from Maknews and compare it with your IP here on wikipedia (which we already know by the way). Mr. Neutron 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law. Maknews is a distinguished and principled forum, I really doubt that they would give away information related to the privacy of others. Besides all of this I think you people do not understand that Wikipedia has no business trying to find out what its members may be saying on other forums. Alexander the great1 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law: This is personal attack and a legal threat. Mr. Neutron 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After this last comment, does anybody seriously think there's anything salvageable from this business to keep it going on eternally? NikoSilver 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I made no personal attack, just a suggestion, and I did not make a legal threat I simply informed you of what problems we might run into because I would not like to support illegal activities as you suggested.Alexander the great1 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is apparent there is concentrated prejudiced attempt going on that even promotes illegal methods to reach its goal. Alexander the great1 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You made numerous personal attacks in that site and here, and you made 2 legal threats, one in that site (after having been shown the relevant policy which is proved by you quoting the link to the previous ANI thread that included it) and again one right 2 comments above. You also keep saying "illegal" (what? an IP?), as in you'll do something about it... NikoSilver 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me were I have made any legal threats or personal attacks. I already told you so many times that I have nothing to do with the forum posted. What I said was illegal was to invade the privacy of others and that I would not support it, as Mr.Neutron was promoting such a move. Although I do not know where he was planning on getting that information considering it is not available to the public, it is reasonable to assume he had more sketchy ideas in mind.

Alexander the great1 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to go with it the old fasioned way, explaining the situation through email correspondence with the system administrator, providing appropriate links to content, and stressing the importance of the situation while asking for assistance. By the way, disclosing an IP is not

"illegal" as you think. It is justified in certain circumstances as this one, when there are clear policy violations. Mr. Neutron 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is justified in Government matters, legal matters, not open source websites. Alexander the great1 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not what you posted before Mr.Neutron. And to say that I have made legal threats is absolute ridiculous, lets not get into the whole issue of libel again. I said I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ILLIGAL ACTIVITIES. I never said I would sue anyone. Alexander the great1 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You also said: "They also seem to be afraid that we might organize “a class-action lawsuit “. Are there any lawyers on the forum?". Now you're saying "we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law", and you're shouting "ILLIGAL" [sic] not to mention "libel" again. NikoSilver 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Its funny that you mention libel because Mr.Neutron is much more familiar with using that term then I am (see my user page). Saying “Legal” does not constitute a legal threat. I said that something is punishable under law as many things are, I did not say I was going to sue. That is a miss-representation of what I said. Again I have nothing to do with that forum. I really suggest that you do not start arguing over legal matters as I am most likely more familiar with this field then anyone here. Alexander the great1 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the last pompous sentence is a "suggestion", not a threat either, huh? NikoSilver 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A legal threat is saying “I will sue you”. I never said that. If I was going to sue someone do you think I would bother announcing it for everyone on Wikipedia to see. And yes with the experience that I have I really doubt anyone here is more knowledgeable in the field of law then I am. This is reflected in the posts some people have made. Alexander the great1 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

User:Blnguyen once again started Edit War without discussing before revert the issues of she/he consider, "random videos posted on google and tripod websites and communist lobby groups are not RS."Lustead 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

...Sounds like a very good call. In any case, I'm not sure what you expect us to do. Grandmasterka 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we move it to State terrorism by Sri Lanka to match State terrorism by the United States? Or would that title not be appropriate? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should move it back to State terrorism by Sri Lanka to match State terrorism by the United States, that is the ideal version to explain the "State Terrorism by Fools".Lustead 03:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only it's protected at the version before the revert of User:Blnguyen and she/he should be reminded Wikipedia is not someone's "grandma's property".Lustead 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good call. How about you, you know, actually read what he wrote when he reverted, instead of just blindly reverting back. Riana (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well see WP:RS about proper published materials not random stuff posted on the internet. We've gone through this before. Nobody considers these sources acceptable except a group of single purpose Tamil lobbyists. eg, see [76] where Samir and Ghirlandajo tell you the same thing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Removal_of_RS_sources - We have Y, DakotaKahn, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Nishkid64, Dineshkannambadi, Naveenbm telling you that these are not RS (and you asked for neutral opinions, and you got them). Only FayssalF thought these ethnic lobby groups and random websites are acceptable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Once you go through this[77], you will realise even the neutral editors User:Blueboar and User:SebastianHelm are the same view of Tamilnet meets WP:RS.Lustead 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So those who don't think it is RS don't count? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what we have a lenghthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and User:Blueboar has given the final verdict[78] - Tamilnet meets WP:RS. If you want to by-pass his verdict find some other way in wikipedia to determine whether Tamilnet meets WP:RS or not, than just shouting about others - "So those who don't think it is RS don't count?".Lustead 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss case by case basis and should revert and not the "whole scale revert" - A clear vandalism. Lustead 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who never discussed at all and simply cited vandalism. You are a single topic editor who knows about ANI on your sixth edit and hibernates until an incident comes up and you are back in five minutes.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are interested in my old history how did I manage on my sixth edit at ANI, then you can dig my sandboxes and reveal them to public how you have done it to User:Taprobanus, the case is already going on at this ANI/Incidents just you scroll above.Lustead 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet seems to be ok. But tamilnation, eelamnet, etc are LTTE mouthpieces.Bakaman 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Lusthead. He appears to be an essentially one-purpose account primarily interested in flaring up "Sri Lankan and Indian conflicts"[79]. My policy towards combative one-purpose accounts is strict. I would suggest a community block if he sticks to his disruptive policy of forum shopping and revert warring in the future. Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka ought to be protected until the dispute is resolved. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to be a single purpose account when it comes to sensitive world conflicts where in the real world diplomats, statesmen and politicians failed for decades to resolve them. I think majority of the Administrators are well informed and not fools to do forum shoping here.Lustead 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected for a month, straight off the last protection and back to the edit warring. Naturally, the wrong version was protected. Daniel 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a RfC or an ArbCom case sort out Sri Lanka related issues? It seems that protecting/unprotecting/ANI reporting have never resulted in any consensus. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have content arbitration procedures. People need to talk to each other in order to resolve their content disputes. As long as they are unwilling to talk, the disputed page should remain protected. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that but arbitration procedures can correct the behaviour of users who are unwilling to resolve their disputes. I have no problem in keeping it protected forever but bringing the issue here all the time is disturbing. If no venue can sort this out then obviously it can't be dealt w/ here as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:FayssalF that arbitration procedures can correct the behaviour of users who are unwilling to resolve their disputes. I request User:Daniel and others, the ArbCom case should be initiated immediately.Lustead 14:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

Recently a rash of pseudo-Hindu users have propped up on the map. These users have been masquerading as Hkelkar socks and seem to be assisted (or the same as) some anti-Hindu socks. Here are a list of users that are suspiciously new and way too knowledgeable on wikipolicy and which users to contact for their POV-feuds. These users should be blocked anyways, so I will not take spurious allegations of facilitating meat/socking by sympathizers of User:Rama's Arrow very lightly.Bakaman 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• chowk (talk · contribs) (obvious impersonator of Hkelkar)
• Gr8India (talk · contribs) (impersonator of hkelkar, currently blocked for allegedly being hkelkar)
• 74.101.181.203 (talk · contribs) (Probably related to Siddiqui (talk · contribs))
• The_king_of_swords (talk · contribs) (A probable sock of Kuntan (talk · contribs))
• Shipslucky (talk · contribs) (A probable sock of His excellency (talk · contribs)
• 72.226.197.61 (talk · contribs) (BhaiSaab/His excellency masquerading as Hkelkar)
• 143.111.60.146 (talk · contribs) (sock of Kathanar (talk · contribs))
• Jorodo (talk · contribs) (probable Kuntan (talk · contribs) sock)

This is a large scale impersonation, sock, and vandalism operation. These users are all masquerading as other people or attempting to shed their identities. Something dirtier than Hkelkar is afoot, and Hkelkar stopped socking (at the behest of AMbroodEY (talk · contribs)) several weeks ago.Bakaman 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple. Genuine Kelkarsocks should be blocked under the terms of his ArbComm-issued ban. Ersatz Kelkarsocks should be blocked because they're only here to cause trouble. JFD 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these accounts should be blocked. But see, right now Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is paying for a crime he did not commit. His excellency (talk · contribs) (arbcom on him right now I think) and Kuntan (talk · contribs) are getting away with impersonation. And Hkelkar's ban is reset under false pretenses, meaning he wont be back until next June instead of next May.Bakaman 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the block/ban is indefinite now. I have no opinion on this matter, but merely commenting on an inaccuracy in the above post. —Kurykh 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't be so... ArbCom doesn't allow for indefinite bans. Riana (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind me, I seem to have missed some key discussion somewhere... Riana (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It all depends... on how Kelkar behaves after the one year ban gets over. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kurykh, I was not aware it was indef. The issue now is not about kelkar, but the people impersonating him.Bakaman 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous "linkspam" deletion

Requestion (talk · contribs) has been deleting all "External Links" entries on all pages that link to pages on eserver.org, claiming that these are "linkspam". Alas, these links are typically to original source material and scholarly articles (typically concerning 19th Century American abolitionists) that are exactly what Wikipedia encourages people to use the "External Links" section of a page for. In response to complaints about these overzealous deletions, Requestion does not engage in honest give-and-take, but instead claims that his actions are justified based on discussions "at WPSPAM and COIN" (which may be true for all I know, but they certainly aren't justified by the current Wikipedia external links policy), obliquely threatens to have people who revert his deletions blocked, and leaves unjustified spam warning boilerplate on their talk pages. Requestion has also said, in frustration at these reversions, "I'm going to build a bot that will do the maintenance deletion automatically".

See, for instance, the Slavery in Massachusetts page.

This is harming dozens of Wikipedia pages by removing some very useful content of the sort that is encouraged by current Wikipedia guidelines. It seems difficult to correct using the normal peer editing and discussion of Wikipedia. And it threatens to become a greater problem if Requestion's already overzealous deletions become robotic. For these reasons, I raise this as an incident here. -Moorlock 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a participant in this discussion, so not a neutral bystander, but I agree with Moorlock's summary. Requestion has left unjustified spam warnings and repeatedly failed to respond to substantive comments about the suitability of these links, and has been repeatedly reverting without discussion at numerous pages (e.g. tax resistance). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Per COI and SPAM policies once coordinating linkfarming has been detected, the proper procedure is to remove all the links and then see if the editors on the individual articles who are actually there to edit the article and not there just to promote a site restore them one by one for actual, honest to goodness encyclopedic reasons. A bot in this case would be extremely helpful. DreamGuy 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message to this effect at User talk:Requestion. Chick Bowen 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbellin and User:Moorlock have been blanket reverting my eserver.org spam deletions. This is not a careful and considerate restoration of valuable links. The spam removal has been thoroughly discussed and sanctioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#EServer.org. Next time I'm going to build a bot to handle this maintenance cleanup and avoid all this grief. (Requestion 20:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

That's my understanding of the spam policy as well. The question is what is appropriate behavior once disinterested editors have reviewed the deleted links and concluded that they do belong in the article. Continued threats of blocking, as though any disagreement with Requestion's opinion were equivalent to spamming, would seem not to be it. (There has been no discussion or attempt to communicate about the deletions, other than these threats, despite the numerous requests for clarification on User talk:Requestion.) -- Rbellin|Talk 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And rather than participate in any further discussion of the deletions, Requestion has now left spam warning templates on both my and Moorlock's Talk pages. This seems completely out of line to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Context

The complaints here neglected to mention the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#EServer.org discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on sockpuppetry allegation

Resolved

 – I've reviewed the evidence privately and declined the unblock request--Chaser - T 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a second opinion on a sockpuppetry allegation (in fact, the second allegation made by one editor against another). Briefly, the IP evidence suggests that Willie Peter (talk · contribs) is editing from the same ISP as various suspected socks of Joehazelton and also misspells grammar as "grammer" in the same way. I don't see any other similarities, but a summary of the accuser's evidence is below my long comment here and in the section below (my comment is about the previous sockpuppetry allegation). I would like a second opinion about the new sockpuppetry allegation, the accuser's behavior, and anything else that people are interested to give.--Chaser - T 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that this latest sockpuppetry allegation came from Propol here [80], and Willie Peter (talk · contribs) has already removed it from his talk page, screaming about "harassment" in exactly the same way as suspected socks of Joehazelton always does. Eleemosynary 06:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Luna Santin has banned the sock, indefinitely. --Eleemosynary 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the sock is already blocked -- thank you -- but I still wanted to post this. Please see this edit of another blocked User:Joehazelton sock puppet. Notice, he makes reference to a scarlet letter, as he does with the User:Willie Peter sock too. Also, he attempts to expose the identity of a Wikipedia admin and makes threats. Please watch this user closely, he has made death threats in the past and located people offline. Propol 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Antoni Gaudí

Can some admin please take a look at Antoni Gaudí article?

There's a debate about the infobox and the field "Nationality" among users Maurice27 Xtv and me.

Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that besides the content dispute Maurice has been engaging on gross disruption to prove his point by continuing to tag the article as a hoax when it is blatantly not, then reverting everyone who removes the hoax tag. Content disputes is one thing, incivility and gross disruption and edit warring is another thing. Hence this post on ANI rather than dispute resolution. MartinDK 08:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

"A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real".

Those users have edited the article to add false facts, as shown here:

• [81]
• [82]

If it wasn't for the hoax tag, the article would have remained stating this gentleman was catalonian national, which is false as catalan nationality does not exist. Therefore, if hoax is to define "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real", I believe the tag to be correctly added.

In any case I may be called incivil as I haven't insulted anybody

In any case I may be accused of edit warring as I haven't touched the content of the article for 4 days, limiting myself at arguing my points on the talk page and adding the dispute tags.

--Maurice27 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, Maurice27, I won't cp your derogatory comments here. Let's wait for the admins to read the talk page and they'll judge for themselves.

Then they'll notice your lack of respect and your insults which have brought you to be blocked several times before.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maurice you seem to misunderstand what a hoax is. This person is blatantly real and not a hoax. You are using the wrong tag which is why you are being reverted. Please do not cause further disruption by inserting the hoax tag. As I explained to you it adds the article to the category of possible hoaxes which is disruptive because it wastes the time of those of us who monitor that category. Your incivility does not exactly help either and this article is not the only one where you continue to insert/change information that is apparently against what the majority believes to be true. Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you feel that the majority is wrong then all you have to do is provide reliable sources to support that. Repeatedly adding a hoax tag when told not to do so and why is futile disruption. MartinDK 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin is right, Maurice. The {{hoax}} template is used for articles that are patent nonsense as a whole, not for articles that may contain factual inaccuracies. For those articles, we have the {{disputed}} tag. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27 is a user who, despite making some good edits, has too strong feelings about some facts. This, makes him loose (sometimes) respect to other users and he starts making personal attacks (last example, or just see his rich block log, in fact I already decided once not talking with him anymore until he apologised, but that day never came) in spite of bringing references. His answers to many discussions are simply "this are lies, try again" without justifying himself nor answering the questions. He usually doesn't try to find a consensus solution: his solution is the only possible, and even if everybody agree in a consensus but him, he continues reverting (last 3RR broken) or/and discussing (trolling?), which makes loose much, much time to many other users. Examples can be found in Gaudí, Talk:Catalonia or Talk:Valencian Community talk pages, among others.

I am really sorry for writting in this way about another user, but I think I (we) have lost enough time before reporting his way to contribute.

About Gaudí's nationality, I have already exposed my reasons in the talk page. I think the solution that Aecis is already NPOV and it can be a good solution. If however most of the people thinks different (which until now it is not the case), I will accept it and I won't continue discussing.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Political intollerance of Slovak admin Mr. Kelovy

Resolved

 – There's little we can do about issues on another edition of Wikipedia. Sorry. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to edit biased content of some Slovak pages concerning history of leftist movement and communism, Mr. Kelovy (Slovak admin) blocked me. In our e-mail discussion he turned out to have anti-leftist and anti-communist political view which he enforces on Slovak Wikipedia contents. I assume that bringing own political views into admin work violates philosophy of Wikipedia and therefor I request that Mr. Kelovy would be dismissed from the position of Slovak admin to allow for more open and non-biased Wikipedia contents.

Would you please answer to my complaint to d6@post.sk

Regards

Mato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.213.200.11 (talk • contribs)

I assume you are talking about Kelovy (talk · contribs). He is not an admin here. Any issues on the Slovak Wikipedia should we dealt with on the Slovak Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction there. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating redirects in Wikipedia space to an essay in one's user pages?

I think that User:NewAsmodeus/Harden The Fuck Up, though arguing that authoring personal attacks is sometimes okay (and thus arguing that WP:NPA is wrong), falls within whatever free speech protections that Wikipedia editors have with regard to policy. However, I'm wondering - is it acceptable for the author of the essay to have created a number of redirects in Wikipedia space that point to the essay? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of those don't even make sense. WP: should be used before an abbreviation, not the full name. Like WP:HTFU, WP:HARDEN would make sense, as it is no. And I'd say definitely have the essay itself in the main wikipedia space with an "Essay, not Policy" tag, not in userspace -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything expressly against wikipedia space --> user space redirects in the guidelines on redirects or shortcuts. You could try WP:RFD... What I find immensely interesting though is that in 27 edits, NewAsmodeus (talk · contribs) created a well formatted, linked, essay with correctly licensed images. Makes you wonder what their other account name is and if they got a recent personal attack block.--Isotope23 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, you're right, he's definitely someone's sock puppet. Probably evading a block as well. Definitely violating username policy against Asmodeus (talk · contribs) if they aren't the same person anyway, so block? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Asmodeus hasn't edit since late March, Phoeba. Evilclown93_(talk) 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the user isn't <!--impersonating--> him. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, as WP:U violations go, this one probably wouldn't be acted on if it showed up at WP:UAA. Asmodeus is a pre-existing term, and there's no evidence that User:NewAsmodeus is actually impersonating User:Asmodeus, and the similarity of name can be written off as a coincidence (which is the risk you run when you base your username on an existing word or phrase). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Sceptre7, also an impersonating username of User:Sceptre posting the same essay, already blocked. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the essay and the redirects were deleted, recreated, deleted, etc. I've went ahead and blocked NewAsmodeus (talk · contribs) because of obvious socking with Sceptre7 (talk · contribs). If someone wants to request a checkuser I'd bet there might be a couple other accounts out there with related IPs.--Isotope23 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SmokeyTheCat

This user is continuing to engage in POV pushing that is borderline trolling and vandalism [83] [84], despite warnings. It would be nice if someone with authority could give him another warning that POV pushing is not acceptable. The Evil Spartan 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Juliuscaesar100-44

This user is continuing to upload copyrighted content and claim it as his own. He has once again uploaded Image:Singer Robbie Williams.jpg, which is an exact copy of another copyrighted image that was deleted from http://www.cool-midi.com/robbie-williams-free-midi-28.htm, for which he was warned. Help! The Evil Spartan 15:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor keeps adding unreliable website as proof to push POV

User:Bakasuprman who now faces ArbCom keeps cat tagging and linkspamming Indian articles citing this website as evidence. I would like to know if this site is violating WP:RS or not. The site claims to have been set up by a retired Indian police commissioner KPS Gill and voices his opinions as if they are matters of fact. Apparently, the site seems to have no other supporting evidence for any of their articles. Is this not a conflict of interest? Incidentally, Gill himself was convicted and imprisoned recently. Interestingly, the website lists Communist parties too as terrorists.

[85] [86] [87] [88]

Anwar 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. I am not Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Therefore there is no conflict of interest. The site is quite reliable and has been used by many other users without question. The only problem for anwwar is that an incomprehensibly large number of Muslim groups are listed as terrorists there, and organizations like the Bajrang Dal (which doesnt engage in terrorism and are Hindu nationalist) arent. Many educational institutions regard it as a reliable source.

• Australian National University
• University of Illinois Urbana.....
• The UC system

etc etc. It doesnt voice Gill's opinions, it voices careful and thought-out research by many individuals. Some of the other people: Birbal Sahni has worked with the UN, Bibhu Rutray, Kanchan Laxman and others have all published works in many South Asian journals, etc. It is a reliable source. I would suggest Anwar learn what spamming is and to quit trolling on WP:ANI. Also I would suggest he quit stalking me, since its painfully obvious that's how he found out I was editing the adivasi Cobra Force article.Bakaman 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets

I have been documenting a case of sock/meatpuppets against a user in the sandbox User talk:72.75.70.147/sockpuppets (started before my IP was reset by a power failure), but as 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) they have been posting personal attacks against me on article talk pages (see Talk:Gary Coull and Talk:Jing Ulrich) and the deletion review for an article that I tagged for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 23#CLSA), accusing me of intentionally changing my IP address/username, when both my talk page and others linked to it make it very clear that my DSL connection changes at random intervals (as it did just a few days ago).

OTOH, this edit shows that they have been using both a registered account and an IP account to make their malicious edits against me at the same time ... I have tried to move our discussions into user space, but they (a) have not left any messages on my talk page, and (b) have not responded to messages left on any of their various talk pages.

Throughout this incident, I have tried to maintain Civility, but after their latest attack, I decided that I should probably post something here. —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note asking the user to please discontinue making any attacks or personal remarks. Sometimes, that is enough to defuse a situation. If problems continue please let me know. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, but they have already been warned by myself and others, and I doubt that they will even notice your warning ... given that the content of their continued personal attacks indicates that they have not read any of the messages I have left on article discussion pages or their own (and sockpuppet) user talk pages, e.g., I have explained about my IP changing randomly, but they still accuse me of using multiple IP accounts to circumvent admin blocks and to be a "TROLL," I don't think that they even realize that messages are even being left for them in user space ... except for vandalizing and deleting warnings from user talk pages, all of their communications have been on article discussion pages or the DRV project page. —72.75.85.234 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:YK47 and Formula Rus

A couple of days ago I noticed the creation of four new pages. Formula Rus, 2007 Formula Rus season, Full formula specification, and Winners formula champioship (sic). All four pages were created by User:YK47. All four discuss the same Russian racing series, but the titles are clearly undescriptive and the text within them is, at best, broken English. I attempted to message YK47 to attempt to tell him how to fix things, but there has been no response.

All of the images on the pages, which were all uploaded by User:YK47 claiming that they were his own work, were actually taken from the Formula Rus official website ([89]), including technical drawings, CGI images, and cropped versions of publicity photos. I marked the ones that I could find copies of on the Formula Rus website and marked them for Speedy Delete.

However, today he has decided to upload nearly 50 some odd pictures, again from the Formula Rus website, and has literally turned 2007 Formula Rus season into a gallery for these pictures. Unregistered user 85.21.89.226 has also done some editing to all four pages, and appears to either be YK47 or someone assisting YK47.

Due to his apparent lack of understand of English and the sheer number of pictures uploaded under an incorrect usage claim, I bring this here simply because I think someone higher up needs to help curb this as well as delete the large number of images, since it would create a huge backlog in Speedy Delete. The359 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible he is the administrator of the Formula Rus website and these are indeed his own pictures. -- Petri Krohn 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely, I'd say, even with Good Faith. He uploaded pictures of CGI models of the cars, engines, and other technical drawings claiming they were again his own work. Those were Speedy Deleted by an administrator when I pointed out that the photos were from the Formula Rus website. Unless he is a photographer, 3D modeler, engineer, and website administrator, there's no way every type of file he's uploaded could be his own. The359 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised account

Umm...we may have a rouge admin or compromised account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=140792037&oldid=139821505. Since this is serious, I'm brining it here first. If it happens again, someone should get on the steward channel. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a single incident, so it might just be a mistake. Still, worth keeping an eye on... thanks for the report, R. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And Ryan has reverted it. If only I could do that myself :). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the message at the top of his talk page, he's on vacation right now. So either somebody else is using his home computer while he's gone (a sibling perhaps), or he left his account logged in from a cyber cafe he was using, and somebody else found it. Either way, I'd recommend a warning to him to be more careful with account security, especially as an admin. And perhaps a preventative de-admining until his return from vacation in July/August (though for that I'd wait until we see if it continues to happen, or just the once). --Maelwys 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, though it seems the person I conflicted has the same idea) And my best guess would be a compromised account, because the message on his talk page says he may be editing through WiFi networks and cybercafes. Maybe (s)he forgot to log in.

Account temporarily desysoped by Shanel. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at his/her contributions suggests this might be possible, as the mainpage vandalism occured some two hours after some typical contributions. And I see he's been de-sysopped. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins should be able to force an account to log out, not effecting the actual account. This would help recover accounts where the usurper does not know the password. Until(1 == 2) 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but if he does know the password we've done nothing, and temporary blocks have pretty much the same effect. One day we might have it so anyone on wikiholiday can't edit to prevent this kind of thing, who knows? SGGH ^speak! 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with, AndonicO has regained full control of his account and has been resysopped. Luckily there was no lasting damage. I also changed the title of this section to something more appropriate. Majorly (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a Bad Idea to ever edit with an admin account on a public computer? 201.81.193.237 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (Fvasconcellos (t·c), at an Internet café, checking before I log in :)—will somehow "validate" this comment when I get home)

I apologize for what has happened. Apparently, someone overrided the password on my laptop when I wasn't there (I don't know how exactly, but something to do with pressing shift and typing "administrator" somewhere), and saw that my wikipedia account was logged in (with "Remember me"). He vandalized the Main Page, and then stopped. He does not know either my password to my computer or wikipedia, which are both according to policy (over 20 characters comprised of random letters,—both capital and lower-case—numbers, symbols, and spaces). Even so, I will no longer use "Remember me", as it seems the computer's password can be bypassed. Once again, my deepest apologies for the trouble. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Small Problem two

Resolved

 – Not an appropriate problem for this page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I never really got a answer to my post I'm posting it again,Small Problem we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.Marioman12 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Marioman12 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate problem for this page; what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent stalking

I logged on today to be greeted by a surprising message from Matt57 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. While Matt is usually an edit warrior on Islam-related articles, he has now decided to oppose me in a content dispute on Cuteness. And to my greater surprise, I find he also has decided to oppose (and revert) my edits on a number of articles that he really hasn't frequented. I know it isn't nice to say but I'm inclined to consider this stalking. Aside from the pattern of reverts alone, he has also made comments that suggest this is some sort of dispute against me.

His major edits today so far, in order:

1. [90] "This editor Behnam has given me problems too"
2. [91] - Re-adds the image subject of my content dispute, calling me a vandal at the same time ("Behnam, please dont vandalize this article")
3. [92] - Section titled "Protect articles against POV vandalism" related to the Cuteness content dispute.
4. [93] - Restores a claim at an article that he does actually edit - this one really isn't stalking, though it is definitely warring against me.
5. [94] - Restores an image I removed at Black people, an article he probably has never edited until now. He explains this with the "I mind it, the picture is relevant to the article," which taken with the lack of a talk page case or anything else, seems best described as a "blind revert." He undid my edit awhile back where I "hope nobody minds" [95].
6. [96] - Now follows my edits to Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment with a warning to other editors about my previous edits there.
7. [97] - Asks for the other disputant's email to be enabled. I wonder what that is about...

Some of these edits seem to be blatant stalking, in addition to violations of AGF and perhaps other conduct rules. The key distinction according to WP:HAR is whether or not these edits intend to harass me. If I was really some vandal, spammer, or SPA I wouldn't argue that this is stalking as such users are regularly checked upon. But Matt has called me a vandal here, and has undone a variety of my edits on unrelated pages. He and I have had reasonable content disputes on articles of common interest before - perhaps he is still sore about those. What is certain is that I feel harassed by this.

In any case it may be that I'm taking this wrong, so I'd like others to review the apparent stalking here, and if it does seem that stalking is the case here, please enforce an appropriate remedy to discourage this kind of behavior. Thanks and sorry for the lengthy post. The Behnam 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look... Georgewilliamherbert 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to carry on with the content issues in the meantime. I didn't want to get dragged into edit warring out of frustration over his reverts so I figured I'd bring the matter up here. The Behnam 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this technically violates WP:STALK but seems pretty innocuous so far. I have asked him to explain on his user talk page, and pointed out the policy. We'll see how the discussion goes from here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. Hopefully this will resolve without further incident. The Behnam 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate wasting admin time over small stuff like this but since he raised this issue, I'll jump in. STALK does not apply: "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them". I didnt do that. What am I expected to do? He's removing valid sourced stuff and forcing other editors to give up. This is basically an aggressive and contentious editor if you look at their contribs. You guys tell me what I should do. Here he removed the picture of Knut saying "source does not suppose this". Who here agrees with that? Then he removed the picture a 2nd and a 3rd time until the poor editor who put these pictures in said "I am retiring from this dispute". He accuses me of edit warring? He's been blocked for edit waring 2 times in April. I've had problems with him/her before where he edit-warred and removed relevant information which lead to me making a separate article for Parvin's sister (which was a good result so thats ok). Anyway, you guys tell me if he was wrong to remove Knut's picture and see how that poor editor gave up defending the very valid insertion of that picture there. I consider this matter resolved and am willing to discuss his picture removal issue at the talk page there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, searching through ANI history it seems you have a history of stalking. I think you should WP:AGF, don't violate WP:STALK, and just calm down.--Flamgirlant 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rockstar915

This person believes that the current wording of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is bad because it can be used to justify any arbitrary, consensus-defying edit, so he/she decided to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by applying this interpretation to the policy page itself (in the form of a patently ridiculous edit previously performed by Kim Bruning as a joke). Not yet recognizing Rockstar915's motive, I reverted and posted a polite request on his/her talk page that he/she "please refrain from performing joke edits to policy pages." Rockstar915 once again vandalised the policy page, this time with the edit summary "if your shortsightedness stops you from maintaining or improving wikipedia, close your eyes." He/she then removed my request (with the edit summary "not a joke edit"), but immediately self-reverted and added a similar reply. I once again reverted the vandalism to the policy page and politely requested that Rockstar915 stop. On my talk page, he/she asked whether I'm "afraid of fun." On his/her own talk page, he/she claimed that Tony Sidaway and I were the ones who actually vandalised the policy page. He/she then vandalised the policy page once more.
As the conversation continued, I replied to the post from my talk page by noting that "policy pages exist to assist the project, not for [Rockstar915] to have 'fun,'" and Rockstar915 replied by implying that he/she hadn't used the word "fun" (which obviously isn't true). Having reverted the policy page vandalism yet again, I posted a standard warning message (my first and only use of a template during the exchange). In response to my request for elaboration on the statement regarding Tony and me, Rockstar915 then referenced his/her real objection to the policy (previously explained in great detail at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules) by stating that "this pathetic bullshit nonsense of 'the page is too fat' and reverting back to the 'solid' 'consensus' version is a load of crap. If people really think that this page is supposed to be set in stone, completely unchangeable and untouchable, then they should leave Wikipedia immediately." He/she then called me an "asshole" for using a warning template, but quickly switched to "funny guy" (with edit summary "if it looks like a duck, no need to call it a duck. everyone knows it's one. WP:SPADE.").
Skipping ahead (and feel free to consult the revision history for the intervening messages), I eventually encountered an edit conflict. It turned out that this was because he/she archived the entire discussion earlier in the minute (indirectly referring to me as a "troll" in the edit summary). As I had not yet been able to reply to the questions and comments directed toward me by Rockstar915, I saved my attempted edit anyway. Rockstar915 immediately reverted, deeming my edit "trolling." Please see the discussion that followed.

---

All of the above is merely background information. The remaining problem is that Rockstar915 refuses to allow my last messages from the first thread to be archived. I did so myself, but Rockstar915 reverted (claiming that it was "trollish" of me to edit an archive). In fact, I was using the page for precisely its intended purpose: to archive messages from the discussion. (I wasn't inserting new material that had never been posted on Rockstar915's talk page or altering the existent text in any way.) I performed a dummy edit (the insertion of whitespace) with the summary "Why are you wiki-lawyering about the rules of archiving while deliberately omitting my replies? Are you trying to create the false appearance that I never responded to your questions?". Later in the day, Rockstar915 responded by removing the whitespace. Per the second discussion (linked in bold above), I once again archived the missing posts. Rockstar915 reverted, falsely claiming that "the conversations never took place on [his/her] talk page" and warning that I was "playing with fire." He/she then archived the second thread (again before I'd had an opportunity to reply to his/her latest post). I once again restored the missing messages, noting the fact that they had been posted on Rockstar915's talk page and asking "what, other than misleading readers to believe that I ignored [his/her] questions, [he/she sought] to accomplish." I also posted another message on his/her talk page, noting that it was Rockstar915 who was "changing the contents of the discussion by deliberately omitting my replies from the archive (which is tantamount to altering my words)" and requesting that he/she "please archive the discussion in its entirety or not at all." Rockstar915 removed my message (with the edit summary "actually, you wrote those comments after i had archived it. this is a warning. do not speak to me on my talk page again. well, i guess you can but i'll just revert it." He/she then removed the posts from the archive.
Rockstar915 is arguing that an editor is entitled to prohibit another user from responding to questions/comments explicitly directed toward him/her simply by archiving them before he/she is able to (in this instance, less than a minute before). If the user replies anyway, this is "trolling" and "being obnoxious." The thread remains archived without the newest posts, thereby creating the false appearance that the questions/comments were ignored (and if the user attempts to archive the messages, that's "trolling" too). So if someone posts a message in which he/she rebuts another user's points, he/she can then immediately archive the thread, and the arguments cannot be countered (because doing so is "trolling"). To someone reading the archive, it will appear as though the other party conceded the debate. Heck, the archiving editor could even throw in a statement to that effect (e.g. "If you don't reply, I'll assume that you're acknowledging that I was right and you were wrong."), and there isn't a thing that anyone can do about it.
Obviously, I disagree. Rockstar915 has cited absolutely no logical reason to exclude my posts from the archive, and their inclusion is all that I seek. Editors are under absolutely no obligation to archive talk page threads at all, but they mustn't deliberately distort the ones that they do choose to archive. Just as it's inappropriate to substantially edit another user's messages, it's inappropriate to selectively omit them. —David Levy 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Rockstar's archive 2 with the replies included. To Rockstar: stop violating m:Don't be a dick. To David: this is a 9,000 byte tempest in a teacup. – Steel 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully realize that this is a relatively minor issue, but I always try to be thorough when explaining situations. I don't want to be accused of failing to provide the relevant context. —David Levy 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there's enough info up there to write a book. Oh, and thanks for not notifying me about this, it's not like I matter in this minor dispute. The only thing I'm guilty of is feeding a troll. Oh, and to Steel, thanks for protecting the wrong version, not that I actually care or anything... Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not notifying you?! Wow. I would have, but you demanded that I "not speak to [you] on [your] talk page again." —David Levy 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive info and cute responses! Man, publishing companies would eat you up. Again, I'm not the dick in this argument. Sure, I called David a dick, but I call it how I see it, which doesn't make me one. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cute. I'm completely serious in stating that I would have left a message on your talk page if you hadn't told me not to. I attempted to e-mail you, but your account isn't set up to receive e-mail. How was I supposed to notify you? —David Levy 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(To no-one in particular) Apparently over 2,000 articles need copyediting. Just saying. – Steel 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments are much more important. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on an action of mine, please.

I've redirected User:Ursasapien/Userboxes/antiDIME to Template:User incl due to the polemical nature (which is not allowed) of the userbox (a thinly veiled attack on deletionists, immediatists, mergists, and exclusionists). It's not meta-humour either, the creator is actually using it as an attack. Furthermore, the two users of the template are self-proclaimed inclusionists anyway, thus it is redundant to the much more neutral inclusionist template. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That template does seem uncomfortably combatative. "Inclusionist" means the same thing, but less divisive, so I think it's a good replacement. --Masamage ♫ 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator of the MfD, I don't think you should have personally taken any action. Riana (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other battles. Personally, I dislike userboxen, but I dislike userbox fighting even more. Was it really that bad? Moreschi ^Talk 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

T1 was meant to delete this crap, not shift it into userspace. Will ^(talk) 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "DIMEist" mean? Is this someone's name? --BigDT 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, "deletionist immediatist mergist exlusionist". I might be biased, though, as I am a DIM at any rate. Will ^(talk) 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I didn't make the connection. I don't see how this one is particularly bothersome, particularly not in userspace. --BigDT 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TomitakePrincess (talk · contribs) - again

She's back in business, unfortunately, posting the same links to the same articles. She'd been previously blocked, then unblocked to be given another chance[98]. Now she's threatened to report me for rolling back her links. I was the admin who lifted her autoblock which, unfortunately, revealed an anon account which was blocked previously for doing the exact same thing as before[99]. Anyone care to take a look, as I've been previously involved here? - Alison ☺ 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Final warning has been given. Naconkantari 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now resorting to personal attacks - [100]. I have reported him/her at WP:AIV. I am a completely uninvolved party. Corvus cornix 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attack there...? --OnoremDil 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascist prick isn't a personal attack? Corvus cornix 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the title of the section above that they clearly edited to add their own new section...--OnoremDil 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize, I completely misread that. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 100) I'm not taking that as a personal attack, so it's okay. However, I was not "vandalizing" :) - Alison ☺ 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You are lying, and I won't stand for it. I have made no attempts to readd the link to the Higurashi section. The link I added, I did the things I was told to do. I posted about it on the talk page for the article, where the main contribute to the three articles I wanted to add the link to agreed that it should be kept. I did what the admins here told me to do, so I should not get in trouble for that. And as for Alison, I threatened to report her for deleting my comments on another user's talkpage, which were in no way violating Wiki policy. It is a severe offense to delete another user's comments, isn't it? Alison is quite clearly lying. Check the history for the Higurashi page, if you do not believe me. I have not attempted to readd the link since my ban was lifted.TomitakePrincess 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Evaunit666 did not give approval, and even if he had, his opinion does not trump Wikipedia policy on external links. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume a little good faith here on my part. I was not 'lying' above. Now, try to remain civil, please - Alison ☺ 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing my "deleting [..] comments on another user's talkpage". Can you point that out, please? If I have, I'd like to apologise - Alison ☺ 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Have reblocked the account. Nothing but personal attacks, bad-faithed accusations, and the everpresent spam. We have other things to deal with right now. Riana (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now requesting unblock. Riana (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is obviously not here to contribute; along with being a previously indef-blocked IP account, the sum bulk of their "contributions" have been spamming links to their fansites. They have been wildly and generally abusive to anyone who has had contact with them, and seem to show only the most facile and legalistic regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Haemo 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation, I have denied her unblock request; your block was completely justified, as there's no indication that she's going to cease her incivility and disruption anytime soon. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And now she's editing the unblock request to remove your denial. *sigh* --Haemo 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Her talk page has been protected by another admin, so I think we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can't believe I'm doing this. I've unprotected her talk page to give her one last chance at this, in the interests of fairness. She had been previously editing a closed {{unblock}} so that might have been a mistake on her part. I've asked her to be nice and state her case. One last go, ok? Any more abuse and the prot goes back on - Alison ☺ 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They're still asking for an unblock and still calling you a liar. I don't see any improvement. Corvus cornix 23:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not one wit; it's basically a rewording of their previous unblock request. I don't think they see anything wrong with their actions, or are at all willing to change them. --Haemo 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And you see why I blocked the account the first time around. I wish yall talked it over with me before letting this clusterfuck happen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we just put that link on the spam blacklist and be done with it? I see TomitakePrincess claiming in this edit [101], with a lot of capitals, that someone had agreed to it, but she never even commented on that article's talk at all. The only place I can find she actually did ask about it, here, seems to have resulted in a pretty resounding "no". I see nothing but a spammer here, just a very vocal one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari running amok

Admin Naconkantari had been quite, say, liberal with the delete button as of late and is ignoring others' attempts to approach him about it (see [102] and [103]). One glance at his Talk page reveals that he is leaving a wake of confused users. Some of his deletions are kosher, but he is deleting a number of pages with incorrect deletion reasons or with quite loose interpretations of speedy criteria. Editors who question his deletions are just told to go away to DRV.

This of course started with his 3000+ deletions of fair use images without checking to see if a rationale was provided (see User:TomTheHand/Fair use for the list); perhaps a mistake, but his unwillingness to help clean it up or communicate about it is no mistake. He is now deleting articles in the same slipshod manner, including one today within a minute of when the editor created it, despite the editor's obvious intent to expand the article. Not every editor instantly craps out a perfect article.

I intend to block this user if his behavior continues unabated and undiscussed just to prevent the hours of admin time to clean up his messes. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is related to the fair use image deletions. I have dealt with those separately. The recent deletions are of articles that fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and I will continue to delete articles that fail these criteria. Naconkantari 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't see. But both the image and articles share two common aspects: 1) You are sloppy. Going through and deleting thousands of images without checking for fair use rationales and not removing them from their articles is sloppy. You are also deleting articles for speedy reasons that don't even apply. Also sloppy. Both cases, someone has to clean up after you. 2) You are downright rude to anyone who approaches you about your actions, or you ignore them outright. Unacceptable. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that your example was deleted by another admin almost 45 minutes later because it still met the same speedy criteria? Use dispute resolution if you feel there's an issue; your incivility and threats of blocking are completely unwarranted. Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article later is moot and you know it. The point is that he deleted it instantly and then told the editor to take a hike. Dispute resolution is well under way, I assure you, but I am posting here to gauge support for a block just so I and others and stop playing cleanup. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look I just created the Gayla Earlene page and within 2 minutes it was deleted. Did not give me a chance to return to the article to update it and bring it to a notability place. I asked him to give me a minute and he treated me rudely. If he has the right to remove article that fast, then there would be no articles on Wikipedia! Articles are works in progress. I have created other articles and I have gotten the to notabilty. Whats the guys problem? I think he needs to take a chill and let other editors accomplish what Wikipedia is all about. "Being a community that works together!" Junebug52 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion gives admin the rights to delete crap in less than a minute after creation if they are extremely fast. Also to the person who created this thread, Requests for comment is that way. FunPika 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nacon's doing a fine job. You should be uploading non-free images with rationales; it is policy, after all. It only takes two minutes. Will ^(talk) 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all I do not think my article was "CRAP" and second, if that be the way we are to act as a community, I do not know if I want to be a part of it! Articles are placed by the thousands on here daily. If everyone of them were deleted before the editors could work on them, then there would be no articles! All I asked for was some time to get it up and cited. He did not give me that opportunity. That to me does not seem like a good admin, but someone who has a power issue. Just my opinion, but it's the one that counts! Junebug52 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do all that in ONE edit. FunPika 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)