Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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: [1] [2]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253#User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive264#User:Centrx and my sigs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive49#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

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)

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)

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)

"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: [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)
  • 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)

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)

And more drama

[4] 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)

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)

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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you implying one has to leave the project to alter links to his/her/its archive pages? Or alter sigs? Isn't this a punishment of the long term contributors? In addition such edits are frequently done. For example several people alter archive pages linking to archived ANB/I discussions. I find that to be productive. -- Cat ^chi? 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 ([5], [6], [7], [8]). 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 [9] [10]. 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)

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)

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)

White Cat is doing nothing wrong. Just making up policies because something annoys you is wrong. Fred Bauder 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is making up policies, and yeah, what Cat is doing is wrong. The disruption is that he is able to force his way by throwing a fit. Holding the community hostage by bitching about it till we will accept anything to shut him up. Here's some highlights from past discussions:

• If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007

• The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The contents of archives ought not be changed. The alteration of archives defeats the purpose of archives; one practical example of problems with signature changes is if someone refers to the user's name in conversation, which then disappears if the username is changed thus altering the meaning of the discussion or rendering it unintelligible. Eliding personal information or potentially libellous statements is an appropriate exception, but making changes for no other reason than "I want to" is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cat doesn't just try to change his sigs, but he even changes other people's comments. He goes and changes other user's talk archives as well, even when they specifically ask him not to.

He doesn't just change things for his Cool Cat -> White Cat move, but was changing things from White Cat to White Cat on talk pages just days after signing, because he had made a minor update to his strange sig system.

And if you want to make statements like "there's no policy that says he can't" then you're just ignoring that there's no policy that says people can't revert him. The changes to archives go largely unnoticed, and the only reason there is any disruption is because he freaks out about it. He has no more right to change pages than anyone else does.

He is intentionally avoiding exceptable methods of preserving these pages (redirects). Several people don't want him making these changes, but only Cool Cat wants to make them this way. Everyone, except Cool Cat, says redirects would solve everybody's problem and be acceptable.

His name being Cool Cat is a part of the talk page archives.

While the change itself isn't a huge deal, the idea that his behavior is acceptable is what's wrong. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountains out of molehills. Really can we send this to WP:LAME yet? This is not even about an article or anything important to the actual encyclopaedia, they are just talk page archives. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Just let it alone - I don't understand basically anything about this whole mess. First, I don't understand why Cool Cat/White Cat doesn't want to use redirects -- apparently, he just doesn't. Secondly, I don't understand why it's of any serious importance to refactor past discussion so that Cool Cat changes to White Cat. However, I equally don't understand why anyone would care that he's making this change. I even more don't understand why anyone would want to revert those changes.

Apparently, Cool Cat/White Cat wants the change "just because" and the people who keep reverting him think that this "just isn't done" and that letting him do it "encourages bad behavior". This is some seriously, seriously childish behavior on the part of everyone involved.

Cool Cat/White Cat, if you want to disassociate yourself from your previous identity, then don't even bother fixing the red-links. Let Cool Cat die. All you're doing is changing the name, and if anyone is "trolling you" because of your name I can assure you that (1) if it was based in your comments, then making them all refer to White Cat will not fix it and (2) if it was because they knew who your were, then this won't do anything.

Ned Scott, et al. why do you even care? So he wants to make this pointless, pointless change. Let him -- it doesn't hurt anything to make the change. No one, at any point has explained why he should not be allowed to. There is no policy relating to this, nor are there any guidelines. It's not typically done, but that's about it -- calling them "stupid edits" is not a reason to revert them. If anything, it's the continual reversion of otherwise harmless edits that's causing the problem here -- it gets Cool Cat/White Cat upset, and then it is claimed that if we let him get his way, then he's "throwing a hissy fit" to "misbehaved" -- which is a massive cart-before-horse argument. So he's being a touch unreasonable? So his edits are pretty pointless?

So what. I would be a very, very happy man if I never saw this silly, silly argument ever again. --Haemo 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat is the one starting these discussions, so forgive me if I defend my own actions, no matter how minor. I understand if you don't care that he's making these changes, but other people do, so please have some respect for that. Again, he's not just changing links, but other people's comments. He's confusing talk pages where people still refer to him by his old name in those discussions. He's editing other people's talk archives when they told him to stop. User talk:Centrx has some more reasons why he's not allowed to make these edits. So don't say that no one has given a reason, because we have. If you think this is silly and pointless (I don't disagree with that) then ignore the thread (that Cat started).

What disturbs me is that because I choose to take the time to explain my actions, even for a trivial matter, people then assume that it's a bigger issue than it is. "ZOMG, why are you explaining yourself! That must mean this is controversial!" Centrx has ignored this whole discussion, something I should have done, because you can see how people will judge you if you give the discussion any mind.

If I see him updating a talk page archive (I do not seek such edits out, and only act when they trigger my watch list), then I simply revert him, as I would do to anyone making such an edit. I do so for the reasons mentioned. That's all. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words WP:REVERT#Do not is meaningless... Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. -- Cat ^chi? 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVERT#Do not does not apply to the situation given the reasons to revert you. It is not without reason, unlike your reverts and sig changes. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How does "WP:REVERT#Do not" not apply? Are you not reverting? -- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

.... You do understand that section is not saying one cannot revert? Not only that, but that whole section is talking about the article namespace, where things should be improved and worked on... -- Ned Scott 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the same logic does not apply to non-article namespace? Should we senselessly revert edits to Template, User, Mediawiki, Category, Project, Help, (and etc) namespaces simply because we find them "stupid"/"unnecessary"? -- Cat ^chi? 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The same logic does not apply to the talk namespace.... And again, valid reasons were given to revert you, while you have no valid reason to make the change or re-revert. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly both of you are disgraceful. White cat, you are just wasting your time fixing your signatures, and your not very discreet about it. If your really trying not to draw attention to yourself, this wouldn't end up in a discussion on AN/I every damn time. Ned Scott, despite it being a total lack of time and effort, its his time to waste upon it. I personally agree with the point that changing them is a waste (And FYI White cat, no it's not a broken redirect), but White cat doesn't need clearance to continue doing this, and I think you show a lot of bad faith Ned for following his edits like you do. Both of you need to find something productive to do, ya know, like work on the encyclopedia? — Moe ε 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

(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))

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Hold it, I think this guy's actually a sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel. DD's MO is to create articles about hoax cartoon series, and one of his previous creations was this same article about a cartoon based on Monk (which is noted over in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel). Further, this user here has been creating other hoax cartoon articles since Isotope warned him. If it's not Danny, it's someone who acts an awfully lot like him. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is because if you look at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you'll find another sock called Gaky, which was blocked indef. Pants^(T) 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I'll know to be on the lookout for that next time.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that Jiky's blocked, would somebody mind looking at Paky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), too? He showed up a few days ago and pulled the same stunts as Jiky. I reported him to WP:AIV and tagged his creations for speedy, but the speedys were removed and he wasn't blocked because it "wasn't clear" that he was Danny. His username and contributions indicate otherwise, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've removed the fake message from this page, because it's not the kind of thing we need to have on a noticeboard. For those interested, the fake message links to There's a sucker born every minute. - KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

—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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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"[11]
• "you have sunken to the bottom of ceasepool for consideration as a decent editor", "[12]
• "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."[13]
• this wiki-crimes can not be orgotten, or swept under the rug"[14]

Not to mention he has been accusing all those that oppose his edits as vandals or of having performed vandalism or of being disruptive...[15], [16], [17], [18]--MONGO 05:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

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:[[19]]. 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)

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)

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:[[20]] 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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"[21] 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." [22], but you simply removed his comment from your talkpage[23] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Why not just answer his questions? Why does everyone choose the most drama filled route for things around here? An answer and discussion would have deflated a situation and if you were right for what you did or had reasonable explanations for, might have even earned you an apology from Giovanni. Is anyone actually allowed to have someone banned from their talk page if they are editing a common article? If so how can I go about it, and how does that person then deal with the user if they have problems with their edits? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Time for community ban of...?

Regarding the above discussion. For the first time, I just saw Giovanni33's block log. Incredible stuff. Isn't it typical that someone with that track record receives a community ban? Isn't it time for a community ban?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You just saw it? haha Its being brought up everytime there is any issue to poision the well, no matter how irrelevent it is. Most of the blocks were overturned, and they are ALL form last year. No one has been fooled yet by this tactic, but I its a nice try. I don't blame you for trying, and it supports my claims below.Giovanni33 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when MONGO isn't following Giovanni around to bait him. Such as Giovanni's edit [24] and MONGO's appearance shortly after [25] to revert him. He went on to revert Giovanni 3 times on that article.[26][27][28] I am not sure why people keep chiming in to say Giovanni needs to leave MONGO alone, when it seems MONGO is not doing his fair share to avoid Giovanni. Oddly enough Tom Harisson appears right after MONGO to continue the reverts [29][30]. Neither Tom nor MONGO had edited the article in over 6 months, possibly ever, I only looked back to January. I think everyone needs to take a step back and just relax. Your escalation of the situation as if it is one sided is also not appropriate. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time for a community ban. Giovanni's main purpose here seems to be to revert war, and then to use sockpuppets to get around blocks for 3RR. He's lucky that he's been allowed to edit for this long. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he has been trying to do some editing, but as noted above he seems to be followed around and reverted. Why do you say Giovanni is revert warring when MONGO nor Tom clearly had a reason to be at that article, or edited it in over 6 months until Giovanni appeared there. Also of MONGO's last 20 or so edits to the state terrorism page, 15 have been reverts. I have not even check the rest, but I did not see any content additions. I think the revert warring allegations are going the wrong way. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this, when I logged in this morning I was utterly shocked by the posts to my talk page. To answer his "question" from his caustic lashing here, others have explained the WP:OR issues and verifiability concerns. And yet Giovanni refuses to listen. Well sorry, but our policies are too important to just ignore. Even from What "Ignore all rules" means: "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia - and that includes no original research. Like I have just said, others have explained more than adequately why it doesn't belong. And as far as these kind of posts [31] [32] to my talk page, I can do without. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to engage in third party dispute resolution? Because many who claim OR have yet to be able to back them up. This includes some on that page such as UltraMarine who do not read the sources. I spent most of one day explaining to UltraMarine what a source was saying because he objected to it, without actually reading it, at one point stating the Commander of the Armed Forces of Colombia was just "some military guy." There have bene arguments that sources are not WP:RS since noone has heard of them, forget the fact that they are Human Rights Groups attached to the United Nations, but since a few Americans never heard of the French group, and could not read their reports, they failed WP:RS. Perhaps you are just not aware of the arguments made on the state terrorism page, to be aware of what some editors have had to deal with. Just to give you an idea, of MONGO's edit in the last 20 days to that page, they all have been reverts.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Since I have no doubt you are attempting to be neutral, you may want to view the archives to get a full understanding of much of the drama that has been happening on that page before stating anything. Further, I ask again, instead of all the drama and rule laying, why didnt you just answer the question regarding WP:OR and how you felt it applied on the talk page? It seems like unnecessay steps keep being taken with little point other then to annoy fellow editors. I am sure it wasn't your intention, but you felt an editor wanted an answer and was being impatient, so you instead tell them not to be impatient, and then do not answer the question ... --SevenOfDiamonds 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He can continue to wholesale blank well sourced material whose addition was agreed to by a majority of editors on both sides after exentsive discussion on the talk page, but he can't answer a simple question explaining why? Like I said, I'm still assuming good faith, but it becomes harder and harder to assume these kinds of edits are good faith ones. Perhaps he is just not familiar with signifance of the claims, so I'll just add more sources on top of the more than adequate ones already presented. And, lets see if he will-- after there is again consensus to re-add the material--simply drop by the article to start blanking again, and refuse to explain why. If any newbie did this, it would be called vandalism right away. Just because an editor is estabished does not mean they can't do the same. If he simply answered my question, or explained himself on talk, there would have been no need for me to go to his talk page. If he doens't like the reaction he recieved, then I ask him to consider his own role in creating it.Giovanni33 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, you are the one who harassed him repeatedly on his talkpage after he very politely asked you to stay away...he had logged off, yet you continued to outrageously attack JungleCat. I have never seen such a barrage of hate filled attacks by an established editor in my entire time of editing here...except in cases where some editor has vaporlocked and is about to be banned anyway, as has been done by editors like Rootology. Frankly, it looked to me like you were "packing it in", completely unconcerned about what might happen to you. And even now, I see you trying to state that your comments are someone elses fault. Your last block was only rescinded because the article you had been edit warring on got protected.--MONGO 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What has Rootology got to do with this discussion, even as an "example"? Might I suggest that MONGO remove the reference as not being germaine? LessHeard vanU 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Then I will, of course, remove this comment... ;~)

It is appropriate. As I said, the few times I have seen anyone act the way Giovanni33 did on JungleCat's talkpage was when editors who have been or were obviously going to be banned (such as Rootology) went berserk. That is what we are dealing with here, an out of control editor who has gone berserk.--MONGO 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, Mongo, or it is just more Psychological projection of your own?Giovanni33 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The purported reaction of Giovanni being unusual may be appropriate to mention, but in the context of naming an individual who participates on an off-Wiki site? I simply do not see what you are thinking you are achieving by referring to them. Giovanni's "reaction" is the worst you have seen, IYO, for some (considerable) time... why not leave it at that? LessHeard vanU 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't take a position in this discussion, but if it's going to continue, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. If someone still wants a community ban, lay out the case there with diffs in support. A community ban is the last step in dispute resolution; please don't ask for one lightly.--Chaser - T 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I note that of that very healthy block list, almost all but one are over a year old, and the only recent block was rescinded by the blocking admin. I suspect this is a bit too complicated for either the WP:ANI or WP:CN. I suspect that arbcomm might be a better venue, since they can look at everyone's behaviour and find solutions that fall short of banning. Bucketsofg 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• A community ban for these handful of editor who continue to attack the article, wikistalk, troll, bait, and vanadalize legitimate content, may be order shortly, if they continue. They have some good edits on other article, but not politically controverisal articles such as this one, so I favor an article ban only at this time. I also point out that instead of answer my question about why they did what they did, which I find most inexcusable, they still can't answer, and instead launch into more attacks on me. Well, that makes sense. See, it seems to me that, regarding the current division of opinion as expressed on the talk page, at least those who are for the inclusion of the material have a position of compromise to offer. We could allow a relevant, adequately sourced criticism of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki section.We could also include a sentence designating our material as a minority or controversial viewpoint- even though this is redundant, since it has already done in the main introduction.

• On the other hand, for those who insist on deletion of the well-sourced material from university profs of global stature- well, no position of compromise is possible, with them. So they blank it, run away, and attack the user who is trying to find common ground. For them, the majority of regular editors, or at least a very significant portion, must simply be muzzled on this issue. And, since I am most active in making progress on this article, I'm a logical target.

• It amounts to the censorship of significant minority viewpoints and wikipedia becomes all the poor for this loss of legitimate diversity. Also the real reason it is being forcefully vandalized is not because it's poor,but rather because it's too good, too well-referenced from major figures. They know that I, along with others, will contintue to fine and add more solid sources for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, issue, and State terrorism. I am also compiling a general reference list for U.S. state terrorism and critical terrorism studies. The literature is actually quite abundant and significant. It is one of the sources that can drawn from along with the human rights organizations, and the more popularly known political analysts. So, yes, they can't win the argument by WP policies, so they become desperate and must attack. Again, is the same group of well known right-wing POV warriors at work here. No surprise to anyone who knows whats is going on. The question is, will WP allow them to continue to silent significant minority viewpoints and editor such as myself who are fighting for such legitimate and important diversity of content, or will they all this gang to run rampant to supress and whitewash WP from a global Encylopedia to one that suffers from systematic bias rooted in US nationalism. I hope the former.Giovanni33 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much but i think the ArbCom is or surely would be the appropriate venue to sort this mess out one day. I don't know who is right and who is wrong as i m not following your details but it appears that the AN/I is just being used for forum shopping by both sides recently. Most probably nobody would ban you. Nobody would block MONGO. Neither AN/I nor mediation would do the job due the nature of your disputes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Community sanction noticeboard would be a better forum for this than the current board. Anynobody 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who just happened to surf in but although Giovanni's comments on Junglecat's talkpage are a bit overblown and you expect him to go I challenge you to a duel! any minute, he hasn't sworn or anything like that, and his comments could argueably be taken as against Junglecat's edits rather than personal attacks about him personally. And his previous blocks were months/almost years ago. Maybe a block/strong warning?Merkinsmum 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it was a bit overblown, and indeed histrionic, yet, it did properly express my outrage and indignation at Junglecats repeated blanking without explanation. He says he "jaw dropped,"--well so did mine when I saw what he was doing to the article. I don't know Junglecats, other than his edits, and that is the only thing I very strongly objected to--as I would object to any editor whose edits appeared to me to be vandalism against the work of many editors. Maybe next time he will think twice and discuss on the talk page before taking an action like that--and then he wouldnt have gotten such a strong reaction.Giovanni33 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you speak as if I have never posted to the article talk page. You try to make it seem as if I had no clue what was going on - and that I did some drive-by vandalism. You obviously do not understand (or care to realize) what the true meaning of consensus is. Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus? And Quote: Consensus on Wikipedia always means, within the framework of communal consensus, as documented by established policies and practice. Consensus never means "whatever a limited group of editors might agree upon", where this contradicts policy and practice. This has been explained to you pertaining to policy, yet you do not want to hear it. Well, sorry. I feel as if I have been talking to a brick wall. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel the need to attack Giovanni or revret him, however the section that was added on Japan had everyones agreement except TBeatty who stated it was OR, but would not explain how, and when attempted, received no support. MONGO supported the section requesting it stays small, all others just supported. There was clear concensus to include. I have since posted 4 more sources for that section, showing clearly that it is not a fringe view, this is onto of the other 6 that were looked at and nothing was found wrong with them. This is also why I asked you to read the archives above. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JungleCat, I know what consensus is. I read the policy. And we had consensus of all editors except one. You did not chime in. When was the last time you did? The discussion had been ongoing for some time. Even after editors asked me put the material in, I waited another 3 days just to make sure, taking into account all the conditions that editors on the other side insisted on. We pointed this out to you when you removed the section, incase you didn't have a clue, but that didn't stop you. So, I believe you when you say you know what was going on, and that is why I characterize your actions as vandalizism. You blanked well sourced material over and over, against the clear conensus (over 17 editors); you failed to even once explain or justify your wholesale blanking, multiple times, against multiple editors, except to proclaim in your edit summary "Removing OR." Now the page is protected for 2 months. I'm sorry but your outrageous conduct is of the worse kind of vandalisim I've personally seen (I know there is worse, but fortunately, I've not seen it). If you happened to disagree with conensus, then you needed to go to the talk page to state that, and make your case. There would have been discussion and not edit waring. But, as of yet, you have been unable to answer that simple question: Where is this alleged OR that you claimed as the basis for your blanking? I put it to you that your claims are false. Your continued failure to answer that question after your actions speaks volumes. I expect you to go the talk page now and answer that question that editors have posed to you. You have a lot of explaining to do if you are to regain good faith. And simply repeating your false claim in edit summaries here[[44]], on the talk page:[[45]], and here:[[46]]does not do it.Giovanni33 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

After the barrage of insults you flung at JungleCat, which continued long after he had asked you to cease doing so, and your continued lack of remorse for doing so, you have zero qualification to be telling him that he has a lot of explaining to do if he is going to regain good faith. The section has been disputed by many editors for a variety of reasons and your continued accusations that those that oppose your edits are vandals or similar is getting tiring. Maybe it's time you pulled back from that article and from this specious line of argumenting.--MONGO 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to name them? I would like to see your list and difs of the section. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This makes an interesting case of opposites. Specious arguments or none at all and only reverts. 13 or so in 20 days with no additions to the article at all. I rather take a specious argument, then none at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Good advice. I walked away from the ridiculous trollfest and incivility some time ago. I recommend this to anyone who is getting fed up of "specious line[s] of argumenting", as I was. --John 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Looks to me like this is headed for ArbCom regardless. I don't think anything said here is going to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can stop playing games. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please provide diffs. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Email address obfuscated due to harvest-bot concerns. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: Checkuser is inconclusive -I can't tell if we are beig trolled of if the account was compromised.

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)

Hrmm, sounds like we've been trolled. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but by whom? Newyorkbrad 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone run a CheckUser on them yet? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for it to be done (in private, so that I could lay the evidence bare). I'm waiting for a reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I can answer Brad's question. I'm Seth, aka the real Ispy, on a new account, per Theresa's instruction. It is true that I changed my email on the 14th of this month, mainly because my old email, ragincajun502@hotmail.com (please don't obscure, as it may provide more proof of who I am) is no longer valid. Ispy #2 hacked into my hotmail account that I was using for wiki. He then asked for a new password. That is how he was able to compromise my account. The question of who this is is simple. This is a known stalker of a certain underage actress. I have spoken to both Brad and Theresa about this person in the past. I believe that, not only would a checkuser be useful, if anyone knows how to read a reverse DNS, you will see the two Ispys come from not only two different locations, but different platforms, as well (my account is an SBC static, his is RoadRunner dynamic).--Sethacus 15:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well checkuser has been done and the results are rather um strange. The results are consistant with the above story but they are also consistant with only one person using two different ISP's in order to pretend to be different people so that he can to troll us. I have no idea which senario is the correct one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg

Isn't this image blatantly racist. Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg Manikongo 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user. He has very few contributions, and the majority of the major edits are controversial and of a racist nature. -Wafulz 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My appreciation Manikongo 03:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That picture disappeared before I saw it, but I wonder what the "caucasoid" part looked like? Maybe a fine example of superior caucasian genetics, such as the chinless (and spineless) Prince Charles. Meow! Baseball Bugs 03:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This coming from someone who enjoys watching men in pyjamas spit chewing tobacco and slap each others arses while playing a variation of rounders? The House of Windsor trembles... ;~) LessHeard vanU 09:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it was a drawing comparing skull side views and the sloping angles of foreheads. When I saw the file name, I was worried it was the famed comparison of a gorilla and Isaac Asimov... =) [47] --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Crusader blocked

I have blocked Nordic Crusader (talk · contribs) indefinitely. The user shows all signs of being a disruptive edit warrior- in his brief stint here, he has already warred enough on Negroid to have it locked down, and pushes a strong POV masquerading as science. His deleted contributions illustrate that he tries to highlight some sort of deficiencies in a race. When editors disagree with him or revert his changes, he accuses them of not contributing at all, and has been insulting.[48] In one instance, he makes the accusation that another user editing since June 2005 is a vandalism-only single purpose account.[49]. A spade is a spade.-Wafulz 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. It was obviously headed in this direction anyway. I also don't like the use of pseudoscience to promote any agenda.--Jersey Devil 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Disrpuptive editing by Kmweber

As you will all know, Kmweber has been making extreme violations of WP:POINT, just looking at his contributions you can see he has made several !votes in RfA's within the space of minutes, one time he !voted in two within the space of one minute, solely because of his little phrase: I see self noms as being power hungry. What is proposed we do and would it be acceptable to strike out all of his comments as he is clearly not even taking the time to review the user. Rlest 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am doing anything "disruptive". Making a point? Certainly. Disrupting Wikipedia to do it? Hardly. What I'm doing hardly creates extra work for others. If you wish to engage me, by all means--although I have already addressed all questions that are being brought up elsewhere. If you just don't like it, you can easily ignore it. Kurt Weber 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a former bureaucrat, I will say it is very annoying when people vote "oppose" for spurious reasons (like "user has less than 10000 edits", "user has no featured articles", "user is a self-nom"). In some extreme cases, what should be a clear-cut 50 support 10 oppose RFA becomes a contested 50 support 20 oppose (no specific examples, just saying). ugen64 13:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, you are trolling see WP:AAAD, maybe you should read that then re-consider your comments, you commented on four RfA's within the space of one minute, what are you superman? You simply could not have reviewed all four users contribs in that time, infact you would not have even had time to type the messages out, you just copied and pasted it, I'd support it if you were blocked for trolling, also see the discussion at WT:RFA, — Rlest 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First, time-stamps on the edits are indicative of nothing. It's quite possible to open several pages at once, click the "edit" button, do all the backend work and enter all the changes over the span of several minutes or even hours, and then (assuming no MAJOR edit conflicts) click all the "Save page" buttons sequentially. The time stamps will be very close together, but they are no indication of the actual time spent.

As a point of fact, no, that's not what I'm doing--because I don't need to. It is my belief that the mere fact that someone has chosen to self-nominate himself for adminship is sufficient reason in and of itself to oppose him, no matter what else he may have going for him. I do hope that I'm wrong--but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. I fail to see how you can so flippantly label my genuine contributions as "trolling" and "disruption". Kurt Weber 14:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: I've read AAAD. Those who endorse that essay are certainly entitled to think that my arguments are invalid. I'm entitled to reject that. If they want to ignore them, that is their prerogative. Kurt Weber 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well lots of the people at WT:RFA agree its disrutive, if you would take the time to actually review the user, lots of users self nom because they do not want to draw loads of attention to themselves with loads of co-noms. — Rlest 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It appears that Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing across multiple RFA's to the end of WP:POINT. The editor inserts "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger." into what appears to be all self nominations. The editor has received multiple requests for explanation on RFA's and multiple requests to stop on user talk. These edits appear disruptive to prove a point. Thanks, Navou 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they're certainly being done to prove a point--but they're hardly disruptive. I have responded to requests for explanation several times already; understandably, I get tired of answering the same questions over and over again--especially when oftentimes they're ignored or ridiculed. Kurt Weber 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One would think that you'd eventually start providing more of an explanation in the oppose comment to spare yourself the questions. I'm sure you realize how people see the comments: blunt and ignorant of the users' other contribs. In light of that, you can't expect people to not question you. Leebo ^T/C 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from this page)I find this kind of attitude very troubling. What if someone decided to oppose every RFA by an American because they thought there are too many American admins already? Or every RFA by someone who identifies with a religion because they thought it made them unable to have a NPOV? I know it's a wild idea, but maybe applicants for sysop should be judged on an individual basis. (Additional) And I think if becomes the deciding vote on a RFA, it certaily is disrupting Wikipedia CitiCat ^♫ 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what matters is if the 'Crat closing the RfA thinks it is a reasonable oppose. I am happy to let that trusted and experienced individual weigh it accordingly... LessHeard vanU 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

I think it is well established that this type of editing behavior is disruptive. Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has warned on the editor on the editors talk page. Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) knows the consequences of disrupting the project. Navou 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:9shaun

User:9shaun has been uploading like crazy, tagging them with {{GFDL-self}} but it is very highly doubtful the s/he created those photos. --Howard the Duck 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All of his uploads are of Philippines related things or people, leaving the possibility he's a professional photographer based there. Although I guess it's also possible he found the website of such a person and copy pasted them onto here. Disappointingly though, his edit history would show he pays no attention to warnings about copyrights, or at least chooses never to respond to them. (just providing a little more information). Someguy1221 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No way. Look at the pictures. Some are cropped others are not. Of the ones that are not cropped, they are different sizes! many have a colour casts on them, but the colour casts are different on different photographs. Most of the photographs do not look professional (one has aa very over exposed sky for instance). He's lying about the GFDL self. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a...um...amateur Filippino photographer ;-) (or stealer thereof) Someguy1221 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the solution on this? Anyone? --Howard the Duck 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the first step it to talk to him. I shall try doing that now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he doesn't respond in time? --Howard the Duck 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In time for what? Corvus cornix 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like in a few days? S/he doesn't respond. --Howard the Duck 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? I'm appalled the copyright freaks aren't going ga-ga over this. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is removal of comment justified

A user left a WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and probably WP:NPA violating comment on a Talk page. I emended the comment to replace the problematic part with a diff, so that anyone interested could see the whole comment. The user in question had since commented on the page and done nothing, but an experienced editor and two less experienced editors have four times ([50][51][52][53]) restored the disruptive comment. While WP:Talk says there is some controversy regarding emendation, it seems to be in cases where alterations to the wording of the text are made. Was my initial action wrong? Tewfik^Talk 09:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment would seem more telling of the existence of a content dispute than anything else. In my own opinion, a reply right below him to assume good faith would be enough. Someguy1221 09:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There absolutely is a broad content dispute involving many editors, but the comment is coming from an experienced editor. Isn't there agreements that such edits are unproductive? I thought that response to that sort of comment is that last action one should take... Tewfik^Talk 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment is uncivil and unproductive and must be removed. The editor who made it must be at least warned not to make such comments again. Beit Or 10:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who reverted Tewfik's removal of another user's comment from an article talk page (and hence should probably have been notified as a matter of courtesy that he'd posted here about this. But never mind). The issue here is two-fold - were the original comments in breach of any policy or guidelines? And if they were, what is the correct response? The first issue is not clear-cut, although I can see how they might be against WP:AGF. However - even if that is accepted - the words used are not offensive or abusive and it is clearly an overreaction, and in turn a breach of guidelines to remove them. The presumption in WP:Talk is that users should not remove or edit the comments of other users from article talk pages. You see borderline comments like this pretty much every day on talk pages, and I was utterly bemused as to why Tewfik had deleted them when I actually dug up the original words. I had been expecting to see something genuinely offensive or personal (not least because, again, you see comments of that sort on talk pages pretty often as well). --Nickhh 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Tewfik is removing additional comments from that talk page. Please see this diff. I don't believe either removal is justified. I did not object to the first removal since I wanted to see if Abu Ali let stand the removal of his comment. He did let it stand, so I did not revert that removal. But Tewfik's additional removal is a blatant violation of WP:TALK. Since the discussion is about his deletion of reliable, sourced info from the article, then it is ironic that he is also deleting stuff on the talk page. --Timeshifter 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, that was accidentally removed as he included it in the same edit as that above, and I restored it as soon as you made mention of it. This is getting quite ridiculous. Tewfik^Talk 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you frequently mass revert. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes accidentally because you do not pay attention. You and I have discussed your mass reversions many times. --Timeshifter 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Was everyone meant to guess that the deletion of my comment was a mistake? And you can hardly complain about what you did being flagged up - by your own admission you'd never have noticed it and put it right if you hadn't had it pointed out to you. --Nickhh 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the comment Tewfik removed I think I should say what I think here. In my opinion it is generally a bad idea to edit or delete other editors remarks on talk pages. But I did not want to make a fuss about it, as my comments can still be found in the page history. I certainly did not want this storm in a teacup to end up on ANI. But as Tewfik has decided to open the discussion here, I would like some admins to have a look at the mass removal of material from the article which prompted my comment. Additional input from univolved admins may help break the deadlock in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:59.91.253.157

59.91.253.157 (talk · contribs) (suspected sockpuppet of Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is blanking parts of talk pages. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]

• very likely. Dbachmann flew to New Delhi yesterday from Mumbai. I have heard that he went there to contract an underworld don to get rid of Liftarn 59.91.253.1 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The comment above was placed in someone in the same IP range as the suspected sockpuppet. Their comments also seem a little unusual. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming

WAS 4.250

Background:

There is currently an unproductive slow edit war between editors (One of them is an admin, User:SlimVirgin). Numerous attempts at mediation have failed because unwillingness of editors to go into mediation. Frequently the page degenerates into "personal attack/no personal attack please" discourses. In general I have kept away from them, but recently it has reached intolerable levels, at least for me.

The situation at hand:

I removed a {{Disputeabout}} tag (it contained the definitions of terms) from the article[54], and explained the reasons why in the talk page[55] and edit summary: there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point..

WAS 4.250 reverted my talk page explanation of my edit[56] (but not my article edit) with a comment containing a personal attack: revert trolling. we need help. not gas on the fire. In the process, he also removed other previous contributions (all related to edits) to the talk page, and my placing of a {{Round In Circles}} tag. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

I reverted the talk page[57] with a comment: Do not remove legitimate post by other contributors, if you do it again I will consider it vandalism. Also WP:NPA I am not a troll, and to suggest this is beyond the pale., and repeatedly asked for an apology [58],[59]. The user has since done many edits between my requests [60], but has not apologized.

Perhaps the user feels that there is nothing to apologize about. However, I disagree.

So I would like a neutral admin to intervene, and ask him to stop personal attacks and apologize.

Or explain to me why I am wrong in asking for an apology and thinking there was a personal attack.

I am not following mediation procedure because mediation has been impossible so far.

Thanks!--Cerejota 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, not a personal attack. Also, where is the link to the "failed" mediation case? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a personal attack. Cerejota posted on talk in good faith. WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) removed his post with the edit summary "revert trolling." [61] It's one of a large number of personal attacks, sarcasm, and filibustering emanating from WAS 4.250 and NathanLee (talk · contribs) on that talk page, which have caused a number of editors to withdraw almost entirely from the discussion, including myself. Two editors (on different "sides") have filed requests for mediation. Even though nine editors agreed to the mediation, both requests were rejected because WAS 4.250 and NathanLee won't agree, though they're the ones who have caused the bulk of the content dispute and who've been engaging in the attacks. As for links to the RfM, the first one was filed by me and was rejected here. The second one was filed by Jav43 and was rejected by Daniel yesterday, but for some bizarre reason User:John Reaves keeps deleting Daniel's edits without explanation, so I can't link to it. Admins, see the deletion log for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the mediation rejection was just a misunderstanding, and it's now undeleted, so here's the link Nwwaew requested. [62] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your mis-characterization of my behavior is an outrageous unjustified personal attack. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in the discussion, nor do I really care to read enough of the discussion to comment on the behavior. It is immediately obvious, however, that factory farming is a POV fork of industrial agriculture. For instance, the same set of hog-raising photos appears in both articles (and in a related one as well). It' hardly surprising that the article is constantly fought over. Mangoe 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Industrial agriculture was forked from factory farming - and all negative information about the practices omitted... And that is why you should do some reading, as this entire subject area is currently under, rather heated, discussion - regarding scope of articles etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point the redundancies have been removed (both positives and negatives) in favor of a summary style where the agriculture articles can point to each other. Check them out! WAS 4.250 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of block

After being blocked the admin in question, Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · email), referred me here since he sees no problem and no need to explain his actions.[63] Therefore I invite the community to comment on whether the block was inappropriate.

Background:

1. While editing Iraq Resolution I met GATXER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was only contributing to wikipedia by removing sourced material from this article.[64] After this editor refused to debate the matter and preferred to edit war I filed a report at 3RR which resulted in him being warned to stop.[65][66] I also started mediation and here. Fortunately the matter was quickly settled by the mediator.[67]
2. Part of the above was violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Again I asked outside help, which resulted in this user being explained his action were inappropriate, which he admitted an he promised to change.[68]
3. For some mysterious reason this user again started edit warring on the article which I again opposed. Blocking admin Jersey Devil agreed with my position that GATXER was editing against consensus[69] and reverted the disruptive edit by GATXER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying Rv, discussed on talk page only one user takes issue with article see WP:CONSENSUS.[70] He asked another admin to look into this user's conduct who for that reason protected the page.[71]
4. In response to this GATXER still did not start debating but followed me to Movement to impeach George W. Bush and continued what by now I consider constitutes WP:DE and WP:TE. Although I agree with WP:AGF the above does not describe an editor who is really interested in being a valuable contributor. Most notably his description of other editors is troubling[72][73][74] as is his removal of warnings from his talk page[75] misleading another admin into thinking he is an unsuspecting innocent bystander.[]
5. In light of the above and persistent belligerent language I asked a third party to review his behaviour.
6. Then on July 17, 2007 at 00:07h I was blocked for one edit I made 17 hours before at 07:41, July 16, 2007[76]. The reason given was Revert warring on Movement to impeach George W. Bush and Iraq Resolution; user his history of revert wars http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nescio.

My request is to remove this from my block log because this a not what happened. I was not revert warring, I was undoing disruptive edits by GATXER, as JD himself did, while at the same time seeking outside help (3RR, mediation, et cetera). To those insisting this is merely an edit conflict please be aware the blocking admin himself admits the user was being disruptive, this user keeps violating WP:NPA, followed me arounds WP when his article got protected and to this date has not made one single effort at discussing his edits. Please see his contributions. Since the main argument is my block history I want this block removed. Admins are not aware that my only blocks were related to two pernicious editors (Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been permabanned and that I since then learned and changed my editing style. The fact this admin ignores my attempts at WP:DR and the fact he ignores his own reverting GATXER using the same rationale as I did is disturbing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're lucky it was only a 10 hour block. Your block log is rather interesting; it's rare for an edit warrior to be given so much slack (in terms of short blocks). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How exactly did you determine I am an edit warrior? Aside from the fact you have not addressed the points I raised. Thank you for commenting and proving the log and not my actions determine whether I am blocked. I know enough it is clear that blocking an editor for one edit without any warning and 17 hours after said edit is acceptable. Even when that edit is a revert of vandalism. IMO that violates policy but it appears comments here support that notion, merely based on a year old previous block. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, in this case, I'll admit that a quick glance at your block log is deceptive -- it looked like you had a whole lot of blocks in May and June and July, but then oops, that's last year. So that's why the short block, I guess. Next one will be longer. Edit warring is not acceptable. You are in a content dispute, not fighting vandalism. If you think it's vandalism, hand it off to another editor (or admin) to deal with; you're too involved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How is opposing vandalsim, that is persistent disruption without any attempt ar participating in every form of dispute resolution I started, edit warring? And why is it normal to be blocked almost a day after making one edit without even a comment warning me when clearly everybody agrees GATXER is being disruptive? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that when his 10 hour block was up...one of the first things Edirot N did was re-make the same edit. This Editor calls Bush the Furher and cant seem to understand maybe he shouldnt edit bush pages. I didnt follow him anywhere....Ive been on that page many times and the only edit ive ever made on it was backing up a edit that another editor did and Editor N delted. Before you clear his block list take a look at his many Meditaions...hes had many and almost all are on Bush pages. I cant stand Ronold Regan but I dont go pushing my POV on his page and try to bully my way till other editors just give up. GATXER 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• This comment proves my point regarding this user. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Nescio was not the instigator of this edit war and that is why he got a lower block length (10 hours to GATXER's 48 hour block). Regardless, he should have understood that revert warring isn't acceptable and settled this in a different manner instead of moving from the Iraq resolution article to the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article. I should also add that Nescio "claims" in edit summaries and elsewhere that GATXER's edits are "vandalism" which they are not rather this is a content dispute. Lastly, I will point out that these two users are still edit warring on the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article today [77] I'll leave it to another third party admin to handle this situation.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How did I move the disruptive editing style? It was GATXER who followed me, by definition that is stalking, and it was he who chose to not participate in discussion continue being disruptive. That counts as vandalism under WP definitions. To say that repeatedly removing sourced material without discussion while asked to discuss, commenting in a highly uncivil manner, and then when the page is protected going to other pages to continue removing sourced material without discussiion is edit warring is a stunning misaplication of the term. This is blatant disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. Again the fact people ignore my numerous unsuccesful attempts at dispute resolution with this vandal/troll, or whatever you want to name it, makes me think that opposing unconstructive edits while asking a third partiy to intervene is edit warring and not allowed making might is right the dominating adagium here. That is, although I did everything right, go to mediation, 3RR et cetera, I am not supposed to undo his tendentious edits. Because although everybody sees GATXER as the instigator of this sillyness no other editor is allowed to undo his vandalsim since it is not vandalsim. Please, what exactly should I do when confronted by persistent disruption, trolling (see above) name calling, baiting vandalism? Let it be? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1st I did not FOLLOW Editor N anywhere. Is it my fault hes in edit wars on most Bush pages...does that mean I cant go to any Bush page? Editor N seems to think he can edit any Bush page and no one should question his edits and if you do its vanadalism.

He got one page Locked over a POV tag...nothing more. On Name calling why is he now allowed to call me a Vanadal and a troll with no facts to back it up?

As to the Impeach Bush page.....all I did was back up another editor and remove a edit by editor N trying to link Bush to Nixion. I also dont think I was in a edit war with him on any page......everyone on the talk page disagreed with him....thats right EVERYONE.....so he took me to a meditaor....who agreed with me and everyone else....he then on his own with no talk took down the POV tag which was on the page for many reasons.......so i put it back up.....the page then was fully locked.

What can you do about a editor who calls Bush the Fuher and then edits every Bush page he can? GATXER 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Underage nonnude pics w/o model releases

Resolved

I'm copying this from User talk:Jimbo because it's a potentially serious issue:

...you're not the Help Desk, but this issue seemed to be a more nuanced interpretation of policy than was appropriate for that forum. Awhile back, I did a big cleanup job on non-nude photography, and one of my final actions was to remove this image from the article. It seemed to me that it is uncertain (to say the least) whether these girls are adults. While I'm whole-heartedly in support of WP:NOT#CENSORED, sexually suggestive images of minors seems to cross the ethical line. What is your opinion on the possibility of deleting the image? All the best, VanTucky ^(talk) 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From the user talk page history, it looks like the uploader has a string of deleted copyvio images, and if you search on his claimed name, it looks like he's being given credit for Wikipedia photos that we don't have anymore. And that there is only one non-wikipedia-related ghit on his name. He's only contributed once this year. He was asked back in February to present a model release from a parent or guardian, and has so far not done so, even though he edited in April. I think both those images[78][79] should be deleted. BenB4 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that former Featured Pictures are not protected from being overlayed by something completely different. However, there's absolutely nothing pornographic about this image, so what difference does it make whether they're adults or not? Corvus cornix 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg was nominated for featured picture twice, but not promoted by huge margins. I'm primarily concerned that the uploader has a history of image copyvios. If these were taken from, e.g., Myspace, a copyright claim could be compounded by the fact that the images are of minors in suggestive poses. I put them up for ifd, and consider this resolved. BenB4 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no model release, it's kind of a big deal, given the way that a Miss USA was blackmailed for fully clothed photos that were far more tame. I'm not sure if this is more a comment on the times we live in or the law, but we really should have a compelling reason for tap dancing around legal lines. Geogre 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Just keep them. No to censorship and totalitarianism.--Notototalitarianism,yestofreedom 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my comments. The version which was a Featured Picture is not this version. Corvus cornix 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrator powers by user:Jersey Devil

There is much controversy regarding the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. During the last two months there have been many edits. Sometimes that debate had been heated but generally constructive. As a result the unsourced material has been removed and much new sourced information has been added, adding to the views of both sides. Several potential BLP problems has been fixed, with sources added and clarified regarding unsourced claims that persons have attended the school or institute. The article has been stable for several days.

Today user:Jersey Devil has reverted back to a version almost 2 months old, restoring all the previous problems, claiming that there is an edit war despite that there has been no reverts during the last 5 days.[80] Despite thus becoming an involved editor, he then threatened to use his administrator power and block other editors for a month.[81]Ultramarine 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not an abuse of admin powers. Reach a consensus, then edit the article and you will be fine. Until(1 == 2) 14:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to block for a month when there was no reverts for 5 days, and after becoming involved by reverting to a 2 months old verion without first discussing this or reaching a consensus, seems to be at least a threat of abuse.Ultramarine 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just a heads-up that if the edit war continues after Jersey Devil changed the page to a less controversial version, you'll be blocked. Read WP:3RR. Shadow1 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He made no explanation at all for why his version is supposed to be better. There were never any 3RR violation.Ultramarine 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The block threat is about your not edit warring anymore. When an admin reverts in an edit war, some people always call it "the wrong version", but that does not mean he is involved. Using one's admin powers to force users to discuss changes instead of revert warring is not an abuse of power. He is not forcing you to have his version, but forcing you to follow our policies regarding consensus based editing. Until(1 == 2) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since he made no attempt at all to explain why his prefered version is better, how can we discuss his changes?Ultramarine 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the editors involved in the article had agreed on his 2 months old version, which as noted has many problems. All the involved editors had agreed on removing unsourced material and adding new sourced, so why restore this very old version?Ultramarine 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an administrative issue. You should be asking these questions on the article talk page, not here. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the content of the article is a content dispute. But reverting an article that had been stable for 5 days to a 2 monts old version no other editor involved in the article wants without explanation and then threatening to block for a month if there are further reverts, in effect locking the article to the version prefered by the administrator, is using the administrator power to control the contents of the article.Ultramarine 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the threat was against revert warring, not reverts. I suggest proposing a change on the talk page and waiting a day, and go from there. I cannot really say much else without repeating myself again, which I would rather not do. Until(1 == 2) 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So why did he not just simply make this warning instead of reverting a stable article to a 2 months old version? I have had conflicts with Jersey Devil due to content disputes in other articles. It seems to me that he is using his administrative power in a personal conflict with me. After this threat, any edit restoring some of the sourced information or correcting the current errors, could lead to a block for a month.Ultramarine 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil should not have protected an article he had previously edits, especially considering there was no request for protection on the article. This by itself could be excused, had he not reverted the version and wiped out Ultramarine's edits before he protected it. This smacks of abuse of administrative powers. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article hasn't been protected. -- JLaTondre 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I apologize. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This user and Giovanni have been edit warring in that article for more than a month. [82] Both have long histories of edit wars and of making changes without consensus. Sometimes when user's outright refuse to discuss issues on talk pages and abide by WP:CONSENSUS administrators have to take measures which they would not use on regular policy abiding users. Furthermore, TDC I didn't protect the article.--Jersey Devil 23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article had been stable for 5 days, yet you reverted to an outdated 2 months old version that has many errors and unsourced claims. Our edits had been heated yet constructive which improved the article.Ultramarine 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It just seems like an admin reverted to a version previous the edit war, giving all parties a "blank slate" point to start fresh. I don't particularly see how this is a problem. Vassyana 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This shows that neither Jersey, nor anyone else, has even put a protection on the article at all. This is not an abuse of powers at all, the admin is putting their foot down to end this mess. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that this behavior isn't a recent one but dates back to 2005 and has been consistent since then. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine.--Jersey Devil 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no recent blocks for any violation. Our conflict started as a content dispute in an unrelated article. Please do not use administrator power for such a personal conflict. Regarding the current dispute, do you have any concrete arguments for your version and do you object to restoring the prior stable verion before your revert? Ultramarine 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no abuse of admin power here. Reverting back to a pre-edit-war version is perfectly normal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also object to the description "edit war" for this 2 month period. Most of the edits were constructive were we added on each others edits which improved the article. Now we again have an article with unsourced and incorrect material with potentially damaging claims about living persons. However, I will continue this discussion on the talk page of the article.Ultramarine 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now complaints have been brought up by User:Badagnani on Talk:Phoenix Program regarding this user's edits without discussion for consensus. [83] Please use talk pages to discuss articles instead of forcing your edits into articles without discussion.--Jersey Devil 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you following me around? I thnk this is the third article you have never edited before but after our content dispute you have started to be interested in. I edited that article days ago without any objections until now. Unsourced material, probably hoaxes as discussed on the talk page, was replaced with sourced, after I had spent considerable amount of my time doing research. Now an user is having some questions and I will certainly discuss before making any more changes.Ultramarine 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows a habitual unwillingness to discuss massive changes to articles which has been consistent in your contributions since 2005. I do not see what is so difficult about actively seeking consensus and discussion on talk pages.--Jersey Devil 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is false. Spare me personal attacks. I am always willing to dicuss on the talk page, as I am doing now in the article.Ultramarine 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"I will certainly discuss before making any more changes" is most unsatisfactory. The many removed paragraphs (all hoaxes?) need to be discussed BEFORE removal, in order to show good faith. I haven't seen that yet. Badagnani 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The material was unsourced and was replaced with sourced, after I had spent considerable amount of my time doing research. I am willing to discuss all the changes, as I am doing on the talk page now. Also, please do not delete my talk page comments like you just did.[84]Ultramarine 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

65.102.185.159 IP sock of perm banned user Labyrinth13

65.102.185.159 (talk · contribs) is a sock IP of Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), who was permanently banned for gross incivility. This diff is the anon attempting to re-add a non-Wikipedia work of Labyrinth13. He has also vandalized my user page twice, as well as United States Army Basic Training, here and here. Please take action against this obvious attempt to circumvent a permanent ban. Parsecboy 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. I spent a good amount of time and effort on the Basic Training article, and the moment Parsecboy began making contributions, 65.102.185.159 edited them by deleting a random sentence and then adding senseless nonsense. It makes sense to me that this is the product of an old feud. I don't know what kind of permanent measures are available against IP vandals, but whatever they are, I think they should be implemented against 65.102.185.159. Equazcion 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Clarin

There seems to be a rather big dispute between user Clarin and Nakazima. I don't know who is right, nor do I care, but i do notice that whereas Nakazima appears to make useful edits in between, Clarin seems to be solely undo'ing the changes of Nakazima without doing anything else... A stir 'warning' to the both of them may be in place, perhaps with a cooldown block for Clarin or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked both for 24hours for 3RR. I see that technically neither likely exceeded the number of reverts per subject per 24hour period, but since they appear to be revert warring over a range of similar subjects I feel they have broken the spirit of the rule if not the word. Any other admin input would be appreciated. I shall explain my block further to the two individuals with the template. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BMF81 continually inserting joke about anally raping a child on Talk:Laughter

User:BMF81's "joke" here about how he'd laugh if the child in the photo on Laughter is anally raped is a blockable offense, and plain sick. I warned him that such a profane statement is objectionable and blockable here, to which he replied on my page that if I can't take a joke then I shouldn't edit an encyclopedia. Then he reinserted the "joke" about anally raping the child here. This is pretty objectionable, and I think a 24 hour block is more than warranted. --David Shankbone 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? I would consider a much longer block for that shit. Until(1 == 2) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Objectionable"? That's mighty euphemistic. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked for 24 hours. I'm wary of blocking established contributors but this pushes it way, way over the line. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block implemented. If anyone wants to extend the block, I have no objection. (I'm not on continually, but I'll attempt to monitor this section drom time to time.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For saying something like that, he should have been indef-blocked. Simple trolling, clearly designed to shock and offend other editors. Walton^One 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to Wikipedia? Sex and other stuff in articles of Presidential hopefuls?

Rudy Giuliani's article has extensive stuff about his sex life and that he can't get an erection. Other articles, Democrat and Republican, either sound like subtle attack pieces or have positive fluff in them. And a small group of very hostile editors in some of those talk pages.

What we need to do is sit down and redo all the presidential hopeful articles and model them equally. The same order of the sections. Keep the articles like neutral biographies. I don't want to do it because I'm not stupid and don't want to be a lightning rod. JonnyLate 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome and encouraged to remove any negative unsourced information about living people from articles on sight. Until(1 == 2) 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a reference (don't know if it's accurate). Look! Italiavivi just attacked me saying I haven't edited enough. He seems to support mention of erections in the article. I don't want to fight with him but it seems like he's a regular editor with lack of objectivity. That's dangerous for wikipedia having that kind of editor. Who in the (expletive) would favor including erectile information in an encyclopiedia?JonnyLate 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this issue really need administrator attention? We're not moderators - this is better dealt with at the relevant article pages. Natalie 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In less than 5 minutes, people there have already attacked me (they favor erection mention, I think). Some administrator needs to post in the article something like "We will now have order." Otherwise, the erection mongers win. Or, you can block those that mention erection. This is far worse than vandal who insert childish stuff. This is either very crafty and well planned vandalism or even campaign tactics. Aren't administrators supposed to fight vandalism? JonnyLate 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is supposed to fight vandalism. Keep the content disputes on the article talk pages, not here; this is for things that require administrator intervention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into dispute resolution? I just wanted to say that working the phrase "erection mongers" into a sentence is very impressive and funny. Until(1 == 2) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to be the lawyer for the case "Wikipedians against mention of erections versus Wikipedians for erections". So the erection vandals win. I will not waste my time fighting. If nobody cares, fine with me. I just thought a little publically stated interest by an administrator would help fight this form of vandalism. JonnyLate 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is just the thing, content disputes are not vandalism. It is not that we don't care, it is that admins have no special authority in content disputes. Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators can block people. They do have special authority. Forget it, see how vandals win. I quit. I'm logging off and turning off the computer for today.JonnyLate 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• While this is a content dispute, I think it behooves us all to try to enforce a fair and consistent treatment of material throughout all of the Presidential hopeful articles and their forks. These are going to be very high profile articles in the coming year, and will all be under attack from POV warriors. Wikipedia doesn't need more bad press, or a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have to agree, this is not a place to play politics, perhaps during election season all bio's should be regulated and made routine, perhaps now on. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is incompatible with everything that Wikipedia stands for. Yes, we should have well-written, NPOV, verifiable articles. But no, we should not enforce this by comittee or attempt whitewashing. If something is relevant and well-sourced according to WP:BLP, it should be in. And I have to say that a sentence like "Wikipedia doesn't need [...] a person in the White House who feels he or she has been maligned on Wikipedia" make my skin cawl and has me ask how far the US has strayed from the Bill of Rights by now. --Stephan Schulz 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Until(1 == 2) 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, please use dispute resolution. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the passage, in case anyone was wondering what the fuss was about: "In May 2001, in an effort to mitigate the bad publicity from the proceedings, Giuliani's attorney revealed (with the mayor's approval) that Giuliani was impotent due to his prostate cancer treatments and had not had sex with Nathan for the preceding year." If there's a more polite way to deal with a Mayor's announcement of his impotence during a legal battle, I can't think of it. --Haemo 23:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue with article adoption

I'm having problems with Talk:U.S. Route 50. I decided to add my name to the U.S. roads adoption template. I was told that "In order to officially adopt an article, you must list it first.", so I decided to use template:maintained instead, which doesn't have any bureaucratic requirements. I have been reverted by several users, claiming a violation of WP:POINT. Please assist. --NE2 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well it looks like you're credited in the US 50 talk page now, so is there still a problem? At any rate it would seem the non-bureaucratic thing to do here is if someone indicates they want to adopt an article in good faith, would be to list them yourself in the appropriate form, rather than revert them and ask them to jump through a hoop. --W.marsh 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Either that or mind WP:CREEP and remove the hoop. Though thats probably too much to ask ;). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC). --NE2 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of TJ Spyke

Recently, TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked 250 hours for edit warring. After that, there was a discussion on the Community sanction noticeboard about what should be done. During that discussion, a CheckUser showed that Spyke was using a sockpuppet to evade the block. The block was subsequently reset, and discussion at WP:CSN continued. 3 days later, Spyke's block was extended to indefinite by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Many of those taking part in the CSN discussion, myself included, support this, though there are many, possibly more, who believe that this was unfair. Take note of the fact that an indefinite block was not the decision reached at the CSN, though it was generally well received there. Due to the circumstances surrounding the block, I figured that I should post here to see if the block is endorsed. Relevant links are:

• Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:TJ Spyke
• TJ's Block Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke
• User talk:TJ Spyke

Cheers, The Hybrid 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly and very regretfully, endorse block. TJ Spike was a very constructive editor, but violating WP:3RR nine times (actually blocked 12 times, but three were probably not legit) and using ban-evading sockpuppets is just asking for it. Put very well by Moe: "No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past." Sr13 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, am one who opposes his block. When I first started on WP I didn't know one thing. So I went to TJ Spyke. He helped me, he taught me, and he really showed me the ropes. He was like my mentor. I know that he used Sock Puppets to evade his blocks. Was it wrong? Hell yea it was wrong. Should he have been blocked? Your damn right he should of. Although, he still is a fantastic editor. One of the best in my opinion. I say we should put him on probation. Just unblock him though. I really hate to see him go. -- Kings bibby win 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly he has done too much sneaky and bad behavior to justify an unblock in my view. Numerous socks, edit warring, revert warring and so on. Warning after warning, block after block: he ignored them all, and did what he wanted dispite Wikipedia policies/rules/guidelines. He helped out at times, but that doesn't just wipe his bad behavior out. Probation for him: if a set time is on it, he would probably wait until it's over to act out again. Or use socks again, in the hope he doesn't get caught. RobJ1981 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that. I'm sayin he's never been under heat like this before. Leet's give him "one" more chance to stratin up. If he doesn't, I have no problem with you guys banning TJ Spyke and his IP Address. -- Kings bibby win 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's run out of chances. He's been blocked and warned enough. After this one more chance, I can imagine someone else saying the same thing "give him one more chance". Frankly, TJ (or anyone else) shouldn't be given an endless amount of warnings and blocks. For all we know, TJ could have a sock on Wikipedia right now that hasn't been caught yet. As stated by the admin's block summary (for the indef block): Willful and repeated violations of WP:3RR, Sockpuppetry, Sockpuppetry to avoid bans, BLP violations more than once... this user does not learn from blocks or "timeouts"). Frankly, TJ saying he will change his ways (which he did on his talk), is just a way for him to get unblocked and continue this behavior. I think we need to move on, and let the block sit. I would also like to point out: many people could be for or against his ban, but it's up to admins to decide this. RobJ1981 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run into TJ Spyke's fondness for the "revert button" once. The problem is that he has a gross misunderstanding of the "vandalism" exception to the three-revert rule -- the rule indicates that "simple and obvious vandalism" (graffiti or page blanking, as an example) is exempted from the rule. However, TJ Spyke -- at least in the one time I was multiple-reverted by him -- appears to define "simple and obvious vandalism" as "any edit he disagrees with". See his comments on my talk page. While I am not familiar with his history in general, I feel that unless he learns to distinguish between an editing disagreement and vandalism, you'll be having this discussion again and again. -- Robster2001 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Several of the times when TJ claims vandalism: it's him disagreeing with the edits, and it's simply not vandalism. He also throws around the Wrestling project in arguments at times. While the project helps out articles and has some guidelines to follow, the project certainly doesn't control every wrestling article 100 percent. Vandalism and a difference of opinion on editing is 2 different things. RobJ1981 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't think their the same. He told me when people were editing the WrestleMania 20 page, that they put in Guerrero and Benoit would die in three years. He also stated it wasn't vandalism since it's relevant, but it doesn't belong in the article. So he does not do that. -- Kings bibby win 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but I've personally seen it. We aren't just lying so your good friend TJ stays blocked, so stop it. TJ did revert vandalism at times, but there was still plenty of times where it was his personal opinion of vandalism. One good example: the taglines for matches. He felt they didn't belong, so he would revert to the version he liked (which didn't have them). No Wrestling Project guideline was in place for the taglines, so that can't be used as an excuse. A difference of opinion isn't vandalism, so reverting the taglines is both bad faith and article controlling in my view. Sometimes the taglines were discussed, but frankly that still didn't stop TJ from reverting the articles anytime he saw match taglines put in. I dont have exact diffs, but I know it was on the Vengeance article (over Night of Champions), Cyber Sunday (over Match of Champions), and a few others. Wake up to what actually went on, instead of just thinking TJ was only wrong a few times. How many pages do we need to show you, before you realize TJ wasn't as perfect as you think? I'm getting a bit annoyed. RobJ1981 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is perfect. He made the Wii article a featured article. Without him I frankly think at times our PPV's would flood with vandalism. As the alternative options say, put a multi-month block on his account and put him on probation. BTW, I frankly don't care if I'm annoying you, cause I'm going to let my voice heard. -- Kings bibby win 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative options?

I've been thinking about this... I still think a multi-month ban could work. He hasn't had a block longer than a week-and-a-half, and it might allow him to come back with a fresh perspective. I realize this will not be popular, given his litany of "second chances" and his use of a sockpuppet.

I was rather impressed with the way he helped elevate Wii to featured article status, and I notice that it seems all the peoples' complains stem from his involvement in wrestling articles. Would a topic ban be possible? Revert parole? Grandmasterka 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea, but he does contribute to wrestling articles as well. -- Kings bibby win 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart, personally. I would support a ban until December 1, or maybe Valentines Day. When he comes back I would recommend an indefinite revert parole, so he can edit wrestling articles, and revert vandalism, but to revert a second time he would have to ask permission on the talk page. Any infraction, no matter how small, would be the end of his Wikipedia career. I'm not proposing a second chance, lord knows he's had tons of those; I'm proposing one last chance. I've been editing with this guy for a long time, and he is a good editor. He is usually right in disputes. Personally, I think that a few editors have been purposefully provoking him in an attempt to get him blocked. I would really like to see him be given another shot at being a good wikipedian. The Hybrid 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal

TJ and I have been communicating recently and have come to a compromise of sorts. I always believed TJ Spyke has been in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. I can't really come to any other conclusion about the vandalism from my userpage coming from his location, it's vaguely clear to me what happened. I don't want TJ Spyke to be indefblocked, for the sake of the community not having to deal with him anymore. If he is to be indefblocked, it should be for something he has done, something definite. So after a modest proposal, TJ Spyke has agreed to do the following:

1. To take a month-long block to reflect on what he has done, albeit it still being listed as indef for now.
2. He is to apologize for the excessive revert warring and use of sockpuppets, and must admit to any former or current sockpuppets he has made.
3. He is to stay on one account exclusively.
4. An indefinite revert parole.
5. If he is to break his revert parole or use another sockpuppet again, he can be indefblocked.

He has agreed to start on this proposal by taking the month off from editing here, he is still free to comment on his talk page, of course. After a month, if he is still interested in editing here, then he can commit to this by accepting this proposal on wiki, on his talk page, and I will request his block be taken off of him. So for now he stands and has agreed to his current status. In a month, given the above, the community can reflect on whether or not this block can stand. As of right now, his current status of being blocked isn't hurting anything, and despite whether or not it is permanent, it is justified right now. I urge everyone to be patient, especially Kings bibby win, who has been a bit disruptive over this block. Regards — Moe ε 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I was the editor who reported TJ for his last 3RR violation, and I feel singularly awful. I would agree with that statement. I sure as heck don't want to have to be running off doing checkuser requests to enforce an indef block for a user that, while a pain in the rear end, certainly doesn't rise to the level of most community bans, who are outright disruptive. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Moe's compromise. Sr13 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me; however, there is an issue that bothers me. One user that has been warring with TJ more often than anyone else recently is User:RobJ1981. I'm not going to ask that anything be done, but I want a promise from RJ that if and when TJ returns he will leave TJ alone. It is blatantly obvious that RJ despises TJ, and I feel that there is a real possibility of RJ trying to make TJ violate his parole when he returns. TJ has agreed to serve his time, and I want him to have every chance of redeeming himself when he returns. I want fairness. Now, RJ and I are friends, and I hope that we still can be after this, but I don't think that it would be right for me to leave this issue unaddressed. I want a promise from RJ that he will leave TJ alone, and if he doesn't I don't want TJ blocked for violating his parole. The Hybrid 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is warranted, even given his multiple sockpuppets used to push his view. He has contributed a great deal of small yet constructive edits, and it'd be a shame to lose that sustained commitment. I am worried though, that the RFCU suggests that members of the Wrestling Project knew about the sockpuppets yet turned a blind eye. - hahnchen 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Could you expand on WP:PW members turning a blind eye, please? The Hybrid 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Lrrr (Spyke puppet) used MSN Messenger to contact members of PW, do you not think they would have known who he is? Or does he really betray all trust upon him? - hahnchen 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at one of the links [85], and you'll see that User_talk:3bulletproof16#Account_hacked. Showing that this user was in contact with both Spyke's personas on MSN. Unless he's a complete idiot, he must have known that Lrrr was a malicious sockpuppet. - hahnchen 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This person (Bulletproof) has been accused of being a TJ sockpuppet, helped him avoid 3RR by reverting for him, and just been one of his closest wiki-friends all around. Since I know Bulletproof as well, so I'm going to AGF and guess that TJ has more than one messenger account. However, there are very good reasons to question if Bulletproof was fully aware of the situation, and chose to let it slide. However, I'm personally going to assume that he wasn't aware. However, if you would like to pursue this further I would be more than willing to help in any way that I can. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to promise not to "leave" TJ alone. I'm not going to try to get TJ to violate. If I see TJ (add or remove something) I will either revert it with a good reason, or start a talk page discusssion. TJ (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't need to act paranoid, and think I'm trying to get him blocked or banned because of this. TJ loves to put the blame on me as well (bringing up some of my mistakes any chance he can, and so on), so he can't stand me as much as I can't stand him. But frankly, if I see him trying to control articles again, I will report it to admins at anytime I feel needed. I can see TJ trying to change. But frankly he acted in a controlling way to long... that it seems a bit too simple TJ agrees to all this with no problems. I don't see it fit that I don't revert or change any of TJ's edits: as he and I edit many of the same articles. In most cases: I give a good reason why I revert or change things in edit summaries (for all things, not just when it's dealing with TJ Spyke). Making it so I can't do anything involved with TJ, and then saying he wont get blocked is a bit unreasonable. I have to avoid articles I edit, because TJ edits them? That's a bit harsh, as TJ edits just about every main wrestling article. I shouldn't have to stop editing on those (or editing TJ's edits, or reverting them...which is the main case), just because he thinks I'm trying to get him blocked. I think all that made sense, if not..I will change the wording later to make it more clear. RobJ1981 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the North

Resolved

 – "Deleted, title protected, links removed" by C.Fred. --ElKevbo 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've CSDed this, but it has been deleted and recreated at least three times under different titles (one AfD, one prod, and one CSD, IIRC). Can someone please CSD this and salt it, as well as its redirects? The only reason this is getting on WP in the first place is because members of the group keep resubmitting the article. MSJapan 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, title protected, links removed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkcurrent, unreformed

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked by TenOfAllTrades. --ElKevbo 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is, I believe, the third time I have come here to discuss Darkcurrent's behavior. The first was because of an edit summary that he wrote, making copious use of capslock and anti-homosexual slurs. The second, if I recall, was after he vandalized my talk page in retaliation, calling me a "gay fuck" and attempting to draw me into some debate over minutae in which I had no part (and he was clearly wrong, but that's beside the point). He was banned for 60 hours or something like that; this was a couple of weeks ago. Well, he's come back, this time to tell me to fuck off, and declare himself too good for the project. He also invited me to "bitch" to whatever "fucktards" run Wikipedia; my first instinct was not to, but a troll's a troll, even if he is smart enough to try to insinuate that you're a whiner for going to the authorities. So I left him a note, and here I am. I humbly request that he be summarily blocked, for however long an admin might see fit, though if it were up to me he'd be gone for good. Thanks for your help. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Has made very few contributions to the encyclopedia, and those contributions aren't worth the grief. We're better off without him. (His username is also very similar to the banned editor User:Light current, but I'm willing to AGF and assume that there just happen to be two abusive editors with similar names.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kattankudi mosque massacre Clear copyright violation

Resolved

Entire Background is copied from [86] and it states permission needed [87].If I delete the content the article will go away.As 80% is copyrighted and the pictures have no source.Please help. Harlowraman 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Offending paragraph was edited out, Wikipedia deletion policy will take care of the no-sourced images in about 7 days. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Grumpyrob

After intervening in a problem on Plastic pressure pipe systems that I saw here on ANI and decided to go and fix, the article sat for a few days until Grumpyrob decided he didn't like what I did to solve the problem, and after accusing me of ownership in this thread, then proceeded to edit in a retaliatory manner by tagging Freemasonry with an advert tag [88] and claim the lead was written like an advert on the talk page. Funnily enough, that was precisely the issue I and others had with seems to be "his" article. That discussion thread I linked has made is plain that material was copied verbatim, and that Grumpyrob wants to use the pipe article as a commercial resource; that's his problem. I'm just not going to stand for childish retaliatory nonsense from him. Could an admin please set him straight on appropriate behavior on WP as well as proper usage of WP? MSJapan 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also turned up on this page to complain about User:Grumpyrob. I initially raised an ANI for Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems. User:Grumpyrob is undermining the sentiments expressed then Aatomic1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Grumpyrob's first edit implies that he is a sock of some other user, or else how would he know the archive disappeared? MSJapan 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) for 5 reverts at Plastic pressure pipe systems. If if the introduction of cut and paste copyvios and WP:OWN behavior continues, I will protect the page.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, and right after that block, newly minted Derbyboy (talk · contribs) showed up and made the same edit... Derbyboy has been indef'd as a WP:SOCK and I've protected the article.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Grumpyrob, User:Pipeup, User:Drpipe, and User:Levelmeans are all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:24.7.91.244 & User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding

A fully fledged edit war is ongoing between myself-User_talk:24.7.91.244 and User:Bellowed on Talk:Waterboarding which kicked off when Bellowed arrived on the topic when embroiled in a war with User:Eleemosynary. I got sucked in when I along with many others, worked to prevent User:Bellowed's POV pushing and sourcesless edits in an article requesting Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles. There is no reasonable hope right now that we can reconcile, so I propose that Admins issue a one week ban to both of us: for one week from editing on that specific article waterboarding and its associated talk page, plus a ban on each of us communicating and rebutting each other. Hopefully heads will cool by then (mine needs it - so does his), someone else will get interested in editing. We have a RfC out - in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics where I have recently neutralized the statement to Editors disagree strongly on whether waterboarding is torture, and what constitutes a source in this case, we would greatly welcome outside views, and of course contributors.. Then in a week we'll see if we can get going again. There is at least one admin watching - so hopefully heads will cool and we'll get some fresh blood editing (no pun intended). This fight is basically an endless string of rebuttals and both of us wanting the last word, as such it is best dealt with by sending us both out of the issue for now. I have no objection of course, and I doubt he/she will either as it is not good for the article, and a waste of both of our time. Regardless, both of us have made a mockery of 3RR in this dispute so our agreement in not needed. 24.7.91.244 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. Bellowed makes one false claim after another about the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and various conservatives not considering Waterboarding 'torture'. He claims that US waterboarding is not at all like Cambodian waterbaording. The Bush administration has never acknowledged that they have ever used waterboarding. His claims are false. (I think he just makes them up as he writes) The links he posts to various conservatives (like comedian Dennis Miller, who compared GITMO to Las Vegas, and Bellowed wants to use him as a 'source') who he claims said that waterbaording is not torture, say no such thing. After contributing on the 2 waterbaording articles for days, he just claimed that waterboarding was submersing a subjects head under water. Totally wrong. He constantly 'reverts' and 'blanks' and 'wars'. His actions make it impossible to assume any 'good faith' any more. I ask for a team of admininstorial referees (including some non-Americans) to check this article and his actions. I read about the White House and Bush Administration having bloggers and forum posters who post 'disinformation' for them. One article was found to have somone from the Department of Defense 'reverting' it. They found the IP #. I would like Wikipedia to check if Bellowed (and several others) are part of this 'campaign'. I can think of no other likely explanation. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• "WASHINGTON — Every weekday at 8 a.m., right after President Bush meets with senior staff, his communications team huddles in a second floor West Wing office to plan new moves in the information war.Rob Saliterman, the White House director of rapid response, fires salvos throughout the day.His weapons: e-mails. The White House digital war room blasts thousands of electronic messages each day, aimed at more than 2,000 targets. They include journalists, Republican staffers in government, radio talk show hosts, television bookers, Internet bloggers and what White House communications director Kevin Sullivan described as other "interested parties." Link Bmedley Sutler 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You all don't need admins to help you institute a voluntary ban from the talk page, and even if it's not bilateral, it might help to walk away from the dispute for a week. Anyway, this dispute stems from whether the intro should state that waterboarding is torture, as a broad majority of human rights orgs, legal scholars, etc. say, or whether it should state that such orgs consider it that, but lead with the Bush Administration, CIA, and some conservatives' definition that it is an "enhanced interrogation technique". See a comparison. I think the current lead, which states the consensus view, but doesn't state it as unequivocal truth in NPOV's name (waterboarding is torture), is good. It at least has the virtue of having survived edits by more than three people in the last 20 hours.

The way to find out what IP someone is editing from is a checkuser, which is clearly not warranted in this case. Let's try to keep the accusations of government spookery to a minimum (like, a minimum of zero).

As to the nonsense happening on the talk page, I'll go there now to try to throw some water on these flames. There won't be a team of "admininstorial referees"; we don't settle your content disputes for you.--Chaser - T 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed, do you agree to a time out as described? 24.7.91.244 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball

I noticed something strange about this wikiproject. I had a conflect with User:Soxrock over team seasons articles which i left a comment on talk. Then with his altnative account he started spamming talk pages over my view on the seasons articles, telling them to say "yes" to his proposal. I reverted all his talk page spamming, but this comment comes to mind. It feels like for me that some users of the wikiproject has WP:OWN issues with all the baseball articles here. This needs to change. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't doing anything wrong by alerting other users about what you are doing, Jaranda. You still didn't have the right to revert Soxrock's edits to other people's pages. Ksy92003(talk) 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This has pretty much been hashed out on Soxrock's and Jaranda's talk pages. Soxrock apologized to me, and I think we need to put it in the past. Communication was difficult at first because I don't think everyone knew the full extent of the situation. Leebo ^T/C 01:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A wikiproject with WP:OWN issues???--Isotope23 ^talk 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This one does seem to be worse than the others.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball sox. --Howard the Duck 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh dealing with copyright violations here. See talk page of the wikiproject. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally did the Marlins and Royals, Padres are redlinks and I don't see anything for the Braves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, today's a big day for me. But the stats aren't all that will be up there. They will also have, notably, prose, a game log, roster, playoff information if it applies, and sources and references! And you guys say stuff up there must be verifiable. And now I give my source and its a problem? please... Soxrock 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is no copyright issue, there might have just been a mistake in someone believing the sports page had a copyright on the stats, the issue has been made clear that the layout should be avoided if it is not a common method of presenting the statistics. Also that sports stats are not copyright protected. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a derivative work of the formatting, such it's a copyvio and needs to in fact be deleted and restart over. Some stats aren't copyrighted. There wasn't any need to revert any of these articles. The reverts from the baseball project members who doesn't agree with copyright indicate WP:OWN and their willingness to ignore copyright laws and every user, even long-standing admins that doesn't agree with them especially Ksy92003 and Soxrock. Most of the other users show at least a willingness about the copyvio issue, but Ksy92003 attacked me for abusing my powers. This is heading to WP:ARBCOM in this rate. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong Jaranda. Why not help us out? You're hurting the project. STOP REDIRECTING NOW Soxrock 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You know Jaranda. Your doing OWN. Most of the redirected articles do not violate copyvio, in fact, baseball-reference does not own the stats. Also, the articles are being built upon. Stop redirecting without consensus because your copyvio thing does not apply. Soxrock 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from MLB the game logs, I keep telling that the stats aren't copyrighted, unless it been obviously copied, in this case it isn't. It's the formatting that is the problem, is a rip-off from baseball-reference. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The layout is not copyvio if it is the standard way in producing the statistics. For instance if the same format is used on baseball cards, websites, multiple at that and everywhere else, then its not copyright. Can you give some page examples so I can take a look at them and advise? As for logs, they are copyvio if copied directly from the MLB page, that I will agree with, however I would like an example to look at. Thanks. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at 1891 St. Louis Browns season I am not seeing a copyvio issue of [89], most categories are not being replicated, nor order or design. Player name on left and stat on top cannot be copyrighted. When you get a chance Jaranda just leave an example here or on my talk, since this page is probably not a good example of what you are talking about. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous racism

..like this, really doesn't help the tone of the place. This fellow has been a low-level edit warrior for some time but that edit summary is way out of line. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blowjob vandalism

Please add Image:Fellatio.png to MediaWiki:Bad image list except for in Fellatio, Oral sex and List of sex positions because it is being used for shock vandalism.[90][91] Thank you. ←Ben^B4 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad blocked the IP responsible. ThuranX 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that to happen over there. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of a third party's comments on my (and others editors') talk pages

User:Jaranda, an admin, had a substantive dispute with User:Soxrock. Soxrock notified me and a limited number of others of the dispute on our talk pages, in a non-disruptive manner. Jaranda then deleted Soxrock's comments with regard to the dispute on my (and other editors') talk pages. Discussion on this issue can be found at [92]. I pointed out to Jaranda, who claimed that this was canvassing and that he had right to delete canvassing comments of others on talk pages, that nothing in WP:CANVAS affords him such a right. And to the contrary, WP:TPG says, quite clearly: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." There is no exception given for canvassing.

Others have made these points as well to him on the above pages, and I have more than once asked him to RV his deletions. He has not agreed to do so, maintaining that he is allowed to delete the putative canvassing.--Epeefleche 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When that editor Jaranda deleted the canvassing comments from my talk page, I put them back and advised him I didn't like that. Since then, reading the canvassing article, it looks like his job was to advise the canvasser to do such deletion, not to take it upon himself to do it. Presumably if the original poster refused, then it would be in his realm to do the deleting himself as an administrative action. Someone needs to clarify the rules in this situation, but I think the admin went a little too far in this case. Baseball Bugs 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is that Soxrock canvassed a bunch of people, and then Jaranda removed them -- and that this violates our talk page guidelines, because that was editing other user's comments. Sorry, but that's a pretty silly argument -- the prohibition against editing other user's comments exists principally for the reason's outlined, that is, to preserve the meaning and context of what someone says; i.e. not to put words into another's mouth. The concept that this should be robotically extended to the removal of someone's cavassing notices is silly, and against the spirit of the guidelines -- WP:CANVASS exists to prevent the distortion of the process that canvassing causes. If someone violates those guidelines, it seems reasonable to me to take reasonable measures to minimize the damage that might so result; I guess the only question which needs to be answered here is if the actions were reasonable in these circumstances, given the history surrounding this topic. --Haemo 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing article says the poster should clean it up. Unilaterally deleting stuff from others' talk pages, except by the poster, is not discussed. When I saw he had deleted the comment on my talk page, I was not very happy about that. I'm not a sheep, and I am not easily recruited. The admin should have handled this the right way as described on the canvassing page. His job should be to inform, not to censor. Baseball Bugs 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make, is that canvassing is bad because of the damage it causes to the process. It may, in some circumstances, be appropriate to try and mitigate that damage by removing canvassing notices before they become a problem. The guidelines address what to do if you canvass -- they are what an penitent editor is supposed to do to clean up their mess. It seems, to me at least, that if the canvasser is not going to do it, then it is reasonable for another to do so in certain circumstances. --Haemo 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason why he removed the comments Soxrock left other users has nothing to do with canvassing... at least, not directly. I think that Jaranda simply didn't want Soxrock to "recruit" other people who have the same opinion as him because its opposite Jaranda's opinion. Soxrock admitted that he canvased, but also said that he edited his comments to avoid it. In most of the edits that Jaranda reverted ([93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]), in all of these 11, there wasn't any canvassing at all. This is the only edit Soxrock made that had any canvassing that Jaranda reverted. It was the first one that Soxrock had left, and didn't do it any more after that. In this edit, Soxrock assumed that the user would've said yes, but apologized for that in a subsequent edit, saying "Sorry, you just seem like someone who would say yes," and he said that he was making it an alert only. So only one of those edits that Jaranda reverted was actually canvassing. The others, Jaranda had absolutely no business removing. I think that Jaranda was just afraid that others would have the opinion opposite of him and he didn't want anybody else to argue against him. Ksy92003(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with you that there was "no canvassing at all"... even in the redone wording, it's pretty clear what the intent was; to create a numerical superiority of editors that could override the action. It's my belief at least that both Soxrock (talk · contribs) and Jaranda (talk · contribs) were acting in good faith here in so much as I think both feel very strongly about their view of these articles and content. It might be a good time for everyone to step back, take a breath, and discuss this before it escalates somewhere it doesn't need to be. I mean, I see edit warring over addition of "stats" when there are no stats present as well as addition of empty sections with no content or content that don't need to be in the article sans data. Do you guys really want to be fighting over this?--Isotope23 ^talk 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So? If an article that I worked greatly on is nominated for an AfD, is it canvassing to tell other people who edited that article that it was nominated for an AfD? I don't see how this is any different. Ksy92003(talk) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends... maybe yes... maybe no. It all depends on what you say and who you are contacting.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Soxrock didn't go about it the right way, but he has told me that Jaranda has placed a large amount of pressure on him. So obviously, when he first made the comments on other user's talk pages, Soxrock may not have said it the way he intended. But Soxrock apologized and fixed his comments. But still, Jaranda had no right to remove those edits. Only if it's vandalism is he permitted to do that, but this wasn't vandalism. I think the reason why Jaranda removed the comments was because he didn't want other people to counter his opinion. "Were Soxrock's comments alright?" is another question. But I don't think Jaranda had any right at all to remove Soxrock's comments. Ksy92003(talk) 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From outside of this whole dispute, it sure looks to me like there is some bad blood here right now. I'm not advocating any sort of administrative action against anyone over this; as I said above, both editors appear to be acting within their interpretation of Wikipedia's best interests. Given this and the related thread below, it's clear that both Jaranda and Soxrock would benefit from a bit of cooldown avoidance of each other for a bit. I reiterate that there is no reason to be edit warring over redirects and empty sections of articles. My suggestion is after taking a breather, a conversation is started over the assertion that the intended content to be added to these articles is a copyright violation. Not to go off on a tangent... but I'd also strongly suggest not creating articles over redirects that are largely just made up of tables with no data. Perhaps a project sandbox should be set up to collectively work on these articles one at a time before moving them (in completed form) to the mainspace.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is straying from the main point. Whether or not canvassing (a practice that is controversial, but is not per se prohibited, and which has exceptions that this may well fall into) took place (a point that is debatable) is not the focus. Even if canvassing did take place, Jaranda's deletions on my talk page -- and on others' talk pages -- was a violation of Wiki policy. I have asked Jaranda to RV his deletions. He has not. I assumed that Jaranda was acting in good faith when he initially made the deletions, but that has not been supported by his more recent failure to fix his overreaching violation of Wiki policy, by RVing his deletions.--Epeefleche 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see a good reason to take administrative action here. If you feel his deletion on your page was not warranted, then revert it.... but mostly it is time to drop this as nothing fruitful is coming out of continued discussion here.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from Requests for comment

I notived that user comments that reflect unlatteringly on the editor in question keeps getting removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann. It has happened serval times[104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]. // Liftarn 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

can someone deal with this kid please? He's been wikistalking me for a few days now (see above). If you can believe it, he has just created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbachmann. dab (𒁳) 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we really need somebody to deal with this problem. I also noticed Dbachmann have removed comments from a talk page[112] in violation of WP:TALK. // Liftarn

Might I suggest WP:DR? I see the first step has been taken care of, but I think admin intervention should be left until all other avenues have been exhausted. Of course, deleting someone else's talk page comments really isn't good form, but, not being an admin, it's not my place to pass judgment. Just offering advice, though. --clpo13_(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

this isn't about a bona fide dispute. It's an issue of user conduct. I don't care too much to figure in bogus sockpuppets reports, and I think I should be protected against such by WP admins. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute where WP:CONS is ignored, i.e. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a balanced view which everybody can agree upon.". There have been several personal attcks and very little negotiation. // Liftarn

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. This user is deleting comments from his own RFC, adnd we're saying to try dispute resolution? This is not acceptable - however bad the cause of an RFC, one should never delete other people's comments as "trolling". Never. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Iantresman by Tom harrison

History: A week ago, on 16 July, JoshuaZ filed a proposal to ban Iantresman. Five hours later admin Tom harrison blocked Iantresman indefinitely. He did not give his reasons at the time and in fact has not participated in the discussion before or since. On the contrary, he says he does "not plan to spend any more time on it".

My complaint: As expressed in my first and later contributions to the discussion, I consider the blocking of Iantresman after just five hours to be unnecessarily prompt, unfair to him, and detrimental to a reasoned discussion, but my primary complaint is Tom harrison's refusal to explain and justify his action. If he has spent the requisite diligence to ban a user, then he owes it to that user and the community to explain his reasoning. Anything else smacks of abuse of administrative privileges.

Requested action: I would like an admin to (1) unblock Iantresman until such time that cogent arguments for the necessity of a ban are put forward, and (2) take a wooden ruler and rap Tom harrison firmly on the knuckles.

--Art Carlson 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the arguments there in support of blocking Iantresman were accurate and Tom Harrison did the block and had community support for doing so.--MONGO 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Art. Iantresman wore out the community's patience. Shell ^babelfish 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If Iantresman wants to appeal his block on the grounds of wrongful or overprompt action then he should use the facility in the block notice. There is no need for third party intervention. Perhaps Tom Harrison was not acting in strictest accordance with WP:CIVIL, but that is no reason to overturn the block in question. Please can we end this here, now? LessHeard vanU 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed: WP:CS was created so that such discussions are conducted there, not here. What is the point if we're still duplicating them on AN/I? dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee by emailing one or more members using Wikipedia's email this user function or at the email addresses shown at WP:AC. Thatcher131 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn

It's come to my attention, through a (rather long) report filed at WP:AN3 (located here) that Liftarn has a habit of reverting people, but *technically* beating WP:3RR by leaving stretches of time between his reverts (quite deliberately, as he's fairly active).

Comments?

Anthøny (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread on something similar to that 3 threads up. Block him for violating 3rr/edit warring would be my quick decision without looking into it much. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than one for an edit war... Without seeking consensus User:Zara1709 turned Persecution of Germanic Pagans into a disambig (instead of a WP:SUMMARY). This want back and forth a few times (including comments like "this is ridiculous and childisch" instead of trying to reach WP:CONS). // Liftarn

well, it is ridiculous and childish. Including the shopping on AN/I. Liftarn hasn't found one editor supporting his "opinions" and now tries to somehow get his way by trolling noticeboards, compiling bogus sockpuppet reports and the like. Of course this isn't going to work, but couldn't somebody mercifully cut short this rather pathetic affair? dab (𒁳) 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I have to reply to Liftarn's accusation regarding Persecution of Germanic Pagans. After I had created the disambiguation page 02:11, May 20, 2007 , it was reverted 2 times by Liftarn 10:49, May 20, 2007, 09:24, May 24, 2007, without him writing anything on the discussion page. After the 3rd revert 10:49, May 29, 2007 he wrote one line on the discussion page 10:50, May 29, 2007, he actually used WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as reason. I replied 17:55, June 3, 2007 and restored the disambiguation page. Liftarn did not reply then on the discussion page and feeling that this was sorted out, I took the article of my watchlist. However, one month later I discovered that Liftarn had, without replying on the discussion page, reverted another time 10:08, July 9, 2007. I then wrote "this is ridiculous and childisch" (sic) in the edit summary as I restored the disambiguation page 05:29, July 12, 2007, because this was the way I felt about it. Zara1709 11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage - again - sigh :(

Theres' been a whole recent amount of editing in this article[113]. The article was put up (by myself) for Peer review [114], but it seems some people don't want that. I've taken it back to 22nd July 2007 roughly the date of the listing of Peer review. I apologize if I've inadvertently reverted and Administrators edit. Can an Administrator urgently look at it the past couple of days editing flood?Tezza1 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The culprit seems to be user "The_Null_Device"[115]. He's threatened me with another request for comment.[116]Tezza1 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza has repeatedly made unilateral reverts of collaborative editing to a non-consensus version. Administrators may wish to take Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1 into account. The Null Device 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 48 hours. There was a healthy dose of IP vandalism thrown in for good measure, I'd rather not risk any sort of edit-warring until the situation has been given some time to defuse. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though I haven't agreed with much of the material in that article, I have refrained from making major edits. Inadvertently, and in good faith, by protecting it in its current state (23rd July), instead of defusing the situation you may have achieved the opposite.Tezza1 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how protection works. Administrator's can't do much more about it. Whichever version has been protected, the issues need to be discussed on the talk page by all involved. Additional input may be helpful, but it doesn't have to be from administrators. JPD (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TheMaste120389

Resolved

This user has already violated 3RR by adding in a copyrighted picture to Candice Michelle despite warnings from myself and User:Deep Shadow not to. I warned him with a 3RR warning after the second revert and he vandalised my user page. I can go ahead and finish the 3RR report but maybe a block on grounds of incivility may be quicker. Your thoughts are appreciated. Darrenhusted 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. This type of conduct is unacceptable.-Wafulz 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda in terribly inappropriate block

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

Apologies for the "long diatribe" - you can skip to the last paragraph if need be.

First, some background: many of you may be familiar with the history of the WP:LAME edit war concerning the infobox colors. Recently, on the Reggie Jackson page, an admin (probably unwisely) decided to unprotect the page, at which point, a full out edit war insued. One user User:Mghabmw, broke 3RR first; another user, User:Pascack reverted Mghabmw, and used sockpuppets to do so. They were obvious sockpuppets, and everyone knew they were sockpuppets. It was stupid, and they both deserved a block: Mghabmw for mass revert warring, and for being the first to break 3RR (21 reverts in a few hours!), and Pascack for sockpuppeteering to revert Mghabmw.

Now, User:Jaranda came along, and decided to only block Mghabmw for 31 hours. There was general agreement on his talk page that this was quite lenient: nevermind that the user is a likely sock himself (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bucs10), and that he's admitted to using several IPs ("forgot to log in", he claims), or that he's broken 3RR many other times, and tried to report User:Pascack for breaking 3RR after he was the first one to break it. And, just to prove this was a bad block, try reading Mghabmw's user page about his take on the recent issue - hardly the contrite attitude for a block. This clearly too-lenient block would not have been so harmful, if he hadn't blocked User:Pascack indefinitely - a ridiculously overzealous block in view of the fact that the other user only got 31h.

Now, to the meat of the problem: because everyone agreed this was a ridiciulously overzealous block, User:Mr.Z-man came and shortened it to 15 days. After which, User:Jaranda, in a clear case of wheel-warring, reinstated the indef block with the message: Seriously this user won't change his ways, he been involved in the craziest edit war I ever seen, and used over 5 socks for the reverting, that tells a person how good of a user he is. Of course, Jaranda fails to mention that in this "craziest edit war he's ever seen", he only blocked the other side, a likely sock himself, for 31 hours. I was already thinking about complaining about this miscarriage of justice before Jaranda reinstated the block. This is clear wheel-warring, and I've alerted Jaranda to this thread. I ask the administrators to please come in and undo overzealous indef block. Please keep in mind that in placing this request, I am not a party in the edit dispute; as such, I have no necessary bias toward one editor or the other. The Evil Spartan 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what purpose the colors on retired players' infoboxes serves, other than encouraging edit warring and POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering Mghabmw (talk · contribs) and the attitude displayed towards edit warring, I'd say he got off rather easy. What is it about these baseball articles that is inducing such ridiculousness that people are edit warring over teal or puce? Well anyway... both should have gotten a 48 hr - 1 week block for edit warring and socking... that said, Pascack (talk · contribs) should get his block reduced to something manageable... maybe 72 hours given the time already blocked. At least Pacack is showing some level of remorse. Both Pascack (talk · contribs) & Mghabmw (talk · contribs) should be warned that if either of them edit wars again the consequences will be more severe. There is simply no reason or justification for that.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Except it's a moot issue to warn Pascack. Because Jaranda has wheel-warred to indef block him. We can't really bother to warn a user if he's been indef blocked for a first time offense 3RR. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When I say warn I mean let them know in no uncertain terms that future edit warring will lead to long, possibly indef, blocks. Of course your point is taken TES, I think Pascack already understands this concept.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give them both another 72 hours and a clear warning that further edit-warring or 3RR violations will result in a 1-month block. But given the incipient wheel war, I'd like to hear from Jaranda here to be sure that s/he would be OK with this before undoing the indef block again, to keep things from spiralling. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wheel warning as I wasn't aware of the block. I blocked Pascack indef because of the socks that he was using. If not, I would have blocked longer. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original 15 day block (13 days now ^_^). After all, 13 days is plenty of time for Jaranda to provide rationale for why a first-time 3RR violator who seems to have made other good faith edits deserves an indefinite block. ugen64 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the sockpupperty not the 3rr, as for the block, endorse Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was a monumentally stupid decision to use sockpuppets to get involved in a pointless revert war. However, Mghabmw didn't really do much better - the only difference between the two in their huge edit war was that Mghabmw didn't use sockpuppets, while Pascack did. In the end, though, a revert war is quite easy to detect and deal with (whereas more subtle sockpuppetry, in votes for example, is harder to detect). Additionally, if Pascack deserves an indefinite block for doing 15+ reverts in an edit war with sockpuppets, why does Mghabmw get off with the relatively light punishment of 31 hours? After all, both were first-time violators and both reverted each other the exact same amount (on Reggie Jackson at least). Giving a user one last chance for violating WP:3RR isn't a big deal, IMO. 15 days should give them plenty of time to think about it :-) ugen64 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job Ugen64. He clearly got screwed by Jaranda. Jaranda is getting too much involved in this. The Pascack issue, the issue he has with me. Hmm, maybe he should be Fired. Soxrock 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying that I should get fired, i only reblocked because i wasn't aware of the fucking block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which block were you not aware of? --OnoremDil 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You overruled it and that was wrong. And I still think you've done to much harm. Your stunting expansion of Wikipedia. Soxrock 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock please see WP:CIVIL regarding your last comment. Note, that I do and will block for continued violations. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What? What was uncivil about it? That he has done too much harm? Jeez. I only consider that constructive criticism. Soxrock 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How the fuck I'm stunting expansion of wikipedia. Many other admins decided that they were in fact copyrighted, including User:Zscout370, who is one of wikipedia leading experts in copyright. I wrote more articles than you will ever done in your life. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, stop it. We're done here; the blocks have been placed, and the users are warned. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing MastCell said... it's time to drop it. Block has been refactored. Bickering here isn't helping.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Russianname

User Russianname's behaviour has become really unbearable. This user is currently involved in rewert wars with three different editors simultaneously [117][118][119]. In several articles he insists on inserting unencyclopedic and unsupported claims about "Ukrainian chauvinists"[120], and yet he still en masse spam tagged with "fact" tags several articles singling out specifically those that I have written[121][122][123]. And all that was done on the same day! In article Fofudja, when the first round of tag spamming was over and some references were provided, he added new tags[124]. Regarding that particular article, I asked him five times to justify the NPOV tag and he still produced none. He appears at English Wikipedia sporadically, but every time he shows up, he disrupts it so, that I have given up to responding to multiple and frivolous attacks specifically on the articles I've written. I have filed an RfC but it produeced no effect on his behaviour whatsoever. While the dispute resolution process is still ongoing his behaviour has become really exasperating, admin intervention is very welcome. --Hillock65 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rape victims

A determined editor who does not like the category about a moth ago de populated the entire category but was reverted by admin User:Pascal.Tesson and warned to take it to XFD, if he disliked the category. He has done it agin and this time after depoplating it has gotten it speedily removed without and XFD. I have recreated the category with the edit summary saying that it was deleted without an XFD. I have informed the admin who speedily deleted it that it should be put up for XFD insted. I am more than willing to go by true consensus not by personal dislikes and likes of a subject matter. I have reverted many edits of the above mention user User:SqueakBox. I think I dont want to do more as it may violate WP:Stalk. I want quick admin action over it as he has shown that he will revert his way to his desired outcome. Thanks Taprobanus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to take it to Deletion review. Simply recreating it something usually results in delete/undelete wars, which is defenitely not desireable. --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on WP:CFD instead; I doubt this will end up in a wheel war. As far as I know, Zscout370 is a perfectly reasonable person :-) ugen64 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything... :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks lioke trolling to me, DRV yes this is almost wheeklwarring and I would have thought a short block on Taprobanus (talk · contribs) would be entirely appro[priate. After all the cat is used in many u8nosurced articles and outs living rape victims. Is this what we want, the encyclopedia that trolls innocent people? SqueakBox 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So that I cannot make my arguments in the CFD. Pretty smart move. Thanks Taprobanus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I said a short block, that wouldnt prevent such a thing. Well done for making it clear that living people should not be in the cat and hope you well help me police it over the coming years (assuming the deletion fails), SqueakBox 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse, will you then change your vote ? thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

initial cap for honorificabilitudinitatibus and a casteist troll

A user is constantly reverting some highly pov, ORish, and socially exclusive articles like Unnithan, Valiathan, Malayala Kshatriyas etc. in order to remove tags and reinsert stupid caps for what he calls proper names. Some of the articles are merely family history (eg. Kiriyathil Nair The user is an SPA here merely to push his narrow minded pov related to his caste. When unreferenced template is added he gives false reference like some random "State Manual" etc. which actually is no Reliable Source and which in all probability doesn't refer to the subject. His shying away from quoting relevant parts is suspicious. The fact that he is not able to cite a single RS or web resource for these fringe things speaks enough for him. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk, sockpuppetry, and edit warring

Unfortunately I kind of came in in the middle of this problem user's disruption so my picture of it is not entirely complete. From what I can gather, some user added a template to the pages Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon, Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. User:Stevewk didn't like this, and instead of engaging in useful discussion on talkpages, decided to revert the changes, and was subsequently blocked for it. While he was blocked, he used numerous IP addresses and a sockpuppet account (some of which I've listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stevewk) to continue edit warring, vandalising user pages, and making uncalled-for personal attacks, nearly all of which were blocked, and User:Gwilmont (the account he registered) blocked indefinitely. Now that Stevewk's original block has expired, he has continued to revert the book templating on the pages in question. I was not sure of exactly who to tell, but it was suggested that I address it here and that someone might be able to advise me on the issue. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page asking him to discuss and use the article talk pages instead of continuing his edit war over these formatting issues. He's been blocked for 3RR, and again for using sockpuppets to continue this edit war (some of which were quite nasty). He hasn't edited in a few days, so let's see how he responds to that. If he's determined to keep edit-warring, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV forking issue

After multiple deletions of sourced origin of the song from Bulgaria, User:Amacos has branched off Slušam kaj šumat šumite (Macedonian language transliteration) from the song When the Woods Rustle, thus creating a Wikipedia:Content forking. In Slušam kaj šumat šumite he claims the song is "Macedonian", while in When the Woods Rustle he left the song as Bulgarian. Note also he left the Macedonian language interwiki link in the first article. The song however, in both articles is the same one, it has identical English transliteration and the same notes are being played, just sung in two different languages, namely Bulgarian and Macedonian. For now I have created links between the two articles until this issue is resolved. Can someone please look into this because it is a serious breach of the content forking policy in my opinion. Not to speak the contribution history of one of the articles is now lost because of copy/paste moves by Amacos. The original history of the article remains here [125] Mr. Neutron 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. The English translation should be different and not same for both songs whose Music is really almost same but their lyrics are not same, just similar and you cannot use same English translation for both songs. Also the songs' tittles are not same and have different translations in English. Regards, --Amacos 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the lyrics are different because they are sung in different languages. The English translation is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English translation and the translation of their tittles in English. THEY ARE NOT SAME. You cannot teach me about my mother tongue - the Macedonian language. I know it very well and also I know the English. In the Macedonian song they sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends" (Другари верни другари Македонци) and in the English translation there is this line. From the other side, in the Bulgarian song they don't sing about "Friends, my faithful Macedonian friends". How can you use the same translation if the lyrics are different in the Macedonian song and the Bulgarian song. Yes, the lyrics are similar but still different. --Amacos 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The different languages necessitate small changes, however, the theme, object and music of the song is the same. Mr. Neutron 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked you do you understand Macedonian and Bulgarian languages and you didn't answer me. If you don't understand them how can you say that something is "same" or not? You wanna say that you know Macedonian better than me?! I'll repeat again:

• the theme is same;
• the music is almost same;
• the text of the lyrics and their meanings are not same, just similar;
• their tittles are not same and have similar but not same translations in English
• you cannot use same translation in English for both songs and you cannot use same tittles too - you can use it only if you spread propaganda like most of the Bulgarian users do.

If you use one article for both songs you have to:

• use different translations in English for each song's tittle;
• use different translations in English for each song's lyrics.

The best solution is to use two separate articles for each song and there won't be problems neither propaganda. I don't care about the Bulgarian song article. I just don't like someone to vandalize the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite --Amacos 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in reality, neither article belongs here. We're not a song lyric repository; nothing in either article indicates why the song has any special notability whatsoever. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment about the Bulgarian song. As for the article about the Macedonian song Slušam kaj šumat šumite, there exist this article only because this song is an example for the Ethnic Macedonian music same as Kaleš bre Angjo. Regards, --Amacos 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy mass edits by User:Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs) was blocked for a long time over his edit-warring on Western-Sahara-related articles. However, he has another behavior pattern which is significantly more disruptive to the project, one which he's picked right back up since his unblocking in June. Koavf uses AWB (or a similar tool) to make mass quantities of style changes, often including page moves, to conform to his particular views on proper style. He's usually quite sloppy about them - for instance, changing all mentions of "China" to "People's Republic of China" [126] without checking the appropriateness of the changes. Many of his changes are actually good ideas, but his execution is sloppy, and the volume makes his sloppiness disruptive.

His most recent fiasco led to a one-week block, later reduced by the blocking admin who may not have been aware of Koavf's history.

I haven't seen much evidence of similar behavior since his last block, though he's been edit-warring on Western Sahara again. As a precautionary measure, especially if he's banned from Western Sahara-related articles, I think he should be banned from using bots or rapid editing tools like AWB, to prevent further disruption. At this time, I think he's as capable of making reasonable edits manually as any other WP editor, but he does not exercise the care required to be a constructive user when using AWB. Argyriou (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking

Very slow and tedious edit war going on in which, every day or so, User:Omulazimoglu adds unsourced original research to Tobacco smoking#Islam without comment or explanation, and I revert it. This has happened several times (at least four, I think), but not often enough to trigger a 3RR violation.

I have left a warning on the editor's talk page explaining why I keep reverting him. The editor's only responses were to re-add the unsourced material back to the article without comment, and to leave a snarky comment on my talk page.

This editor seems to be a good-faith contributor to other articles (with minor exceptions) so I am hesitant to leave a level-4 "final warning" on this editor's talk page. He doesn't seem inclined to explain his edits, however, so the third opinion way of resolving disputes won't work. And he edits Wikipedia infrequently, so a short-term block will likely go unnoticed. -Amatulic 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

204.210.186.227 used soley for spamming

[127] all edits from this IP sofar have been spam. Perhaps anonymous editing block to that IP would be in order?--Alexia Death 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say wait and see if your warning works first...--Isotope23 ^talk 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)