Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:47, 21 July 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy 96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Wikipedia "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a daily thing. -- azumanga 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the IPs he's used is already restricted from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. Blueboy 96 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to Christian artist Nicole C. Mullen and Kenneth Copeland's daughter and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. Nate 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't know how to perform a range block, but hopefully an admin who does will read this. If not let me know and I can make a quick post to wikien-l. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment:I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), right here. -- azumanga 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it 132 with this new one. Now he's on to using a picture of eggs in a pan and very fuzzy math to insist KETH is on Channel 39, not KHCW, and threatening the life of Juan Gabriel. Why is AT&T not taking this very seriously? Nate 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would take getting Office involved--considering that this guy is putting the Foundation in grave legal danger. By all rights, his Internet access should have been nuked a long time ago. Blueboy 96 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"this guy is putting the Foundation in grave legal danger"[1]. Is this as serious a problem as someone using 'reaction causing' red-colored typeface? "Duke53 | Talk" 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you have to (Support) WAVY 10 02:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history for The Gospel Bill Show and he struck again with a sockpuppet, this time posting images of eggs to a certain daughter of a certain televangelist. (That's what, 133-ish now). The edit, thankfully, has since been reverted. WAVY 10 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My God, it's up to 136. WAVY 10 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

Check out this edit from 68.90.62.217 (talk · contribs) before a current vandalism spree diff—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMBabies (talk · contribs) doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. hbdragon88 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- I suggest putting a freeze on new members with that username, just in case the other Mmbabies entertains any thoughts. -- azumanga 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need, Azumanga ... any users with nicknames similar to him will be hard-blocked on sight, per WP:U. Usernames similar to known vandals are verboten. Blueboy 96 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmbabies (talk · contribs) exists though. Viridae ^Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what he meant. Where in Houston do you buy guts that big? He exposes the WMF to serious legal danger with his threats and has a large chunk of his hometown unable to edit for some stretches, and he wants to be unblocked????? Blueboy 96 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism has continued, albeit on other articles, now that the Houston stations are semi-protected. I plan to start IP range blocks tomorrow, unless there are objections. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got smthg to do w/ User:Mariam83?

Related to the case of User:Mariam83? (See thread above). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. Only thing they have in common is their ISPs are owned by the same company. Blueboy 96 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Mmbabies' targets are generally Houston TV, Gospel Bill and Maniac Mansion; Mariam's (as I see on the first page of that user's rap sheet) is generally African subjects. Also, Mariam plays the race card in her comments (only by first glance), while Mmbabies, shall we say, plays "52 Pick Up" with his targets (read his comments and edits and you'll know what I mean). -- azumanga 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by sock, 68.89.173.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removed by --Onorem Dil 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above comment for yet ANOTHER sock of Mariam83. Wildthing61476 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) giving this reason, which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking.[2] [3] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal.Tesson has shortened the block to 18 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by Pascal.Tesson. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at WP:FUR#13 July 2007 I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. Peace.Lsi john 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. Peace.Lsi john 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... "Attempting to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for attempted murder; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed.

However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. Peace.Lsi john 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to Lsi john in relation to his knowledge of the options available in the blocking drop down box here--VS ^talk 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it is impossible to manually edit or provide your own comment, yes. Peace.Lsi john 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To assist in the closure of this matter and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:
Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [4] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve, thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. Peace.Lsi john 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--VS ^talk 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. Pascal.Tesson 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here:

VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia."[5] I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly:

I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks.
Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts here. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago.
In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know WP:CSD is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate.
I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above.
Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it.

I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, so sorry, but has it occured to you that you were very rude with your template, and any editor can remove any template or manually written message whatsover from their talk page? I'm also somehow missing the part where you have any reason at all to block DreamGuy. Please clarify this. "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the template in terms of the *welcome part* was an error insofar that DreamGuy did not deserve another welcome message - unfortunately made when I used an automatic item made available from my monobook items. However the template message was modified by me to include far more pertinent detail.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Also explained personally at Lsi john's talk page) The BLOCK button automatically provides a drop-down menu in relation to blockable offences - including Attempting to harass other users and is a legitimate blocking offence.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too fail to see where DreamGuy was harassing anyone. Being blunt and harassing are two different things. Also, please be careful about any blocks you do to established editors you may be having a dispute with...post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence before a block is done. Why was the original block for 3 days? Lastly, any block of an established editor, no matter what you may think of them, needs to be posted for other admins to review.--MONGO 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know Mongo from recent posts effecting you personally the continued return of items in a particular way is a method of harassment. I was not having a dispute with DreamGuy (I am still not having one) I was acting against his continued return of a speedy tag against other admins especially after he was informed (and added his own comment) that the matter had gone to WP:FUR. I was only going through day to day processing of category for speedy deletion requests and kept noticing that the image was returning to the list with no further information. I chose 72 hours because he has been blocked in the past, he should have known better, he had committed the actions over several days, he had been posted a message that he should wait the few days for FUR to resolve and 72 hours is a few days but not a week. That said Pascal Tesson's adjustment to 24 hours was not disputed by me in any way.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further questions

As this seems to have been overlooked, I be more clear, as well as adding a few questions I feel have not been satisfactorily addressed:

Why did you block DreamGuy?
DreamGuy was blocked for his continuing lack of civility (in terms of content and edit summary) when returning a speedy delete tag which other admins had removed (and which - despite DG's comment at his final edit summary - can be removed by any user but only requires a (hang-on) from the creator of the article), mumerous times (as a form of harassing and disruptive behaviour), and doing so even after another admin removed it again and put the article up for discussion at WP:FUR
Your comments to Bishonen: "your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy" and "supportive of DreamGuy" read like accusations of cronyism or favoritism, an inherent assumption of bad faith of Bishonen. I suggest you apologise.
My post to this point is frank but not rude nor presumptive - Bishonen is the first to admit that he may be coming across as a *Champion* of DreamGuy. I am agreeing with him and reminding him that the person who he is championing did commit a blockable offence. I say this because what appears to be forgotten by him and some others is that another admin checked through my block and agreed with the action. I do not as you now put it make any accusation against Bishonen. I do however make the point that DreamGuy is not undeserving of some comment as to the inappropriateness of his actions by those that wish to belabour this situation further.
While you state "I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI" and that it would have been "easier" to do so, you are unclear on what you mean. Easier for whom? Do you see any reason other than "ease" for doing so? What does "ease" have to do with this at all?
I have commented earlier also on this point directly to Lsi john - I indicated that his suggestion was helpful and informative. He explains the importance of appearence and perception - read that post it reflects my answer perfectly.
What on earth do you mean by "work to do and I do it" - are you saying you don't have time to investigate a situation, or reply to concerns, because you're too busy? Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify.
Your question here appears surly and again you are putting words into the equation that I do not think nor speak - I will try to attend to your complaint. If you have read through all of this post you will see that I was criticised for going to bed (becoming unavailable) 25 minutes after I blocked DreamGuy. My answer to this part directly followed those points, and specifically that when I am working through wikipedia I work as effectively as possible the time I impart from my otherwise real life time to the tasks at hand. I do investigate issues and reply to concerns - please check through all of my edits and you will see that to be the case. For example as explained above I took several days to deal with this matter. I do not suggest for a moment that others aren't working - and this part of your question is baiting and should require no further response!

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dif?
Dif's [6][7][8][9][10][11]
It appears to me that Bishonen wished to clarify that she was not championing DG in that sense; you are "agreeing" with that which has not been stated.
Yes I agree with your first point here. My point is that her second post reversed that so she did in effect champion DG as if he was not in some error.
If it answered the question satisfactorily I would not be requesting clarification.
I do not understand what further clarification you personally need - I am agreeing with Lsi john.
My utter lack of comprehension appears "surly" to you? I assure you, I am asking for you to clarify your meaning. I have put no words into your mind or mouth, I have asked for clarification for a completely incomprehensible (to me) statement. And now you have accused me of "baiting", and you most certainly owe me an apology.
KC I do not owe you an apology - it does appear surly. Why? Well when you ask this question, Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. you are asking a question that is baiting. I do not now or ever in this process think any less of any other editor and have been at pains to state this. I appreciate that you have the desire to ask further questions but not that you ask questions that simply have no basis in fact expecting an answer that somehow promotes the possibility that I might have been thinking in such a way. Indeed KC you should consider withdrawing that part of your question as an apology to me.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I need to apologise to you for considering your accusation of "baiting" inapropriate? This is beyond absurd! Your rudeness and arrogance is appalling. I have ignored your high-handed dismissal of my questions, your condescending attitude towards Bishonen, your total lack of response to MONGOs post (which I specifically directed you to on your talk page), and have attempted to discuss your actions rationally, despite your interleaving of your comments within my post. I will not ignore your accusation of "baiting" nor your claim that somehow I now owe you an apology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Please provide a dif which actually demonstrates harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down KC - you are blowing this out of all proportion. I have not dismissed your questions (other than the last one which is unfair). Actually I am frank and not condescending towards Bishonen - I like any other editor am entitled to an honest and reasonably verifiable opinion. And I have responded above to Mongo's post and in fact have supported him when he was recently harassed. Finally the dif's above do show harassment in my view and in the view of other admins (including the admin who removed and then reposted my block on DG). If DG's actions do not come up to harassment in your opinion then that is okay with me and no doubt with many other editors. Take care.--VS ^talk 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two points: it appears that KC was asking for clarification. Also how can one derive "irritably sullen and churlish in mood or manner (i.e., surly)" out of the written word? What I see are inferences drawn by both sides, one, the question re Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. seems supported by implication in the original; the others regarding "baiting" and being "surly" are inferences drawn by personal perspective. In any case, move past the inferences and just resolve the issue. Thanks. Jim62sch 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask for clarification. I see no harassment in the difs you gave - I see an editor attempting to have a copyvio deleted. Copyright violations are very serious, and should be pursued with diligence as DreamGuy did, the same as BLP violations should be pursued with diligence. Harassment indicates a target for the harassment - who was being harassed?

You first responded to my 4th question by accusing me of being surly and baiting, which as Jim notes cannot be logically inferred from a request for clarification; when I asked for an apology for your accusations, you stated it was I who owed you one, although you gave no coherent reason that I can discern; now you side-step the whole issue of civility and ABF alltogether and patronizingly tell me to "calm down" - I assure you, I am quite calm - and inform me that my question is "unfair". "Unfair" is not a rationale which I find applicable to one administrator asking another on the administrator's noticeboard to please clarify what the asking admin has clearly stated is incomprehensible to her. I now have yet another question for you, in what possible way is asking for you to clarify your very own statement "unfair"? I'm sorry, but the claim of "unfair" seems nonsensical to me. Please try to be clearer in your communication, so we may comprehend your meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I've been away from the site for a week and so I've missed all this drama and haven't had a chance to catch up on the details. I just want to point out one thing and that is that VirtualSteve is a newbie admin of about two or three weeks. I can guarantee you. Guarantee. With my own bit staked if necessary. That Steve has been acting and speaking in entirely good faith. It's quite possible, even probable, that he has made mistakes here, I honestly don't know, but please guys, we all make mistakes. I made mistakes in my first couple of weeks and I still make them now and I know that every admin and every editor giving Steve a hard time has made plenty of mistakes, too. Please consider whether BITE should and does apply to newbie admins as well as newbie editors. Steve is a good guy and he's doing his best for us, but he is a newbie. Sarah 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my persistance, or that of others, appears to be biting a new admin. I would appreciate an answer to the simple question, "who was DreamGuy harassing?" All the other questions here are about how he has acted to others since the block, they are not about the block. VirtualSteve needs to realize that controversial blocks lead to questions and discussion, and if persisting in trying to get answers for those questions is considered "biting" I submit for your consideration that perhaps he should avoid controversial actions until he is confident and experienced enough that he will be able to give coherent and specific answers to questions about controversial actions without dismissing them, going off-topic, belittling the questioners, or insulting them. I suggest that even if VirtualSteve cannot bring himself, through pride or self-rightousness or a belief that he was in the right, or whatever other reason, to apologise to me for accusing me of "baiting" and calling me "surly" for asking him for clarification, he at least acknowledge that in the opinion of at least one person, this violates civility standards and indeed is hovering close to a personal attack - all for asking him to clarify himself. He may well have been acting in good faith with the block, I have never questioned that - but his responses to questions about the event have not been so pristine. In short, its not ABF about his block, its his treatment of those who ask questions, and his lack of answering those questions, which is the issue here. I really don't see how I can AGF him calling me "surly" and accusing me of "baiting" - the shoe is on the other foot. He is failing to show those who have asked simple questions AGF, and ignored and/or insulted them. Insults when a question is asked rather bypass AGF, because they are in and of themselves ABF. Admins must be capable of discussing their actions with those who might disagree with them with clarity and civility. Are you saying that is optional for new admins? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes KC. You are totally right and i believe VS's already got the message about the block. He only have to understand that admins have to remain calm all the time while accepting positive criticism and learning to work under pressure. Yellow flag raised. But again, everybody learns. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I shared your confidence that VS has "gotten the message" - I don't see anything which acknowledges that VS has "gotten" anything at all out of this. The closest I see to a direct response to any questions or criticisms of the block itself is that "it would have been easier to do so" about posting the block for review. I asked what he meant, and haven't gotten a clear answer. First response was basically "read Lsi john's post" and in the second, he states he doesn't understand my question. I have yet to see a "oh my error, I didn't realize that controversial blocks of long-standing contributors should be posted on AN or ANI for review, I'll be sure to do that in the future" or anything remotely like that. I have not, in fact, seen any clear response to any questions raised at all, so you'll forgive me if I reconfirm that I am still waiting for VS to address the block. If there was harassment, it is unclear to me, and to at least a few others, where the harassment occurred and who was being harassed. I see no discussion on DG's talk page about any perceived harassment prior to the block, the first post I see by VS is pointing here, and was made post-block and post-raising of concerns about the block. If VS feels the block was a 'good block', there is no reason I can see why he cannot explain his rationale. If he now thinks it was a 'bad block' and realizes there was no harassment, or he really shouldn't be blocking people when he's tired, or whatever, he can certainly say so here, (and add a one-second block to DG for the purpose of a block summary apologising for a bad block made in error) and I am certain everyone will understand - as mentioned, he is a newbie admin. But if he does neither, the block situation is still unresolved. Add to the block situation which started this that he has responded as he has to questions and/or criticism, and I am deeply concerned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further response

KillerChihuahua I will try to reach a level of explanation that meets your expectations.
I note again that when you choose to add items into your questions such as "Are you implying others aren't working?", or I "shouldn't be blocking people when [I’m] tired", which I did not at any time give any indication of – that I felt and still feel that you were going beyond what was required and as other have put it, BITING me. However I note that you have asked for an apology because I used frank comment to question your use of this additional commentary and for the sake of reaching peace with you I provide that apology to you now.
In response to your further request for clarity I provide the following. I do so with some trepidation because whilst I do not mean to offend you in any way I wonder if this issue is beyond reaching a satisfactory conclusion? Let's try....

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. In the difs I provided to you previously I showed that DreamGuy continued his pattern of behaviour over many days, and in my view that behaviour was offensive and intimidating. For example:
(a) when his first tag was removed by EvilClown93 (who is a long established editor) DreamGuy replaced it with the comment what is this, some sock? don't remove the notice

(b) despite the fact that speedy templates give a clear instruction that they can be removed by any person (other than the uploading editor) without the use of Hang-On – DreamGuy confronted with removal by long standing administrators of the tag, (and who were acting in relation to its posting at WP:CSD) acted, instead of taking the matter elsewhere, by continuing to return the tag with the instruction (and despite direct request to alter that instruction) for delete being: This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap .... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen. No further information was given and the image did not provide a previous deletion record of the quantity of deletions referred to by DreamGuy, nor did he provide Difs or any other way of assessing this suggestion.

(c) ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag and placed the article at WP:FUR. DreamGuy’s action with no explanation at all was to put the tag up again and again use these words as a direction for administrators to delete the image: This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap .... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen

(d) Four minutes later he decided to attend to WP:FUR and he made a comment there, but then thinking further on his comment he came back 6 minutes later to the image page which he had again tagged and he adjusted some detail within the image description and added the edit summary explaining why the phoney baloney rationalization doesn't meet legal requirements

(e) 2 and a half hours later ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag again and left the following message The issue whether this image can be used consistent with WP:FU is being discussed at WP:FUR#13_July_2007. Please allow that discussion to run its course. He added the edit summary: let's discuss it first, please?

(f) Further to this DreamGuy was posted this notice by ButSeriouslyFolks I know you disagree, but I think the fair use claim on this image warrants discussion. Let's permit the image people to have their say before tagging it again for speedy, ok?

(f) DreamGuy refused to wait, stated so in his return to ButSeriouslyFoks and then again returned to the image – adding another speedy delete tag (which he now finally adjusted to a more civil request) but to attempt to make a point he added the following edit summary: The proper way to respond to a speedy delete notice you don't like is to put a hold on on it, not to erase the speedy tag... and I'm still hoping an admin with half an ounce of sense to show up This was clearly not a true statement by DreamGuy – almost any editor can remove a tag. I can only ask that you check any speedy delete template and you will see this to be the case. The edit summary was also in my view intimidating and harassing - and whilst I appreciate that admins need an even thicker skin; they also deserve civility and when coupled with all of DreamGuy's other edits they added to his intimidatory manner.
Harassment is also described as a violation by an editor of the guideline don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point .
I believed DreamGuy’s pattern of actions in the first instance to be harassing because his comments both in the content of the speedy delete tag and in some of the edit summaries were intimidating. I say this particularly because he chose to call the first editor who removed the tag a “sock”, and his tags always demanded the blocking of the uploader who was pull[ing] this crap.
I believed DreamGuy also was disrupting wikipedia to make a point when ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag – which as I have briefly referred to above details If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice. ButSeriouslyFolks was clearly attempting to fix the situation at FUR. When DreamGuy made comment at FUR and then still chose to return the tag that in my view he committed a point disruption.
I did not (and still do not) believe I had been edit warring with DreamGuy – I have said many times now I do not have anything against DreamGuy personally at all (and still do not). Whilst I understand that it would have been better not to use a canned message (and I have commented elsewhere that this was a monobook tab mistake on my part – meaning that I did not know the *damned* warning was going to also say welcome (it certainly gave no previous indication that it would) and the monobook system does not allow a viewing before it posts) I did add what I believe to be a very polite personal warning (well prior to the block) that said Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing!
KillerChihuahua you have stated I see no discussion on DG's talk page about any perceived harassment prior to the block but with respect I consider the above, given my previous comments about POINT to be, quite frankly a warning that an editor of his reasonably long standing would understand. DreamGuy was in my view harassing a large part of the wikipedia community. Why? Well continuing to add the speedy tag placed it again and again into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; it belittled the process of WP:FUR instigated by another editor; and he was attempting to manipulate the speedy request beyond normal process when he continuously mentioned in the speedy request of what should actually be an WP:AIVmatter, that is a request inclusive of incivility to the uploader in the words used of: the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen it removed any sign of good faith to the uploader.
With respect DreamGuy is not the image judiciary for wikipedia – WP:FUR had every likelihood of developing the situation to a commonly agreed one and it should be noted by all that that process (despite DreamGuy’s continuous efforts to thwart) appears to have now finalised and resulted in an acceptable fair use image.
In relation to the block it was only after DreamGuy returned the final tag – and noting all of the above that I moved to block him. I have already said I did not believe I had been edit-warring with him up to that point, and I certainly had not been edit-warring with him at that point (I had not gone anywhere near the image for 25 hours and only then to remove the speedy tag as a part of my WP:CSD duties). I chose 72 hours because FUR would take a few days to reach some form of conclusion; because DreamGuy had been blocked before; and because DreamGuy showed absolutely no sign of restraint. I did not act whilst tired or without thinking the matter through (shown by the fact that I spent a good deal of time detailing this notice [12] BEFORE I blocked).
Other Admins – as they are absolutely within their rights to do questioned the block. Of course everyone has their own view of these things but (and I have noted this previously at least twice) a more senior admin of whom I personally have high regard – Pascal Tesson reviewed my block and then chose to shorten the block to 24 hours. I did not converse with him in any way so his actions can and should be seen to be totally independent of mine. Interestingly in relation to my comments on DreamGuys behaviour he commented (see above) as follows:
I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters.
Two more final points:
(1)KillerChihuahua you have stated above that "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. This appears to be a follow on from another non-admin's comment that questioned the fact in similar terms. As an admin you should be aware that the BLOCK button automatically provides a drop-down menu in relation to blockable offences - including Attempting to harass other users and is therefore a legitimate blocking offence.
(2)I have been asked again and again to explain why I took the action personally against DreamGuy and not rather post it to this page for another admin to look at. I have responded in what I felt was a correct way. I will try and do so again. Yes it would have been easier for me to post to WP:ANI and allow an other administrator to take the decision. If I felt that I was edit warring with DreamGuy in any way I would have acted in this way but I did not feel that this was the case - my edits consisted only in removal of the speedy tag - which was my duty as part of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion patrol. In my view I had simply warned DreamGuy like I have other editors and then moved to block when the editor did not refrain from the improper behaviour. I understand that that action is viewed by some to be incorrect – and I took on board Lsi John’s comment – considering it informative and helpful (as I noted previously).
What will I do next time in exactly this or a very similar situation? – The answer is most probably come to WP:ANI. That said my task is to protect Wikipedia – and I do so in good faith ALWAYS. I am an editor with nearly 12,000 logged in edits on this project alone - I have never been blocked and I have never had any major issue against my name.
It is sad and unfortunate that some editors do not seem to agree that that could have been the basis for my action – but, that is the joy of working on this project. To those editors who either have seen my edits for Good Faith and have commented, or who have asked me to explain, have listened and then accepted I give you my thanks.
It is also correct to say that DreamGuy is a long standing editor, but he is an editor with previous blocks and a manner that others have described as not being helpful nor polite. Indeed he continues to expand this issue in edits and edit comments in a number of places and in ways that are exaggerated, unfair and untrue.
It is sad and unfortunate that some editors do not seem to agree that his actions were improper – but, again, that is the joy of working on this project. However in all honesty this process (as I have mentioned before) would appear even fairer if those jumping to DreamGuy's defence also took an action that instructed DreamGuy that his behaviour was not helpful. It is not my place to demand that action, I mention it and then I leave it to the conscience of those editors and admins.

I sincerely hope that this final explanation will suffice for your request for further explanation – if it does not then I am at a loss as to what to do next to appease you - and I will move on. I have noted my apology to you above. With respect, I would prefer not to be BITTEN by you again and I would prefer that you acknowledge that some of your comments stretched completely anything I had said previously. If you feel that you can not give that acknowledgment then please go with my blessings of peace and I will try not to upset you in the future. I wish you good editing at whatever other important part of the project you are otherwise pursuing.--VS ^talk 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was both longer and less satisfactory than I'd hoped, as your "apology" is a "non-apology" inasmuch as you indicate you are giving it for being "frank" - for which no apology is necessary, and which indicates you don't consider calling me "surly" or accusing me of "baiting" to be anything but frank, rather than even remotely any kind of insult or damage to my feelings. After reading your very long explanation of harassment, it seems the answer to my question "Who was harassed?" is "a large part of the Wikipedia community" and although I haven't done a head-count, the few people involved in the edit war with DreamGuy hardly constitute a "large part" unless you're using some matrix with which I'm unfamiliar, in which less than 1% is a "large part". All that said, you mention in passing "disruption" which IMO is a reason supported much more strongly by your extensive analysis of the events in question. I do not defend DreamGuy nor have I stated his actions were irreproachable, and he indeed was less than civil and edit warred, as you note above - but none of those things are relevant as they are not given as the reason he was blocked. IMO the block was overboard, your reason given was inaccurate and wrong, but I have no desire to pursue the block issue any further, as I have finally, after much time and effort, received an answer to the question put. For future reference "DreamGuy was edit warring to the point that I considered it disruption" would have been a much shorter and "easier" answer, with which I would have been much happier than the incredibly long and frequently off-topic multi-post answer(s) you have given. As far as the drop-down, it is very poorly written, and does not give a reason to block per WP:BLOCK, and I wonder at the reasoning of the people who wrote it. I myself will not ever use that drop-down, although I use others, because "attempting" to harass is not a blockable offence SFAIK. It seems you prefer "ease" to writing your own messages, which would have avoided the insult of the Welcome, and writing your own block summaries, which would have avoided the issues noted by others and myself about the phrasing. You state that it is "sad" to you that others "don't think DreamGuy was doing anything wrong" - which I have not seen from anyone, so you must be talking about some "others" with whom I am unaquainted. It is far more sad to me that you fail to acknowledge that in taking action against an establised editor, with a block log of whatever length, should be open to community review and that any questions or concerns raised should be met openly and civilly, without accusations of "biting" or other dismissals such as you gave Bishonen for her very well considered and civil constructive criticism. You again miss the point, and I finally understand what you meant by "easier" in saying that you should have posted and allowed another editor to make the block as what would have been "easier". You could have blocked: all that anyone is saying, and I repeat as you seem to have missed it, is that when you make a potentially controversial block you should post it so other admins are informed of the block and your reason. Please do this in the future. I'm guessing your emphasis on "easier" is part and parcel of your using drop downs and canned messages, and I offer as constructive criticism that what is "easier" is frequently not in the best interests of the project. While disagreement is fine, your rudeness and arrogance in discussing this situation is not fine, and your closing comments to me above display a basic confusion between questions and assertions. You state, and indeed tell me I should acknowledge, that I "stretched completely anything I had said". It seems that if I ask "did you mean A"? you see no error with the response "You are wrong! I didn't say A!" - please learn to differentiate between a question and an assertion. You will insult far fewer people, and make more sense if you do not respond so defensively to questions. You instructing me to acknowledge that which is conflating questions with assertions I reject, as your premise is on the face of it an error in understanding on your part. In your closing comments there is also a clear dismissal of me, condescendingly telling me not to "BITE" you again and basically to go away. I am unimpressed with your orders to not BITE, as if you are too unwilling, or immature, or not knowledgeable enough to discuss why you took any administrative actions I submit to you for consideration that you should never have accepted adminship; and should you again make a block or take any administrative actions which I find questionable or require explanation, I will indeed ask questions, as I would any administrator, and I sincerely hope you will have learned some measure of civility and respect for your fellow admins enough to allow you to not evade, or insult, but clearly and simply answer the questions put, and be open to discussion rather than reacting with defensiveness. Had you done so this time, this would already have been over long ago, with less ill-will and hostility on your part, and less time wasted on both our parts. My advice is meant sincerely, and I hope you have learned from this, and that from this rocky beginning you will move forward to become an exemplary and admirable admin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche taking Tecmo's indefinite ban a little too well--attempting to undo everything--comments, edits, etc

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche struck through all of Tecmo's comments on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page. His reasoning was that since Tecmo was now indefinitely banned (community ban), and his comments were no longer relevant. I undid the edit and left him a note about it, reminding him that talk pages were archives of previous conversations. He struck through comments going back two weeks and has made the talk page unreadable, at least for me.

He's done this on the talk pages of Dummy Hoy, Trading card Baseball card, Ichiro Suzuki, Frank Robinson, Mel Off and that's just from a quick look.

He's also going through and undoing a lot of Tecmo's old edits with edit summaries like "Restored ELs deleted by user now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing" [13]. If you look at the link in question, it's obvious that Epeefleche is again wholesale reverting on the basis that Tecmo made the edit. Four of them are called fan sites by the article description--that doesn't even require going to the site to see if it belongs there or not. Just reading the section would tell you that there's something to the removal.

Tecmo was a very distruptive editor--that's why he was indefinitely banned. But a lot of his edits were worthwhile, and using the indefinite ban of a user you lost a content dispute to is not ok. Epeefleche and Tecmo got into a major content dispute over removing ELs while Tecmo was around, and since Epeefleche would never say what his issue was with Tecmo's edits, I eventually got involved as a go between, and after that and a User_talk:Epeefleche#Third_Opinion, Epeefleche stopped, for a short while anyone, reverting Tecmo without explaining why. This isn't a content dispute--it can't be since Epeefleche has refused steadfastly to state what his issue was with Tecmo's cleaning of ELs (besides for the fangraphs, we know that one).

I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but Epeefleche's actions look like, and sound like he's just going through and undoing Tecmo's presence here:

“

Is there any "automatic delete of all edits ever made by person x" function? That would be a good feature for admins, to deter people like Tecmo whose personality traits make it difficult for them to control their sock behavior.

”

[14]

Last time Epeefleche went on a Tecmo reverting spree, he reinserted dead links, vandalism, etc. It appears that much of the same is happening. Tecmo removed a florida marlins mlb EL from the Juan Pierre article "(as he is no longer with the team)". Epeefleche re-inserted that EL on his undoing Tecmo train. His edit summaries are either blank, or refer to Tecmo's ban or sockpuppetry, and none of those are helpful to editors of articles--the content, not the editor is what's supposed to be important.

This has been going on since the end of May and it's ridiculous that's it's going on even after Tecmo's been indefinitely banned. I'm requesting that Epeefleche be told to stop messing up talk pages (his endless notifications of Tecmo's indef ban should be more than adequate) and to undo the ones he's already done. Also, any edits related to Tecmo should provide an edit summary that refers to the content, not the editor. A lot of Epeefleche's edits are good, even one's related to this issue. But there's a clear editor related bias here, and if Epeefleche continues to go through Tecmo's old contributions and revert him, he should provide content related reasons for doing so (not personal reasons)--that means actually looking at the material and going through it. So if Epeefleche sees that Tecmo removed some good ELs, he doesn't put back in dead links, irrelevant links and sites removed for good reason (open wikis, commercial, fan sites, no unqiue content, etc).

I'd attempt to talk to Epeefleche about this myself and work things out, but I don't see a point, considering his recent accusations toward me.

Tecmo is banned, his talk page is protected--I don't know why I'm still seeing grievances about Tecmo this and Tecmo that everywhere. I said on the community sanction noticeboard that nothing would change with Tecmo's ban unless the other editors changed as well. Tecmo is gone--it's really preposterous that he's still the reason behind everything problematic. Miss Mondegreen talk 12:57, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by banned users after they are banned are reverted to enforce the ban, the relevance of a comment has nothing to do with it. Striking comments through, from before the banning at that, with a "no longer relevant" reason seem to serve a whole other purpose. --Van helsing 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van helsing--Thanks. I agree with you that Wiki guidelines state that banned users comments after they are banned are revertable, without regard to may the merits of the edits themselves." I would add that the banned users' user pages (including, presumably, comment they may have made on them) may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. "The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." (emphasis added) As to your reaction to the "no longer relevant" language that Miss M attributed to me, that is not what I said -- what I did say, consistent with the rationale in WP:BAN, was as she subsequently accurately quoted, that the strikethroughs were made "to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing." That accords with the rationale clearly stated by WP:BAN underlies the replacement (not, as here, the softer strikethrough) of comments by a banned user, on his talk page, before he was banned.--Epeefleche 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies--that was Baseball bugs edit summary, not yours. However, considering that you visited every page first to announce his ban and only then to strike through his comments, the strike through was serious overkill, and affected page readability, which was frankly, my main concern. Miss Mondegreen talk 23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by banned users after they are banned? Technically--is that possible? The only striking out of others' comments that I see regularly is during voting--sockpuppets, users with 2 edits--that sort of thing. Miss Mondegreen talk 14:39, July 17 2007 (UTC)

So on the same vein, striking through the comments of convicted Tecmo sockpuppets is also inappropriate? Obviously, there the commenting is inappropriate, but striking it through or deleting it really destroys talk pages as records. Miss Mondegreen talk 20:49, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if a user circumvents his ban through using multiple accounts, or logged out edits, and this isn't found out immediately. Also, sometimes the decision of a ban has been made but not been implemented as a block yet. >Radiant< 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche has a history of hounding and harassing people he disagrees with; this appears to be another symptom of the same. Generally his response to a "please don't do that" is an lengthy answer that based on his reading of some particular policy page, he can do just that, either missing or ignoring the point, and continuing unrelentingly. I'm not sure how to tackle this, but the general point is that just because a user got banned at some point doesn't mean that he never made any worthwhile contributions (if he had, he would have been indefblocked much earlier). >Radiant< 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Epeefleche but I'm getting concerned about what I might find if I look hard enough. From my early dealings with Tecmobowl, he was an editor with good intentions but his combination of extreme boldness and a short fuse made an indefblock almost inevitable. But for the most part, I tended to agree with the actual edits he made and even asked his opinion on content-related matters on an occasion or two. I regret that I was not watching closely enough when the Tecmo pot finally boiled over but I may start looking more closely. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some Admin action on this already? It's been sitting here for hours unresolved. Roll back what everyone here says was an overreaction. ThuranX 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edit warring

There's now edit warring on the talk page of Shoeless Joe Jackson. Epeefleche made the initial edit, and Baseball Bugs has kept reverting everyone who undoes it. I've cited Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (don't edit someone else's comments and talk pages are records) and User:Van helsing cited Wikipedia:Banning policy (it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them), and reverts are still being done with edit summaries like "There is nothing in the policy to support your statements."

Additional, Epeefleche added the following comment to the top of the page, supposedly to deal with my concernt that when someone looks at a comment that's been stuck, they assume that they editor struck their own comment:

**NOTE Regarding Strikeouts Below: All strikeouts below of Tecmobowl's comments have been made by others to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only does this seem to be real piling on, but it also seems really inappropriate that the talk page of an article is prefaced with information about a user. This also has brought the entire talk page to a halt, which doesn't help the article--which has been protected for over a month for an inability to discuss anything related to Tecmo in any way shape or form without losing all sensibilities. Two editors currently are at three reverts (including me, btw), and this is just a recipe for disaster. I'd even take temporary full talk page protection right now--that would be better than attempting to use the talk page as a talk page and a battleground. Miss Mondegreen talk 20:38, July 17 2007 (UTC)

He's banned, but that isn't carte blanche to revert everything he's ever done here; that is just disruptive and vindictive. If he socks and returns his additions can future additions can be reverted per WP:BAN and WP:DENY; but that doesn't apply to previous content. I left a message at Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson with fair warning that future disruption may lead to blocks.--Isotope23 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Admin's Comments Should I presume that it is my unfamiliarity with the history here that gives me the impression that User:Epeefleche is acting in a similar manner which got User:Tecmobowl banned - editing to an individual agenda, removing content on the basis of the source and not its notability, and not engaging in discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Editor's Comments Sure sounds like it to me. This sounds like a ridiculous vendetta, out to thoroughly discredit all of Tecmo's contributions to the project, which is NOT what a ban necessarily represents. As noted above, he had good contribs but a bad persona for the project. That doesn't invalidate all his efforts, and I would like to flat out clearly request that an admin roll back each and every incidence of strikeout as being in and of itself bad faith and incivilty of the gloating sort, and further disruptive to the project by making it unnecessarily hard to read the whole discussion in any section Tecmo contributed to. ThuranX 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche now editing archives

Epeefleche is adding messages like this one to archives (ANI, Community Sanction, etc):

“

Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. In addition, subsequent to his ban a sockpuppet of his was created and banned indefinitely as well.

”

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259 Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10

This is getting seriously out of hand. Can we just declare that he has a COI in re Tecmo and say hands off? The number of edits needing to be undone is mounting--he moves fast. I hate to say this, but this is, in many regards (speed for one) Tecmo-like editing. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:02, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Archives not ongoing discussions and not subject to editorializing. I've undone his edits there. I agree with your suggestion. >Radiant< 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss M Misstatements

Miss M makes certain misstatements above.

First, as background, Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing (after a number of shorter bans, for repeated sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and 3RR). At nearly every step of the way, Miss M defended Tecmo and attacked those who brought his disruptive editing to light, including the admins who banned him. Her behavior appears to be continuing here, even after Tecmo's indefinite ban.

Even after his indefinite ban, Tecmo has come back as a sockpupet, and Miss M had defended the sock. The sock has now been banned as well.

Tecmo left behind his comments on article discussion pages, and user talk pages. Many state his positions as to what Wikipedia policy allows, in an authoritative manner (akin to that struck by Miss M). Others are disruptive comments, in which he engages in conflict with other editors. Another editor, an admin I believe, first struck though some of such comments after his ban. I followed in kind, with a note on the history page that they are comments of an editor who was banned for disruptive editing.

Miss M quarrelled with that approach, fighting for the banned user's comments to remain without strikethroughs. Another user just joined her. They reverted my strikethroughs on a number of such pages. I am referring to Tecmo's comments from before the ban -- but it was of course Tecmo's disruptive comments and actions before the ban that led to Tecmo being banned. I have not reverted/deleted Tecmo's comments. Nor archived them. Simply left them there, with strikethroughs -- and the explanation, so later readers can (de)value his comments appropriately.

WP:Ban does not provide direct guidance. It does provide background to this issue, in that it addresses appropriate treatment of the banned user after the ban. It states that any of such edits "may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."

It also provides support for the "replacement" of the banned user's comments, and those of others, on the banned user's user page. That page, of course, is a talk page that can be anticipated to include comments by the banned user before the ban was put into effect. The rule states: "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." [emphasis added].

The rationale for the strikethroughs is consistent with the above Wiki guidelines -- the purpose being "to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." It is even less draconian, in that strikethroughs allow the reader to still see the banned user's edits. This is a softer approach than the reversion and replacement approaches that the guidelines suggest in the above instances.

Miss M's misstatement that I "would never say what [my] issue was with Tecmo's edits," is so great that it makes it difficult to assume good faith. One need only look at the extensive exhaustive discussion at [15], [16], the mediation page (where the mediator faulted Tecmo's behavior, citing it as the bar to effective mediation),[17], [18], and the Tecmo ban discussion[19] to see this -- as well as Miss M's other misstatements. Happily, the admins did a good job, and each case the bans were applied. It is troubling, however, that Miss M is again blatantly mistating facts in discussions.

Furthermore, as is reflected on those pages, that was not a one on one dispute -- as Miss M suggests. 17 editors were involved in the mediation case. Tecmo was a vociferous party of one who refused to follow the consensus of the vast majority of the number of editors who were involved in those discussions. And Miss M, supporting him and attacking all others who pointed to his disruptive activities, was a proxy of one.

Tecmo deleted 100s of good ELs. Miss M defended him. Tecmo was banned for his disruptive behavior. Miss M does not seem inclined to put back the good ELs that Tecmo deleted.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong in referring to the editor, by the way, as being banned when undoing the edits. Tecmo was always bothered by it, and for some reason Miss M appears to be. As the policy suggests, who the editor is bears upon his edits.

And yes, when Miss M said that her problem with striking through the edits was that other editors might not know why they were stricken, and assume the editor himself struck them (despite my having explained this in the edit summary), I responded to her concern by putting a note on the page indicating why the strikethroughs appear. She now protests that.

I'm puzzled by why Miss M has defended Tecmo and his disruptive edits each step of the way. She has attacked the admins who blocked him. She has attacked those who have reported him. She has misstated the facts. And even now, after all this, she seeks to keep his disruptive statements and edits in place. I don't know why, but I could imagine other more helpful endeavors for her than to act as a proxy might for a user who has been banned indef for disruptive behavior.--Epeefleche 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite an impressive speech. I note that it relates more to the editor who brought attention to your recent edits, however, and not the question in hand. Now, could you please confirm that you have been striking through all content and discussion by an editor (now banned) and why? I searched (and it would have been easier, folks, if somebody had provided the editors full username - Tecmobowl - at some stage) and found the appropriate page, and could find no consensus or even suggestion that Tecmo's other edits and comments should be actioned. Obviously, those specific actions which led to the indef block required resolving, but everything ever contributed by that individual? If there was the relevant wording in the decision, ~~or you could point me to the rule, policy or guideline,~~ advocating or agreeing your action I would be grateful if you could provide the diff(s). LessHeard vanU 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack--sorry about that! You hear him called Tecmo so long and you sorta forget! Miss Mondegreen talk 23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard -- I hear you. To address your first question, I have applied strikethroughs to most (though not all) of the talk page comments of User:Tecmobowl, a user banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. Another editor (an admin) has deleted his talk page, which contained other of the banned user's comments.[20] I believe one or more editors have also struck through or deleted further banned user comments. The banned user has since come back as a sockpuppet, which has in turn been banned indefinitely as well. I have reverted or applied strikethroughs to some of the sockpuppet edits.

There are three types of banned user edits that are at issue here. Post-ban edits, pre-ban edits on the banned user's talk page, and pre-ban edits on other talk pages.

As to post-ban edits, WP:BAN is clear that, as I have done in some instances with the post-ban edits of his sock User:Long levi, those may be RVd. It states that any such edits "may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." (emphasis added). Thus, to use your phraseology, yes -- everything ever contributed by that individual post-ban may be reverted.

As to pre-ban edits on the banned user's talk page, those were also deleted (by an admin), and this is clearly in accordance with WP:BAN. WP:Ban states that "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. (emphasis added) Thus, to use your phraseology again, yes -- everything ever contributed by that individual pre-ban on their talk page may be replaced.

This leaves the last category, pre-ban comments by the banned user on talk pages other than his talk page. I have not deleted any of such comments. I have, however, sought to apply the above policy -- the goal of announcing to editors encountering the banned user's edits -- to some of this class of edits. I have done this by choosing a softer approach than deletions -- that of cross-throughs, with explanatory language to alert the reader to the reason for the cross-through.

Many of these banned user's comments state his positions as to what Wikipedia policy allows, in an authoratative manner, and others are disruptive comments in which he engages in conflict with other editors. Some relate to live issues where people are seeking to determine whether there is a consensus, and he is at odds with the majority of the other editors. I have not reverted/deleted these comments. Nor archived them, as another editor suggested. Simply left them there, with strikethroughs and the explanation, so that the reader can (de)value the edits as the reader feels appropriate. It is a less draconian treatment than that of his edits in the first two categories. And there is no reason to think that his edits on article or other talk pages are more sacrosanct than those on his own talk page.

The rationale stated in the guideline is that there is an interest in alerting readers to the fact that comments by a banned editor. This applies that rationale to another class of his comments, albeit in a softer fashion.--Epeefleche 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response, and the quotes from WP:BAN. My main concern is the first word in most of the quotes; "...may...", rather than "...must..." This indicates to me that there should be an agreed rationale if it is to be applied. Perhaps you could direct me to where this was agreed, or perhaps the admin that blanked the editors talkpage? LessHeard vanU 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I blanked Tecmobowl's talk page just to clear everyone's comments. It was being used for a flame war that got so bad that it had to be protected (by someone else). If anyone wants to restore that ugliness, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Can you confirm if you were a party to any discussion regarding the striking through of all or any of Tecmobowl's other space edits? I have no reason to believe that you were (or that you weren't), I am just trying to see if there was any consensus for Epeefleche's actions in doing so. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Tecmo's ban to pass through edits under the "users expected to refrain" clause? Using WP:BAN to revert edits almost a year old

The section you quoted, title, Enforcement by reverting edits, says the following:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-ban}} to mark such a page.

Perhaps the policy page needs to clarify this, but since this is titled "enforcement by reverting bans" and has made it clear on the two preivous lines that it is talking about edits made after the ban, and makes clear immediately after that that it is talking about post-ban edits, it is seriously twisting the policy to say that you can go back and undo all of those users edits and expect other users to refrain from reinstating them. Such a reading would allow you to speedily delete an article the banned user had created a year ago that is now a featured article.

But I am most curious about this edit. Your edit summary says "Restored ELs deleted by user now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing", which given your editing pattern and Tecmo's, made it sound like you were referring to Tecmo. But I've searched through the edit history going back to September 2006, and can't find any presence of Tecmo, or any sockpuppets, including IP addresses. In that time frame I also cannot find another edit to the section EL--so what on earth is this edit summary referring to? Another banned user who edit EL sections? If so, who? Can you show the link that you were restoring from? Was it a simple mistake? Or were you using Tecmo's ban to pass through edit's of your own uncontested: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users" Miss Mondegreen talk 23:03, July 18 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that Tecmo did remove those links...of course that was back in September 2006 so I think reverting that edit is more than a little rediculous. IrishGuy ^talk 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah--I just searched 500 edits back--it went to mid-September 2006 and that satisfied me--thanks for the link. I'm sorry, this is ridiculous! I can't even believe that this has been managed. That edit is almost a year old--and Tecmo provided a talk page explanation at the time. Miss Mondegreen talk 01:27, July 19 2007 (UTC)

Continuing lack of action

Can we please see some movement on this? There doesn't seem to be anything we're waiting on from Epee, nor do his citations of policy seem to be changing anyone's mind. The longer we wait, the longer Epeefleche has to slash and burn all of Tecmobowl's contributions. I have yet to see any admin action towards a rollback of the slashouts, or towards a block. Is there something I'm not seeing in this complaint regarding this lack of action? Somethign that needs to happen? Or can we get a rollback and warning (or block) for Epee? Thank you. ThuranX 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to be an admin to revert someone elses edit. Anyone can do it. Since this is not vandalilsm, roll back will not be much quicker except in archive pages. Other than that, every edit needs to be checked first. I don't mind starting the process, I'll look over his edits now, but you could help out too. I don't think it's necessary to talk abouta block though. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm as far as I can tell they have all been reverted? Are there any omre to do? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't list that he's reverting Tecmo in every edit. The Juan Pierre one I mentioned in my initial report just has an edit summary of "(→External links)"--meaning no summary, just that he was editing that section. In addition to the dozens where he does mention Tecmo in some manner, he has hundreds in the past few days to EL sections and that's way harder to undo. Even one where he said he was undoing Tecmo's edit--the edit was from September 2006. He's gone way, way back through Tecmo's edits and since he doesn't always say when he's reverting Tecmo, someone basically needs to go through all of his edits and then check to see if he's undoing an edit of Tecmo's--and they need to look back at least a year because we know he got that far back. That's why this is so problematic. Miss Mondegreen talk 09:08, July 19 2007 (UTC)

In that case it will be very difficult for ininvolved admins to sort this mess out. Is he still doing it today? I'm willing to block if he refuses to stop, but if he has stopped then poeple who know which edits are problematic should simply revert him. Note however that removal of external links is no big deal, don't seat the small stuff. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the removal--the addition. Tecmo's big thing was cleaning EL sections--removing dead links, irrelevant stuff, stuff that should be used as references--he generally did a good job. The undoing--sometimes pretty bad--adding links for a team that a baseball player no longer plays for, adding back 17 links to the Dave Matthews article that had been removed almost a year ago! A lot of these edits were discussed on talk pages, etc. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:58, July 19 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find if there was any consensus for Epeefleche's actions. I don't want to inflame the situation by acting with undue haste. At the moment I am of the opinion that Epeefleche is acting in much the same way as got Tecmobowl blocked (acting in accordance to own agenda and not communicating), but since I feel my actions should be preventative rather than punitive I want to be certain of my decision before acting upon it. If any other admin wants to act in the meantime they have my blessing. LessHeard vanU 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tecmo wrinkle

The IP address 75.203.180.191, which is a Verizon Wireless user, and which Tecmo's recent sockpuppet Long levi made a point of saying he is, is attempting to revert some of Epeefleche's actions against Tecmo/Levi's articles and comments. [21] I am reverting his reversions. Baseball Bugs 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, great that's all we need. First, stop doing that.

Second, Baseball Bugs--I'm pretty familiar with this case but I don't sit on baseball articles and Tecmo's tail the way you do. I missed the whole Long Levi deal and I haven't seen this happening. Provide diffs---otherwise it's just accusing someone and even if it's true it requires the person you're reporting to to just track the diffs down and that's a major pain.

This is quite frankly the worst thing that could have happened. What Epeefleche did was a major problem--partially because it was so hard to undo. Quite frankly Tecmo is the person best able to revert him. But he's now put us in an uncomfortable policy position in terms of WP:BAN. Both users are behaving badly here--and Tecmo should have come here and seen that this situation was being taken seriously--he could always have e-mailed one of us a list of reversions we'd missed. At the same time, I understand his hotheadness. He feels he's been treated unfairly in the past by administrators and so trusting administrators to take of the issue would have been hard for him--Epeefleche has gone on Tecmo reverting sprees before and administrators have let him.

Tecmo is banned--and he's going to stay banned unless he accepts the terms of coming back. And there are a lot of editors out there actively looking for his sockpuppets. He'll either get the point and change his behavior and editing pattern and come back with a new account and we won't be able to tell--not a problem really if he fixes the behavioral pattern that got him banned, or he'll accept the terms of the deal and come back that way, or he'll move on to other things in life.

But Epeefleche is currently an editor and still needs to be dealt with. And we shouldn't be reverting Tecmo's edits--if they are in fact his, just to revert back. Ban the IP if possible, but reverting is just making a WP:POINT. We don't decide on what content to keep by who is behaving worse. Let's set the pages back to before this current Epeefleche Tecmo mess and move on.

Also, we have got to bring this incident to WP:BAN. That language needs to be crystal--we want to prevent anyone from even dream of using the policy to support undoing all of an editors past edits. Because that is a surefire way to bring a banned editor back from the grave. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:43, July 19 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you get familiar with the Long Levi situation, which is laid out on User talk:Long levi in detail. Then you'll see why the connection to the 75... IP address is obvious. Baseball Bugs 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an admin ever going to get involved in this? This ridiculous Big Brotherstyle revision of page history is absurd. It's PA level censorship and vandalism, and we've still yet to hear any resolution on the actions of those seeking to remove Tecmobowl's comments. We've heard it shouldn't be one and that part is reverted, but not that all the slashouts and deletions have been restored. Can an admin please look at this?ThuranX 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it please? Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and thus, I can't rollback all of Epeefleche's changes, as you well know. It's already been stated that given the lack of edit summaries, not all EF's changes can be easily identified. Further, none of this gets EF any sort of reprimand for his actions, nor does it establish any precendent. But you alerady know all this, and just don't care. You've made that clear. Thank you. ThuranX 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't have a magical power to revert changes. There is a rollback link that makes reverting large amounts of easy-to-spot vandalism a bit quicker but, as has been made clear, the changes needing rollback are not easy to spot. An admin is not required for reverting. As for the actual striking through, to my knowledge, Epeefleche stopped when asked. A block is not warranted unless he persists. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to figure out what Thuranx's interest is in this specific matter. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Wknight for the concise explanation. As to Baseball Bugs, I watch AN/I. I didnt' realize I had to be an involved party to comment, in fact, AN/I usually asks for uninvolved parties to assist. ThuranX 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, ThuranX, the reason I haven't gone around undoing the edits is twofold. I started on the Shoeless Joe talk page, but my edits didn't hold. Baseball bugs and Epeefleche believe that I have a COI where it comes to Tecmo, as you've seen, they accuse anyone who they see siding with Tecmo of having a particular interest (if my comments were read carefully, people would realize that I rarely sided with Tecmo--but generally sided with policy, or against bad behavior). Epeefleche already attacked me on another article talk page about my "support of Tecmo" and I think it's best for an uninvolved editor to do the actual undoing. Also, practically, I haven't had a lot of computer access in the past few days and don't except to in the next few either. However, about figuring out the more complicated ones, I have a thought (see below). Miss Mondegreen talk 09:04, July 21 2007 (UTC)

If Tecmo is watching

Unless someone is willing to go through all of Epeefleche's recent edits and see if Tecmo has ever edited the same article and if he has, compare their edits, there's no way to figure out the more complicated edits. The ones where the edit summary alludes to Tecmo should be easier, and the other ones, the best that can be done is to check and see if Tecmo edited the article recently. But the easiest and most complete thing to do, get Tecmo's help--OFF WIKI. Because what I said earlier, I stand by. The people equipped to deal with this are editors with endless amounts of time, editors obsessed with Tecmo and Tecmo himself. If Tecmo is watching, I invite him to e-mail me or another editor's he'd be comfortable contacting with a diff list her articles and talk pages where Epeefleche has undone either his edits or comments. Anyone who receives an e-mail from Tecmo with diffs can post them here and they can be taken care of. Miss Mondegreen talk 09:04, July 21 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that is a good idea at all! Tecmo is a banned editor, and such editors should be encouraged to distance themselves from Wikipedia not be drawn back in. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better idea? First, if Tecmo agreed to abide by certain conditions, the banning would be lifed. So we're not encouraging him to move on, just behave better. His storming off and unwillingness to work was not what anyone wanted (I hope), and working with the system has always been encouraged, including for Tecmo even once he was banned. Tecmo was banned because of his behavior--his punishment wasn't to have his wiki-existence wiped, and unless unless an editor is willing to go through all of Epeefleche's contributions and then look at each article extensively, then Epeefleche will have gotten away with this. Besides, what kind of message does it send to editors who were banned because of behavioral issues that if they learn from their mistakes and behave properly it's too late?

Look, we haven't blocked Epeefleche or done anything and he's moving full steam ahead, undoing Tecmo's contributions.

From today:

Undoing edits: [22]

Deleting comments: [23] [24] [25]

Granted, he's now moved on to sockpuppet Long Levi, but going through and systematically undoing things like colour changes is vindictive. And removing Tecmo's comments is problematic for future editors. This wasn't a sockpuppet caught in 30 minutes and dispatched summarily. This makes things a lot harder for users who later want to look at a user's contributions and the effect that they had--especially when a comment is removed from the middle of the conversation.

Look, if we don't accept help (if we even get it), then it's stupid. We're saying because of one user's previous problems we're not going to solve a current one. We do need to think about the message we're sending. And to a lot of people, we're an oddly closed society. The majority of our text comes from accounts with few edits, but we have a bizarre hierarchy and everyone here has a long memory. There's a reason that good editors resort to socks and personal attacks--it's because too often, the system doesn't work. And if we want to teach people tha they can trust the system and be patient and that socks and attacks aren't the way to go, then we have to be flexible and sensible. Refusing/not asking for the help of a banned user because the user is banned and instead leaving a situation unhandled, or partially unhandled--well, that doesn't make sense to me. Miss Mondegreen talk 10:57, July 21 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that, although Epeefleche should not be reverting Tecmobowl's edits with the reasoning that Tecmobowl is banned, he can revert Tecmobowl's edits as though Tecmobowl were still here. What I mean is that Epeefleche can restore external links that Tecmobowl had removed and the like. Wholesale reverting of Epeefleche's main article space edits may not be any more warranted than Epeefleche's reverting of Tecmobowl's. What I wanted reverted on a large scale was wherever Epeefleche struck through Tecmobowl's talk page comments. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's reverting edits made after the ban. This is entirely correct. Editors who have been banned do no get to edit the encylopedia. That is what being banned means. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true too. Sorry, this thread is so endless, I don't even know what edits we're referring to. If Miss Modegreen is still referring to Epeefleche's reverting of Tecmobowl's edits (which I thought she was), then that's what I'm referring to. Anything done by Tecmobowl's socks after the ban time - including talk page comments - are supposed to be reverted on sight per WP:BAN and/or WP:CSD#G5. Now we can end this damn thread already? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Mondegreen (or anyone else) is getting e-mails from Tecmo advising her how to fight his battles for him, that would be a bad thing. Meanwhile, I'm seeing at least two admins here saying it's just fine to delete Levi's comments freely, and to revert any edits of Tecmo or Levi that appear to be unreasonable, as with any edits from anyone. Mondegreen is often several days behind the curve on the status of things. About all I'm doing anymore in connection with Tecmo/Levi is watching for more sockpuppets, like the 75... account that came on a couple of days ago. Baseball Bugs 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Theresa said, the Levi edits - talk page edits included - are all post-ban and should be reverted immediately as a violation of WP:BAN. Same for any other post-ban sock edits determined to be from Tecmobowl as long as Tecmobowl is banned. The pre-ban edits need more care and I think everyone disagrees with reverting/striking out pre-ban talk edits. For instance, the Ten Million (baseball player) article should not be touched simply because Tecmobowl initiated it - that was all done pre-ban. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stillstudying

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

Guys, this happened days ago now, let's forget it and move on - prolonging things is not only a waste of time, but also making the situation worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of attempting to put up with this user now. I believe User:Stillstudying is a sockpuppet of User:Oldwindybear, but I am giving Oldwindybear a chance to respond to the accusation before I bring it here. However, Stillstudying is now being disruptive in his own right. In the above thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block on New England, Stillstudying was irrationally demanding an apology from New England for claiming it wasn't Stillstudying that nominated Oldwindybear for adminship. In the middle of complaining about New England not apologising on User talk:Stillstudying, he then proceeded to vote oppose on an RfA that New England had supported, giving vague concerns about a lack of experience. Stillstudying now has a nice rant on his user talk page claiming how I retaliate at anyone who "dares to speak up against me". I've had about enough of this now, and I need uninvolved admins to help with this situation. --Deskana (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify- I need uninvolved admins to do something about this user before I do something I may later regret out of anger. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an SSP on oldwindybear and Stillstudying in May '06 that never seems to have been addressed once it devolved into a mess. MSJapan 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a checkuser being done? Or was there and I missed it? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana is probably stressed due to reasons that are partially my fault. Yesterday, I asked him to help me deal with my suspicion that Stillstudying is Oldwindybear's sockpuppet. I was (and am) not terribly familiar with the SSP/RFCU process, and don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia this week, so he seems to have tried to pick up the slack. It isn't fair of me to hide behind him, and is probably adding to a large workload. Plus, it makes me out as a bit of a coward.

Please note that this is not a simple Deskana vs. Stillstudying dispute. I will officially file an SSP or RFCU report or something as soon as I get a reasonably long break from work today, and as soon as I can figure out how to do it. Deskana, you need not deal with this anymore, and sorry I dumped it on you. My own suggestion is to temporarily put his RfA comment back (no rush, it closes in the future), close this thread, let him yell at the top of his lungs on his user talk page, and wait for me to get my bearings. --barneca (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm clearly the evil guilty party, I've unstruck Stillstudying's vote from the RfA. No doubt Oldwindybear will agree with Stillstudying, as he always does. For the record, User:DeskanaTest agrees with me. But meatpuppets aren't allowed... or so I thought. --Deskana (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully suggest that given the past history here ([26], [27]), this is not an accusation to be bandied about lightly. Presumably you have some evidence for this beyond the fact that they're both quite upset over what happened with the recent RfA? (It's not like they're the only ones, after all; they just happen to be the most vocal.)

In any case, the better approach here is to try and defuse the situation rather than inflaming it further. Following Stillstudying around and publically striking his comments—in a case where they aren't likely to matter, no less—is rather unhelpful, in my opinion. Kirill 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please close this thread and nip it in the bud? I promise I will file an RFCU before Oldwindybear starts posting this evening. I don't see how this thread helps anything. --barneca (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have advised User:Stillstudying of this thread, as it would appear no-one else has, which I find a bit discourteous. Pedro | Chat 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pedro, and you're right, I'm sorry, wasn't planning on doing this today and am a bit flustered. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all. Pedro | Chat 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Some significant evidence of sock/meatpuppetry can be found but contrib evidence alone is inconclusive. They seem to edit many of the same articles, often ask each other for help, agree with each other and there have been previous concerns raised, very suspicious first edit. Also, both start replies to comments with the sig of the user they are replying to. I would perhaps not consider this evidence as significant as I have if it were not the case that one of the users is an admin who seems to have only a single action so far. To sum up, very concerning but inconclusive and I would support a checkuser being carried out. GDonato (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that both do indeed start replies by using the name of the user they are replying to. However I note the OWB tends (not always but mainly) to use the unadorned signature (i.e. Pedro) whereas SS tends to cut and paste the code of the sig out (I noticed this as he misses the <span> style from the HTML of my sig, resulting in it going large and losing the padding.) So it would seem reasonable, on that at least, that SS ran into the way OWB starts his replies and just thought he'd follow a "convention". Pedro | Chat 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed I have filed a request for check user. It can be found here. I have notified the suspected accounts. barneca (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open question, since this thread isn't going away: Am I supposed to file an SSP now, or wait for the RFCU, or what? --barneca (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, an SSP was opened up previously (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear). It doesn't look like it was really fully investigated, though. -- Merope 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a claim was made he was Pocklington Dan, also. I am sort of bemused by how I got involved in this. I do not approve of Stillstudying's comments, and do not support him in what happened yesterday or today. I support check user if it will resolve this. I do not use sock puppets - my only question echos kirill's, which is, how did I get caught up in this? I cannot see any evidence I am doing anything. (This is my only posting, let the system work! I trook off to go to the Library of Congress to research my Republic of Texas series, and am going, though I will not edit till this is resolved) {sorry! had to change computers, and forgot to sign in!} old windy bear 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to jump in with oil on the fire, but... having examined oldwindybear and Stillstudying's contributions back as far as I can, I can find no overlap at all. Now, I may have missed an edit here or there, but it's extremely odd that two people in the same time zone would never be editing simultaneously. Stillstudying tends to contribute in blocks in the middle of the day (UCT) - and interestingly, contributes primarily on weekdays and rarely on weekends or holidays (e.g. July 4th). A little odd for a grad student, but maybe they like to get outside. Oldwindybear contributes heavily in the evening and on weekends, and occasioanlly states he can't log in because he's at work. A suspicious person would add this up: their contribs never overlap despite living in the same time zone; one contributes on weekdays and the other on weeknights, weekends, and holidays; they follow each other around; Oldwindybear won't log on with his account from work; one logs in from DC and one from suburban Maryland ([28]); they're overly defensive about who nominated whom... there are rational explanations for any of these in isolation. Together they concern me. If these are two accounts, one being used from work and one from home, then checkuser is going to have a tough time. Something doesn't smell right here. Hopefully I'm just being overly paranoid. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy is paranoid too, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Possibly un-checkuserable as noted, however, unless one or the other has slipped up in the past few weeks. Thatcher131 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to give in to my tendency to sarcasm, because innocent people are involved in this. Please do checkuser. It will show that the last year and a half, over 500 edits, I am no one but me. I have concentrated on books and movies. My only involvement with sites used by the bear is where he asked me, such as military history. One thing is clear to me: this situation is intolerable. People are now saying that checkuser won't show the truth. I am leaving wikipedia, today, and this is my last edit. I do ask you do checkuser to show the truth. But I am not going to be harrassed, and I don't want innocent people harassed. Stillstudying 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this, too. To be even more paranoid - on the days when both edit - 17 July, SS edits 79 minutes after OW's last edit. 16 July - 59 minutes. 12/7 - OW edits 81 minutes after SS's last edit. 10/7 - SS edits 64 minutes after OW's last in the morning, OW edits 102 minutes after SS's last in the evening. 29/6 - 85 minutes... etc. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report. This is what I've been trying to organize in coherent form. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

barneca (talk Well Barneca, I looked over your "evidence" and the fact that you say - and I am not convinced, I have not looked at every edit - that SS and I do not edit at the same time is "evidence" we are the same person. I ask in return, what about the pattern of editing? We don't edit the same topics, except where I tried to get him interested in military history, AS I DO FOR MANY EDITORS. (ask Jonas and Ewulp, to name two I did the same thing for!) A detailed look at his contributions show a different style, and different interests, his are primarily movies and books, while mine rarely enter into those areas. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to override check-user by saying it is possible, since we both, admittedly, live in the same metropolitan area, (by our talk pages), to be the same person. To support this, no offense, and to override the fact we had different basic interests, you say since he edited during the day, and I the evening, that we must, epso de facto, be the same person. No offense, but that is CRAZY. Would you like to offer a thought what I had to gain by editing over 500 edits, in different areas, over a year? 66 people, 64 if you discount the two you have identified, thought enough of me to vote me unopposed for admin. You pretty much concede that check-user will not support any charges, so you say to heck with that, if they didn't edit the same time - never mind they were editing different things most of the time - they must be the same person. I am sorry, but that is plain crazy. Finally, I will offer that if anyone contacts Jonashart, he will verify that while SS was arguing with people in wikipedia, I emailed him, telling him no good would come of it, and asking him to post a message asking SS to email me from my profile. Are you also saying then that I was similitaneously emailing Jonas to leave messages for myself while answring them? I am sorry, but you pretty much concede there is NO evidence except we may, if the two talk pages are correct, live within the same general metropolitan area. I am sorry, but that is really stretching it, and as Kirill says, this has become a fishing expedition. I have tried to be patient, but this has gone into the realm of the downright silly. Bluntly, you have not even offered enough real evidence to even warrant check-user, but as you probably know check-user won't show us to be the same, you are now saying, ah-hah, they planned this out, and what evidence is there? Where are the same interests, the same type edits? His shining achievement was a rewrite of The Searchers, the film, and if you study that rewrite, and the peer review, it is totally different from my style of writing. We are supposed to assume good faith, to override it, to go big brother, to quote you, to have compelling evidence. You have NO evidence, except the admitted fact we may live within the same 10 million person metropolitan area! This is sad. old windy bear 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear:
" Confirmed that Stillstudying is the same user as Finishedwithschool. (Not too surprising, given the names.)
Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Other than Jonashart, they're all in the same major metropolitan area."
See Herefor the diff. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool both supported OWB at WP:RFA. That's sock abuse. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also double voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation and consensus stacking here and here and here. And now the little exchange at User talk:Finishedwithschool#Please look at The Searchers is a bit spooky. No wonder Stillstudying apparently left Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that open up the possibility of OWB going to Arbcom. And the argument could be made that OWB is a Meatpuppet. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that line of reasoning. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the arbcom thing: since his RFA was initiated by a sockpuppeteer who commited vote fraud, it could mean his RFA was "not kosher". And OWB and SS could be meatpuppets, or not the same user but two different users acting together. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the RFA, an extra vote doesn't overturn a 66-0-1 RFA.--Chaser - T 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the template {{sockpuppet}} be added to SS and JFS user pages? And what, if any, punishment will SS/JFS be subject too? New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't punish, as we're not sadomasochists. —Kurykh 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't one of them be blocked so this activity doesn't happen? And what about template {{sockpuppet}}? New England ^{(C) (H)} 04:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Stillstudying for 24 hours and Finishedwithschool indefinitely. (Other admins: please adjust the former as appropriate, as I don't usually block in this area.) This isn't punitive. It's more of a warning, but it seems to be standard practice to block for some time.--Chaser - T 04:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like MastCell, Killer Chihuahua and others - and having supported Oldwindybear's successful RfA - I can only concur that on its face this is all very suspicious. The CU result only increases the appearance of impropriety by showing that Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool are the same user, while confirming that all are in the same Metropolitan area - a result totally consistent with the work/home scenario suggested above. I suggest relisting the WP:SSP report and linking it to this thread. I will closely examine the report, as will others. That page needs more attention, anyhow, and we need a method to identify sockpuppets when Checkuser can't or won't give the answer.Proabivouac 06:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make too much of the Metropolitan area thing. I live in the Tampa Bay area which consists of more than two million people - including Wikimedia. I.e., I'm in the same metropolitan area as Jimbo Wales! That doesn't mean that I am Jimbo Wales or that I know Jimbo Wales or anyone else that runs this organization... Let's not get paranoid. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this, and I don’t want to spam multiple pages. Since this is more or less addressed to everyone, I’ll put it on this page and copy on OWB’s talk page; anyone interested will likely have one or the other watch listed.

First, and most important, I truly apologize to the community, including Oldwindybear, for bringing this up before I had all my ducks in a row. I was originally trying to avoid drama, and quietly do just that, but I managed (through a combination of inexperience with the SSP/RFCU process, concern I had put Deskana in a bad position, adrenaline, and run-of-the-mill stupidity, not necessarily in that order), to do exactly the opposite. I dislike wikidrama, and apologize for creating it.

I feel a little like the boy saying that the emperor has no clothes; it really amazes me that what I am saying is not readily apparent to everyone else. A wise person would take this as evidence that they should at least re-evaluate their opinion. I am doing so. But this is not a reason to go along and say that the emperor does, indeed, have a magnificent ermine robe.

OWB says he is vindicated, so he’s happy. I assume he can survive without a direct apology from me for thinking him a puppeteer; he will have to settle for the apology above. At least one sock puppet was uncovered, so there is some tiny silver lining. I also see Deskana is back, which was a concern of mine.

I’m going to delete my draft SSP report from my user space, and do it on my own computer, in word, so it isn’t a magnet for anyone, or possibly interpreted as an attack page. The way I should have in the first place. OWB may want to save the rebuttal he inserted there someplace else; it may come in handy. I’ll db-user that page this evening, when I think he’s had a chance to do that. If anyone wants to handle it on-wiki in some other way, be my guest.

OWB, I had never heard of you before I took a fleeting notice of your RfA, and had no real interest in your editing habits until you exploded and misused your admin tools and piqued my curiosity. Therefore, it is safe to assume we will not cross paths editing the same pages in the future, and will not need to discuss anything. Even when you are acting politely, I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good.

Once more, I’m sorry to everyone for the drama. I’ll leave the spotlight for a while. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca, your behaviour has been sensitive and professional throughout. ElinorD (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat the entire posting I made on my talk page, but I want to apologize for not answering more promptly. As to the metropolitan area thing, I live in Maryland, which is no secret from my posting, and Stillstudying said he lived in Washington DC on his user page. Yes, we are technically in the same metroplex, but that is hundreds of square miles, (the area referred to is from Fredericksburg in Virginia, through DC, and all the way north to the Pennsylvania border!), and nearly 40 miles for me to hit DC proper. For anyone who lives around here, the traffic is truly incredible, and I only wish I could live close enough to work to actually make it in some of the times listed in order to maintain joint accounts. (by the way, I should also say, I do not work in DC, I work in Maryland precisely because I don't want to deal with the traffic! I do to DC primarily when I am doing community research at the wonderful Library of Congress) Having said all that, it appears the community accepts that I did not sock puppet/meat puppet, (or at least most are willing to give me trust I hope years of hard work have earned!). Given that, I feel that we have not fully addressed the conduct issues involved with Stillstudying 's truly nasty editing with Deskana . Kurykh said, and he is absolutely correct, that we do not punish, but we have to maintain civility, and those edits went way beyond what is civil. That needs to be addressed. I learned from my problem with New England, and I am too involved with this situation to address it directly as an admin. So I came here and raised the issue of the enormous incivility, and my feeling it needs to be addressed. New England , I agree with you that I would prefer not to count Stillstudying 's votes for me in my election as an admin. But as to that, you yourself insisted that he did not nominate me, Tom did. And 64 unsockpuppeting people supported it with no opposition. So deleting the improper votes won't change my election. I have apologized to you for my addressing a situation I was involved in, and that mistake is precisly why I came here to raise the issue of what should be done about the enormous incivility, against our most basic rules of wikipedia good faith. old windy bear 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give a quick follow-up, Mastcell extended the block on StillStudying an additional 3 days for his abusive sockpuppetry. New England ^{(C) (H)} 11:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested

Oldwindybear, apologies if this has been addressed, but would you be willing to clarify the nature of your relationship (if any) to the individual posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool?Proabivouac 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac I do not mind at all, I consider it a very reasonable request, given all that has occurred. I do not know the person posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool except through online interaction via wikipedia. Unlike some editors, who communicate with me by email, he/she did not. In the beginning, he first appeared during the Bonnie and Clyde rewrite in April of 2006. He then went mainly to editing in movies and books, where I do not do a lot of editing at all. I attempted to use him occasionally to review my new articles, (that I had written) so as not to overuse Ewulp who I have asked for help in reviewing/rewriting my articles virtually since I first came on board, (and who is still helping me). His/her edit history shows his most recent work was in movie and book rewrites, (which he did ask me to review) with some interaction on one of my new articles in the Texas series. Because of what has occurred, if and when this user returns, I have asked that he/she not review my work, or ask for my assistance. I frankly hope not to have any interaction with the person posting as User:Stillstudying/User:Finishedwithschool again. I hope this clarifies the nature of my relationship with this person. I don't know them, and frankly, don't want to. old windy bear 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have another question: Why did you just the other day write,

"…I do wonder why I am involved with this, since the last time Stillstudying was previously accused of being a sock puppet, he was accused of being Pocklington Dan I am not him, but I also do humbly ask why I was accused this way? I do not take the same tone he does, and I am at a loss – since last time he was accused of being Pocklington Dan – why I am accused this time?…But I really don't understand how my name got involved."[29]

when you knew, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear, that this allegation had been around since Stillstudying's very first edits of last year?Proabivouac 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I did not think about it. It was dismissed as being unfounded, and he was subsequently accused of being Pocklington Dan. Not a word about that came up for over a year. I only know this: as Deskana very wisely advised me, I am not having anything further to do with him, period. If he wants an admin's help, he can ask someone else. I don't want to be involved. old windy bear 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find both User:Barneca/Draft_SSP_report(this version in the history]) and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oldwindybear together quite convincing, still more so in light of the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear. Having independently reviewed a good number of contributions, there is no doubt in my mind that one individual is behind all three usernames. There are other pieces of evidence which have not yet been presented which will make the case even clearer.

No one disputes that you are a valuable editor, and I might be inclined to overlook all this were it not for for this episode - the first and only block of your adminship, and a terrible one, by all accounts - in which the coinvolvement of your sockpuppet is indisputably abusive.Proabivouac 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac my friend, my first concern is always the encyclopedia. I have tried and tried to do my best to reassure you, and anyone else concerned over this sad mess that I am not anyone else, and never used sock puppets or meat puppets. But if I cannot, and the majority of my co-admins share your sentiments, I will quietly resign and go away. Not because I am guilty of anything, I am not. But because it is detracting from the encyclopedia. Is this what you wish me to do, as a group? I simply don't want to waste everyone's time debating this, and frankly, it is not something I want to deal with for years. (I agree, by the way, that my handling of the NE situation was lousy - I am 56, had been up all night ill, and was exhausted. That is not an excuse for poor judgement, but it is the truth. SS's behavior was terrible, and I do not endorse it, period.)old windy bear 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac I have done all I can to assure you I am myself, and no other. That is the simple truth. I am going to go to bed, please forgive me, I have some health issues, and I need to rest. I will check back in the morning, and if this is the will of the community, it needs to be laid to rest. I have done all I can to persude people I am myself and no other. But if you feel, as a group, otherwise, I must go. The project always has to come first! (I didn't want anyone thinking I was not answering if they posted tonight - I simply am exhausted, and need to lay down. I will check this tomorrow.) old windy bear 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else has feelings on this, I would like to know them. I would like to either close this matter, and return to my work, (such as on Council House Fight that I was working on) or if the majority believes this, wrap it up. One way or the other, it needs some sort of resolution. I have done all I can, (in attempting to prove my innocence) and wait on the will of the community. Thanks again. old windy bear 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldwindybear, Barneca, Deskana, MastCell, KillerChihuahua, Thatcher131, EliminatorJR and New England have all expressed misgivings above. I'd also like to clarify that no one has asked you to leave the project. I am certain that I am not alone in respecting your very substantial contributions, and in hoping they continue. Were adminship the same as "respected editor," there would be no issue here. However, I no longer trust you with the tools. There is no need for you to admit guilt. Setting them aside without a fuss - and with your honor intact - will circumvent the need for a fuller presentation of the evidence.Proabivouac 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac My friend, I appreciate your courtesy, but here is my feeling: if I set aside the tools, I am doing the same as admitting I sock puppetted, which I did not. I understand and appreciate that you must do what you feel is right, and so must I. If all of you here feel the same as Proabivouac then I need to resign, period, from the project. I have been very ginger with the tools since the NE incident, (I deleted an article yesterday, but I don't think there was any controversy in it!). I am not trying to give you all a headache, but this needs to be resolved with me either getting the benefit of wikipedia: assume good faith, and continue working, with all of you of course watching to see that the tools are appropriately used, or I need to shut down, and go completely. Personally, I don't want a sock puppeteer doing substantial contributions! The last I heard from Deskana he did not tell me that he felt this way - if he does, and if the others agree, I will quietly go. I have to go to work, but when I come home, if the majority feels this way, I will shut down for the good of the project. I don't honestly believe there can be a halfway solution here. If I stay, I have to stay and function normally, which admitting to wrongdoing without admitting it would certainly not be. Does any of this make sense? I am tired. This has taken an awful toll on me. I am older, and not as well. I wait on the will of the group, which is what we all strive for here, I think. I appreciate your courtesy. old windy bear 09:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arb. unidet Proabivouac, what use will oldwindybear setting aside his tools serve? Surely either he is a puppetmaster of the various identities highlighted (and given the history, blocks, those i.d.'s voting at his RFA etc etc if that is so then the community needs to take firm action and with regret block his account). Alternatively, as per the checkuser, OWB is not a puppetmaster and as his RFA passed unanimously and recently, asking him to set aside the tools because of one ill advised block seems to serve no purpose in helping the community and wikipedia. I can't see your suggested middle of the road approach (although sensetive) is a way forward. For what it's worth I have allways supported OWB and so far my faith in him has not been abused. I trust him with the tools. Simple. Pedro | Chat 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is equally that I am personally keen to avoid laborious procedures if they are avoidable, even if a compromise is not ideal for wikipedia. It should also be emphasized that OWB is a valuable and respected editor, and a result which includes an editing block and/or a communal dress-down may not be ideal.Proabivouac 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac I will add before I go I am not trying to force you all to rehash arguments over and over. If folks truly feel as Proabivouac does, then I truly do need to resign from the project in order to keep my honor. NO good person would stay if they are not trusted. I will abide by the will of the group for the good of the project. old windy bear 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Thanks for your continuing support. I am not trying to put Proabivouac in a hard place. I just see it as you do - either I need to go, period, because sock puppeteers should not be rewriting entire sections of military history as I am preparing to do for the project, or I need to work. I will abide by the majority's feeling. i must sign off now and go to work, but will check back this evening, before beginning any editing. Thanks!old windy bear 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was sockish behavior afoot and the socks have been rooted out and destroyed. Now we're left with one questionable block which OWB admits was ill-advised. Let's WP:AGF and leave him alone now. If a shared multi-million-person major metro area is proof of sockness, then I am a sock of Jimbo Wales, CFIF, Ebyabe, and countless others. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been two reports which didn't refer to CU (which hadn't been done) at all, but only contribs (see User:Barneca/Draft SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear.)Proabivouac 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac I understand your position and respect your comments above regarding OWB's editing quality. But I urge you, as per Wkight94, to assume the faith that this is over and done with, or bring certain and conclusived evidence that OWB is a puppetmaster so that this can be ended without further ado. please, I see nothing but harm to the work as a whole by dragging this out. Cheers and best! Pedro | Chat 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser found no IP-relationship between OWB and the two socks. Since the request for checkuser said none was expected, this is not surprising. The request was based on behavior, and similarity of editing patterns; having looked at them I can see why. At this point there seems to be no interest in taking it any further, so we have to hope there are no further grounds for suspicion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My previous reviews of the contributions of all three accounts were to look for similarities in writing style and editing history; style rather than substance. Having reviewed yesterday the content of OWB’s contributions as well, I agree that it would be a blow to the encyclopedia to lose such a valuable and prolific editor.

I’m not a "co admin", and I know some think I have a horse in this race, but I will for the record say that in this case, I believe we are best served if OWB steps down as an admin, but remains as an editor. At this point, OWB, I think I can safely say that absolutely no one who thinks you are being treated unfairly would see your resignation of adminship as an admission of anything, while those of us who think it best that you are not an admin would be pleased to have you continue to contribute and improve the encyclopedia.

Sometimes, a solution that does not please anyone 100% is still the optimal solution. --barneca (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of him stepping down as an admin? Other than one questionable block and living within the same several hundred square mile of a sockpuppeteer, when has his admin status caused a problem? If there is something else, start an ArbCom case or something. Just berating him here until he gives up and quits altogether is not an appropriate course of action IMHO. Let's wrap this up already. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wknight94. For OWB to remain an admin does no harm and can only add benefit to this encyclopedia. For him to step down brings no benefit to the encyclopedia. I respect your opinion Barneca, I really do, but until OWB goes on a rampage and put's "I AM USER STILLSTUDYING AFTER ALL HA HA HA" across the main page (unlikely I feel) I think it's best he keeps the tools, keeps his head high, and we all stop editing this thread so it can get archived off. Pedro | Chat 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that...

I find it funny that StillStudying was never disciplined for violations of WP:NPA (he was blocked fo an unrelated matter). Here is some nice reading for everyone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (I'll stop at ten for now). You know what's even funnier, OldWindyBear blocked me for violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but for some reason holds people he likes (or liked at the time) to a much lower standard. And lest we forget that OWB intitiated this whole situation by asking SS to give an opinion on TomStar's RFA right here. New England ^{(C) (H)} 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse someone of making personal attacks, can you at least provide diffs that show it? There's nothing in the diffs that you provided that show personal attacks or and incivility for that matter - simply attempts at discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some excerpts from the diffs I provided:

"Let me put this in simple words, that even you can understand"
"Heimstern Läufer DanielIt appears that you both endorse open lying
"I nominated oldwindybear, as anyone who could read would know"
"do not, please, forget the 66 of us who supported you for admin, and let one pathological liar drive the best editor on wikipedia off of it"
"I cannot and will not stay in a place that endorses the kinds of lying involved in this"

If those aren't personal attacks, than what are? Besides OWB blocked me for much less, and therefore is using a double standard when it comes to using his admin powers. New England ^{(C) (H)} 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England I am home early from work, what a surprise, I don't feel well. I have apologized to you for the block. It was wrong. I also asked for disciplinary action for SS's incivility, if you read this page. I disqualified myself from acting on it due to being too closely involved. I have offered to resign in toto from the community if that is what the community feels is best. I will not resign as an admin for one poor decision, taken after I was up sick all night at 56. I would ask a crat to look at this matter, and if they feel I should go, tell me in plain english, and I will wind it up. In the interim, I have some material from my last trip to research to post, in what may be my last posts, so I will go work on the encyclopedia to improve articles until this is decided. old windy bear 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said here (or anywhere else I believe) not to block SS for his incivility. I'm just saying its amusing that he hasn't been blocked for it yet. As for the part about the double standard you seem to be applying, I'm just a little bit curious that you would encourage SS's comments (by asking for his opinion on the matter), then fail to act to stop them (by, I don't know, blocking him--like you did to me). New England ^{(C) (H)} 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Actually, you and I are in complete agreement that his general manner, and especially the entire thread of comments to Deskana and to you, went way over what I consider acceptable. I believe it warrants an additional 72 hour block for the incivility. Wikipedia is a community built on trust, and consensus, and I absolutely agree with you that those comments went way over the line. Why didn't I block him? Because the paramount lesson I learned from mis-blocking you was never act as an admin in a situation I am personally involved in, but come here - and I hope you notice I was the first person to bring up the issue here of the existing block not addressing the terrible incivility. And, for the record, I was at work, where I cannot log in to wikipedia, (there is monitoring of sites we log on to, so while you can read the site with a fair degree of safety, it is not only outside policy to log in to it, it triggers a record of misuse of IT priviledges) when his comments were going on. I did the only thing I could, I emailed someone and asked them to post a note asking him to email me. I was extremely upset by what I was reading, and felt it was awful. I did try to stop it the only way I could. old windy bear 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, OWB, I doubt anyone would object to you blocking StillStudying. New England ^{(C) (H)} 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would. A block made several days after the personal attacks, and made for the purpose of showing that Oldwindybear doesn't condone the attacks, rather than for the purpose of stopping the attacks, would not only be pointless; it would border on being abusive. It's also true that any blocks issued in this case should not be issued by Oldwindybear. I doubt if Stillstudying will be back anyway. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Probably, but I think first, we need to wrap this up - if the community feels my membership is causing problems, I need to go. Period. Not just as an admin, but go. If we are going to accept that I owed you a huge apology, which I have given, and need to be careful to not misuse tools which were entrusted to me, and wrap this thread up, I would ask for consensus on an additional 72 hour block for the gross incivility, and ask the original blocking admin (on SS) to impose it. While you folks decide that, I will edit on the articles I was finishing up in my new Texas/Comanche series, so, if I am working, I can begin rewriting the entire Mongol Expansion Era. By the way, (not to plug my own work, but it is true) if anyone who is interested in Native American history wants a truly tragic and sad story to read, go read my article on the Battle of Pease River. You will it unbelievably sad. old windy bear 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor, I should point out that StillStudying has a history of threatening to leave when accused of violating policy, only to come back. He's been considering leaving the project since his fifteenth edit, in May of 2006. New England ^{(C) (H)} 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think the only rational approach is this: let Oldwindybear alone, and let him go back to editing and adminning without this thread hanging over his head. I think we've all said our piece. At some point in the future, if evidence is assembled by Barneca or others, then a formal WP:SSP case could be opened - but until then, it doesn't make sense for this to drag on endlessly without resolution, and it's not fair to Oldwindybear to have this sort of informal cloud hanging over his head. To Oldwindybear, I know we've all expressed our opinions and this is a difficult issue, but please remember that your encyclopedic contributions are highly valued, and that in the end it's just Wikipedia. Wikistress is inevitable, but I hate to see it get to the point where it's affecting people's real-life health or outlook. Now that we've all said our piece, let's close this thread, let Oldwindybear get back to editing, and if and when evidence is formally assembled, it will be dealt with through the appropriate channels. I don't see further resolution coming through this venue, though. Does that seem like a reasonable approach to preserve everyone's sanity? MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree approximately 1000%. --barneca (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Broken redirect fixes getting reverted

User:Ned Scott has been revering my edits of redirect fixes (leading to my own archive pages) on multiple pages just two minutes after my edits, these were the users first edits today as well (Two examples: [30] [31]). I feel this has crossed into the WP:HA ("The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.") area.

In the past, the same user had revert warred over the deletion of the page user:Cool Cat by recreating it multiple times contradicting the deletion of multiple admins. He has later revert wared over the closure of the MfD of the same page again against multiple admins.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about this so many times, Cat. There's no way to assume good faith at this point, you clearly know that you're not supposed to update talk archives for your minor cosmetic changes. If you choose not to use redirects, and to make it harder for people, that's your own fault, since that was the option given to you. Those first two edits were the highest on my watchlist, and were to pages I already watch and was involved in. Some of your edits just today even changed other people's comments so they didn't call you Cool Cat. Dude, just stop it already. -- Ned Scott 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this user demonstrates that he fails to even follow WP:AGF. His post here comes just 6 minutes after mine. -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(emphases mine): "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The fact that this is a repeated matter, that admins have reverted these same changes, tells us you know what you are doing, you know you were told not to do it, and you continue to do so. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then take the case to WP:DR! How many of the steps have you taken? If you are to the point of "no way to assume good faith", take it to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. I am sure others would agree if I am indeed trying to hurt the project.

I want a logical explanation on how I am hurting wikipedia by making sure links to my archive pages stay intact rather than being redlinks. How is them being redlinks a benefit to the project? Fixing broken links is explicitly allowed and recommended even though Wikipedia:Redirect is a mere guideline.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to make your NOHARM arguments all day long. We gave you the option of making redirects, and you refused it for absurd reasons. You were the one who made those links into redlinks, it's your fault they are redlinks. You do not have a right to delete pages in order to force updates you were told not to do, and that's exactly what you are trying to do. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take orders from "you" -- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Cool cat's insistence on modifying talk page archives been on this page – or one like it – once already? Can someone provide the links if that's the case?

To Cool cat: No one here disputes that you mean well in your contributions to Wikipedia. Your knowledge and technical abilities are highly valued. However, you have a long history of not demonstrating the best judgement or skills in handling disputes. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop making these changes until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I found the previous mess myself. (I can't guarantee this to be an exhaustive list, either.)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

It occurs to me that if your 'fixes' have caused this much drama and inconvenience, you might be best to leave well enough alone. If you want to put the entire Cool cat name behind you and no longer be associated with its poor judgement (which you're in danger of continuing as White cat with these activities) then start over with a new name and a clean slate. This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't wasting so many people's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drama isn't my doing so you should ask that to the people making a drama over trivial edits (such as on here). Please do not blame me for someone elses edits. I particularly do not find any of this entertaining. I want to sort my userspace in peace just like everyone else. I did not change my username to put "Cool Cat name behind". There was no darn cunning intent. I simply wished to change my username. Please do not make up another reason as there is no other. I have made every effort to maintain my ties to my former account. That was the very intention of the entire signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The key question is would you block a user for fixing broken redirects. These are not signature edits. -- Cat ^chi? 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not fixing broken redirects, you were using the lack of redirects as a way to edit past discussions for cosmetic reasons. -- Ned Scott 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links ARE broken redirects. What do you think a broken redirect is? -- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you state that my edits were "cosmetic" implying that they weren't disruptive. So why were you reverting them? -- Cat ^chi? 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, White/Cool cat. While you're not solely responsible for the drama, you're certainly a major contributor to it. Given that this issue has spawned at least four previous AN/I threads, it takes very little common sense to realize that continuing the same behaviour would bring you back into conflict with the other editors involved.

If you simply 'wished to change [your] username', your wish has already been granted. There's no need to go modifying hundreds of archives that contain your old username, and the old links are only broken because you insisted on deleting the redirects at your old userpage. What on earth do you seek to accomplish through these changes that's worth all this trouble? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no need" is not an acceptable reason to mass revert anyones edits. This is something explicitly prohibited. Unless there is a very good reason (vandalism, copyvios, addition of unsourced material, trolling, personal attacks, legal threats, and etc), no edit should be ever reverted. Also these kinds of edits are frequently done: [32]. When a discussion is moved, so should links leading to it. I cannot see a single rationale that would contradict this.

You know this series of discussions is a reminiscent of the kinds of remarks I had when I was complaining about the stalking behavior of Davenbelle and later Moby Dick. I also had lots of ANB/I's similar to the ones I am dealing with now. Surprisingly RickK was ALSO mentioned in them.

My ultimate military objective is to clear my former userspace and I think thats in line with wikipedias key policies. I should not need to explain why am I restructuring my userspace as to be blunt it is no ones business but mine. No one should be standing in my way when I make alterations to my userspace (and fixing links leading to them). Such a thing is unheard of. I will not stop editing my userspace.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that you may (within reason) structure your own userspace however you like. But, that doesn't grant you the right to fiddle with hundreds or thousands of other archived discussions. The fact that the links are broken now is entirely your own fault, due to your insistence on not leaving redirects under your old username. You have yet to provide any explanation for why this much-simpler and much-less-disruptive solution is unacceptable to you. Unless and until you provide a convincing explanation for this, you will continue to see objections and resistance to your massive and unnecessary changes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single person has to explain why they are fixing broken redirects anywhere on wikipedia. This is something actually encouraged. If it isn't disruptive, then it is allowed. So what is being disputed?

The user claims that I am not allowed to {{db-self}} stuff in my userspace (above). I find that to be disturbing for many reasons. I do not believe I am alone with this. Same user also claims that I mean harm to the project with my edits (above). So at least someone is disputing that I "mean well" with my edits.

I have been stalked for a full two years and it had taken me two arbcom cases countless ANB/I posts, RFCs, RFCUs, and ultimately the Sanction Board to resolve that. I consider it very very unfair that people are disputing my ability to handle disputes. I have shown more patience than I should have needed to. I do not want to spend a similar two years with this case. Please do not dismiss my remarks without reviewing them.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're blatantly lying about things I've said and done. Policy and guidelines said we could take your first userpage deletion to MfD, I never said you were not allowed to delete your pages, only the ones where the community wished to contest the deletion. I have no pity for someone who uses the fact that they were stocked to gain sympathy or the upper hand in unrelated debates. You've even accused admins of stalking you when your sig changes were reverted. I never said you mean to harm the project, only that you have given more than enough reason to not assume good faith over this specific issue. You were told to stop, you didn't stop, that's all there is to it. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guidelines didn't said nor will thay say that the deletion of my userspace requires an MfD. Forcing someones own userpsace to go though MfD-consensused delete then even challenge that via a DRV is as m:dicky as one can get.

You have repetitively recreated User:Cool Cat page (people have been blocked for this behavior) and have also repetitively removed the speedy deletion tag from the same page (admins can check the deletion log). You have revert wared the closure of 4 admins on the MfD (1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007, 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007, 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007, 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007)(people have been blocked for this, several people lost admin privileges over this). You reverted over 4 times in both cases violating the 3rr rule twice in a row (you should have been blocked for 24+24=48 hours for this). Both 3rr cases were closed by the same admin who also commented on the deletion discussions, whom himself sated a possible COI. You have even added a weird notice (possible WP:POINT block) on the page after the DRV. Which had to be reverted twice since you reinstated it a second time. You later placed it to the talk page which was also reverted.

I have taken steps of WP:DR (ex: 3rd opinion), you have not.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, from WP:USER: ''If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page."

And the only reason I made the MfD and DRV a big deal was to avoid what you are doing now. Had a simple redirect been saved you wouldn't be able to waste our time like this. You are deleting redirects to justify changes that you were told not to do. You are even changing people's comments, not just your own. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its my userpage, dude! Whats your problem? There are nine and a half million other pages you could be working on. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, "others may request undeletion" doesn't mean you get to recreate the page multiple times. -- Cat ^chi? 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool/White Cat managed to drive User:RickK away, and now he's working on doing the same thing with Ned Scott. Corvus cornix 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, everybody is responsible for themselves. I had minimal interaction with that person in question. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

White cat, its entirely ridiculous to attempt to fix all of those links for your signature. "White cat" is already in the history of the articles, not Cool cat, people aren't stupid, we can figure it out. And if you honestly wanted a clean slate and chance to start over, go ahead and do it, fix broken redirects in the article namespace, find something productive to do, and stop worrying about it. — Moe ε 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps get a new name to boot and start with zero edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want a clean start. I find any suggestion insulting, if people cant assume good faith, thats their problem. I simply want to clear my former userspace. There is nothing ridiculous about it. Fixing broken redirects are edits people do all the time. It is ridiculous that I have to put up with this. I find it shocking that no one is AGAIN commenting at all on Ned Scott's behaviour. -- Cat ^chi? 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is how you fix a broken redirect. Less work for all involved, less drama on the admin board. >Radiant< 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To avert further drama, I've fixed all relevant redirects I could find in the simplest way: by redirecting the old title to the new title. That is what redirects are for, and that is why editing archive pages is not necessary. HAND. >Radiant< 13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I deleted two redirects at the user's request that were no longer used: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/08 and User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/09, the only links there were from my talk page, white cat's talk page, and jlatondre's talk page, all discussing the page itself, not the target of the redirect. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more drama

[33] Cool Cat has made it clear that he doesn't care that his edits are generating drama, and that he will continue with everything the way he has been doing it unless taken to ArbCom. That reaction is telling. I suggest that by knowingly and willingly generating needless drama, he is being disruptive, and that we simply block him if he persists in his disruption. >Radiant< 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd strongly recommend avoiding ArbCom, at least until something's been proposed on community sanction, but this has been going on too long and there are too many people involved for a simple resolution. If he continues edit-warring over speedy tags, policy supports a block:

There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:

reverts done by a user within his or her own user space,...

Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.

Further, disruption is certainly clear, the number of topics on this noticeboard alone and the time taken by arguments and by the constant revert warring could be better spent. I wouldn't do it unilaterally, but if White_Cat continues edit warring, even in his own or former userspace, I would support a block. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that users are not entitled to three reverts, and persistent reversion is strongly discouraged. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR CLEARLY does not apply to a users own userspace. It is very m:dicky to harras someone in their own userspace.

I will not continue reverting simply because ST47 KINDLY asked on IRC, not because of policy. I find his remark here to be contradictory in nature with that. If I disrupt my userpsace, that shouldn't be anyones problem but mine.

There is someone (User:Ned Scott) committing the behaviour explained in WP:HA and no one is willing to even discuss it. Why are people so keen on looking the other way of his edits and constantly focus on attacking me, I wonder.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go to sanction board. Propose that I be prohibited to edit my userspace or fix redirects as people are recommended to. If that nonsense sticks any where there is no reason for me (or anyone) to continue with this project. -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When will we actually going to think of reviewing Ned Scott's contribution? -- Cat ^chi? 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I still don't see what exactly about White Cat's editing of his userspace and related other pages is so bad that it has prompted all this drama, revert warring and blocking threats. Could someone present the situation in a nutshell? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My primary complaint is that he's editing archives and revert warring over them. There's been constant revert warring, and I feel that it's stemmed from a rather childish dispute - making demands without backing them up any further than 'I'm doing it because I want to'. I was talking to white_cat once and he mentioned that a guideline I was quoting was irrelevant because it wasn't policy, which is plain wrong: we don't write these guidelines because we're bored at work one day, and if you're going to violate them, you'd better have a reason, and all I've heard was completely circular: White_Cat wants to delete his old userpage because he wants to (a redirect), and then he wants to edit all of his past sigs because they link to a page that doesn't exist. Now, I've heard that he wants his entire userspace deleted - including talk pages, which CSD doesn't apply to - with no better reason than that people can't 'troll' him unless he has a userspace. If he wants to disassociate with 'Cool_Cat' completely, then it would have been easier for everyone to just make a new account, but if you're being trolled that badly, then it should have come to this noticeboard beforehand. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is officially pointless

I don't know why White Cat wants to fix all the broken links to Cool Cat when he could make Cool Cat a redirect instead. However, I don't care. Unless someone wants to make it official policy that users who change their name must redirect their own user pages, then there is nothing wrong with White Cat editing archived discussions, as long as he does not make misleading content changes. I see no reason for Ned Scott to object, and indeed have never seen a credible objection by anyone (including admins) to White Cat's edits except, "that's not how we usually do things." Therefore I find White Cat's complaint that Ned Scott is stalking him to be credible, and I will have no problem blocking Ned Scott if this persists. Thatcher131 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: usually, I just lurk around these parts, but I have to say I agree with a lot (maybe not all) of what Thatcher writes above. I've seen this show up multiple times on this board, but I've have not yet grasped what the cat person is doing that is so offensive it has to be reverted. Archives should normally be left alone, but is changing the name (tedious though it may be. . .) making nonsnense of other editor's replies? Or obfuscating discussions? Do people think he's doing more than changing his name? It seems like a waste of time to me, but it's ?cat's time to waste and I still don't understand why other editors waste their time worrying about it. R. Baley 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, once an archive is created, it should remain untouched with the exception of removing libel or other harmful material. One of the problems here is that White Cat never presented a reason for editing all these archives. Changing old signatures doesn't come anywhere near a compelling reason. If White Cat doesn't wish to have a redirect to Cool Cat, that's fine. If no one objects to his signature changes, that's also fine. But continuing to push the issue after it's crystal clear that it's causing drama with many users in many venues is unacceptable. I don't doubt that Ned Scott is contributing to this particular problem, but it seems rather clear that White Cat has brought this stress upon himself. Chaz ^Beckett 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I expect you would be shocked at the number of archives that have been edited, blanked or even deleted to protect the privacy of a certain banned user whose right to vanish is supported by Jimbo. Assuming no one is actively trying to drive White Cat away, I see no reason not to allow him a lesser degree of latitude. Thatcher131 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually aware of such edits, but this isn't a similar situation. White Cat is still editing (his claim to have left notwithstanding) and he had made no mention of vanishing when he began editing archives weeks ago. Chaz ^Beckett 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, Cool Cat's edits triggered my watch list, and you say I'm stalking him? The community says, don't make these changes, and these are on community talk pages. It doesn't have to be written in official policy, it just has to be a consensus. If I see him screwing around with archives needlessly, I will revert him. What he is doing is inappropriate, and just because I don't let him have his way because he's throwing a fit does not make me the one in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are people (plural) trying to drive White Cat away. They had been successful. -- Cat ^chi? 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to drive you away. This is just another example of Cat throwing a fit to try to get his way over a trivial matter. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No trivial matter involves reverts. -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username, where it says Be aware: This change will not effect signatures you have already left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with ~~~~. Those pages will continue to display your signature (including the link to your old username) unless edited manually. Unless this policy is changed to actively prohibit editing old sigs, then I see no reason to sanction White Cat for doing so. Thatcher131 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the past discussions on this matter. Reason is given, and he needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the past discussions, and the reaction is decidedly mixed, with an awful lot of the opposition coming from just two users. Thatcher131 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like White Cat is prepared to leave Wikipedia over this issue. (See User talk:White Cat and User talk:Tony Sidaway.) White Cat's insistence on changing his signatures in the archives is idiosyncratic at best, but I still think it would have been easy enough to leave him and his changes alone. Newyorkbrad 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Cat's own words. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Has anyone listed this at WP:LAME yet? It was playing silly buggers with my watchlist a while ago (Star Trek AfDs mostly). Either side here could simply decide that whatever advantage he gains by "winning" is offset multiple times over by the amount of disruption it is causing. So, who's going to show some common sense? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still believe Cat is going about this in a very inefficient manner, for the love of all that is Wiki stop reverting him. I have not once on any of these ANI threads seen what I feel is a compelling reason to revert him. He's not just changing his signature, he's effectively usurping all of his old discussion posts, and wants the old username forgotton (the name only, he still leaves a link to his old block log on his userpage). Unusual? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Are his actions directly harming Wikipedia? No. Just because one or another policy allows you to revert his sig changes, or undelete his userpage, doesn't mean that you should. I think it's time for everyone to step back, breath, and start ignoring the rules. Given links to Cool Cat's block log and contribs on White Cat's userpage, his sig changes aren't inhibiting anyone from finding out who posted them. He has given a reason for doing this, I have yet to see someone give a real reason to revert him, beyond vague "disruption" or causing drama or "he's been told not to." Again, just because you're allowed to revert him, doesn't mean you should. The reverters are as guilty in generating this drama as White Cat himself. Someguy1221 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Someguy1221 and Thatcher131. White Cat was doing something fairly pointless but not harmful and those reverting him, rather than ignoring his harmless edits, aren't helping. There is a little evidence that one of the editors, namely User:Ned Scott, showed an unhealthy interest in him on commons, where White Cat is an administrator.

The status of the case at present is that he has decided to leave Wikipedia, and in accordance with his wishes many of his user pages and talk archives have been deleted. All of the interactions on his user talk page are still present in his talk page history--going back to February, 2005. I hope he will still change his mind. If he does, I would like to see a change of behavior from those who have harassed him to the point of wanting to leave this project. In short, I want them all to leave him alone. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what? Where have I showed an unhealthy interest in him on Commons? I stated a concern about him becoming an admin a long while back, considering he has failed every single request for adminship in the past with strong opposition. But even with that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. A total of six edits were spent on the matter for two days. So don't bullshit about stuff like that. Seriously Tony, your judgement lately has been lacking.

No one has harassed Cat in this issue. His bizarre overreaction is his own. And isn't this like the 7th time he's left Wikipedia? One of the times he threw a fit, started vandalizing articles because no one would block him at his request, and he even MfD'ed WP:CIVIL. His reactions are abnormal, and unreasonable, and faulting those related to the reactions is judging them completely unfairly.

Plus, if any of you even think about blocking me for reverting his talk page archive edits, you might want to talk to User:Cyde and User:Centrx, who were and are reverting the same edits. Oh wise and powerful admins of AN/I, way to fucking go for over looking that one, and trying to pin it all on me. This is a minor issue, I've done nothing wrong, and Cat just overreacted, plain and simple. We've seen this happen way to often for you guys to ignore these facts now. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my position. This is not over simple trivial edits but because of the constant harassment I receive from a few users - and the community apathy towards the situation. I dealt with something like this during the entire 2 year User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir dispute. I WILL NOT experience that again, either help me or shoot me. After that was finally over, this started.

For the past 2+ months I have been dealing with nonsense after another for the changes I make within my userspace - something I feel no one sane should have problems with. I have tried multiple attempts to resolve the issue, they were all shot down.

I first tried modifying my sigs, a courtesy given to our most notorious vandals (who write vandalism software). I was denied that as Ned Scott, Centrx reverted them. Centrx continued to revert them for months in a slow pace. Some people raised objections that the precondition for such signature alterations was me actually leaving. Even evidence pages of vandals are deleted when they decide to "leave" not by anybody but by Jimbo personally.
I then gotten my former userpage deleted (not the talk page), Ned Scott repetitively recreated it contradicting multiple admins (check deletion log of User:Cool Cat page). He then forced the issue to an MfD. He has revert wared on the MfD contradicting at least 4 closures by 4 different admins ([34], [35], [36], [37]). He then taken the issue to DRV. He mass msged the DRV to random people, that was one random example I just noticed. And after that he placed that strange message to the MfD reinterpreting the closure of the DRV. He was reverted. Then he reverted and reinstated the weird msg once more. He was re-reverted and he made no further reverts. 5 minutes later he semi apologized [38] [39]. He later placed the same msg to the talk page of the MfD. Which was also reverted.
After giving things time to cool down I tried getting unused (0-5 links per page max) redirects on my former userspace deleted. I was also denied that basic courtesy as Ned Scott reverted them just two minutes after I made them. It isn't really courtesy, more like edits no one would care about had they not been reverted senselessly. When he was asked why he is doing what he is doing he simply responded by removing the question with the edit summary "so tired of your bullshit, tony"

Off course none of the above can in any way be interpreted as disruption. It is perfectly acceptable and encouraged behaviour.

Whenever I brought up the conduct by Ned Scott or others concerning my trivial edits and their reverts on them, I have been told to "back down" on each of these cases either through public or private channels. Why should anyone need to back down from trivial edits, I wonder... In order to prevent needless discussion I have done so for the most part.

This isn't drama at all - at least thats not my intention. If I am getting mass reverted for making seemingly trivial edits (not just by one special user but by multiple users) and everyone is fine with that, the logical conclusion is that I am a threat to the project... If my value to the project is less than the most notorious vandal, I obviously am unwanted. Am I mistaken? Why do I not deserve the courtesy a notorious vandal receives?

-- Cat ^chi? 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just took the bother of going through the archives of those incidents that I didn't watch as they unravel, and I still haven't found a single good reason to revert White Cat's sig changes. (This is mainly for Ned Scott, who insists that good reasons were given) The reasons I have seen given are that "you can't do that" (says who?) "you're trying to hide your past" (this has been beaten to death, it's not true) "it will be hard for people to find out who originally made that comment" (no, it makes it easier) and "if someone reverts you, you should just leave it be" (the reverter shouldn't hit the undo button in the first place without a good reason). There's also the request to leave archives exactly as they were, but I think that's neither here nor there; sure, he's changing the archive, but he's making it easier for people to locate who made his comments. I am still waiting for someone to provide me an actual good reason to revert him, something better than what I've listed above, and something better than "he's been told not to do it." Someguy1221 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, enough of singling me out.

Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is. And yeah, we're reverting him because he was told not to do it. If he wants to help people find stuff, then he needs to use redirects. For any other situation no one would care, but we're expected to yield to his demands because he throws a hissy fit. Sorry, no. It sets a bad example for others, and only encourages that behavior out of Cat in the future. Believe it or not, that's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. On top of that, this isn't even punishment or anything like that, this isn't a slap to his hand. We don't want these changes, and we don't want to encourage this kind of bizarre behavior. If he chooses to flip out over it, it's his fault, and trying to scold others because of his flipping out is laughable. No one is doing this to provoke him, and his accusation as such falls flat on the floor.

If Cat is bothering everyone with all these complaints, being paranoid and spazzing out, deal with him instead of pointing fingers at the users who are doing nothing wrong. It is disturbing to think that someone can drum up support from AN/I by throwing such fits. Face facts guys, this isn't TV, and sometimes both sides are not equally at fault. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes to arbitration I'll feed the lot of you to Bishzilla (talk · contribs). To argue that a user's "flipping out" at being reverted justifies the initial reversion places the cart before the horse. Ned, you say that "he was told not to do it." I see plenty of people here who have no problem with Cat updating his links. You call this a "bad example." Why? Archives get updated all the time. "'We' don't want these changes." Who is this 'we,' and does this viewpoint have consensus? Looking at the discussion above I have grave doubts. "Reverting him is no disruption to the community, only his reaction is." In other words, reverting is only disruptive when somebody actually defends their edit. That constitutes no defense. You're revert-warring, and I'd like to know why. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu constantly calling "ultra-nationalist" people with whom he disagrees

This might seem like a minor thing, but it is gone too far. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is contantly calling me and a couple other users (in the last 2 days User:Biruitorul, but also several others) ultra-nationalist, or if he is in a better mood, only nationalist [40].

After a previous incident that I have reported, he was forced by an admin to remove a picture that explicitely protrayed users on WP holding different oppinions than Anonimu as fascist [41]. After that he has put a banner over here [42], and every time I would live him a message b/c of his different edits on pages, he erases them and calls me nationalist pov banned from my userpage or vandal (see his talk page history).

Given the fact that he continuously makes controversial edits, I, Biruitorul, and a couple other users are trying the best to talk with him, to accomodate Anonimu's viewpoints, to propose compromize edits (he is a declared communist, and removes every critics of communism he sees in articles). We never call him "communist POV", and always are civil with him. But every time he uses "ultra-nationalist", "your nationalist POV is a fact" and refuses to stop doing so. How is it possinle to talk with such users? I can no longer bear a discussion in the talk pages with someone who every time, absolutely every time calls me "ultra-nationalist". This is total incivility! Should I just revert his edits in the article? Please, help.:Dc76\^talk 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can take a look. Some admins will consider this kind of language uncivil and maybe even blockable if done to excess. My perspective, however, is that you can survive such language by ignoring it. I certainly would not recommend edit warring in article mainspace as retaliation for incivility on a Talk Page. That is highly disproportionate and disruptive. I would block you in a heartbeat if I thought you had done that.

I would counsel you to follow the dispute resolution process. Seek a third opinion. Issue a Request for Comment. If Anonimu is editing against consensus, that is blockable as disruptive behavior. Is calling you an ultra-nationalist an example of an uncivil personal attack? Maybe. Is it something that demands administrative action? I'll go take a look but my instinct tells me that a thicker skin and an attempt to seek consensus via WP:DR would be more appropriate than admin action.

--Richard 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking is someone to tell him to stop calling other people "ultra-nationalist". I did not ask to block him. If you find evidence that that's necessary, you are on your own. I could definitevely ignore his language, as I did for 2 months now. But I am forced to talk with him on the talk pages, and all I want is to discuss without names. And no, I don't want to edit war with him. If I make an edit wihtout prior talk, he calls it rv even if I suggest something different. If I talk, he replies and calls me "ultra-nationalist". Can he reply without calling me "ultra-nationalist" ? I did not know about third opinion. That's an idea. Next time, I'll try that. Thanks. Is it still possible to ask him to use more civil language when addressing fellow editors? :Dc76\^talk 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "ultranationalist" that poses a problem with Anonimu. Most annoying, he is systematically involved in revert wars on Communism-related subjects. Take a look at Romanian Communist Party, to see how he is always (every other day) at the limit of 3RR, against all decent editing practices, and refusing to give a meaningful reason for his reverts. If admins did their job, he should have been blocked a long time ago for disruptive editing practices (as explained on WP:3RR). Dpotop 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If admins did their job". Have you brought it to admin attention before? Neil ╦ 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Anonimu did it himself, when he asked for a 3RR block against me. To my surprise, I got blocked, even though I had no 4 reverts in 24 hours. Thanks to a helping admin. When I asked why I got blocked, the admin blocked my access to this page. When other users asked why I got blocked, they got no response (BTW, the admin is User:SlimVirgin). BTW, I was not able to find the 3RR report of Anonimu on WP:3RR or on the talk page of SlimVirgin. I therefore presume it was done off Wikipedia, and I can assure you it was fast. Dpotop 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the admins don't do their job: In my case, SlimVirgin trusted this user who gave false info, and did not check whether my reverts were against obvious vandalism (which is the case, anyway). Dpotop 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu should be safely ignored given the use of the term "nationalist" that seems to have been thrown around (which, 99% of the time on the Wiki, means "your POV is different"). Just looking over his contribs, he seems to forget some basic policies quite often. As the original poster said, there's a slow edit war which he's against three others reverting his changes. Also, on Talk:Chernivtsi Oblast#Romanian map, he's violating WP:V (i.e. verifiability, not truth), WP:NPA calling other editors fascist, civility concerns here, AGF and NPA concerns here and here. That's from the latest hundred contributions. I think the best course of action is to create an RFC, I think it would be easily certified. Will ^(talk) 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easily certifiable, which I agree with, then the request of Dc76 belongs here. It's called simple vandalism, and you should interven. If not, I've already seen RfCs and I know it's a huge investment of time for little or no return. And even if a decision is reached, it lasts forever, because on subjects related to Eastern Europe, nobody seems to care. Dpotop 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look and there is clear edit warring going on at Romanian Communist Party. I'm sure this will not make Dc76 happy but the version that got protected was Anonimu's version. Please do not ask for a different version to be protected. It is our job to protect the "wrong" version and I have done that. ;^) Seriously, you need to lay out on the Talk Page what the issues are and then either ask for a third opinion or issue a request for comment. If Anonimu is "dead wrong", that will become obvious. If, however, he has some valid points, then it would behoove you to seek a compromise with him.

I should point out that there are "content RFCs" and "editor RFCs". A "content RFC" asks members of the community about a content dispute. A "editor RFC" asks members of the community to comment about the behavior of another editor. I would recommend starting with a "content RFC". You can always file the "editor RFC" later if you are just running up against a brick wall with Anonimu.

Good luck.

--Richard 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. When you don't care, create a commission, or maybe two. :) Dpotop 07:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonimu is a vandal that should be banned. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) look at his edits--Causelaugh 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning User:Anonimu would not be a tragedy for the Wikipedia, however I would think twice before forcing him/her to stop using ad-hominem attack - this incivil language accurately labels his POV and more civil prose would only confuse the casual reader into taking him a bit more seriously. Enry Iggins 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential unblock of User:Digwuren to participate in an RfC

I have indicated to Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I will unblock him to participate in an RfC regarding his conduct. The blocking administrator, User:FayssalF, is happy with this. Comments, anyone? --Deskana (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. More productive than a block.Proabivouac 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, GDonato (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. :Dc76\^talk 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By all means. All of this seemed more like a content dispute, so that a block for "disruption" was quite weird. Dpotop 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, unblock him to participate. The block wasn't for dispute over content, though. Neil ╦ 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No decisions in abstentia. But the link to RfC? Where's that? E.J. 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to know are we talking here of a real already actual RfC/U or a planned one? If it is not yet filed then Id like to know who has requested this unblock, if it is filed, I would like to see a link to it...--Alexia Death 06:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A planned one regarding the user. They have been unblocked to participate. If the user abuses this unblock, any admin should reblock immidiately with a longer block duration. Digwuren was warned that he was unblocked to participate in an RfC and/or mediation case ONLY, and that the original block still stands on principle. --Deskana (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent issue: While Estonia-related discussions have been most uncivil, his latest outburst sets new records. This time I am really offended. I cannot comprehend how his technical unblock could give him a license for this level of uncivility on talk pages.

Yes, there has been a RfC on Digwuren proposed, but I do not know if one has been planned. Because of the complexity of this “dispute”, filing an RfC would take several days of work from several editors. Even if planning for an RfC started today, it is unlikely it could be filed before his block whould end. Besides, for one to be filed, there has to be proof of attempts to mediate the dispute. As far as I know, there are no open RfC or mediation cases where he would be party.

A RfC on Digwuren was proposed to me by User:Otto ter Haar on June 2, but I rejected the idea. One of my concerns was the RfC would not have the teeth needed to deal with this issue. I was assuming that an RfC would be unnecessary, and expecting that some "admin with balls" would take decisive action, along the lines of the case of his opponent, User:M.V.E.i.. It now seems that I was wrong and should have started working on the RfC.

For the last month I have avoided articles where Digwuren might be involved in, contributing and commenting only when I have been invited by him, or in the case of Estophobia, where an article under development in my user space had been requested as an alternative to the deleted article.

I was hoping he would go his own way, make new friends, or most likely, enemies, earn his incremental blocks, and eventually fade away.

---

Looking at his edit history I see that he has "started" a mediation case and an RfC. Luckily, I am not mentioned in the mediation case (although his blocking administrator is). If I was included, I would most likely consider it a form of harassment.

As for the RfC, I cannot imagine, how one could file an RfC on oneself! If one was planned, it should appear when those disagreeing with his behavior have created it. By "creating" his own RfC, he is forcing his opponent to follow his timetable, raising our wikistress -levels by a hundred points!

(I am not posting links to the two pages discussed, because as far as I am concerned, they do not exist.) -- Petri Krohn 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes to Rise sock

Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently indefblocked because Checkuser confirmed he was a sock of a vandal. Minutes to Rise was an SPA intended to provoke edit wars over music genres, and now he has continued under the IP 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm sure it is him because he continued trolling over the same articles as Minutes to Rise did, and his IP is in the same range as a confirmed sock of his (87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Sala Skan 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that looks to be a sockpuppet, but it also looks like a dynamic IP address, and they've probably moved on to another address, by now. =\ Best we can do is keep an eye out and block on sight, protecting as needed, I think. Looks like this has been ongoing for at least a week or so, by this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful not to revert talk page questions and comments from this user but to engage them in dialogue where possible and especially where they have made an effort. Their edits and particularly the revert-warring are clearly disruptive, but they appear not to be made totally without reason. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much genuine desire to improve articles with contribs like this. ThuranX 06:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and this indicate a certain level of logic and good faith. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that. This user does nothing but blatantly revert, and occasionally leave an insult comment on a talk page like this. It is an indefblocked user evading their block, anyway. Sala Skan 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little concerned

I am a little bit concerned about the behavior of User:EEMeltonIV and where it is leading. I recently learned that he created a subpage where he is "watching" every edit coming out of a VPN account operated by a U.S. military computer lab in the Middle East [43]. I think I know exactly why he is doing this, first and formost he believes a single editor who he has had issues with in the past is using this account. Melton was approached about this in the past but talk page discussions are usually unanswered or met with heavy sarcasim. The one time someone actually told him that these were computer lab accounts he all but called them a flat up liar [44]. So can anything be done at this stage? EEM hasnt done anything wrong...yet...but creating a watch list, buried away on a user subpage is disturbing and harboring grudges against users is more disturbing still. Honestly, this is almost a bit scary. Will EEmelton next take this into the real world with some kind of off-Wikipedia action? I wish he would come and state what his beef is, make a complaint through formal Wikipedia channels if one is to be had, and get over whatever is bothering him. -38.119.112.186 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He claims he's doing this to watch the contributions of an IP user who he feels makes contributions he disagrees with. Any reason to doubt this? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to doubt at this stage. ty -38.119.112.188 13:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about two things here; I have checked EEMeltonIV's talkpage and seen no response, so how is his intentions known (what is the source of communication between Melton & Morven)? What is the purpose of watching contributions he might disagree with? This appears to be a potential case of Wiki-stalking. Unless the edits violate WP rules, policies or guidelines there is no reason for them to be watched, and if they do violate them then it should be bought to the attention of WP and not be the project of one self appointed individual. I must say that the lack of communication from EEMeltonIV with regard to this does not reflect well. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at User_talk:EEMeltonIV/Watch. As I and an administrator posted at one of this editor's talk pages -- -.187, I think -- it appears that this editor is a departed and de-sysoped editor who pushes non-NPOV and uncited material on various Star Trek pages (and a few others, such as this recent anonymous addition which is nearly identical to a contribution by the registered user). I purged many of those Star Trek pages from my watchlist, so instead jotted down the contribution links lest uncited additions/non-NPOV linger on those relatively obscure, low-traffic pages. But since -186/-7/-8/-9/-90 and LessHeard van U are worried it might be stalking, I've readded those pages to my watchlist and removed the contributions links. --EEMeltonIV 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My personal preference is that all communication should be on the primary talk pages, it makes things easier to look over and lessens the non AGF concerns that "something is happening somewhere involving someone...", but to each their own. LessHeard vanU 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'm chagrined that this editor has expressed concern about some sort of real-world issue when one of his edits was recently excised from a talk page because it revealed real-world information about me that I have not posted on Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Señor del Encino requires deletion. Would an admin please execute.

Resolved

– ugen64 06:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabias (talk • contribs)

I don't see the urgency in deletion which would explain leaving a comment here. The article has an expired PROD, and will be deleted without WP:ANI intervention. Od Mishehu 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request fo Ban from Wikipedia of User:Mathsci

Dear admins, the actions of the User:Mathsci overstepped all possible limits. Particularly this user transferred his edit war in other encyclopedias such as PlanetMath. Please first check this extremely offensive and intolerable post, where is used the Bulgarian flag with a gun and title of the image "Bulgarian mafia"

http://mathsci.free.fr/

Of course as I suspect User:Mathsci will soon find out that posting such "jokes" is going to be punished he will possibly delete the mentioned web page above, however I have back-up-ed a copy as evidence of his malicious actions.

Image:User-Mathsci-personal-and-natianal offence-Mafia.jpg (Image linked, not inlined, because it's not free. - Quadell)

So I have requested admind to ban this user, for edit warring, harassment, and posting lies and false content in Wikipedia. Now I add some more facts, which overstep the boundaries of normal behavior, and I reveal the identity of this vandal.

Section removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC). We are not here ot "out" people[reply]

He clearly violated many times my requests to stop to post false content, here is the typical example: Talk:Sine-Gordon_equation#Unauthorised use of computer-manipulated images and I request those admins who are aware of the confrontation between User:Mathsci and me to post below their third party thinking.

I have tried to follow the advice of User:Quadell and to ignore the actions of Mathsci a.k.a. Mr. Rusty .., etc. but he does not want to ignore me. I hope he will get banned for posting offensive material in Wikipedia against me for accusing me in plagiarism and incompetence, and for making morraly unacceptible jokes with Bulgarians as a nation -- is this racism, or what?? -- see also my request here which has not been resolved, I do believe admin arbitration is necessary Danko Georgiev MD 09:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but we cannot police what someone does on otther wikis or what they do on thier own websites. If he is edit warring here please give us some more diffs (The one you posted could be down to a missunderstanding). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some evidence for edit warring, posting offenses, and false accusations by User:Mathsci despite of my requests to stop this. Florentin_Smarandache article

see - revert [45] - explanation: "rv remove irrelevant non-biographical material another revert here

Tabish Qureshi article -

here] blanking of almost everything in the original article, with the same moto: "removed non-biographical and non-verifiable material" despite of the fact he deletes peer-reviewed and published bibliography in one of the most famous physical journals "Physical Review"! (non-verifiable???).

Bill Unruh article edit - removed non-biographical material - the same reason for the edit war at Florentin Smarandache article

sine-Gordon equation article deletion of 9 high quality animation plus accusation in plagiarism here

Another charges of plagiarism of mine here of 3 images released at Andrica's_conjecture plus various other accusations.

Numerous personal attacks " Your illogical statements above suggest that either you are ill or on on medication. Is this the case?" or "If you cannot understand the meaning of simple and elementary mathematical statements, as now sadly appears to be the case, you should stop editing mathematical wikipedia articles beyond your expertise." from User_talk:Mathsci/Archive_2. Elsewhere he only provoked my replies, and in the last 30-40 days except for doing some edits at articles Hyakumangoku_Matsuri, Kanazawa#Picture_Gallery and Kanazawa_University where most of the material is just photos released by me, I was not able to do anything substantial in Wikipedia because I was involved in this war.

People who do not respect ethics and rules of Wikipedia and post racist images in the web, are shame for everybody and should be banned from Wikipedia. I think the rules should be more strict for vandals of the type which is Mathsci a.k.a Mr.Rusty or real name [removed per Theresa Knott's example above DreamGuy 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]-- personal war and offences concerning the educational status should not be tolerated , as a lot of Wikipedia editors do not have PhD or other higher University degrees. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried any of the typical avenues of dispute resolution?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, MathSci has been difficult to deal with and does seem to "have it in" for Danko Georgiev. Both users have made very useful contributions, and I'd much prefer to not have anyone leave or be blocked over this. I'd recommend seeking Wikipedia:Mediation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation seems appropriate, but may not be needed. Danko, do you still plan on leaving wikipedia? If so, you can pursue Mathsci through Mathworld. If not, I think your lengthy history with him definitely warrants mediation or intervention. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that among off-Wiki attacks, only personal attacks may be considered in terms of possible on-wiki remedies. General racism (if any) should not be considered.

I can see that the matter between these two editors has escalated beyond belief, and, although I believe Mathsci to have the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policies in regard the articles they have been in conflict over, and to have superior technical knowledge, that both have violated WP:NPA from time to time. The question of who did so first is irrelevant. In theory, I recommend mediation. (In practice, the only mediation in which I was a named party which opened, was dropped because the mediator went on Wiki-break. The matter in question seems to still be escalating....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall reply briefly to the query shall I leave Wikipedia -- in the past 30 days I have NO useful edits except for answering the Mathsci nasty attacks and tricky games. I just want to ask Arthur Rubin, who also happens to be an admin: "Why do you support Alan?", just because you are good friends or what? Also his clearly offensive website against Bulgarians and with the Japanese flag and his posts at PlanetMath reveal he is lacking basic understanding of math logic. Why you don't read the discussion in PlanetMatch first before you take a side in suc a debate -- I have asked clear technical question "is the Godel number of the proof of the equation 0=1 existent in w-consistent formal system F?". As this is easy question, the reply is "NO", then I ask "does the Godel number of the proof of the equation 0=1 in w-consistent formal system F has proper definition and is it meaningless?" Answer - it is NOT meaningless despite of the fact it is NOT existent. I realize that this is very complicated and advanced mathematical stuff, and possibly other wiki-editors will not understand, but I hope Arthur Rubin having PhD will see what I am saying, and will stop to defend his friend Alan Weinstein. This is not "corrupted brotherhood", this is society based on the common interest to gather knowledge in Wikipedia. If Mathsci is not banned, I see no reason why I should contribute when my edits will be reverted by Mathsci and his defenders. BTW, Mathsci aka Mr. Rusty himself revealed why he likes this nickname by extremely unethical post laughing at some person called Rusty who jumped from the 8 floor of Evans Hall where is Alan's office. I see no other resolution except for ban of Mathsci. Or, maybe there is one -- public letter of appology on my talk page, explaining and confessing in full length his malicious actions and asking for forgiveness (note: a letter not less than 2500 words signed by his exact real name, not the nickname). Then I might reconsider my request for his ban. So nobody can accuse me now that I don't want to cooperate - just there should be justice for and some form of punishment for such a ridiculous and offensive behavior - PhDs are no excuse for his actions and humiliation of Bulgarians and Japanese flag. Danko Georgiev MD 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any relevance of the website you link to for this case. First, I can't see any evidence that it is linked to the Wikipedia editor Mathsci; second, what he does on other websites is none of our business as long as it does not interfere with things that happen on Wikipedia. If you want to pursue dispute resolution further, you may escalate this to the Arbitration Committee; however, I must warn you that threats like this help to make you much closer to being banned than Mathsci. Kusma (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I did not threaten Mathsci, I asked him to stop, he did not stop, and I post his name. Fair trade.
[2] I did not request his identity, he repeatedly tormented me, and his malicious actions are well documented, so I had to find out his real name, because cowards are very brave when anonymous. If you do crime then all rules do not apply, and criminals do not have equal rights to other citizens. Please consult the law, Mathsci himself forced me to find out who he is. Did I asked him who is he before he strated to post offenses, did I bother of his existence before he decided that he cannot peacefully co-edit with me. Did I ask who is he before he claimed ownership of the whole math field? The answers are clear - for criminals there should be a punishment, I did nothing but just defended myself.
[3] As I did not contribute anything substantial in the past 30 days and I will possibly not edit if the mentioned user is not banned it makes no difference for me whether I shall be banned. Please do not accuse me when being a victim in taking the criminal's place.

Also it is hard to be always polite when nobody of the admins helps you, nor the person who you request many times to stop does not stop. I have even posted on his talk page the optimistic "I believe the tomahawk of war is burried". And yes, it does matter who starts first -- if somebody wants to kill you, and you kill him, this in the law is called self-defence is not a crime. Danko Georgiev MD 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for maliciously posting an editor's personal information. Others may wish to consider lengthening this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Block changed to indefinite, as he has promised to continue the same behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, he said he was leaving, anyway. (Does it matter that Mathsci chose to E-mail me with proof of his identity, and it's not "Alan".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's kinda like selling a cop a bag of oregano. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Support indefinite block; outing Wikipedians real identities is completely unacceptable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems

We need uphold the {{advert}} banner until this article is encyclopedic and not a mix between a plastic pipe industry public relations site and a troll’s pet hoax site. I am struggling to comprehend as good faith and not mischief Drpipe’s assertions ,that a multi-national multi-billion dollar industry with 2,140,000 ghits is a small niche industry with little published about it., . Aatomic1 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...a lot of it seems to be cut and paste from http://www.pipestock.com/ --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a rich history of WP:OWN, tendentious editing and sockpuppetry issues and has seen several sets of regular editors go in to "clean it up" at various times. See the talk page archives for the previous rounds.--A. B. ^(talk) 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing reads like a manufacturer's catalogue. I'm itching to slap a {{db-spam}} or {{db-copyvio}} on it. Can't decide which one... --Edokter (Talk) 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet there was copyvio from those books in it. In any case, I shredded the article for anything ad-like, and rewrote the lead. you'll either get a complaint, or it will get fixed. MSJapan 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gelssam30032

Somebody please block page move vandal User:Gelssam30032. Corvus cornix 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the page moves should be deleted out of the article histories; those were some fairly obscene personal attacks. Someguy1221 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that for the user page but I'm hesitant to do it for the talk page, which has a large history. ugen64 06:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanchiTachi going on wheels

SanchiTachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a rampage for the last hour or so from anon IPs. He claims that he has a right to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Space Marines. One problem--sockpuppets are not allowed to contribute at all. I've already reported three IPs ... but could use some help playing whack-a-mole with this guy. Blueboy 96 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you could let him put his little vote in there. It's going to be ignored by the closing admin anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's started to attack my talk page as well 4.139.78.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wildthing61476 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the pages. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that becomes a larger problem, we can sprotect your talk page. We could sprotect the AFD page too but I'm less keen on that idea. Blocking an IP moving over such a huge range is probably not warranted at this time. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's ok, I was on regular recent change patrol and saw an edit he made and reverted it, not knowing this was going on. I don't figure it'll be more than a random comment or two that I can get rid of. Wildthing61476 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(post edit conflicts) He's been at it, on and off, even since he was blocked in the first place (see the CheckUser requests, although there's quite a few not listed there). The trouble is he's on what looks like a /17 range of dynamic IPs (4.139.128.0/17), so blocking is probably not really practical. He's really only interested in Warhammer 40,000 related articles though and most of the regulars in that area know just to ignore him. --Pak21 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the AfD as speedy keep, socks are not allowed to start AfD's. If he starts up again, let an admin know. SirFozzie 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing it. The pages are clearly notable. I'm sure that guy is really pissed off though. Btw, who deleted my request for unblock? I have a serious grounds, as the original block had no reason according to the blocking policy. Even admin aren't allowed to delete requests for unblock, so it is a serious violation. Do I need to report this to Jimbo like when Isotope stole one of my user pages and merged it into another? And so you know fozzie, its not "socks" that aren't allowed to start AfDs, its socks that are in violation of the sock policy. As an admin you should know the difference, unlike the kid over there. 4.139.24.55 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost laughed at this. Almost. --Deskana (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the diff where I did that.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia College & State University

Resolved

– ugen64 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question: Is is all right to copy and paste from a copyrighted source if you have permission of the copyright holder? Bryjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added material from to Georgia College & State University that came straight from the college's website (and frankly reads like advertisement). I removed the material and he restored it, stating in his edit summary that, "information provided directly by the University's Office of Communications". There was no template added to the discussion page stating permission was granted. I do not want to get into an edit war with this contributor. How should I proceed? Cynrin 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is a copyvio and spam is spam, neither belongs on Wikipedia. You should never take an editor's word for it that copyright permission is granted under the GNU Free Documentation License (or another free liscence) unless an email is sent from an address associated with the university and listed on their website. Email should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The relevent explanatory page is Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Also make sure that the editor is aware that permission must be granted under a free licence, as all material on Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, and may be reproduced in a variety of other media. Someguy1221 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a good place for this type of report is the conflict of interest noticeboard. Although I like to think of universities as the ivory tower, this isn't the first time I've seen a university attempt at PR through Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering and for pointing me in the direction of conflict of interest noticeboard. Cynrin 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote [46]. I will keep an eye on this. Please mark this resolved. Thanks. Cynrin 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from permission and conflict of interest, copied material needs to be attributed to its author to avoid plagiarism. Also, copied material may not have the "encyclopedic tone" requiring copyediting or even re-writing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Null link edits

Resolved

– ugen64 06:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell what Achangeisasgoodasa (talk · contribs) is doing? The edits are marked minor with an edit summary of "link", but I can't detect what the edits are doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's adding periods to links (very hard to spot!) to correct the name of the link (F.C --> F.C.). Someguy1221 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Adding missing full-stops and bypassing redirects. At least from the first few I looked at. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, thanks so much !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doubleblue.info attack site resurfaces with a new domain name

doubleblue.info was blacklisted last year as an "attack site" listing and criticizing editors of Christianity-related articles that it characterized as "DWEECs". There were also user blocks, sockpuppets and other drama involved. In the course of investigating and cleaning up an extensive spam problem today, I found this site has re-surfaced with a new domain, dweec.com, and is likely connected to other domains spammed extensively (500+ links) across multiple Wikipedias. The investigation write-up is at:

meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#languedoc-france.info (permanent link)

The doubleblue.info part is at the end of the long section. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current list of links: Special:Linksearch/*.dweec.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up now (by other users). Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: [47][48] --A. B. ^(talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and Insults

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

Content dispute not requiring any administrator intervention. Please work it out on the talk page. --Edokter (Talk) 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrator: At first I decided to keep quiet, but I changed my mind because I was insulted and threatened unnecesarily, not in good faith and not neutral at all. I'm reporting userXLR8TION for this reason. I've copied and pasted for you, from mine and XLR8TION's talk page, our discussion about supposed vandalizations, according to XLR8TION, made by me to Birmania Rios article. He's accused me, threatened, and insulted me without a fair reason or convincing statements. Please read and analyze. Thank you very much for your attention. Best regards: --Entre-Nos 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmania Rios

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE!!!! You have made MANY unconstructive edits and are replacing her nationality (Dominican) with Latin. She has always identified herself as Dominican American. Furthermore DO NOT ADD flag icons to an article. Further unconstructive edits will be reported to a site administrator. --XLR8TION 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "VANDALIZING" this article, on the contrary, I'm correcting information. Where does it say in the article that she has always identified herself as Dominican American? Is that a statement? Maybe it should be added to the article, because, as I've read it, I noticed that she was born in Manhattan, New York and then at the age of 4 she moved to Puerto Rico, where she was raised. So, what does Dominican Republic has to do with her upbringing? That's not her NATIONALITY. The reason for the statement that she considers herself as a Dominican American is not clear. If it's true and stated, no problem with me, but it's not.

Why shouldn't I add flag icons to an article? Is it prohibited? Please explain, because if it is, there are a lot of international articles with flag icons. What's the meaning of unconstructive to you? I added to Miriam Colon that she is Puerto Rican; is that unconstructive? I changed the red links for the proper wiki markups, for cleaning purposes; I added her to the category of "People from New York"... isn't she?... and that's about it... is that unconstructive? I don't think so. Can you explain this throughly? I hope so, because if not, you're wrong. As I've noticed in the past, you love to threaten to report to the site administrator. That's ok if there's a reason for it but (?). So, I would love to know your answers to my questions. Best regards--Entre-Nos 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in New York and her parents are Dominican. Please take a look at the external links to see her nationality. Simply an ignorant person would delete that and replace that she is Latin American. That's not only ignorant but racist as well. Flag icons only go inside infoboxes. They do not go in the general article. If you have placed flags you must remove them according to the site's rules. Further unconstructive edits will be reported. Please stop vandalizing the article!--XLR8TION 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read her external links, but that her parents are dominican doesn't mean that her NATIONALITY is dominican. She was born in New York and raised in Puerto Rico as a fact. You only answered the question about the Flag icons, and forgot the other ones. That means I was right in my statements. Besides that, you've insulted me calling me IGNORANT and RACIST. That's not fair. It's out of the question. Not NEUTRAL at all, as you're supposed to be. That, I would report, but my style is not your style. I would like to know what you mean by UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS, and furthermore, I've never vandalized that article, I repeat. Be kind and assertive, not threatening and offensive. It's an unconstructive approach. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many hispanics/latin americans, identify themselves by the nationality of their parents. So the winner is the one who can source the claim. I do not think it is racist, however stating Latin American when the person is from New York City, raised in Puerto Rico, does not seem accurate in any sense. I am not an admin, just giving info. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons bug me no end, everywhere I see them. I wish we could get rid of them everywhere. Corvus cornix 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entre Nous is a vandal who I have caught plagiarizing articles and creating sock puppets. He has been reprimanded many times by adminsitrators. He refuses to cooperate, vandalizes articles that have been properly cited, and refuses to stop vandalizing my page. Please refer to arhcive discussions on this user's rogue editing as you can clearly see who has been right as me and other users have corrected him in correcting sexist, racist, and unbased writings that he clearly doesn't want to admit (nor stop). Please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail for further questions. I prefer e-mail than my discussion page, and will respond as soon as I can.--XLR8TION 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XLR8TION: You know from your heart that what you're saying is not true. I have never been reprimanded by administrators. I've always cooperated and been neutral. I've also acted in good faith. I've never vandalized any page. At the beggining when I started editing, I was new to this place, and thanks to User:Tony the Marine, who's been my guide, I've improved a lot. But you never helped me, you just insult me constantly. I've always tried to cool you off, but you don't care. I don't know what are you talking about when you mention that I keep vandalizing your page. I've only been there once, and as you didn't like my edits, you deleted them. That's ok. But you've kept offending me over and over in my talk page. I've been fair to you, you haven't. You just love personal attacks. I don't. I've never offended or insulted you ever. It's so sad you put your energy accusing me and making fun of my writings and about my compatriots calling them names. Please, leave me alone. I wont bother you, I never did. Cool off. Take a vacation. Take the stress out of you. Live and let live. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) "[reply]

Entre-Nous, you ar enothing but a liar. If any adminsitrator takes a look at my talk page or the talk page for the List of Puerto Ricans they will obviously see a vandal who has made sexist changes to names (Millie Corretjer de la Hoya???_, racist edits (changing Birmania Rios' nationality to Latin American when she has always recognized herself as Dominican American), multiple sock puppets and plagiarizing articles from the Institute for Puerto Rican Culture in entirety! Tony the Marine has sided with me and told you not to plagiarize and also to write original articles. Your sock puppet accounts (Aquipr, etc..) only validates a rogue editor who cares not to listen to communal advice but makes changes that will get reverted everytime. You are nothing but a nuisance and I am surprised that you haven't been banned yet.

Once again:

(1) DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON MY TALK PAGE!

(2) Flag icons only go inside infoboxes, not in the body of a paragraph. Read the Pillars of Style for more info!

(3) Do not change information that has been cited and do not make assumptive edits like changing Ms. Corretjer's name to that of her husband when she has never done that legally and is always known by her maiden name.

(4) Do not change nationalities or any other racial or cultural info that has been comfirmed. Doing so is considered vandalism.

And stop with your childish immature attempts to report me for your unprofessional behaviour and unconstructive edits. It only makes you sink to new lows. --XLR8TION 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more edit warring over team colors for individual players

This has been going on for months, and is the subject of multiple ANI reports. I would like to request an administartor start giving out blocks simply for edit warring. It's gone across multiple pages, and involves possibly some sockpuppetry. Worst of all, it's an extremely lame edit war. In all, it's involved User:Mghabmw (currently at about 8RR on Reggie Jackson), User:208.168.252.236, a likely sock of Mghabmw, User:Yankees10 (who has sockpuppeted in the past, and another likely sock of Mghabmw), User:192.234.99.1, User:Pascack. Please see these monstrocities: [49], [50]. I beg an admin to do something: lock these darned pages up, and most of all, to block mghabmw for massive edit warring (I'm a noninvolved party, but I know someone who violates 10RR several times in a few days when I see it). The Evil Spartan 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to do something about this? I've never seen such a monstrosity on the Reggie Jackson page. We have so many spa's on there trying to get their version before the page is locked. I recommend a hearty block for all the users, and an indef for all the spa's. I count 21 reversions by a single user in the past 24 hours; the other spa's, I almost can't blame them becuase they know mgh is just trying to get his version of the page protected. The Evil Spartan 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 minutes!! Give people a chance. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page, and blocked everyone, mainly indef as obvious socks. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to take away the colors feature from the retired MLB template. It's used for active players as a decoration for what their current team is. But there is unlikely to be consensus on what colors to use for multi-team retired players. That one User:Pascack and his supposed sockpuppet(s) are anti-Yankees and pro-Mets, hence they keep changing the colors to Mets when they can, such as they tried with Casey Stengel, which was absurd. Baseball Bugs 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We don't need colours, In fact they make the page look gaudy. Nothing wrong with black text on a plan background. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn Black text on a white background would solve what has to be one of the silliest edit wars I have ever seen. old windy bear 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is in the Hall of Fame, they retire with a certain uniform, the infobox should be the colors of the team they retired as. Otherwise, meh. Corvus cornix 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Corvus. The Baseball HOF has players wear a teams hat when inducted. So for players in the HOF, that team's color should be used. These disputes about team colors generally only occur on few of the pages, so while the colors are disputed black and white could be used, then changed once the situation is resolved. New England ^{(C) (H)} 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, New England, I had that idea months ago and was labelled as an edit warring and uncivil user despite not having done any edit warring, and only getting the slightest bit uncivil once everyone had attacked me unnecessarily. Honestly, I doubt the sticklers will allow this, as they wouldn't even let me try to achieve a consensus beyond that which they themselves had already declared. -- KirinX 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the edit war specifically over Reggie and Casey is exactly the problem. Both men have NY Yankees caps, and edit warriors want the infoboxes wearing A's and Mets, on totally subjective reasons. This stupid issue is a mine field of POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the color has clear criteria that can be sourced, then it should not be there at all. Otherwise it becomes a NPOV disaster. I suggest no color until a consensus can be formed on citable criteria. Until(1 == 2) 19:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AWeidman, RalphLender, DPeterson, JohnsenRon, SamDavidson, MarkWood, JonesRD - admin self-check

A heads up, and request in advance for comment to ensure I don't inadvertantly act unfairly.

The above 7 editors presently face Arbcom over some rather serious allegations, including puppetry, subtle vandalism, personal attack, ownership, POV warring, false accusations, using Wikipedia for defamation, and breach of almost every serious policy that POV warriors get up to. The case (WP:RFArb/Attachment Therapy) is in evidence phase but has not yet moved to voting.

The editors concerned have continued their activities during Arbcom, which is documented, and that's fine, that's up to Arbcom to address too. But they are also moving to start the same on other articles, and there is already evidence in the first few edits of POV warring via puppetry (RalphLender joins article 6 July ... DPeterson joins talk page 16 July ... Ralphlender joins talk page 19 July) and BITing concerns (email).

The evidence of warring seems evident, but Arbcom have not yet ruled on this group of editors. The historic tactic these editors have employed includes counter accusation and "playing victim", and refusal to change conduct. I have therefore taken the very unusual step of making a very blunt and detailed warning, here. This is the first time I have done this, ever. I feel it's justified, on the basis of tendentious disruptive editing beyond any sane limit, and apparently uncaring as to communal concerns or standards.

I'm posting this so that other admins can review the warning (which is remarkably blunt and unsubtle) and confirm to me whether I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and to add anything that ought to be said to make sure it is fair and balanced, before anything actually happens (if it does).

The "short term blocks" I would propose would be 24 hours, rising to 7 days, repeated at that level if necessary. I would probably warn first, unless it is a blatent and unquestioningly unreasonable breach.

Feedback is sought here, from others, to confirm I'm using admin discretion appropriately, and a sanity check that I am acting fairly and in a way that the community would expect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that despite these patterns of behavior, my neutrality is evidenced at Arbcom, where I also noted evidence for these editors where encountered. - FT2)

I think you've gone too far with the warning. I've checkusered the accounts, and it appears that User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:MarkWood, and User:JohnsonRon are all accounts of one individual. User:DPeterson and User:RalphLender seem to be different accounts, at least according to checkuser. If I were you I'd simply block User:SamDavidson, User:MarkWood, and User:JohnsonRon, tell User:JonesRD that his edits are restricted to the Arbitration case until its conclusion, and that he'll be blocked if he edits anywhere else, and see how the other two accounts behave themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Some explanation: I took into account the exceptional behavioral evidence uncovered (including many very exceptional and uncommon spelling errors shared in common), clear meatpuppetry (arriving in common, dominating articles in common), and other indications of misconduct and severe edit warring in common, that can't show up on an IP based check alone. The warning applies to all the accounts, since even if the IPs are different, they have each edit warred tightly in common, with common strategy, and are apparently extending that edit war to new articles even now, while the case is under arbcom. (Which is why the stern warning.) That said, that doesn't change that I have asked for advice, and will indeed accept it if it's appropriate. I'd value other input too, though, just to check I don't jump on the first comment, but have some sense of other input as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 4 of these 7 now finally and formally ID'ed as confirmed socks by checkuser - thanks Jayjg :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: make it 5 of 7 confirmed by checkuser. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jpgordon is correct, and I'm sorry for slipping up. I would block all of the puppets besides the DPeterson account, and allow that one to only edit the Arbitration pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue

I would like to bring to you attention the case of Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Liftarn has now reverted this article the 12th time, and this has been going on for months.

Already in January WeniWidiWiki had pointed out that we "also face facts that the ancient pre-Christian pagans and the modern adherents of Germanic Heathenry are not the same people and cannot identify themselves as such," in Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans; Neopagan sources are obviously not reliable on this.

Consequently, in May 20 I created a disambiguation page: [51]; This was reverted by Liftarn on May 20 [52], on May 24 [53], on May 29 [54], on July 8 [55], on July 9 [56], on July 13 [57], on July 16 [58], on July 17 [59], and several more time since then. (I would list at all the details, but I don't have that much time at the moment). Also I tried to work out in Talk:Historical persecution by Christians that history textbooks do not use the term Religious persecution when speaking about the relation between Christians and Pagans during the early Middle Ages. As long as these reverts continue, I see no use in working out the historical context in Historical persecution by Christians. Please take the appropriate actions or advise me on what I should do . -Zara1709 08:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy has continued on Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans. I think, I can let this rest for the moment, but if there are any more further reverts, I will describe the problem here (or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) in detail. -Zara1709 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this guy is a riot. Now performing at Talk:Persecution of Asatru. An RFC has been posted. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's the Redirect Rollercoaster Thrill Ride of Doom. Now I'm too dizzy to comment. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdays controversy ended with the creation of an article Religious discrimination against Neopagans; now Liftarn, apparently without any discussion, has created an article Religious discrimination against Asatruers. I was about to explain Wikipedia:Notability to him again, but then I wondered if it would make any sense. If all Christian denominations have only one article 'persecution of', then the Neopagans can't possibly need three. Religious discrimination against Neopagans and Religious discrimination against Wiccans should really be enough, we don't need any more. If you want a list of all the articles that were created yesterday because of this, just ask.-Zara1709 13:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge the persecution articles ot Christians, Jews, Mormons and Muslims into a single "Persecution of Abrahamists" then? I don't see the problem with having different articles for different religions. And I don't see why you (mostly refering to Dbachmann here) insisted on moving around the article every few minutes (without any prior discussion). // Liftarn

If you read my previous comment again, you will see that I did not say that articles 'persecution of' for different religions should be merged. I only wrote that we don't need an article for every denomination (besides the problem of Wikipedia:Notability for the Asatru-case anyway). You are not suggesting that the various neopagan groups are as divergent from each other as "Christians, Jews, Mormons and Muslims", are you? -Zara1709 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting they are more different since Mormonism is a branch of Christianity and both Islam and Christianity are branches from Judaism. // Liftarn

Liftarn is clearly a problem user impermeable to rational debate. Since not a single user has voiced support for his approach, I suppose WP:3RR can take care of this. Please come to Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans if you want to comment on the affair. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reason with Dbachmann, but all I got for the effort was insults. // Liftarn

(De-Dent)I just slogged through most of that talk page stuff over there. One, I agree that Abuse of pagans and Abuse of NeoPagans ought to be in two different articles. One can talk about burning at the stake, raping and pillaging, the other can talk about humiliation on talk shows for living in basements and lengthy bureaucratic paperwork fights. The differences between persecution in 700 AD, like imprisonment, death, and physical torture, and 2007 AD, like... forms in triplicate, derisive mocking of common centralized thoelogies and so on. Nothing's been shown to support that the two time periods are using identical faiths. infact, given the low incidence of police reports of marauders viking into town, I doubt it. (And yes, Vikiing was a perjorative forh te activity, not a self-identifier of the group).Two, why are any of these articles listed under the clearly perjorative word 'pagan'? No, i'm not being facetious. Pagan, Heathen, Idolater, all refer to NON-Christians. Jews, Muslims, Odinists, Wodenists, FSM-ninjas and IPU-hornbearers are all 'pagan' or 'heathen'. Isn't listing people all under that term a bit like redirecting African_American_contemporary_issues#Institutional_racism_and_discrimination to Lynching N*******? It's just reinforcing the bigotry, isn't it? Could we fit this under "Persecutions of smaller religions" or "persecutions of new faiths", with a couple paragraphs for the smaller stuff and summaries and links to the bigger stuff? ThuranX 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between persecution and discrimination and the difference between Paganism and Neopaganism were just two points that were discussed during this, another that I'd like to emphasize is that it seems that it are only fringe theories that actually attest a persecution of pagans during the early middle ages. [Sorry for that long sentence.] But I would not have taken it to this noticeboard if the issue could have been resolved through discussion. To me, the problem seems that Liftarn can't accept that he was wrong about the persecution of Germanic pagans case in the first place and, since he has not provided any further arguments, does not try to solve this through discussion. He just keeps reverting, although apparently he has stayed within the three revert rule so far. -Zara1709 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would be happer than I if we could have solved this trough rational discussions (instead of verbal abuse and trashy editing like some seem to prefer). So far there have been very little rational discussion altough Zara1709 have at least made some minimal effort. Also that Dbachmann moved the article(s) to difrerent names and split and joined them in a seemingly random way also made debate difficult. // Liftarn

All I want is the Religious discrimination against Asatruers article. There is enough material for it. What the other unrealted religions have their pages on is nothing I really care about. // Liftarn

no there isn't enough material. If there was "enough material", I wouldn't object. You make a lot of noise on Talk: namespace, all the time failing completely to cite a single notable source alleging "discrimination of Asatruers" (let it pass that "Asatruers" is not even a word). It's as simple as WP:ATT. Cherry-picking Supreme Court cases about religious rights in general doesn't count. If there was a law, or even a motion, to single out "Asatru" as undeserving of religious freedom in any country at all, I would be all for having this article. As it happens, there isn't. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I strongly suspect you would object anyway. That is what you do. It simply doesn't matter how many sources I find, you are determined to delete, crop, remove and bastardise to get what you want. If the court cases invove Asatruers who have been denied their religious freedom then they are utterly relevant. // Liftarn

so you admit you have no case, but idly allege that I would object to you even if you did have one? How does that compute? dab (𒁳) 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a case and you still object. Now you seem to be on a personal vendetta and disrupts Wikipedia for it. // Liftarn

Deterioration

Liftarn now stoops to wikistalking, trying to smear me at this stale RFC and taking it upon himself to random policing of articles I happen to have touched recently. Not a promising development. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was trying to file a complaint about you constant verbal abuse, but found that it already was ongoing. It's interesting to note that your abusive editing practices also includes trying to sweep complaints under the rug. // Liftarn

Liftarn, if it wasn't for the edit history and the discussions of Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Historical persecution by Christians, this would not be such much of an issue. I had deemed that matter so important that I did not only take the effort of creating a correct disambiguation page for Persecution of Germanic Pagans, I also spend 50+ hours researching on the Christianization of Europe during the middle ages. (Which is completely ok, since I could take this as (rather unusual) exam theme in religious sciences, which I study.) However, since you were apparently not able to apply Wikipedia:Reliable sources and other policies two times, Liftarn, we have to insist that you apply them in the third time. -Zara1709 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. You seem to be under the impression that sources were missing. Please check again and you should find them (unless they have been deleted). // Liftarn

if you knew how to behave, this would be a run-of-the-mill editing dispute, to be resolved amicably in constructive debate. You failed to achieve consensus, and instead of accepting that, you took it on a personal level, with RfCs on me (as opposed to the topic), wikistalking, and generally crying wolf. This is childish. WP:ENC applies to you as to everyone. Find one respected user supporting your approach and we may have a debate. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again you come with personal remarks. If you would have been interested in a constructive debate we wouldn't have this problem. // Liftarn

I just received an offensive email from a Wiki contributer...

I just received an offensive email from User:Gprice, because I gave him a vanalism tag (he replaced a Petey Piranha image with something else about a week ago) (the title of the email being called "Wikipedia e-mail"):

"Sorry, I made an honest mistake. I promise I won't do it again. In
the meantime you sanctimonious, teenage, Nintendo-playing, Australian
asshole, why don't you just suck my dick.

"Vandalism at Image:Petey.jpg

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you
did to Image:Petey.jpg. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hardcore gamer 48 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)" "

I'd appreciate it if someone could do something about this. I'm not about to let someone who doesn't even know me attempt to judge and offend me, and let them get away with it. In the meantime, I've removed the option for Wiki contributers to email me. Hardcore gamer 48 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it and ask an administrator to block the account permanently while revoking his "email this user" privilege. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a stupid question, but... how exactly can I contact an administrator? o^_^o Hardcore gamer 48 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind; I just saw you left something for the admins for me. Thanks! Hardcore gamer 48 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gprice is permablocked. With that much obvious vandalism, WP:AIV is the place to go. Looks like that article may need protection soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ^_^ Hardcore gamer 48 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter full-protection

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be one of the most viewed and edited wikipedia pages within the next 24-48 hours but has been fully-protected by an admin who has as of yet not responded to a request to revert back to semi-protection. I have posted a request on WP:RFP but it has not yet been reviewed, and do to the time sensitive nature of this article, I thought I ought to post it here as well. With the coverage this article will receive, I assumed it should be treated as a Main Page FA, thereby avoiding full protection to the maximum extent. Joshdboz 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being handled on the article talk page, Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on the user talk page of the protecting admin, User talk:Alkivar, and on Requests for page protection. This is not an incident requiring extraordinary intervention by an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not being handled on User talk:Alkivar as Alkivar has not made an edit since fully protecting the article, so another admin would be needed to revert back to semi-protection. Joshdboz 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this full protection has stood on a page like this for 6 hours because of "spoiler vandalism" without a single other admin from chiming in? Joshdboz 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected. Should not have been fully protected. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it by one second. Literally.-Wafulz 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Joshdboz 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(last) 12:37:58 Wafulz m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": Seems to have been a brief spike. Let's try semi-protection. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

(last) 12:37:57 Neil m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": one second ... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

and wikilobbying doesn't have it's own article?

I was just checking my mail and...well, funny, sad--I don't think pre-emptive action is require, but I just wanted to let people know in case this became an issue. I'm including the text as it will probably be flagged down shortly.

There is a new word that describes people that go from sex site to sex site online. man or a woman they both are called the same things sexeteers, - This term will be presented at the Playboy Building ( 2nd call) before july is over. You would need to massively promote this term - Sexeteer- In fact tonight when you are l;ooking for that flame you will be acting as a sexeteer.
A sexeteer is ile one of the 3 musketeers but with sex. -

This will become a common term in the aduly world and the erotic shows There is a new word that sescribes people that go from sex site to sex site. Doesnt matter if its a man or a woman theyboth are called sexeteers, A sexeteer is ile one of the 3 musketeers but with sex. - Start to work the day we hire you

Can you get this new term to take root in society. Starting with wikipedia. If you are an internet genius and can get Sexeteer or the variatipon spelling of Sexateer some verifiable traffic as in click on a line that aske What is a sexeteer" - we want you. We need you fr 112 projects - but this is where your proving grounds would be.

Obviously if people go through with this, it won't just be a problem in terms of creating new articles (easily dealt with), but using the word in existing articles. Miss Mondegreen talk 12:19, July 20 2007 (UTC)

The only way it should get into WP is when it arrives as part of a reference source, there is no necessity for the editorship to use it. If it ever gets into common parlance then there just might be enough notability to justify a small article, but it needs to establish itself as a word, or term, or phrase first. IMO, if the word is used, uncited, in a WP article then it should be replaced. LessHeard vanU 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously--just warning people to be on the lookout for it. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:15, July 20 2007 (UTC)

They've invented this word and they can't even figure out how to spell it? In any case, file it under "STD". Baseball Bugs 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've plugged sexeteer/sexateer into Lupin's /badword directory, so Lupin's AV tool should start flagging it. Acroterion _(talk) 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird stuff

Hello, I hope this is the right place to raise this, but some weird stuff is going on at the Railpage article [60] At the suggestion of another user I had it nominated for peer review, that's now gone (been deleted), now its been nominated for deletion by an anonymous IP address user. Require Administrator assistanceTezza1 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the AFD tag due to the incomplete nomination. Not sure what else is transpiring at that article... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what the problem is... Tezza1, you added a Wikiproject tag to the main aritcle space and that was removed. That particular tag goes on the article talkpage, not in the article itself. I'm guessing that is the deletion you are talking about.--Isotope23 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it... the Wikiproject tag as well as a peer review tag linking to the peer review request you created have been added to Talk:Railpage Australia.--Isotope23 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was sure I asked for peer review according to the guidelines. But if I didn't please advise me on my talk page.Tezza1 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Little Salt...

Resolved

I was just patrolling new pages to see if any met the criteria for speedy deletion. I came across The Kahoos, which I tagged as under CSD A7. When I went to notify the page's creator Thewrench101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I noticed that he had created a page called the the kahoos, which had been created by Thewrench101 5 times and deleted each time. (Logs for kahoos). Because of this I gave thewrench a final warning for creating inappropriate pages, and I think it might be time for an admin to salt the page.

Thanks New England ^{(C) (H)} 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salted with one click. Maxim 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can't salt as a non-admin. New England ^{(C) (H)} 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know... but the Twinkle tab is probably the most effecient Twinkle fuction, IMO. --Maxim 14:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Starblind

Done

Could someone please delete this and block the several trolls editing it? An "abusive" Starblind sock was created (contributions: editing own userpage with a {{sockpuppet}} tag), and this spa came along and filed this rfcu. The Evil Spartan 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thatcher131 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Strathairn website operator

A user claiming to represent the official website of the actor David Strathairn is claiming copyright violations on the BLP noticeboard. [61]Whatever the merits of his claims, I think an administrator versed in such things should go to the noticeboard and address his contentions.--Mantanmoreland 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to elaborate on his user talk page. We'll see what he says - WilyD 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to have been resolved by removal of the material from the website for other reasons.--Mantanmoreland 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla topic ban

I've offered Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) a topic ban if he wants to continue editing. Previous discussion here. To recap: SZ is the publisher of Metropolis, a free city guide for English speakers in Toyko. He's been causing COI and BLP problems for months editing articles about his business interests, and in particular editing BLPs about people his city guide has been critical of or conducted campaigns against. This has included repeatedly posting disputed material on article or user talk pages; insisting that Metropolis be used as a source for contentious BLP edits; canvassing editors on their talk pages to restore material for him that others have removed; making personal attacks on users who oppose his edits; and wikilawyering when asked to stop. Guy has blocked him indefinitely until we decide how to proceed with him.

The topic ban consists of (1) no editing about living persons who have been the subject of articles in Metropolis (or any other publication or website Sparkzilla controls), and no posting about these people on talk pages; (2) no editing of articles about his business interests, though he may make suggestions on the talk pages of those articles, within reason.

I've offered to unblock him if he agrees to the above. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely reasonable. See how he gets on with that, and if he causes no trouble we can consider whether it can be relaxed in any respect. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This plan is probably the best way to move forward at this point. Thatcher131 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I'd lean toward allowing him some latitude on the talk page with regard to living persons, so long as he doesn't make defamatory comments. Do you think that would open the gateway to abuse? If so, perhaps it's unwise. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Everybody would be happy including "people his city guide has been critical of or conducted campaigns against". I don't see a good reason why we would not include the talk page. BLP applies to talk pages as well. As Guy said above, it would be a matter of good conduct before he'd be allowed to participate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; Guy and SlimVirgin have more experience in dealing with him, so if you think there's reason to believe he'll continue to violate BLP on the talk page, then perhaps the original remedy proposed by SlimVirgin is most appropriate. He could gain back talk-page privileges, potentially, through good behavior. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be quite a generous offer. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that a wide topic ban is an entirely reasonable offer. I'm the anonymous "heated issue sockpuppet" that got banned for a short while by JzG for my "edit warring" with Sparkzilla (mainly on Metropolis and Crisscross), shortly before I outed him on the COI board. I think it's good to note that although Sparkzilla now claims to have perfectly honorable motives, and pretends he never really denied who he was, he did. He would ferociously delete all talk page comments asking if he were in any way related to Devlin/Metropolis, and accuse the person asking for being "disruptive." Even after I had prevented extensive evidence he were Devlin, he still tried to deny it by denigrating my efforts to out him, and kept the act up until MangoJuice told him to quit it. He also used an IP to edit Metropolis/CrissCross. But that's all in the COI I originally posted, please do have a look at it if you haven't already. It was my opinion at the time, and still is, that the case was closed prematurely and that Sparkzilla was bound to create more problems. Heatedissuepuppet 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla CoI. Here you can clearly see one particular aspect of Sparkzilla's on-wiki behaviour; how he's attempting to promote his own business: [62]. Although Japan Today is 99% Kyodo news-produced blurbs, he puts his own site above Kyodo news, arguing he's "ordered news links by site size." Although his defamation campaign against that Baker fellow is bad enough on it's own, it's important to note how Sparkzilla is all about self-promotion as well. He can pretend he's "one of the good guys" on Wikipedia all he wants, but that won't change the sad reality. Heatedissuepuppet 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block review: User:KaragouniS

I've blocked KaragouniS (talk · contribs) for 12 hours for harassment and personal attacks. He was asked not to post on User Talk:Argyriou ([63]) after coming there to hector Argyriou about being insufficiently Greek. After being asked to leave, KaragouniS responded with this, after which I warned him to desist and told him he'd be blocked if he continued. He continued to post to Argyriou's talk page ([64], [65]). I view this as ongoing harassment and an attempt to provoke further dispute, and I've blocked him for 12 hours. I submit the block here for comment, as KaragouniS is a logged-in user and has not been blocked before. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that KaragouniS has been warned recently, and several times in the past for incivility, and for edit warring a while ago. Argyriou (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that he has been warned several times before. As I don't read Greek I will AGF and conclude the content was not appropriate. Seems a reasonable tarrif for a "first offense" block for personal attacks. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that the contents of his posts were not particularly polite! -- ChrisO 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal: User:Peterdjones

This user, who knows very little about the subject, is very busy editing beer articles, particularly Belgian-related articles. I have pointed out his errors, however he insists I am wrong (I am Dutch and very familiar with beer here and in Belgium, plus I have a small library of books on the subject). He posts misinformation and refuses to add sources when asked. He is edit-warring and is also fact-tag warring. On this diff page [66] you can see he has added a fact tag -- the second one in that article and a ridiculous fact tag as the issue hardly needs references. On the history pages for Belgian beer [67], Trappist beer [68] and Tripel [69], you can see the sort of revert warring he does. You will also note that, with one exception, he never posts source for any of his misinformation. If you look at his talk page, you will see that I am far from the only editor who has problems with him. Mikebe 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After looking over some of the recent activity by User:Peterdjones, particularly in the articles mentioned by User:Mikebe, they appear to me to be good-faith edits that are clearly not the sort of thing that would be vandalism as described in WP:VANDAL. I've also observed several occasions in the past when Mikebe has described other people's edits as "vandalism" or "nonsense" (not to mention "crap") which were in fact good-faith edits that he didn't happen to agree with, and he has been at least as guilty of edit-warring as most of the other contributors he's accused of it. --Mwalimu59 20:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mwalimu59. This looks like a legitimate content dispute (on both sides), exacerbated by a failure to assume good faith (on both sides), but not vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I marked an article Tobias Conradi created for speedy deletion[70] because it was, at that time, a mere rephrasing of the title. Tobias replied by posting an insulting comment at my editor review, and was blocked for one hour for violating his civility parole. Immediately after his block expired, he reposted it (multiple times)[71], and thus he broke both his civility parole and his revert parole. See also this edit summary, and this one. Sala Skan 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias was blocked per ArbCom ruling for 1 hour originally; however, I declined the speedy, as I believe it to be notable and a legit stub. Now that this additional transgression has occurred, I've blocked him for an additional 48 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given his response to Akradecki's block which is pure incivility and personal attacks on the blocking admin, I've extended this to 1 week. Hopefully he gets the message this time.--Isotope23 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've never interacted with Tobias, so if another admin wants to engage him and reduce my block I'm fine with that... at this point though I felt his continued personal attacks and incivility in response to a civility probation violation warranted an extension. If someone who has dealt with him in the past feels differently I'm fine with that.--Isotope23 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a very troubled history at Wikipedia, and this is recidivism. I am normally the "never block" person, but Tobias hasn't been responding very well either in being nicer and understanding the peer editing environment or understanding the deletion guidelines, so I can't see much justification for lowering the block time. I wish I could. Geogre 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to revisit the issue of community sanctions? The previous sanctions discussions were basically sidelined because of the arbitration case. - TexasAndroid 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to question whether there's any reason to continue tolerating him, too. In my opinion he's demonstrated his inability to abide by the community's expectations of civilized behavior. Friday (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would rather see the second block reduced back to two days. When a blocked user acts out by throwing a hissy fit about the block, the best thing to do it ignore it, not escalate it. Thatcher131 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except that we don't actually want the kinds of editors who throw hissy fits. We already have more than enough high school drama. Friday (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, being an archdiocese seems a reasonable assertion of importance. And there was obviously enough context to be meaningful so A1 doesn't apply. Not really a good speedy, sorry. That doesn't justify Conradi's other behavior though. --W.marsh 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's at me. I disagree completely about A1, and I left my reasoning on the article's talk page. Administrators vary in their judgments. When it comes to A1, I'm a hanging judge. I deplore "Moby Dick is a novel" being asserted as an article. An article has to be discursive. A fact is not an article. On random page clicks, if I see any X is a Y article, I'll speedy delete it. Again: an encyclopedia is not a book of facts (that's an almanac). It is a series of articles, and articles discuss and contextualize. Geogre 12:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from requests for arbitration

I, Entre-Nos, just corrected in Birmania Rios article, some wikimarks, changed a word for another one, added some information, and I've received personal attacks, threats, and insults from the userXLR8TION , unnecessarily. I've tried to communicate with him in good faith, but it's been a hassle. I didn't start this discussion, but I had to defend myself from his personal attacks. I'm copying and pasting for you his letters and mine for you to analyze. I hope this comes to an end, because I'm a peaceful person, and I don't like people insulting me for the sake of it. Thank you very much for your attention.

XLR8TION 's letters and Entre-Nos replies:

Birmania Rios

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE!!!! You have made MANY unconstructive edits and are replacing her nationality (Dominican) with Latin. She has always identified herself as Dominican American. Furthermore DO NOT ADD flag icons to an article. Further unconstructive edits will be reported to a site administrator. --XLR8TION 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "VANDALIZING" this article, on the contrary, I'm correcting information. Where does it say in the article that she has always identified herself as Dominican American? Is that a statement? Maybe it should be added to the article, because, as I've read it, I noticed that she was born in Manhattan, New York and then at the age of 4 she moved to Puerto Rico, where she was raised. So, what does Dominican Republic has to do with her upbringing? That's not her NATIONALITY. The reason for the statement that she considers herself as a Dominican American is not clear. If it's true and stated, no problem with me, but it's not.

Why shouldn't I add flag icons to an article? Is it prohibited? Please explain, because if it is, there are a lot of international articles with flag icons. What's the meaning of unconstructive to you? I added to Miriam Colon that she is Puerto Rican; is that unconstructive? I changed the red links for the proper wiki markups, for cleaning purposes; I added her to the category of "People from New York"... isn't she?... and that's about it... is that unconstructive? I don't think so. Can you explain this throughly? I hope so, because if not, you're wrong. As I've noticed in the past, you love to threaten to report to the site administrator. That's ok if there's a reason for it but (?). So, I would love to know your answers to my questions. Best regards--Entre-Nos 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in New York and her parents are Dominican. Please take a look at the external links to see her nationality. Simply an ignorant person would delete that and replace that she is Latin American. That's not only ignorant but racist as well. Flag icons only go inside infoboxes. They do not go in the general article. If you have placed flags you must remove them according to the site's rules. Further unconstructive edits will be reported. Please stop vandalizing the article!--XLR8TION 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read her external links, but that her parents are dominican doesn't mean that her NATIONALITY is dominican. She was born in New York and raised in Puerto Rico as a fact. You only answered the question about the Flag icons, and forgot the other ones. That means I was right in my statements. Besides that, you've insulted me calling me IGNORANT and RACIST. That's not fair. It's out of the question. Not NEUTRAL at all, as you're supposed to be. That, I would report, but my style is not your style. I would like to know what you mean by UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS, and furthermore, I've never vandalized that article, I repeat. Be kind and assertive, not threatening and offensive. It's an unconstructive approach. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

(1) Ignorance and stupid questions will not be addressed. Please stop with the unconstructive edits and concentrate on your articles.

(2) Do not write anything on my page.

Further unconstructive edits or vandalism will be reported. --XLR8TION 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out he deleted my last reply in his talk page and mine, I don't know why, I was just asking him to cool down concerning his statement that he owned the article. It's not fair and not in good faith from his part. After XLR8TION deleted my reply on both pages and in the history page, he wrote this letter in my talk page and his:

Unconstructive Edits Remember you have been reported due to many unconstructive edits and vandalism. Your multiple sock puppet accounts only validates this. (1) DO NOT WRITE ON MY PAGE! (2) I wil revert any and all unconstructive edits. (3) Concentrate on improving your poor English language skills and your poorly written articles on no-bodies. (3) Take some English language courses at Berlitz language academy as MANY editors have told me you are a nightmarish editor; (4) DO NOT CONTACT ME!

YOU DO NOT OWN ARTICLES EITHER! However I dont bother improving your articles as they are on non-important, non-notables and only would be of interest to those who cherish banility.

You have been warned. Please take this into consideration as I do not have time to deal with simpletons.--XLR8TION 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sad about this. He keeps accusing me about things I haven't done, and furthermore he offends me, insulting me without any reason. Since his first letter, I haven't even read again Birmania Rios page.

It's not my style to do this, but I've been threatened and insulted without any reason. Thank you again for your time and I hope this user doesn't offend me anymore. I just informed him about this report in his talk page and in mine too. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.D. I just received another insulting letter fromXLR8TION. I really don't know how to stop him from his false accusations. You can read it below:

You have been reported for repeatedly refusing to stop vanadalizing my page. You apparently do not under stand English, therefore, I will repeat the same message in Spanish: NO ESRIBES NADA EN MI PAGINA! Understand? Electronic harassment is a violation of federal law. Let's not go there because I will file a grievance with the powers that be. --XLR8TION 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted. I don't know what this user is talking about. I hope you can do something about it. I edited Birmania Rios page only once, and then he started writing his harrassing letters to my talk page. Furthermore, my edits weren't violations. I'm tired of this, really. Sorry to bother you so much with my worries. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the incident noticeboard by me. Picaroon (Talk) 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed above

This has basically already been archived above.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved

Could someone else help me take a look at the contributions of this user? I found one page up for Speedy, and it tickled my memory. The user has written a number of pages, all totally unsourced, about a upcoming cartoon called "Monk", and other cartoon stuff. There's an older AFD here about a hoax page that looks very similar, and a recent salting at Monk (Cartoon Network series). IMHO, everything from this user is suspect, and possibly hoaxy, but it would be nice to have someone else giving opinions. There's also the issue of whether any of this is speediable beyond the Monk page itself, which is likly G4 bait. - TexasAndroid 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On it.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I speedied the "Monk" related content. The main article went under G4 and the rest of it as G3; I consider an obvious walled garden hoax of a cartoon being referred to in the past tense with a future air date to be page creation vandalism. I PROD'd the other Cartoon Network related content as it is likely a hoax and non-notable even if it isn't. I also enacted a couple of redirects because while the created article were hoaxes, their were actual logical targets for a redirect. I also warned the contributor about hoaxing. The only article I left basically untouched was Dumb and Dumber (TV series) and that could stand a fact checking if someone has time to do it. Given the editor's other contributions I'd fine tooth comb it.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series exists, it's just that it was produced in 1995 and appears to be rerun on CN. I'll make some adjustments. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe I'll redirect to the movie, which has a paragraph about the series (apparently, it didn't even make it a full season; for a cartoon, that's pretty bad). There's not enough info out there for a full article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim Osman - copyvio and POV-pushing

User was reported to AIV for incivility and other questionable edits regarding Joseph C. Wilson, and while looking through contribs. said user has also uploaded two images Image:Plame Memo.jpg and Image:Plame Memo2.jpg, which he claims he scanned from a Congressional report (when it has clearly been censored under FOI) and asserts copyright because he scanned it. MSJapan 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the incivility & POV issues, the images are clearly {{PD-USGov}}. So Tim Osman has given them the wrong copyright tag, but they are something which can be used in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of them needs to go; they're duplicates, and they're orphaned to boot. Moreover, they aren't "his", no matter what he thinks. MSJapan 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I look at the case, User:NYScholar should be blocked for 5RR, and falsely characterizing Tim Osman's edits as BLP violations and vandalism. Osman's claims were sourced and did not extend beyond the statements of his sources; NYScholar is POV-pushing by refusing to accept Osman's sources. One copy of the image should be retained. Argyriou (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged 2 as it did not have the highlight. MSJapan 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked per AIV, contrib history and talkpage warnings. If you need me to unblock/reduce tarrif please let me know at my talkpage. Any other admin who wants to review and action accordingly, please do so. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock ring - cleanup alert

During the period May 2006 - July 2007, around 40 articles were the subject of POV warfare by a sock-user. The sock accounts were:

(The status of two other accounts that routinely edited in common with these, user:RalphLender and user:AWeidman, is still under discussion at Arbcom)

The list of articles they POV-warred on (WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOCK, WP:TE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL) are as follows:

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Sockpuppetry findings are confirmed at the header of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Workshop:

"All edits by DPeterson, MarkWood, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and JonesRD should be considered the work of DPeterson, per recent sockpuppetry findings."

If there's any editors who have had concerns over POV slanting or disturbing editing patterns on any of these articles in the last year, it might be worth reviewing the articles' editing history and talk pages, to help identify and clean up the effects of any "votes", edits, slants or deletions which may have been improperly influenced or in breach of WP:NPOV etc, if they still impact the neutrality of the article.

Posted on ANI as the simplest way for this sock-ring to come to the attention of editors involved in cleanup of those articles. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Girl article ownership

VictoriaGirl has violated 3RR at Douglas Kinsella. 209.217.93.166 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct venue for that is WP:AN3RR. The report needs to be filed properly. Please review the instructions at the top and bottom of that page. Peace.Lsi john 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute bordering on a BLP violation, assuming the statement is correct in the first place. MSJapan 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a blatant BLP violation to say that someone has fetal alcohol syndrome without a source. shotwell 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209.217.93.166 (talk · contribs) has been reported to AIV already for their edits to Douglas Kinsella. It's basically a BLP & 3RR issue. See their talk page - Alison ☺ 22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is almost certainly the banned User:Arthur Ellis who regularly vandalizes pages from which he was banned by WP:RFAR/Warren_Kinsella, including Warren Kinsella, Shit From Hell (Kinsella's rock band), and now Douglas Kinsella (apparently Warren Kinsella's father). Typical edits include trying to insert some insult into the page in question. A semi-protect will work for a little while, but he'll reset his IP and create a few socks and re-appear in a few days. If a couple admins can watch these pages, revert and block, I'm sure that he'll eventually get bored. Bucketsofg 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! They're all on my list now & I've sprot'd the usual suspect articles. See how things go .... - Alison ☺ 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JBAK

This banned neo-nazi user is now carrying out an anonymous revert war on Battle of Ventersdorp - making it clear he plans to disrupt further: see [72]. In this charming edit [73], he makes his intention clear: "I have 6 other computers I can, and am, using and 13 other accounts, all working toward my goal of a conservative, nazi wikipedia, in different areas. 14/88" (the numbers are neo-nazi symbols). There is not much to be gained by blocking his IPs as they changes daily. Please semi-protect the Battle of Ventersdorp and Talk:Battle of Ventersdorp as a start. What else can be done? Zaian 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Requests for page protection instead of here. R. Baley 22:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What about the "what else can be done?" question? I've approached WP:ANI several times before about this user (it's not nice having him accusing me of rape), but never had any response. WP:AIV is generally not much better. Generally they won't act without a level 4 warning, which is hard because he only edits once or twice per IP; anyhow, in his case, talk page warnings seem to be equivalent to feeding the troll. It's very frustrating... Zaian 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From RFPP: Page has been semi-protected for 45 days [74] by User:Nihiltres. R. Baley 23:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into in in a few days... I've got a few ideas.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico

I've been reverting a copyvio for two days now. Just now was the fifth time I have deleted it out of the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico article. The information is coming direct from the University's website. I have left messages at User talk:24.175.200.29 and at User talk:Jmhpapo, who I am pretty sure are the same editor, and have gotten no responses and the editor continues to re-add the copyright violation. Do I have to keep adding four levels of warning on the Talk page of every IP and User name that this editor uses, before I can ask that they be blocked? Corvus cornix 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now make it six reverts. :( They'll have violated the uw-v4 level soon under this account, and I won't have to worry about getting a reply here. Corvus cornix 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been protected.-Wafulz 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOR proxy editor reverting at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

An editor has been using TOR proxies to revert at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's used three TOR proxies so far. Since he seems to have an inexhaustible supply of TOR proxies, and since proxies are not allowed to edit Wikipedia articles, I've semi-protected the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable; would it be worth hard-blocking the TOR proxy IP's (turning off anon-only) rather than soft-blocking them, or are we not doing that anymore? I can't keep this particular contentious issue straight. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've hard-blocked the proxies as well, but, as I said, the editor seems to have an inexhaustible supply of new ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just looked at this one, which appeared to be soft-blocked. Looks like we're on the same page then. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, I need to fix the others. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, as you yourself have been involved in an editing conflict on this page, it would have been wise to recurse yourself from protecting the page and asking a univolved admin to do so. But as the issue has been raised here, I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to have a look at the edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the scope of the article and suggest a reasonable resolution.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that any reasonable admin, faced with a page being attacked by numerous TOR-proxy-using anon IP's, would semi-protect the page (I certainly would have, so if you'd like, from a process point of view, consider that I semi-protected the page). MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are we then supposed to protect private information and our identities when you have given unscrupulous people like Jayjg checkuser access so that they can even see the IP addresses of user accounts? 61.124.59.83 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe he's violated the privacy policy, contact the Ombudsman commission (see WP:RFCU). Otherwise, stop trolling. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with trolling? 69.15.202.116 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of this article is really atrocious. I protected it a couple of weeks ago to stop a revert war; none of the editors involved in the article bothered to use the time-out to discuss the disputed content, and now they're revert-warring again. Some salutory blocks would be in order here, per WP:3RR's "electric fence" doctrine. -- ChrisO 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reminder to the article talk page and the user talk pages of the editors involved. Hopefully they will get the message. -- ChrisO 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Watchtower Sentinel

User is leaving WP and has speedy deleted his user page (for the third time in four months) and is attempting to speedy his user talk page (which was already denied once, so he tried a different template. I'm sure he wants to erase his presence so that the next time he decides to come back and behave as badly as he did there won't be a visible record of his past misconduct. Could an admin please tell him he cannot delete his user talkpage? MSJapan 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

DES ^(talk) 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved. The User is still trying to have his Talk page deleted. Corvus cornix 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, because I just protected the talk page. He can take it up with the arbcom if he likes but playing games on Wiki is disruptive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone talk to Dan MS please

Just reiterate my point here [75] so that he feels able to reply as apparently my lack of account means that it's OK for him to bypass copyright. just make him aware that the history needs to be there for attribution. 86.137.57.73 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say he has been posting deleted content to user subpages without maintaining history, could you possibly provide any diffs of this behavior? I don't see such edits from him in the last few days, unless I missed something. Someguy1221 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DRV where he has been copy/paste restoring content:[76]

I copied the old text to a new user sub-page and notified the user. ●DanMS • Talk 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For example at User:Smithtone/Negar_Assari-Samimi. Not a huge issue, I would just like him to be aware of copyright problems when providing deleted content. 86.137.57.73 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, from this edit, 86.137.57.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = KamrynMatika (talk · contribs) = KamrynMatika2 (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hi. Relevant? Not really. 86.137.57.73 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to attach a glimmer of context to the unnecessarily cryptic opening to this thread. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those are socks or banned users, no, that is not relevant. Further, I also hope DanMS is aware of copyright problems. It would actually be very easy for him or another admin to correct those problems right now. I'd also like to say that refusal to respond to an editor simply for editing anonymously is disapointing. Someguy1221 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more than disappointing. It's a fundamental misunderstanding or rejection of our commitment to allow anonymous or non-registered participants. An admin should know better. --ElKevbo 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing more than I've come to expect from Wikipedia users, so I don't mind too much. I would like to point out that editing and using an IP as my identifier rather than a username is the less anonymous option, as giving away my IP shows my geographical location, my ISP and could be used to identify me for legal means and so forth. And I haven't tried to hide my accounts either. However, this isn't really relevant either - I just want Dan to restore articles properly, pretty please. 86.137.57.73 03:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you "just want[ed] Dan to restore the articles properly", you could have asked in a nicer manner and given him some clue of which articles you wanted restored. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am rather mystified by all of this. First of all, an anonymous IP user posted a message on my talk page without identifying himself or the incident about which he is concerned. Anonymous users do not have talk pages, so how can I respond? Yes, yes, I know: There are talk pages for some IPs, but one can never be sure that an IP belongs to one particular user, or that the user who posted the message will be using the same IP the next time he edits Wikipedia. Second, the user did not explain the specifics about his concerns. Next, the user started an ANI thread about me without notifying me. That would have been at least the most courteous thing to do. If the anon is concerned about policy, he should read the ANI page, where it says “As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting.” Finally, The user did not try to work out the problem with me first before starting an ANI thread.

If I erred in providing the deleted content to the user who requested it in DRV, then I am sorry. A user made a courteous request in DRV to see the old text of the deleted page so that he could rewrite it into an acceptable article. It seemed like a reasonable request, and the article was not reposted in the main wiki namespace. It that was wrong, then I accept the blame for it and I will not repeat it. Since I am involved in this incident, I will not delete the article on the user’s sub-page where I posted it. Another uninvolved admin should take care of that to avoid any conflict of interest. ●DanMS • Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was that the history was lost on one article. (I know, it's hard to believe that is the cause of all this fuss but it is). I've properly restored the entire history of Negar Assari-Samimi and moved it over User:Smithtone/Negar Assari-Samimi. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake warning, harassment, attacks and trolling behavior on important article

I am active on the US State Terrorism article link. Many of us are trying to seriously debate this very serious subject, only to be met with trolling, rudeness and personal attacks. Among the wrost offenders are administrators Mongo and Tom Harrison. Others are even worse. Look at this quote. "Oh my Gawd! So this is where all the nutjobs went to? I was shocked when I logged in and saw that the 9-11 conspiracy theory numnuts had recently gone silent. Checking my buddy Tom Harrison contributions, I saw he was now here, dealing with even bigger wackos. Yes, lets delete this pathetic waste of server space.--Beguiled 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)". I just went to the page of one of the worst offenders Tortuous Devestating Crudge link and was met with this fake message:

You have new messages (last change).

This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.

Furthermore he brags:

"Described as one of the most prolific troll from my friends at Indymedia and banned from too many chat rooms to mention, I feel Wikipedia is both an opportuntiy to inform as well as persuade."

This is an outight admission of trolling, being a 'Sock Puppet' and 'POV Warrior' on Wikipedia. I ask that this phony message be removed, this and other users be warned, and that several adminstrators of all political stripes and persuasions, including some from outside the USA referee and mediate this article to curtail the onging program of harassment, rudeness, intimidation, and trolling. When some of us are working in 'good faith' only to be met with constant violations of policies, and two adminstrators who are active on the talk page every day are among the offenders, and look the other way when their partisan cohorts break every WP rule too, something is very wrong with Wikipedia. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 03:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the msg on TDC's userpage means the folks at Indymedia think he trolled Indymedia. Do you have any evidence to back up these accusations against TDC?--Chaser - T 04:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fake 'new message' warning (which I just removed from his page) is by itself, 100% trolling. Bragging about being banned for trolling on other forums, and posting messages like "Spiffy as that above quote was -Give this man a cookie! -And make it TWO, count 'em, two cookies for Ultramarine" are trolling and admission to trolling. This in on the talk page of an article about 100's of 1000's of dead civilians, not some article about comic books or something else not serious. Bragging "I feel Wikipedia is both an opportuntiy to inform as well as persuade" is an outight admission to being a 'POV Warrior' Much of his user page is provocation. I thought 'we' were here to 'write an encyclopedia' not troll, provoke, and definately not to 'inform and persuade' others to our POV. What about Beguiled's insults? Bmedley Sutler 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the "new message" joke; editors have wide latitude in their own userspace. None of this stuff is trolling or any kind of policy violation that I see. The insult by Beguiled is pretty ridiculous, but I'm not acting on it 45 days after the fact. You need to bring this stuff up sooner.--Chaser - T 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, don't hestitate to examine Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributions and see if they think he is here to promote a neutral effort to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't, as it will show he has been a rather model editor, esp. on the article page in question. I wish I could say the same for the others. I support his request for several adminstrators of all political stripes and persuasions to referee and mediate this article to curtail the onging attacks, that really amount to vandalism. See the latest attacks from the same group, blanking entire sections (and adding joke sections, such as "cultural terrrorism" repeated, and other joke sections, while blanking and obstructing progress being made by serious editors. They wanted the whole article deleted, and this disruption, and blanking, is another way to to do it. It needs mediation, and enforcement of all WP policies.Giovanni33 04:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we bring up your harassment and trolling on Junglecat's talk page, and characterizing a significant group of editors who challenge your claim of consensus as vandals? - Crockspot 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks. Its not trolling, and its not harassment. I'm trying to get him to answer and explain his edits. This is a sign of good faith. I see the edits as clearly vandalism, but I'm holding out on another possible explaination, which I'm all ears for. I'll wait for his answer for his repeated blanking without any discussion on talk to remove a whole section that was the product of consensus among editors from all sides. His actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR--but failing to explain why he feels its OR:

As of now, I'm still waiting for your explanation from him for why he claimed it was OR, and thus blanked it completely, against the consensus of editors working on the page who supported it and worked in it with me (over 17 established editors). Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism.Giovanni33 05:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my explanation, which you rejected. Junglecat obviously isn't online now. You're just being disruptive now. You need a time out. - Crockspot 05:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your explaination was refuted. You didn't show OR. Anyay, I'm waiting for his response. Since he blanked the page over and over and didnt yet explain himself, I think my asking him to do so is appropriate. So is my indignation at his editing behavior. As I said, I can wait. I expect when he does come back he will explain.Giovanni33 05:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Mongo. If I ever decide to become a 'POV warrior' I will write a lot more about Big Sur and the Monterey area so I can have a 'cover' like many say you have with with your nature and park articles. I doubt I could ever sink to your level of attacks and rudeness though. Its just not in my nature. You have quite the history. I've studied it. Have a nice day.Bmedley Sutler 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will appeal your restoration of the trolling 'fake new message' template to TDC's page, Chaser and your good sense in doing so. I went to that user's page in 'good faith' and was met with fakery meant to fool others and the equal of a computer hack meant to mimic Wikipedia software. Your defense of this is outrageous. Bmedley Sutler 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need admins who are impartial and neutral to start to enforce policy and mediate. Otherwise, all we see is the same gang create a "wall garden" to reinforce themselves--the same right-wing clique that is attacking this article they wanted deleted and sworn to get rid of. That is why outside intervention is needed. They don't want it because it means curtailing the disruption.Giovanni33 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. Even the opposers at RFA usually don't have a problem with such messages.--Chaser - T 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel protected the article in question for two months. I think the real question is how talk page discussion will go.--Chaser - T 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.--MONGO 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is nothing new. We can easily predict based on the past what will happen. Nothing new. That is why we need referees so the bad actors will be under supervision, and policed.Giovanni33 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is ~~down the hall, on your right, in the broom closet, behind the water heater...~~ here.--Chaser - T 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Chaser, looks like you are the new target. I think they've given up on talk page discussion, and are instituting a scorched earth policy. - Crockspot 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you 'tone in down' a little. You instigating for a time-out is unseeemly too. Adminstrators choosing to restore trolling, fakery, and computer hackery, and defending it is pretty strange. Wikipedia is 'all about the jokes and stunts' yes? Bmedley Sutler 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU think that I should tone it down? That's the best joke yet. - Crockspot 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Kurykh, (and Chaser) thank you for your defense of "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message" as being approriate for Wikipedia. I would think after the 'Ryan Essjay' catastrophe and all the other problems like the dead wrestler that Wikipedia would be more interested in restoring it's severly damaged reputation than in hijinks, but jokes and stunts and defense of such actions are apparently more important! Wise choice sir! I'm logging off for the night. Bmedley Sutler 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-dented)The Joke message has been discussed a few times before. It winds up as a no consensus, semi-unsettled thing each time, with one side saying we should be more professional in our endeavors, even in userspace, and the other saying we're volunteers, and as long as it's on user pages and user talks, it's no big deal, and few get caught twice on it, because it doesn't appear in the same place as a real message does. I don't think this is going to change here, and relative to other parts of this thread, it's not that important. That part, at least, mostly comes off as sour grapes about getting tricked, and being made to feel foolish when you're already hot-tempered. Let that part go, focus on working out what got you mad in the first place. ThuranX 06:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, although, I can see how he sees its all connected, given the trolling and distruption by POV motivated editors who really want this article deleted, and seem to settle for disruption as the second best choice, and this includes a lot of trolling. When that doenst work, we then see vandalism as the last resort, which is what happened with all the blanking all of a sudden, to provoke an edit war and get the page locked again. The main point of all ths is that we need outside intervention to monitor and referee the page moving forward, and stop anyone who goes out of line, violates any policy, or breaks good wiki-norms. Can we get this kind of heavy handed intervention for an article plagued by these established editors who hate the politics the page aims to report about? Either that or we have to get those disruptive editors banned from this article (all the serious conservative editors are fine--we need their POV for NPOV and balance--but the reactionary ones who won't allow progress at all because they hate this subject to the core and want it gone, are the ones who won't allow progress to take place.Giovanni33 07:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha??? Dude, All I said was, stop worrying about the joke banner. Don't go sidetracking into the other part, that's being discussed below. ThuranX 07:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that, often, editors who use these deceptive banners troll on other subjects as well. At least, they contribute to an unserious atmosphere. Would a prestigious national library have these? A respected academic journal? Britannica? Do readers benefit when we publish them? Do other editors benefit?Proabivouac 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerable?

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to now attack people on their usertalk and other areas. Reason...a content dispute has been ongoing now for a month and the page in question got protected due to a neverending edit war and the version that Giovanni33 preferred did not get protected. Folks...this is about a content dispute but are comments such as these made by Giovanni33 to be tolerated...these seem well over the top. (Direct quotes...typos are his)

"You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page Shame on you!! I expect you to at least explain your abhorent behavior, as I will continue to pursue your vicious crime in this matter that I find rather dispicable worthy of the greatest contempt possible"[77]
"you have sunken to the bottom of ceasepool for consideration as a decent editor", "[78]
"you cement the veracity of the wiki-crimes I accuse you of. Yes, I accuse you. If you have any shred of validity to your blanking over and over the work of many editors with what you did to that entire section, now is the time to speak up, or else your continued silence on the matter only condemns you further."[79]
this wiki-crimes can not be orgotten, or swept under the rug"[80]

Not to mention he has been accusing all those that oppose his edits as vandals or of having performed vandalism or of being disruptive...[81], [82], [83], [84]--MONGO 05:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I was pretty mad, but my indignation was justified, as it appeared to me to be pure vandalism going on, attacking the article and getting it locked in the vandalized state--with all the hard work, worked on by all the serious editors of the page blanked. I've cooled down since then but my goal remains valid: to demand an explanation for the reasoning behind the claim of OR--that was given for the blanking. I don't think asking the editor who blanking sourced material added by consensus (over 17 editors agreed), to explain his edits is off. Its the right on mark. I feel an explanation is to be expected from that editor, as those edits objectively appear as blantent vandalism to me, and others. This is a sign of good faith. Although I see the edits as clearly vandalism, in apparence, I'm holding out for another possible explanation. I'll wait for his answer for his repeated blanking without any discussion on talk to remove a whole section that was the product of consensus among editors from all sides. His actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR--but failing to explain why he feels its OR:

As of now, I'm still waiting for an explanation from him for why he claimed it was OR. Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism. Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fence is here:[[85]]. Yes, my language was heated and over the top, but it was in reaction to a long pattern of attacks against the hard work of all serious editors working for progress on this page. That is why we need intervention and mediation, a referee to supervise. I will say that its the height of all irony that its Mongo who is complaing about losing ones cool. I'm sure everone can appreciate that irony. I'm going to take wiki break myself, due to wiki-stress.Giovanni33 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained many times to you in article space, user space and talk space. You choose to ignore it and call the multiple editors that have reverted your Original Research as vandals. This is simply not acceptable behavior. --Tbeatty 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. The blanked section used well sourced, reliable, verifiable sources to report from notable and significant adherents of the claim that the nuclear attack was an act of state terrorism. It presents the consensus view and then discusses in detail, by quoting those reliable sources (academics in their areas of expertise: Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University), and Howard Zinn (History, Pol.Sci. Boston University) ). There is NO OR, and blanking the whole section over and over while failing to state why (except in edit summaries claiming OR), is not appropriate. Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fence:[[86]] To remove, esp. blank-like any major edit--requires consensus be obtained first. It goes both ways. I abided by it to add the material, but the blanking was done by editors who jumped it to attack it--by blanking-- without consenus, afterwards. With no explanation; that, to me, appeared like vandalism, of the most insideious kind, since its hides under the pretex of "following the rules." See his edit summaries on the diffs I provided above, for the 3 reversions he made. And, you are equally guilty of this.Giovanni33 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reverts of your edits were, as you put it, "vandalism, of the most insideious kind" then you have no idea what insidious vandalism is.--MONGO 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, please stop this vendetta against MONGO. It's getting quite tiring. Will ^(talk) 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did MONGO start this section about Giovanni, but the difs as MONGO points out with have to do with someone else. So perhaps the direction of that comment was wrong. Did you mean to tell MONGO to leave Giovanni alone? He did follow him to the Hiroshima page and revert him while being in a prior content dispute. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs I provided are examples of Giovanni33 attacking others actually...namely JungleCat.--MONGO 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vendetta againt anyone, I only object to very poor behaviors they may engage in that hurt WP. This is not me attacking Mongo, its Mongo attacking me, claiming I'm attacking JungleCat. I am not interested in any attacks on any editors--just attacking what they are doing as wrong so as to prevent their reoccurance. Thus, I am attacking that editors actions, which clearly look like vandalism to me, of the worst kind (I think the most insidious kind is that from an established editor who hides it behind a false claim such as (OR), that makes it look like it could possibly be legitimate. I'm trying to open up discussion to have him explain his blanking of sourced material that was the product of consensus. He wasn't part of the discussions, but just came to the page to edit war and revert against consensus, to support his fellow POV warriors, attacking the article that he wanted deleted so much. I feel that is the real problem, and this article needs a referee to curtail this kind of disruption. If an empowered admin can be assigned to the article, it will be clear in a short matter of time who the serious editors are, and what is going on with the others there. The blanking was completely unjustified, and I object to it as strongly as I can--esp. since there is no discussion on the talk page, or even an attempt to get consenus.Giovanni33 06:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33, that kind of dramatic dialogue makes you look histrionic and unreasonable.Proabivouac 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) - though you may be quite right to complain about the wholesale removal off the section - as long as we're unencyclopedically documenting "allegations," those do appear to be notable allegations.Proabivouac 07:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I found myself quite upset, and I let out my steam with speedy fingers. A rare moment for me but it happens to all us humans from time to time. Some more than others, I might add.:)Giovanni33 07:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33, I see, so what you say is correct then, that editors that disagree with you must all be vandals, that they are not the serious contributors to the article. JungleCat asked you (his last edit before logging off) after you made the comment"You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page Shame on you!! I expect you to at least explain your abhorent behavior, as I will continue to pursue your vicious crime in this matter that I find rather dispicable worthy of the greatest contempt possible"[87] to not attack him...JungleCat stated: "I am going to ask you this once, and very politely, please stay off my talk page. In advance, thanks." [88], but you simply removed his comment from your talkpage[89] and then made TEN more posts to his talkpage and condemnned his edits on the article's talkpage as well.--MONGO 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after blanking all the work of many editors with that attack on the page--zero discussion on the talk page to explain his blanking despite being asked several times by many editors who reverted him---he was not going to get off so easy. I demanded that he explain himself, so as to put to rest my being very upset that he was acting like a vandal. I don't like vandals, and they do make me mad for its WP that they are vandalizing and the hard work of editors who respect each other and build bridges, good faith, and work together. His actions where the antithesis of this--but I always direct and attack their behavior, which I find to be objectively vandalism in practice-destroyed the work of others with no good reason (that can be understood). You are wrong to suggest that those who simply disagree with me, that I characterize their behavior one of being a vandal. No. It's very specfic actions that makes what they do objetively look like vandalism to me (as I've explained on talk and other places). For starters this entails no discussion, just blanking sourced material against consensus, and refusing or ignoring attempts to discuss the alleged problem. Disagreement is fine, and I am always willing to compromise. In fact, I see the the reasoned clash of ideas as helpful in fact, as different POV's put a check on each others inherent biases. Its the locomotive of progress. But this obviously only applies to serious editors who are editing in good faith, and communicating, respecting the norms of the community, etc. Failure to even talk about massive changes, such as blanking entire sections that were carefully put together by many editors working together, and to continue to blank against consensus, can hardly be counted as good faith editing on the surface, and demands explanation from the editor. Merzbow and I clash POV's, and we have edit warred, as well. However, I never called anything he did vandalism because he never acted that way. The same for many other editors who are very conservative. But we have a small handful whose actions are distinctly of a different kind,whoose purpose in the article (maybe elswhere they are fine--blind spot?) have not been to resolve disputes and move things forward, bu to provoke conflict, and cause disruption, preventing progress by all kinds of tactics, including trolling, edit waring, blanking, not discussing. That is what vandalism of the worse kind accomplishes. Usually the more editors, the better. But sometimes we need to remove a few editors to make things better. Again, if we can get some trusted, neutral admin to mediate, and follow closely what is going on, I think this will either deter this from continuing, or get certain editors banned from that article at least. Otherwise, I am prepared to indict, accuse, and bring to the fore front this group of editors who I feel fit into that category whose actions make them NOT being in this article the best thing for making progress in creating a NPOV, encylopedic featured article. And that is my only goal.Giovanni33 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Bmedley Sutler has now pasted this matter to Jimbo's talk page. Just so's you know - Alison ☺ 07:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My jaw just hit the floor when I logged in this morning... I don't even know where to begin. I will ask that Giovanni33 to stay off my talk page. He made this remark which was inappropriate. I asked him not to post on my page, and he added the disputed material on my talk page. In my time here, I have never encountered such harassment or behavior from another user. I do not want him posting inappropriate text or verbal attacks on my talk again (if that can be enforced). JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with all of you? This site is starting to look like a day care. The same people who voted for an article to be deleted appear on the page and remove sections and sources, obviously, voting in tandem that those sections should be removed. This is permitted oddly as they are making a new concensus ... which is just a majority vote. I find this quite silly as the idea of AfD was that there was no concensus to delete the article, so instead entire sections are removed from it, until its empty?

So far I have written a few articles and this article on state terrorism has attracted such childish behavior all around to the point where even my userpage was vandalized by one of the discussion participants. Admins just a few days ago told MONGO and Giovanni to leave eachother alone, and here is just more carrying on and MONGO calling Giovanni a "troll" etc. I am happy to see the page protected, at least that way perhaps others can move on and ... do some editing? However I think an admin needs to look at the participation on the talk page of this article or just deal with more reports here. The majority, well all but Tom harrison, that voted for deletion, have done nothing but remove content, sources, and stone wall discussion with policy names, often refusing or ignoring questions regarding why they think something is OR or fails V etc.

For the sake of all involved can an admin look over the behavior of that talk page, and the way in which users are "participating" in the article. Also a big thank you to the long overdue protection, at least that garuntees no more content will be blanked. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do...

In my usual user talk page runs (and this must happen more commonly for those who work with images), I find that there are often pages full of fair use warnings from either OrphanBot, BetacommandBot, or general users and administrators. Should we really continue to allow these users to edit, when they are unchanging fair use abusers?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors continuing to (a) actively engage in behavior that is inconsistent with our policies and community norms and (b) has been warned multiple times should be blocked, IMHO. Of course, it's easy for me to say that as a non-admin who doesn't have to deal with unblock requests and other fallout. :)

I seem to come across editors who at one time uploaded several images and received warnings about those images but the editor has either left the project or doesn't upload images anymore. Those are obviously different from those who continue to engage in such behavior and should be treated differently. --ElKevbo 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that the efforts and applications of those bots ramped up recently, I do wonder if you're not seeing a warning for an image uploaded a while ago, which the bots hit more recently? If someone uploaded a bunch of pictures back in '04 or '05, then they'd have recieved a slew of warnings when the bots got to those warnings, which might look like the editor is actively uploading now and ignoring the process. Is this a possible scenario, given the workings of the bots? ThuranX 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out editors who are currently ongoing and ignore those items on their talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then, yeah, maybe a warning that continuing to upload in violation will lead to blocking, so they understand the gravity of the situation, followed by swiftly and firmly blocking the first one to poke the fate bear? (And I only asked about the older thing because I can easily see such a thing hapening, but if these are recent uploads over time, with repeated bot notices being disregarded with respect to upoads after bot notices, then smite away mightily.) ThuranX 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I have delt with this situation, not by blocking the editor concerned, but by deleting everything they upload on sight. Quite often editors who simply cannot understand our image use policies do actually make good contributions to the encylopedia. By deleting their images as soon as they upload them, they have to opportunity to learn that we will not tolerate copyvioations without us losing an otherwise good contributor. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case I would just block them. If they get the impression that they can simply upload a new image whenever we delete one with no consequences it just turns into a game that wastes everyones time. If after multiple warnings and attempts to explain they keep re-uploading deleted images it doesn't matter how well they otherwise edit, a solid whack with the cluebat is very much in order. Gmaxwell mentioned at WT:NONFREE#Compliance rate that they have a JavaScript hack on Commons that can be used to "disable" uploads for someone without bocking them (yeah it's easy enough to get around if they have half a clue, but still...), it might be worth looking into deploying that here as well, but I also agree with him that we should not be afraid of outright blocking people who completely ignore warnings and clearly are not even trying to abide by the image policies. --Sherool (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the -bots are always right.
If the violations are knowing.
If the violations are actual violations, and not a mis-tagging thing because of the change in Wikipedia's systems,

Then, yes. Otherwise, note that people who've been here ages and ages can have some -bot go through a spasm, suddenly tag four (of maybe 50) images, and the editor may just ignore it. It then looks like a "page full of warnings." Sometimes the bot is wrong (shouldn't a human follow up?), sometimes the newbie is just clueless and isn't educated by the -bot, and sometimes the violations are because we used to just say what the licensing is, and now we have to click on this button or that. It can't be an automatic conclusion, not when it's a stupid system involved (a -bot). -Bots can't determine that a person should be blocked: an admin needs to investigate. Geogre 12:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but Ryulong seems to be talking about what to do when he finds them, not go hunting them down, which means he, and others, would probably have time to look into it a bit. I don't think he's at all interested in having a bot chase another bot, tally warnings, and run some sort of autoblocking, in fact, i think that's against the bot policy. I think he wants to figure out what to do when he does see it, and right now, it looks like 'warn those who seem oblivious, and block those who exercise their 'obliviate response' excessively'. ThuranX 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I'm not saying a bot should block them, but if you do see someone with several old "no source" or simmilar warnings and notice that they have just kept uploading more images with the same problems despite this it's probably time to take things to the next level to make sure they get the message. The key beeing not the number of warnings, but that they have continued uploading problem images after beeing notified that theyr previous uploads have had problems. Maybe give one final "hand written" warning just in case, but if that goes unheeded I'd say block them regardles of how good editors they otherwise appear to be. --Sherool (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if a user has been warned (by a human) and persists, I see nothing wrong with issuing a short block. It may just be a block of 2 hours or so, this has never killed anyone, but may work wonders in some cases (people who never bother to even read warnings need an illustration that they can and will be blocked). That's what your blocking button is for, don't be afraid to use it. I am talking of moderate use of short blocks to get a user to pay attention to warnings. Not, of course, blocking people for two days because they forgot to tag some image they uploaded (be reasonable). dab (𒁳) 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to impugn anyone's character, except the character of the -bots. I suppose the issues with them are well known enough that I don't need to delineate them. Let's just say that they're wrong some of the time and very wrong some of the time and blind all of the time, and I think we need to be really careful about relying upon their judgment (when they don't have any). I'm getting peppered every so often with "You have no rationale for this image," when it's an image that I uploaded and properly tagged back in 2004 or 2005 under the proper system then, and we've had FAC's that are getting images deleted because of that. I was just saying, as I always do, that the warnings may be pointers, but nothing alleviates the need to investigate (and warn, as a human being, to another human being). I don't think people understand how off-putting and incommunicative -bot warnings can be. At least try speaking, first. I'm sure Ryulong will do that, but I didn't want anyone to read this and conclude "Block 'em if there are bot warnings." Geogre 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone's on the same page. Small blocks are justified in many cases, warnings in others, all situations to be reviewed by humans and dealt with case-by-case. ThuranX 13:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for assassination

Resolved

– Editor blocked indef by Durova. --ElKevbo 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Check out this edit! Please block or otherwise deal with this editor. I'm usually more than happy to dive in with warnings for my fellow editors to help our or set an example but this is beyond the pale. --ElKevbo 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. As indicated there, looks like trolling.--Chaser - T 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help and your response but I don't understand how actively advocating for someone's assassination merits only a warning, particularly given that editor's history of blatant trolling and disruption. --ElKevbo 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he's calling for "assasaination", whatever that might be. He should be e-vick-ted on account o' por spelin'. Baseball Bugs 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Durova's now blocked the account, so that solves that.--Chaser - T 05:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am categorically opposed to guessing whether a death threat is genuine or not. Even if only one threat in 10,000 is serious, this site is too big to roll the dice on that gamble. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'm marking this resolved. --ElKevbo 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why this is serious enough to warrant a block? In the case of death threats against editors, we indefinitely block to protect the editor from the threats, but it's virtually impossible that Michael Vick would ever know about this. I don't mind Durova's block, but obviously I didn't think this was that big a deal. (Of course, I also saw this more as stupid nonsense than a serious "call for assassination", but perhaps I misread.)--Chaser - T 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check other edits by this "editor" though...including his great contributions to the Al Sharpton article...[90]--MONGO 06:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I feel a little more sheepish, now. Thanks, MONGO.--Chaser - T 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was only trying to show that all we have here is a vandal account anyway. Sorry if it came across differently.--MONGO 06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User disputing page written about him

I recommend taking a look at the biography of Edward McSweegan, which seems to have an escalating conflict and legal threat implications. User:Emcsweegan is vociferously objecting to his characterization and repeatedly alters the page, defames Wikipedia, and claims that he doesn't want to be listed here. I don't know who's at 'fault' here, but as this falls under the realm of WP:BLP and we have an irate living person defacing their own biography, I suggest immediate administrator intervention to deal with this issue. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While admins get to it, I looked at it. McSweegan's right about the article being started by a Lyme activist, one who really does seem to think that Lyme's a bioweapon, and McSweegan's provided, numerous times, it seems, clarifications, including going through it line by line. He's not familiar with wiki-policy, and given the BLP issues, i doubt he cares. However, it's clear that the majority of the current article text was plagarized, so I removed it. At the same time, I removed his rant, since that's likely to agitate without aiding. This leaves the article stubbed. Not sure there's really much impressive about him, and I note that the older version (the not-his version) really mostly set up that he'd done some of his fiction writing on NIH time, or at least, NIH premises. That seems to make it a cheap swipe at an otherwise relatively non-notable guy. (With apologies to the subject.) ThuranX 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems that he's only marginally notable and wishes for removal, I've sent it to AfD. — Shinhan < talk > 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a major rewrite to the article--hopefully this will salvage it. Blueboy 96 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jimbo Wales

Resolved

– Category and user pages involved deleted by Wafulz. — Shinhan < talk > 15:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody added this to the top of the Jimbo Wales' page. That was quickly reverted, but there category itself, and all the users in it staid. I checked two of the users in the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jimbo Wales and both of them created only one page each, claiming they are sockpupets of Jimbo Wales. Creative vandalism, what can I say. Since I dont know which speedy tag to use for marking this and am not an admin, anybody wanna take care of this? — Shinhan < talk > 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess WP:CSD#G1 works the best here.-Wafulz 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it had quite coherent and well thought-out content. But it was also obviously malicious vandalism. Thanks for the cleanup :) — Shinhan < talk > 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

Hello, I've decided with great sadness I must leave being an editor on wikipedia and follow my dream to become a published author. The last few weeks I have spent on Wikipedia doing edits and taking part in Afd discussions have been really great, but they have been seriously affecting my work time on my book and so with that I am asking that my account be deleted and made so it cannot be restored. The urge is very great for me to log back in any time and start editing and I think if my account was closed and permanently deleted it would help overcome my wikipedia addiction!

Thanks, Ispy1981

We can't block you ourselves, but you can use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer, which does pretty much the exact same thing.-Wafulz 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a Right To Dissapear deletion? It deletes everything on my user page and contribution pages and makes it unable to get it recreated. My biggest fear is I will log in everyday, Wikipedia has become an addiction and is seriously starting to impede my lifestyle, I have seen other people request their account be blocked and deleted and quite a few of them have had it done successfully.

Thanks, Ispy1981

If you can't exercise the most modicum of self restraint, something else is wrong friend. It's just a website, requests for self blocks and whatnot are often seen as unnecessary drama. If you can't trust yourself to stop editing Wikipedia, how can you expect to succeed on your new endeavor? Best of luck with the book, it's an exciting new direction and I wish you success, but regarding Wikipedia... just stop visiting, if you're done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, i can't just stop. I logged out of my account and could log back in successfully, can someone please Block me indef if possible? The "pull" is just to great. Do I need to break rules or, how can I get an indef block guys?

Thanks, Ispy1981

The thing is, even if we did block you, it would be trivially easy for you to create another account tomorrow. You have to do this yourself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you start posting disruptive edits, your talk page will be restored and warning messages will be added to it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Ispy1981. This is bullshit. This is from an anon editor who has hacked into my account. I've been locked out of my account. Is there anything I can do?--75.32.146.37 14:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop playing games. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as sure as Theresa that there isn't a real problem here as I've dealt with Ispy1981 as a very good-faith user in the past. Unfortunately I am away from home with limited access today and would ask that this situation be looked into a little further by someone with more time and the ability to ping a checkuser if needed. (Sorry if it turns out I AGF'd to a fault here.) Newyorkbrad 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, on looking into it further the account may well be compromised. It seemed very strange that both of them should be online at the same time. Somone with checkuser needs to look into this. It looks like the password was changed on the 15th which seems strange. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brad,

We've worked together on several edits and harassing users over the last year on Wikipedia and I have to tell you, this is getting as bad as it can be. Recently I decided to retire from Wikipedia to persue my goal as a published author and with great support from the Wikipedia community I had my name taken off the Wikipedia roster as an editor. Though I'm sad to go and I enjoyed Wikipedia, it seems now that someone, an anon author perhaps, has decided to try and bs his way into my account. He has posted on multiple places with different ip addresses in an attempt to gain entry into my account. Please disregard above, if you need to you can reach me at swwriter(atsign)hotmail(fullstop)com, the same email address that has been on my account since 7/14/2007 and as well you can see I asked for a new password on 7/15/2007 and made many constructive edits to Wikipedia as well. Just an angry anon editor perhaps, a checksum woul;d be more then welcome. Ispy1981 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email address obfuscated due to harvest-bot concerns. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result

I've talked to both parties via email and am now pretty convinced that the Ispy1981 was compromised by a previously banned user. Either that or they are both the same person pissing about. Anyway I've undone the page deletions and blocked the account. I'm still in contact with both of them and will try to continue to sort it out but I don't think there is any more we can do here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Itzwiki is an abusive sockpuppet of Hatewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being used to upload Image:Contract 0081.jpg, an image which constitutes unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, in violation of WP:BLP, and which is identical to Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg, uploaded by Hatewatcher, which was speedily deleted pursuant to CSD G10. Itzwiki has also placed the WP:BLP violating image in Kevin Alfred Strom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just as Hatewatcher did. John254 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a sockpuppet, though I have no opinion on the veracity or encyclopedic-ness of the image. Hatewatcher is not under a block now (indeed has never been blocked), so I won't block Itzwiki. —Crazytales !! 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Contract 0081.jpg and Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg constitute blatant WP:BLP violations, since no reliable sources have been cited to show that the images are authentic. Hatewatcher's use of Itzwiki as a sockpuppet account to upload Image:Contract 0081.jpg, after being warned regarding the uploading of the same image as Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg, is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts, which expressly provides that "The use of alternate accounts for deliberate policy violations is specifically proscribed: All users... are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption..." John254 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed TfD closing

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

Could an uninvolved admin review this early non-admin closure of a July 21 TFD for {{Allegations of apartheid}}, later disputed? The reason for the early close was that it was very recently nominated for deletion, on July 10th (closed 4 days ago). Uninvolved ideally means "never seen this template before". Gracenotes^T § 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota should not have closed that discussion. He's been heavily involved in other AfDs on the apartheid series of articles and isn't remotely neutral on the issue; it's not appropriate for someone with that level of involvement to close a deletion debate. However, he's probably right that it's too soon for another AfD, so I would leave the issue as moot and come back to it at a later stage. -- ChrisO 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has also been brought up on WP:AN. --Onorem Dil 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

Resolved

user:Nandesuka blanked an entire article after I posted a notice about it on WP:BLP. I went through the entire article, and found only 2 external links that needed to be removed, and Nandesuka wipes the entire page [91]. Any issues he had could have been dealt with on the talk page or through an Afd, not by unilateraly wiping away months of work and hundreds of edits. I would like it restored. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up on WP:DRV. In the future, if you feel the deletion process was violated by an admin or other user, you can just ask for a vote on WP:DRV.

User Matildaluvr15

Resolved

– Indefblocked serial nonsense creator. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please check Special:Contributions/Matildaluvr15? The user is creating a series of articles which have no context or meaningful info --NeilN 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bleh999 in TfD for {{Allegations of apartheid}}

User:Bleh999 opened a TfD for {{Allegations of apartheid}} less than four days after the previous one, without discussing first in the talk page of the template.[92]

Then I explained why this was wrong, and provided a remedy: this was a clear WP:DRV issue, not a TfD issue.[93]

After a few hours to allow action, I snowballed a close.[94]

User:Bleh999 reverted the close multiple times: [95],[96].

He alleges that editors cannot close TfDs. But {{closing}} and common practice in XfDs argue against that when the result is any other than delete. Editors can do it, have done it, and will continue to do it.

Furthermore, he has ignored WP:DELETE which clearly states that nominations should not be redone until after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

This user is clearly being disruptive: the close tags of XfD clearly state that once something is closed, it should not be re-opened or further edited. If he had problems with the closing, he had to go to WP:DRV, not edit war over the closing. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,105: / Line 1,105: @@
 ::::::Seems to be quite a generous offer. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 :I too think that a wide topic ban is an entirely reasonable offer. I'm the anonymous "heated issue sockpuppet" that got banned for a short while by JzG for my "edit warring" with Sparkzilla (mainly on Metropolis and [[Crisscross]]), shortly before I outed him on the COI board. I think it's good to note that although Sparkzilla now claims to have perfectly honorable motives, and pretends he never really denied who he was, he did. He would ferociously delete all talk page comments asking if he were in any way related to Devlin/Metropolis, and accuse the person asking for being "disruptive." Even after I had prevented extensive evidence he were Devlin, he still tried to deny it by denigrating my efforts to out him, and kept the act up until MangoJuice told him to quit it. He also used an IP to edit Metropolis/CrissCross. But that's all in the COI I originally posted, please do have a look at it if you haven't already. It was my opinion at the time, and still is, that the case was closed prematurely and that Sparkzilla was bound to create more problems. [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
-:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Metropolis_.28English_magazine_in_Japan.29.2C_Crisscross_and_Nick_Baker_.28prisoner_in_Japan.29_.281.29 Sparkzilla CoI]. Here's on particular aspect of Sparkzilla's on-wiki behaviour, where you can clearly see how he's attempting to promote his own business: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=prev&oldid=45274991]. Although Japan Today is 99% Kyodo news-produced blurbs, he puts his own site above Kyodo news, arguing he's "ordered news links by site size." Although his defamation campaign against that Baker fellow is bad enough on it's own, it's important to note how Sparkzilla is all about self-promotion as well. He can pretend he's "one of the good guys" on Wikipedia all he wants, but that won't change the sad reality. [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
+:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Metropolis_.28English_magazine_in_Japan.29.2C_Crisscross_and_Nick_Baker_.28prisoner_in_Japan.29_.281.29 Sparkzilla CoI]. Here you can clearly see one particular aspect of Sparkzilla's on-wiki behaviour; how he's attempting to promote his own business: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=prev&oldid=45274991]. Although Japan Today is 99% Kyodo news-produced blurbs, he puts his own site above Kyodo news, arguing he's "ordered news links by site size." Although his defamation campaign against that Baker fellow is bad enough on it's own, it's important to note how Sparkzilla is all about self-promotion as well. He can pretend he's "one of the good guys" on Wikipedia all he wants, but that won't change the sad reality. [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 == Block review: [[User:KaragouniS]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards