Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Sadi Carnot

Sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101^{Need help?}

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Please take a look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Editor Eleemosynary continues to remove information just because he disagrees with it. There are cited United States Army memos, in PDF format, being cited. These are RS and perfectly valid. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issue. Please discuss on the talk page or pursue a content RFC or third opinion. (However, one might wish to take a lesson from the Killian documents fiasco and wait to see if these pdf's from the drudge report ever get authenticated. ) Thatcher131 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than a content issue. Eleemosynary has continued to lob personal attacks at User:Bluemarine (a.k.a. Matt Sanchez) long after that user stopped contributing to the article. These are homophobic attacks designed at discrediting the Bluemarine through Bluemarine's past experience in the gay porn industry. Eleemosynary has engaged in these personal attacks in edit summaries [1] [2]. I gave a polite warning to Eleemosynary regarding the homophobic violations of WP:NPA, but Eleemosynary called this "nonsense" and "trolling," [3] and instead decided to use even harsher and more homophobic language. (A prior warning was given in the context of a debate, and this not as polite: [4].)

In the past few hours, Eleemosynary has twice called Sanchez "Dirty Sanchez," [5] [6] a homophobic slur, one made to associate Mr. Sanchez with homosexuality and certain sexual acts that some people find rather disgusting and/or laughable. Contrary to Eleemosynary's claims, it is not a nickname given to Sanchez in the porn industry, where he did not use his own name, according to the article at Matt Sanchez. It was instead given to him by those who wished to defame him. Eleemosynary feigns ignorance of what "Dirty Sanchez" means, but one look at his history reveals his true nature. I have been very patient with his homophobia, but how many times must he be warned and his attacks tolerated before action is taken? Calbaer 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify my final comment, no one's "taken action" in the past on this because it hasn't been reported, not because it's been reported and ignored. Actions have been taken against the user for other things, but not for this. Calbaer 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's more than a content dispute, it was brought up as a content dispute. Throwing the book at Eleem for the current personal attacks is perfectly fine by me, but it's a separate issue to the content dispute. Chris Cunningham 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He says he'll stop, so I guess I'll give him a sixth chance, but, if there are any more homophobic slurs in the future, I'll bring them up here myself. Calbaer 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. At no point did I use any "homophobic slur" to refer to anyone. The nickname referenced was one Sanchez used during his adult film days. Google the relevant terms for the history, if you wish. Calbaer and Steven Andrew Miller are extending a revert war on the Beauchamp page to this one. If it continues, we made need an RFC. --Eleemosynary 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Wikipedia since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a content dispute, then? Whig 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it is but what have you been doing there just a few days after the article ban? Would it be wiser to disengage for a while from the talk page? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I was expressly welcomed to continue editing the talk page by the admin who imposed editing restrictions. Whig 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment here, but I can not at the moment because I'm at work. I ask that before any action be taken, I can comment. I'll be commenting in a few hours. Mercury 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a suggestion, the editors who are bringing this incident report are welcome to pursue RfAr, which several people in the RfC encouraged them to do. Whig 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I draw everyone's attention to this? He evidently made a user copy of the article he's banned from editing just to add a {{POV}} tag. Then decided he liked the {{Balance}} tag better. (Then Fyslee, quite rightly, nowiki'd all the tags so that it wouldn't be category-sorted.) Still, though... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange indeed, especially the discussion page, where Whig describes his user-space homeopathy page by writing "This is the NPOV fork". (link). I hesitated earlier before describing Whig's attitude towards homeopathy as an "obsession", but that now looks like a pretty accurate description. Tim Vickers 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, from Oct 16 (when it was clarified that Whig would be participating in discussion but not editing the article) to Oct 25 (when I put in this comment: "Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over") the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy was generally amicable and productive.

Also, on Oct 25 Phoenix 15 posted this message: "I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good article. I'll promote it to GA status." Wanderer57 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have not really looked into to Homeopathy talk, but I would encourage a request for arbitration at this point. There is no point in tightening and tightening restrictions, I do believe this is more complicated and a community based restriction, may not be appropriately applied if it involves talk space. Send this to arbitration for review. Mercury 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe RfARb is the way to go, given the RfC findings and ongoing issues with talk-page abuse (disclaimer: User:Whig has moved on to Talk:Christine Maggiore where I've encountered him). On another note, it's inappropriate for a user to maintain a copy of a page he's been banned from editing in his userspace for the apparent purpose of creating a POV fork. I've deleted it. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have been an editor on Christine Maggiore since 2005. [7] Whig 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More community sanctions might work better than an arbitration. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have good cause to dispute my user conduct, why not file an RfAr? Whig 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Wikidudeman, if there is a dispute still, RFAR is the way to go... I will oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Mercury 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They take too long and are too much trouble. I see no need for an RFAr, A simple community block from editing the homeopathy talk page should suffice. It can run concurrent with your current 6 month ban from editing the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the common reasons for RfCs and other such actions is to reduce disruption. An RFAr is one of the most disruptive and time consuming procedures around, and thus would be very counterproductive to the purpose of reducing disruption. Other more effective and quick sanctions are available to any admin who has the courage to act immediately. A topic block of all homeopathic subjects - including talk pages - would help, just for starters. If the same long dragged out discussions without productivity continue, then other types of blocks could be considered. While civility issues mustn't be ignored, civil editors who disrupt are often the most disruptive because they are allowed to continue for so long. They have the same effect as 3RR violators (in spirit) who never revert four times, but edit war constantly. Action, not endless and disruptive DR, is what is needed so we can get on with actual editing. -- Fyslee / talk 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury in part. Talk page restrictions should be made much more hesitantly than namespace, and only with confidence that the user has nothing to add. I might support a community ban later, but we haven't had enough experience with this user under the existing block. Maybe revisit this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the discussion closely - although not been involved in editing the article - and I can state quite categorically that this whole discussion would not have occurred if the proponents had not been so closed to disagreeing sentiments. It seemed at times as if a cabal had been formed whereby alternative points - accompanied by reasoned argument - were discounted merely on the basis of "I do not believe it therefore it is not true, therefore we shall oppose this contributor". I found it disagreeable in the extreme and unworthy of Wikipedia. I would call for an experienced and previously uninvolved editor to review ALL the contributions made with a view to assessing the actions of the proponents of action against Whig. docboat 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with docboat's statement. Whig 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "closed to disagreeing sentiments"? Homeopathy is clearly false. Thus, it is reasonable to oppose those who say that it is true, with no reason other than that belief. There's no way to be open to disagreeing sentiments any more than one could be open to sentiments that water is made of cheese. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not clearly false to me. Whig 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the recent discussion that brought us here, that this is much ado about very little. As I mentioned above, from Oct 16 to Oct 25 the homeopathy discussion was generally amicable and productive. It then split over the merits of two papers by Alex Hankey, Ph.D. Isn't there some simple Wikimechanism to get a ruling on these papers, so life can continue? Wanderer57 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a simple mechanism, it's called consensus. The consensus on the talk page was that the Hankey papers were ridiculous and unusable, except to describe Hankey's opinion which itself is not notable. The problem is that Whig continues to agitate for his preferred changes well after consensus has gone against him. Skinwalker 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this pragmatically, since Whig does not seem to have convinced any other editor that it is appropriate to cite the Hankey papers in Homeopathy and since Whig is not editing the article, there is not really a current problem. Wanderer57 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring the content dispute here to ANI. I intend to continue to press that source forward for balance in the present article, however. Whig 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, the inclusion of links to Barrett without balance is an NPOV violation in my opinion. Whig 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I would continue to develop this source to see whether he is notable in his own right, etc. Whig 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit more to say, but not in ANI. Whig 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Press that source forward"? The only way to gain acceptance for the source is to develop a consensus. You've failed to convince any other editor of its appropriateness, regardless of their POV's. Your approach is not only failing to generate consensus, but is actively disruptive (see here or your current RfC). Continuing to "press the source forward" in the face of consensus, using this sort of approach, is textbook tendentious editing and, one would presume, the basis for the calls to ban you from the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of things I have not yet done. How I would press it would be an NPOV dispute. Whig 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that we could settle this matter without the agony of an arbcom proceeding, but it is becoming increasingly clear that will be impossible. The only alternative would be for everyone simply to ignore Whig's tendentious use of the Talk page. In practice, there will always be people who can't resist the temptation to respond. Raymond Arritt 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt puts forward a good alternative. There is already a section on the talk page for discussion of the Hankey papers. If anyone WANTS to continue to discuss those papers there, Wikipedia has lots of storage capacity. (Personally, I have formed a pretty definite opinion of the papers, and likely won't discuss them further.) Wanderer57 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do now? It seems like this is a dead end here. I am willing to have RfAr if that is what some editors want to do to prevent me from continuing to edit in Talk:Homeopathy. If I am not blocked or banned from doing so, I intend to continue as I have been, because I have not seen evidence that I am doing anything wrong here. If some other accommodation can be reached short of RfAr, I would be glad to discuss it. Whig 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

Without any check user, Alex Bakharev has accused a number of sockpuppets of being me, even though none have edited the pages I have contributed to. See: [[8]]. I wish to make a formal complaint against this admin. I am sick of being victimised, threatened and falsely accused.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody's socking, who is a more complicated question. I'd be curious to see some evidence? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence, because no evidence exists as I have not been using abusive sockpuppets. It is a complete fabrication. Unless an admin carries out a check user against me and these other users within the next 24 hours and the allegations are retracted, I will seek to take this further.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying Ahwaz is inoccent (he's been editing Ahwaz-related articles) and i am not saying he's guilty (in some ocassions people create accounts specifically to ban others and pretend they are the other one). However, all this remain unconclusive. So i'd ask Alex or others to file a CU to sort this out because wasting time in accusations and responses is not for the benefit of Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the articles in question, so there is no need to presume guilt. I did not know of these articles' existence until a notice regarding the AfDs appeared on my talk page - and I voted contrary to the sockpuppets I am accused of! It just looks like an excuse to ban me for things I have not done. I have put a request on Alex Bakharev's talk page to do a check user on me. He has since logged in and made some edits, but has refused to even respond. If he wants to ban me permanently, then he can follow proper procedures instead of this method.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I hope accusations stop or see a CU being performed. There's just no way to keep things as they are. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin, Natalie_Erin, is insisting that Michael2314 is an abusive sockpuppet of me and reinserting the sockpuppet template, without any proof that this is the case - because there is no proof![9]--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and try to inform her about this thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprisingly calm, after months of being confronted by false allegations that I am a Ba'athist by those who like to throw around ethnic stereotypes. No admin will step in when this happens. No admin ever answers my queries about Wikipedia matters and rules. But two admins have stepped in to accuse me of something I did not do. And I get no response, no check user verification, nothing. If this allegation is not struck off, it will be used against me in any disagreement, just like similar false allegations I have just let lie for the sake of my peace. I will take this all the way to AbrCom if necessary. I am fed up with this treatment. If an admin wants to ban me, then ban me with good reasons.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the CU guys otherwise this dispute won't end soon. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see a checkuser on this. I still think it far more likely that this was a sockpuppet of Ottawaman trolling Strothra and myself. I don't understand why people think they were socks of Ahwaz and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks, Sarah 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah is 100% correct (as usual). Apologies from Natalie_Erin, and Alex Bakharev to Al-Ahwaz (whoever he is) should be swift,contrite and abject. In so far as those who chose to not jump in and support Al-Ahwaz, hopefully you have a mirror. As always,a few will learn from their mistakes and most will blame their mistakes on others. This project is built on a house of sand as all saw via the Essjay event. It is always harder to put in the foundation later. Can it be done? Yes! But it requites a lot of sweat,digging, and acceptance that it is,right now,without a foundation. What should the foundation be? Why not start with the USA's Bill of Rights (even if it's been marginalized in the USA). Things like "Innocent until PROVEN guilty, Free speech! Free press! Right of Assembly! Right of Association! Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure ! Separation of Church and State!" or, if you prefer, the Magna Carta(Habeas Corpus!). What's the next step? Resist the egotists and rule addicts in favour of the basic,soulful premises this project tried to be based upon; things like Wikipedia:Assume good faith (Even if it's a "smelly" sock) and true,unfettered collaboration. Marginalize the control freaks and those quick to criticize,ignore,dismiss or block; they are much more damaging than the socks and trolls; be more controlling of the admins., and less of those who are not.(Neutralizer/Ottawaman) 67.71.120.94 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know who this Ottawaman and have not edited any article he has edited. How can I be accused of being his sockpuppet, or vice versa? I don't even know what is going on here or how I got brought into this. But it is obvious that certain admins are willing to sit on their hands and do nothing in an effort to malign me for things I have not done.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahwaz, I'm sorry this happened to you. Ottawaman has nothing to do with you and I'm sure no one thinks you are he. He's just a Canadian guy who uses Bell Sympatico and has recently had access to some European IPs and has been trolling and harassing Strothra and myself for eighteen months or something. He is best handled with block and ignore. old SSP report I do not think that you are Ottwaman or Michael; I think that the admins who accused you are mistaken. I will tag the userpages correctly and if you have more problems you can tell me on my talk page and I'll try to help. Sarah 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--81.155.20.248 12:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Jtrainor is refusing to participate in discussion. Pushing his POV to article, deleting sources provided before. [10] Necator 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll ask but why are you adding a source that says nothing like what you are using it for? The source[11] is about what you say the S-400 is capable of doing yet you wiped out the language that the Russian had claimed its capabilities (which is both what the other sources indicate and what consensus on the talk page indicates). Also, User:Duckhunter6424 and others seem to reverted you as well. In fact, it looks like the moment the protection was lifted, you had to put the exact wording that you've wanted the page since September. All in this, this whole thing is a content dispute, so it is best to go to dispute resolution. Of course, if you want to keep the discussion here, I am more interesting in your editing now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus have not been reached. When I found additional non russian sources about this thing capability against stealth, both this users did not answer me on a talk page. [12] And User:Duckhunter6424 is not reverting my changes anymore after that, but Jtrainor keep going silently. This dispute was about wording. And I am trying to say, that not only russian sources claimed this system capability. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" should be removed. Necator 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate also, if you read whole this discussion here and here. If you have enough time for that. Because this discussion is going pretty strange. Every time I do provide sources for any my claims in discussion, but haven't seen even one from my opponents. They just changing the topic or avoiding to participate in discussion when getting to much sources against their POV. Thanks! Necator 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Necator, why don't you falsely report me about it some more? I'll be pleased to escalate this right to an RfC if you want, because you consistently violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with these little tiffs of yours. Here's a hint: Reverting you is not a violation of any policy. Are you going to do this every time someone reverts you on any article? Jtrainor 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about no original research and verifiability policy at wikiquiette [13] But you keep going. And, please, don't tell me about civility after what you have published on your page "Wikipedia is useless crap because anyone can write anything down." ... "Contentious issues are just clouded with polemics by assholes with an agenda to push." [14] And if you want to blame me for something, it would be nice to provide some references, which will prove, that your blames are not just empty words. Necator 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And again you violate WP:CIVIL. What's on my userpage is not germane to this discussion. And, as a matter of fact, I havn't been warned for jack squat-- whereas you have been warned for 3RR in the past and the article in question has been protected at least once. Really, please stop trying to smear me, you're only digging yourself in deeper. Jtrainor 11:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My block of Miltopia

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia.--chaser - t 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to trade?

I did this last week, so here we go again - I need a copy of the infobox at this article in the German Wikipedia] so I can add it to all of the Augsburg city division articles I am writing. If a compatible infobox exists, I have not been able to find it. In exchange, I'd be happy to provide two hours of admin labor in an area of the infobox person's choice, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I don't have time to do it tonight, but I would be happy to do this work tomorrow afternoon. Drop me a note on my talk page when/if someone takes this up. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could it be {{Infobox German Location}}? If I'm right, your help at WP:PUI would be appreciated. east.718 at 01:27, 10/27/2007

Not quite, I wouldn't have any place to put the constituent wards... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor fresh from a week-long block immediately leaping back into edit wars

After this request to cool down an edit war at History of the Linux kernel, User:Mike92591 got himself blocked for incivility for a week. Well, the week's up, and the very first thing he did was jump back in. Rather than get back into the same edit war again, and considering that I've got little intention of spending any future free time getting abused by this editor, what's the best course of action? Chris Cunningham 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One course of action is to read and reflect on WP:POT. Seems to me you've violated 3RR today as well as a month ago. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove yourself from these disputes, rather than engage in forum shopping. Isarig 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case this is a good-faith attempt to nip this stupid fight in the bud, which is why I haven't yet made any changes to the History of the Linux kernel article. What I'm not going to to is be bullied off of Wikipedia by trolls and POV-warriors. Speaking of which. Ahem. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A good faith attempt would be to hash it out in the article's Talk page, seeking consensus. Another good faith attempt would be to ask for a third opinion. Yet another good faith attempt would be to open an RfC. If these don't work, you could try mediation. Surely a long time editor like you knows this, which is why it strikes me that this current report is more forum shopping for sanctions against an editor you have a content dispute with, than it is a good-faith attempt to nip an edit war in the bud. Isarig 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting in the firing line by editing the same talk pages as the user for the time being. I've never been through the third opinion process. My RFC experience is limited to a couple of comments. Had these helpful suggestions been provided in good faith I'd have been grateful. But no, they're provided to give me grief, yet again proving that your sanctioning was too lenient. Anyway, I'm not sure that it's designed for resolution of stupid personal politics (the issue isn't so much the content now as the manner in which the edits are proceeding), and I'd rather not have to go through the whole process of mediation / RfC if I can avoid it. Chris Cunningham 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So you come here declaring you have no intention of participating in any discussion on the talk page (which is, as you surely know, the first course of action to take when a content dispute arises), and don't want to try RfCs or mediation - what is it that you expect then? That the other party in the content dispute be sanctioned on your say-so? I've given you several options on how you may go about it, which you dismiss out of hand while acknowledging they are helpful, simply because you assume they were not made in good faith. Perhaps you should add WP:AGF to your reading list. Isarig 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute; it's a report of bad faith by an editor whose personal attacks on me have made me disinclined to engage him directly any further. AGF is not intended to address deliberate moves of provocation. That is also why there's no onus on me to assume good faith from this suggestion. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a content dispute. You have yourself described it as an edit war in your initial report, and anyone examining that page's history and it's Talk page can see that it is a dispute over the inclusion of material which you allege is 'pure FSF propaganda', and two other editors disagree with you. Disagreeing with you over content is not "bad faith". There is no excuse, of course, for the language Mike92591 used, and he was properly blocked for it, for a week. We must assume that he learned his lesson. If he hasn't, then surely he will quickly be blocked again. But to come here and ask for some preemptive sanction, in order to gain the upper hand in a clear content dipsute (in which you appear to be in the minority) is just as bad. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping if this is the only page he's come to? Jd2718 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It has nothing to do with the number of pages you come to, only to the selection of venue - in this case WP:ANI, vs. any of the other good faith ways to resolve content disputes. Isarig 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Isarig, way to assume bad faith. Chris Cunningham is reporting that a recently-blocked editor is behaving the same way as they were behaving which got them blocked, and all you can do is attack the person making, what to me, is a good faith request for review. Corvus cornix 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't behaving the same way at all. The editor was blocked for making uncivil comments. After his block expired, he has not made any uncivil comments, but returned to the article where he and another editor are having a content dispute with Chris Cunningham. If we are to assume good faith, the only way to proceed is to assume the editor learned his lesson from his week long block - and to properly engage him on the Talk page, or other DR procedures such as I've suggested to Chris above. Instead, we have Chris declaring that he will not participate in talk, does not want to try RfC or mediation, but wants some admin to "nip this in the bud" - which I interpret as a request that this editor be somehow sanctioned, for doing nothing other than disagreeing with Chris Cunningham - a serial edit warrior himself. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Serial edit warrior" says the guy under community sanction for edit warring with sockpuppets, Isarig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.81.198 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just who's sock-puppet are you, Mr. 2nd-edit-on-wp-is-a-WP/ANI-comment? Isarig 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to say this. The irony in your suggesting that the OP of this thread read WP:POT is rich. No dog in the fight, I just read AN/I sometimes ... and I really enjoy irony! K. Scott Bailey 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick block review

I've just blocked Dyslexicbudgie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)for 24 hours for this disgraceful racial attack in an RfA. I've just realised the conflict of interest that could be associated here with me nomming the candidate so could someone review it for me ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone for a longer block. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? My congratulations on your self-restraint. --Carnildo 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to extend it if there's consesus to do so here. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep the block at 24 hours. It is definitely a blockable offense, however it is also funny :D 70.250.215.30 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend extending it to indefinite until and unless he promises not to do anything like that again. Racism needs to be met with indefinite blocks, and only lifted when we are reasonably sure it will not reoccur. As to COI - don't worry about it. His edit was bad faith disruption, so there's no need to worry about the fact that you are the nominator. Picaroon (t) 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef per Picaroon. Garbage like this creates a hostile environment that is inimical to the goals of the project. Raymond Arritt 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"inimical"? wtf? 70.250.215.30 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real world. It means harmful or negative. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers guys, I've increased it to indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus you referred to on his talk page was a bit of a stretch wasn't it? The discussion had hardly got going much less a consensus reached. It looks to me that you were out to get this editor and were going to do it with minimal evidence and minimal support. Given that the comment was made during your nomination for Lradrama's adminship I think that you shouldn't have taken the action you did. You should have passed it over to an impartial and uninvolved admin. This looks a lot like payback to me! ---- WebHamster 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an offensive comment, but I hardly think an indefinite block is justified. The user has made an effort to contribute to the encyclopedia, but for one poorly-chosen comment/joke(maybe?), he is blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia. It seems we jump the gun on blocks against users who have made some inappropriate racial comments. However, I'm fine that Ryan agreed to unblock if the user vows that it will never happen again. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to exercise a lot of restraint towards that kind of behavior. I'd consider unblocking and a close eye being kept on the user if he shows some genuine remorse, but I say good block otherwise. A Train^talk 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looked more like politically incorrect humour rather than overt racism to me, after all he is Australian!. Hardly the foundation for a ban, let alone an indefinite one. There's too many knee-jerk reactions to this sort of stuff on WP. Personally I think the ban was over the top and a gross over-reaction. And the fact that it was a vote in opposition to Ryan Postlethwaite's nomination also could make the over-reaction appear a little CoI too. Just my 2c. ---- WebHamster 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also Australian, and Jewish jokes are so uncommon here as to stand out like a sore thumb (irreverent or pushing-the-boundary jokes about Asians, Aboriginals, Arabs and certain groups of Southern Europeans is far more likely) Orderinchaos 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the Aussie bluntness I was referring more than the fact that humour towards ethnics is de rigeur in Oz. It wasn't that it was specifically aimed at Jews per se. ---- WebHamster 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would also only favor the 24 hour block. I'm not even sure a block is necessary, a stern warning might be enough. The user has only good edits prior. JoshuaZ 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Call me a conspiracy theorist, but an analysis of this user's edits hints that this may have been a sock account created solely to make that last edit. The user is free, of course, to request an unblock. See what he has to say for himself. On the non-conspiracy hand, it could be a case of misunderstood humor. He appears to be from Australia, so maybe something didn't translate. Wait and see approach seems best. - Crockspot 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy Theorist! :) Just wondering how you came to that conclusion. I see a bunch of football (soccer) edits and Austrailian related items. Nothing probative. He does seem to have a balanced set of edits (main, wp, talk, user, etc). Spryde 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• No interaction with other users. Only a month old account, hit the ground running, nose to the grindstone, good chunck of edit count in that time. Smells sockish to me. I could be wrong. - Crockspot 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• On further examination of edit history, I'm going to go further and suggest that this account was created to be a straw test case, to compare to treatment of MONGO. (more conspiracy theory). Create a bunch of articles, go a lot of work, then drop a single Jew bomb, and see what happens. If the user ever breaks silence, we'll know more. - Crockspot 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• The question then becomes, good sock, or bad sock? One crappy attempt at humor isn't enough for an indef, and a good contrib record suggests it's craptastic humor, not deeply felt bigotry. And if it's a sleeper sock, what a lame waste of it. Non-indef block, 24 or 48 hours, would be the strong end. We can always indef if he does it again. ThuranX 04:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per Occam's razor, it was a stupid attempt at humor, not some kind of strawsock experiment. 48 hrs, and an indef if they do it again, seems reasonable. --barneca (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the thought that this was an effort to be humorous escapes me completely.--MONGO 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then that would demonstrate a lack of interest or understanding of a particular form of humour, and not a reason to ban. ---- WebHamster 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Corvus cornix 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask something? Why is this an issue? Is this kind of "humor" acceptable? If someone makes a horrible and obviously racist comment... do we need them here? Yes, we should be open in regards to different points of view, but do we need to be open to hateful points of view? Neutral point of view and assume good faith don't mean we have to be idiots. AniMate 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are all sorts of humour, and all sorts of acceptability. As long as it's demonstrated to be humour (which admittedly this one wasn't) then I see no problem with it. It's no worse than most "An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman went into a pub..." sort of jokes. There are always going to be jokes and humour shown towards all ethnic groups, there always has been, there always will be. Personally I would prefer it to stay that way rather than political-correctness expanding to such an extent that no-one knows what the hell to say when or where. Humour is humour, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. It's always funny to someone, it's always unfunny to someone else. Who has the right to tell another person what they can laugh at and what they can't? ---- WebHamster 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes it's obvious. AniMate 06:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with re-instating the 24 hour block, and sternly cautioning the editor regarding possibly contentious language, with an indef block being the result of further infraction. I am both AGF'ing and being aware of Australian culture differences - in the UK I would be racist to call someone a Paki even if they were from Pakistan, while Aussies use the same simply as a shorthand; which isn't intrinsically racist - where a certain bluntness in speech is frequent. Per WP:CSB I think we need to be certain that the editor intended to shock or disparage. LessHeard vanU 12:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Australians aren't so different that the above wouldn't be racist here. Jews are normally invisible enough to be ignored in our society and as such don't come up for much attention. Those who do pay attention to them are usually of a Nazi bent, or LaRouche sympathisers. Note that we dealt with User:Premier and User:Hayden5650 quite adequately some time ago. Orderinchaos 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Llajwa (talk · contribs) compromised account

Llajwa (talk · contribs) just went on a vandalism spree that is highly unusual based upon their past edit history. I blocked the account indefinitely as a possible compromised account. -- Gogo Dodo 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good move, definitely looks like a compromised account. --Coredesat 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CheckUser shows that there was no IP change between the regular edits and the vandalism spree. It is possible that it is a public terminal that he accidentally didn't log out of., however, since he used this IP consistently for almost a month, and there is almost no other activity besides him on it, I doubt that. Absent a good explanation, the evidence points towards Llajwa doing this himself. Dmcdevit·t 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User High on a tree needs a special attention

Resolved

 – Images were removed for articles not deleted. No admin action needed here.

An adminstrator needs to pay attention at what this guy High on a tree is up to. He deletes images way before the deletion-date the tag reads. Example 1. Deletion - [[15]], the expected deletion date [[16]]. Example 2. deletion- [[17]], expected deltion date [[18]]. At first I thought he was an administrator then he claimed that he is not and also claimed that he has not deleted any images. I hope we can do something about people like this. Thanks.--Harout72 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing an image from an article does not delete the image. The two examples you have presented of "deletion" appear to be good edits to me. I fail to see the need for admin action nor do I understand exactly what admin action you want someone to take. --ElKevbo 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Appear to be good edits to you? You obviously failed to see as well as understand that one has the right until the very last day of the expected deletion date to provide changes within the image explanation. Removing an image from an article without the image reaching its last day is vandalism. Why do I have the feeling that ElKevbo and High on a tree are the same person with different accounts.--Harout72 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

His removals of the images do not curtail anyone's right to modify the fair-use justification, as the image hasn't actually been deleted. This is not vandalism. Someguy1221 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, Harout72 should have left a message on High on a tree's talk page about this complaint. --Mathsci 10:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin to look at RfA voting pattern...

User:Politics rule voted in my RfA and 14 others in the span of 15 minutes. He claims here that he considered everything carefully and voted all at once, but my evidence (timestamps taken from his contribs), summarized here, does not support his claims. Obviously, my concern is that he voted negatively on my RfA without adequate consideration, but it's just as bad if he votes positively without consideration. He then added all his votes to a tally on his userpage, listing who we voted for and against, which I also find non-constructive. In any case, I find it hard to AGF on any of the votes, and I'd like an admin not involved in the RfAs to look into the matter and decide the propriety of his voting. MSJapan 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That xe announced that xe was back from break and commented on RfAs back-to-back like that doesn't show me anything's wrong. ...probably read up on the candidates, formed opinions, then announced xyr return, and saved the comments. WODUP ^(?) 06:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern with that scenario is accounting for the editing of other pages in-between the return and the voting - if opinions were formed prior to the announcement at 2:53, why wait over 15 minutes minimum (3:10) to start voting? MSJapan 06:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - because sie went off to make coffee? Took a bathroom break? Either way, it still doesn't preclude the scenario that WODUP suggested. I think you're making a little too much of this, to be honest - Alison ^❤ 06:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Politic rules opposed because he saw fit to do so, and although bureaucrats may ignore the oppose, it is valid no matter how non-constructive it may seem. Just some advice for the future, but please do not complain about a unreasonable opposer when you obviously have a pov about it. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I work in a police department, so sometimes I have to browse as an IP as I cannot get a secure logon, I tend to take quite a bit to review RFA candidates, usually when I do get to vote, I tend to spread it out with edits in between so my votes aren't claimed to be deficient. Maybe I should put a not on my userpage regarding that so no one ever makes this claim about me. BTW I was going to go vote on this RFA myself, but it was withdrawn. Seems resolved to me, not sure what kind of admin assistance could be needed. Dureo 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Taifarious1 Contributions

Resolved

Is there a quick way to fix the "welcome" contributions of User:Taifarious1? I think the editor means well but the inappropriate modification of Template:Welcome! and subsequent use may confuse some newcomers. --NeilN 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point to an example of what it is you think needs fixing? --Bduke 09:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well since he ididn'r substitute them then when his edits to the template were reverted so were all the messages. This means that instead of sighning his messag the user sees four tildes instead. Not the end of the world really. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately there weren't tpp many so i just went through jis contributions and subst:'ed the messages myself Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation account/sockpuppets disrupting several articles

Resolved

 – account blocked

User:Andrev c is impersonating the admin User:Andrew c. At first I thought it was only on the Crisis pregnancy center article, but after checking the Andrev c's contribs, it appears that he has stalked User:Andrew c and reverted the majority of his recent edits.

Two other accounts, User:EALacey and User:EAGacey have engaged in an "edit war" following User:Andrev c's edits. I'm not sure if this is all the same person, or if EAGacey/Andrev c is actually impersonating EALacey as well as Andrew c. Could someone please block these accounts. I don't have time right now to investigate this issue much further, but I think a checkuser will be in order so any other sockpuppets and IPs can be blocked. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of further investigation, it is clear that this user is impersonating both User:Andrew c and User:EALacey, possibly becasue EALacey reverted a few of the edits he made (most which were themselves reversions of Andrew c's edits). The only edit this user made that wasn't associated with User:Andrew c was to the user page [19] of User:Vice regent/hoius, who has not made an edit since 10/25. The only other edits to that user page were from an anon IP. This leads me to believe that the following users are all disruptive sockpuppets:

• Andrev c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EAGacey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vice regent/hoius (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.217.38.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

— DIEGO ^talk 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:mathewignash -- again

mathewignash (talk · contribs) is again uploading Transformers-related images with dubious fair-use claims. His initial waves of Hasbro boxart images, used to illustrate the subject of various articles, were deleted because they are replaceable with images of the toys themselves (discussion here; dozens/100+? of others CSDed). However, he's since re-uploaded five (that I've seen) boxart images; in addition to Image:Devastator-hasbrotoy.jpg, four were also previously deleted (Image:Icebird-hasbrtoy.jpg was Image:Icebird-boxart.jpg, Image:Snapper-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Snapper-boxart.jpg, Image:Bumblebee-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Bumblebee-boxart.jpg, Image:Razorclaw-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Razorclaw-beastboxart.jpg). Their FUR states that they are there to illustrate Hasbro's "distinct style" . However, none of the articles contain any commentary on the images discussing that style -- it isn't even mentioned in the image captions. Additionally, I flat-out don't believe the FUR claim that these images come from transformers.com -- that Hasbro site is focused on movie toys, and five minutes of clicking around didn't get me anything close to boxart imagery (granted, it's not the incredibly well organized). These images, which to the best of my memory are identical to the previous uploads, almost certainly instead come from [20], to which mathewignash attributed many of his previous boxart images.

Mathewignash has not responded to two talk-page requests ([21][22]) to clarify why the images are there or whether he's aware that the fair-use claim is again dubious.

As a side note: after I added {{frn}} to a picture and {{deletable image-caption}} on the three articles that included the picture, Mathewignash added a FUR for one article, but removed the deletable tag from one of the others for which he hadn't written a FUR. Generally, this is an understandable error -- it takes some editors a while to realize that a FUR is needed for every instance a non-free image is used -- but, mathewignash has received so many blocks, talk-page messages, and boilerplate warnings that at this point he should know better and edit more carefully.

In general, I get the idea that this editor is more interested in hyper-illustrating Transformers articles than in abiding by Wikipedia's image-use policy -- someone more attuned to fair-use policy should take a look at some of these Transformers articles and ask whether all the toy pictures and comic illustrations follow policy and/or are necessary; I imagine many of these non-free images do not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In the meantime, these specific images seem the most recent in a long line of dubious image uploads, and his unwillingness to respond to talk-page messages is not a sign of good-faith editing. --EEMeltonIV 12:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the recreated box art photographs and left him a warning on his talk page. I think we need to keep an eye on him for a while. I think he is editing in good faith but I agree that failure to respond to talk page comments is very worrying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

MathewIgnsh has been up here a number of times as the subject of a section. He's been through plenty of warnings, and ontinues to upload bad images. I'd support a block to prevent him RE-re-uploading hte same stuff yet again. maybe 48 hours or a week? long enough for him to see it and go read policy? ThuranX 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He's already received a few blocks, although the most recent one (for one week) was lifted when he said he promised to abide by policy. --EEMeltonIV 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed one Image:Starscream-hasbro.jpg is a re-repost of Image:Starscream-boxart.jpg. --EEMeltonIV 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Mathewignash is only here to contribute his pictures of Transformers to the project. His talk page and archives show that he does not know how to work with non-free images on the project. I think its long time that he should be indefinitely blocked for compromising the integrity of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With Ryulong's consent, I have unblocked Mathewignash per his agreement to conditions layed out on his talk page (he uploads no images and does not touch the image namespace). If the conditions are violated, then of course anyone can reblock. – Steel 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious anons of Bason0

Hello administrators. I am sorry to ask administrator so often... A new registered user Jh5trealteeth has been blocked as new sockpuppet of Bason0, by LessHeard vanU.[23] But 125.131.205.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 125.131.205.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing editing similar (or same) to Jh5trealteeth. These are obvious anons without doing IPCheck. Would you block it? (Or If I must file into other forum, please give me advice.) --Nightshadow28 13:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and blcoked both IP's for 31 hours. May be worth blocking them for longer but we'd need to check to see if they are static IPs Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This individual seems intent on disrupting several articles (some more than others). Several of these see few edits outside of this person (and editors undoing his changes). Would it be worthwhile to semi-protect some of these pages? —LactoseTI^T 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The socks are getting easier to see with each new ip; the POV is obvious (as are the targets). Unless there is an indication that WP:SSP is getting backlogged there is little point in sprotecting the range of articles and inconveniencing good ip editors, IMO. Any serious revert warring can be referred to AIV with references to earlier blocked sock contribs. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your works, Theresa Knott and LessHeard vanU. It seems to have succeeded in making Bason0 slow down for a while by burdening Bason0 with a little inconvenience. If Bason0 resumes activity actively, I will take the way in your advice.

(To LactoseTI) I have made a message in my talk page for Bason0. Please cite it to him, if he comes to your place. :) --Nightshadow28 05:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles renamed contrary to Wikipedia policy

I've noticed that, through re-direction, article Giorgio Orsini was renamed to Giorgio da Sebenico and article Andrea Meldolla to Andrea Schiavone. See [24] and [25]. Please, enforce use of the Wikipedia rules aplicable to renaming Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.238 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, and not a clear violation of policy- I googled both Giorgios, and got lots of hits for both versions of the name. You don't need an administrator, you need dispute resolution, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No it does not look so. As to the requesto to move Giorgio Orsini to Giorgio da Sebenico it failed - as can be seen here [26]. I see that the person who voted for - unilateraly changed the article name. Due to the fact that you are apparently sidelining with the side who changed the name - I request another administrator to reconsider my request impartially.

Nope. FisherQueen gave an impartial opinion, which I checked by confirming that they had not edited either article in the last few months. Just because it doesn't agree with your view does not mean it is biased. Also, if there had already been a decision on naming the article(s) it should have been noted in the original request, then the administrator(s) who agree to check the situation would have a better basis to make their judgement. Do not blame the system if you are unable to apply it correctly (oh yeah, and sign your posts). LessHeard vanU 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable editing by DonaldDuck (talk · contribs)

This user repeatedly and unilaterally deletes a whole article: First deletion Second deletion Third deletion. He is doing this right now after two warnings [27]. He recently nominated this article for deletion, but decision was "speedy keep": [28], but he continue deleting it unilaterally and himself. DonaldDuck seems to be a single-purpose account, with less than 500 edits; most of them are technical, others about two related articles. Does that incident deserve attention of administrators?Biophys 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned on talk page. He needs to propose a merge first if he wants to merge when consensus is against him (or find out consensus first); unilateral edits are not helpful. Content dispute otherwise, so I'm against a block yet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it will help.Biophys 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism on some pages is simply unacceptable

And I will see to it that the engineers around here that make unoppropriate edits will be suspended.Rich Is Cool 16:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) We need all the vandal fighters we can get. GlassCobra 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing from User:에멜무지로

Hi, User:에멜무지로 has been warned about soapboxing many times.

• Soapboxing on User page
  • [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

He has even been blocked about it, fairly early on:

• Block
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Temporary block

When warned about it, he tried to sneak in soapboxing at his User subpages. Thank goodness they've been deleted now.

• Subpages where soapboxing occurred:
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox%C2%AD

He's been warned many times (at least four times, to my reckoning) and reverts have been marked as "rv soapboxing"

• Warnings
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Your user page
  • User talk:에멜무지로#Policy evasion

Yet he's at it again.[42] Please do something so that he can be more constructive at Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He(she) also tried to remove this thread from AN/I, which is a naughty thing to do. The preceding 24 and 72 hour blocks had no effect so now it's a week. Raymond Arritt 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But for the record, the 72 hour block was for spurious redirects, not soapboxing... --Kjoonlee 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this case is typical, but I don't feel like this user was fairly treated on the soapboxing issue. I can't believe that WP:NOT was intended as a rigid policy for the censorship of even a single sentence on a userpage. I understand you don't want a mess from the Korean Wikipedia translated and dumped here - but users deserve a little slack on their own userpages. If you'd have let him say his piece in a few sentences, you wouldn't have had to read through a dozen reverted edits about it here. 70.15.116.59 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he blew it when he unilaterally deleted the original posting of the present thread. Raymond Arritt 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, but I do think the userpage/soapbox policy issue is important. When a user feels gagged, he's guaranteed to thrash around until he breaks something. 70.15.116.59 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed this user has been blocked for his userpage. Other users here have advocated nuking other countries, with no intervention on the part of admins--even after it was brought to their attention here. With allthe actual vandalism, edit warring and harassment of editors that goes on here, it amazes me that an admin would waste his or her time (and by extension, ours here on ANI) by bothering with this. Unblock the guy and let it go. Jeffpw 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cush

This user has apparently become upset about enforcement of Wikipolicies and has decided to take his self-made Tolkein map images and go home. Ordinarily I would restore them all, as they appear to be useful and PD release is irrevocable, but it occurs to me that they may be deletable as original research. I'd appreciate opinions from others on this issue. -- But|seriously|folks  17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• hi bsf, I'd say let it be. Other material will come around at some point. Eusebeus 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opinion one, you might want to dial down the scorn (at that, I wouldn't describe the issue he objected to as "enforcement of Wikipolicies"). Opinion two, the maps were derivative works of previously published images, and thus he might not really be able to release them into the PD to begin with. That's a common problem / misunderstanding with images relating to fictional works. If we ever sort out Wikimedia's stance on such 'fan art' (there has been inconclusive debate about it on Commons for years) to something which clearly allows such images under anything other than 'fair use' there are literally dozens of maps which have previously been deleted and could be re-instated. --CBD 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious: if the image is a copyright violation and Wikipedia refuses to delete it against the author's wishes, can that increase his potential liability for having posted it? 70.15.116.59 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Calton and TruthCrusader dispute

I've been watching my watchlist light up for the last little while, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly is going on here.

On the face of it, I see Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in some sort of edit war on Will Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether or not to include statements about the actor's sexual orientation. Calton keeps adding the information (including a reference to a printed source); TruthCrusader keeps removing the info (arguing that the sourcing is inadequate). I assume that they're both going to sit and sulk for a bit because they're getting close to a 3RR violation.

There are a couple of factors that seem to raise this beyond the usual BLP/content dispute. Looking at the history of Will Geer reveals a series of incivil edit summaries, particularly from Calton: "...hissy fit...lack of self control", "...Buckwheat", "...daft...". (Calton is fresh off a monthlong wikibreak that followed a 24-hour block for persistent incivility.) On TruthCrusader's part, I see the repeated removal of content that appears to be sourced, along with edit summaries that don't seem to accurately reflect that fact: "r/v. Not sourced, not verified...".

Adding fuel to the fire, Calton appears to be suggesting that TruthCrusader has been engaged in some sort of off-wiki harrassment of Calton. TruthCrusader made an edit to Talk:Will Geer here that links his username to a particular IP address; in this post to User talk:TruthCrusader, Calton insinuates that an individual using that IP address has made some sort of inflammatory blog posts. A further post from Calton repeats the statement, and adds that TruthCrusader has started to use proxies (and throws in a bit of abuse, as well).

I don't know what the history of TruthCrusader is, but it certainly appears that something funny is going on. I have asked Calton and TruthCrusader to explain themselves here, pronto. I have something of a history with Calton, so I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to take any administrative actions in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that it strikes me as weird to get so involved in something with which you have no involvement, what exactly do you want an admin to do and how is it your prerogative to demand that these editors explain themselves pronto here? Sorry, but that smacks of arrogance and busy-body meddling. Eusebeus 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(The unpolite answer) That's what sysops - new and old - do. They volunteer to look after the general well being of the encyclopedia by actin in an administrative function. Attempting to resolve editor conflicts is one of them, as is deflecting the slings and arrows of outrageous displays of being a dick. Further, a good admin likes to get the opinion of others before embarking upon an action where there might be consequences - therefore TenOfAllTrades is to be commended for both involving themselves in the matter and referring it to their colleagues. Is there any other matter that needs explaining to you? LessHeard vanU 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A spirited defense, certainly; but not very convincing. Sorry Less. Eusebeus 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I saw an edit war, serious user conduct issues, and the insinuation that one of our contributors was being harrassed off-wiki by another. The two editors don't seem capable of resolving the dispute on their own, and TruthCrusader has regularly sought admin intervention on his behalf. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; it doesn't work if the atmosphere is poisoned by the sort of bile that's spilling over from this dispute onto articles and other editors. Those strike me as issues worthy of this board's attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comments and "busy-body meddling" -- a fairly accurate summary, I'd say -- might be appropriate if they were better informed. As far as the edit-warring -- and your rather juvenile summary thereof -- there's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned, something he's been doing off and on over the last couple of years. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting.

• As far as TruthCrusader's off-wiki harassment and his attempts to snow admins as part of his campaign, I've already privately e-mailed a more complete set of evidence to a few admins I trust (including one who's on ArbCom) documenting the off-wiki attacks and the clear evidence connecting TruthCrusader (blog software records IP addresses, and TruthCrusader was very helpful in connecting the dots). Bottom line: this is a horse you don't want to back. --Calton | Talk 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh,, and you've got your chronology backwards, though I don't suppose that's obvious: I discovered TruthCrusader's mucking about with Will Geer BECAUSE I was backtracking to figure out who left a message for me saying "fuck off you wikipedia nazi" -- and, as I said above, this edit lead me right there. And though I've really DO have better things to do -- like my job, which I'm behind on, and sleep, which is what I should be doing right now -- and therefore haven't been editing Wikipedia, I figured I ought to take the time to fix the mess that TruthCrusader left. And, as usual, I got drawn in trying to fix up messes where I saw them. But, if you think exacerbating messes, defending trolls, and encouraging harassment on- and off-Wiki is the way to build a better enecyclopedia, go for it, but don't expect a lot of support from a lot of people for that. --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This one's easy. The linkage between TruthCrusader and the obscene harassment Calton has received is clear; if I see one more report of it that even seems like TruthCrusader, I'll just block him myself and let the chips fall where they may. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay; I wasn't aware that this had been discussed elsewhere. If there's serious off-wiki harrassment going on, I don't think anyone would object to a flat ban immediately. It doesn't make sense to me that our optimal response would be 'wait and see if he does something else obnoxious' while he tries to drag admins into blocking Calton, while Calton keeps leaving bitter messages and insulting edit summaries without any other recourse...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ok, so we have a content dispute and behavioral issues. Looking at the Will Geer article and talk page histories it seems like there is a long running pattern of people adding claims that Geer was gay or bi-sexual without references and these being challenged and removed (by TruthCrusader amongst others). Now the information has apparently been re-added, sourced to claims made by Harry Hay. I have no idea whether Mr. Hay (who is apparently also dead) should be considered reliable on this issue, but that likely ought to be the focus of both user's efforts. Rather than reverting each other with claims of 'bad sources!' and 'no, good sources!' they ought to be discussing the merits of the source. BTW, edit warring over content is edit warring... regardless of who turns out to be 'right'. To claim that 'only the other guy is really edit warring' is simply false.

As to the behavioral issues. Calton claims that TruthCrusader has engaged in egregious harassment and attacks off-wiki. Unfortunately, it is inherently difficult to prove such. Logs and mails can be alterred, open IPs can be accessed by other people, et cetera. However, in one sense it doesn't matter... because that would not be an excuse for the on-wiki attacks which Calton has engaged in. Even if Calton is absolutely right and truthful about what has gone on off-wiki. Even if it had all taken place ON wiki openly under TruthCrusader's account. Responding in kind, though not quite as viciously as the described off-wiki conduct, is still harmful and disruptive.

Evidence of the off-wiki harassment should be looked at to see if it can actually be proven (in which case an indef block would be very much in order), but regardless of that, both users need to stop edit warring and Calton needs to stop attacking and insulting. --CBD 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To Jpgordon: If the evidence is clear, why wait until you see another report of it? I suppose you are the among the people privy to Calton's evidence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that's how I work. Others might work in other ways. (And I try not to block people before I've had breakfast. Need nutrients in brain to make rational decision.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson comes up with his usual long and convoluted rationale excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls, with a side order of passive-aggression, a heaping helping of false equivalency (why yes, the things I've said about TruthCrusader are SO similiar to him accusing me of being a pedophile and saying that my father raped my mother -- and by the way, I redacted some equally awful crap from what I posted), and some actual falsehoods about the article that has wound up at the center of thngs, to boot (hint 1: "Harry Hay" is NOT the source of the claims).

Personally, I can't imagine why CBD thinks carrying water for trolls in any way aids the building of an encyclopedia, and yet he continues to do so. Is there something to this "Trolls are people too! Fight the power" schtick that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's precisely the kind of behavior I was saying you shouldn't be engaging in. Which seemed self-evident so... you are doing what, exactly, here? Trying to insult and provoke me? You need to calm down and stop attacking anyone and everyone who asks you to be remotely civil. --CBD 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never had any reason to doubt Calton's honesty. His civility needs work, but his integrity is above reproach. I would also trust Jpgordon's assessment of any privately-held evidence. Is there any conceivable reason not to drop the banhammer on TruthCrusader here?

As to the second (relatively minor) issue here, I hope that any (remaining) involved parties can have a good-faith discussion about type and quality of sourcing on Talk:Will Geer. If TruthCrusader is removed from the equation, there should be nothing that prevents a civil, rational talk page discussion about any remaining editorial concerns, right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that you are making false equivalences, CBD. You seem to be avoiding responding directly to this charge. El_C 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding? No... I simply assumed that since proof Calton's 'charges' were false is plainly visible on this very page there was no need to respond to them at all. If you think otherwise, let's look at these 'charges';

1. CBDunkerson is "excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls" - See my first post above (my only previous comment on this matter). See me saying that TruthCrusader, the presumable target of Calton's personal attack, had edit warred and that if the accusations of off-wiki harassment could be proven he should be indef blocked. In what way does this 'excuse bad behavior'?
2. "false equivalency" - I said that Calton engaged in edit warring too... he has. I said that Calton has engaged in incivility and personal attacks too... he has (and not just towards TruthCrusader). I said that these were less severe than the vicious comments attributed to TruthCrusader off-wiki... they were. So, where did I say anything 'false' or that they were 'equivalent' except in ways that... they were?
3. CBDunkerson has stated "actual falsehoods about the article ... 'Harry Hay' is NOT the source of the claims" - I can't claim to have studied the matter in extensive detail so perhaps I am somehow mistaken... but I truly have no idea how the quotation of Harry Hay saying, "Much of America wasn't ready to hear that Grandpa on The Waltons was bisexual" in this edit by Calton means that "Harry Hay is NOT the source of the claims". Harry Hay said it... but he is not the source? What person then, other than Harry Hay, IS the source of this claim?

Bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. Claiming that saying both users need to follow the standards is "excusing bad behavior" is an obvious falsity. The truth is that I did not excuse Calton's bad behavior. Which I will no doubt be thanked for... given the vehemence of insistence that bad behavior should NOT be excused. :] --CBD 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's enough strawmen to populate an Iowa county full of cornfields. That last paragraph, where you link together separate quotes to give the appearance my claiming something I didn't is a classic. But let's go through them.

• Point 1: let's start with your denigrating rhetoric, starting with "Calton claims", piled on with other, similar qualifiers ("difficult to prove", etc.), all with the rhetorical result -- intentional, I'm sure -- of casting doubting on what I say.
• Point 2: All those "facts"? Literally true, qualitatively false. Again, another attempt to rhetorically place my comments on par with the grotesque outbursts of TruthCrusader ("Granted, your organization is not as bad as NAMBLA..." "Yes, as President, he would be not as bad as Pol Pot...").
• Point 3: I included THREE references, not just one you quoted as if it were the only one. So I'd say yah, you didn't study the matter in much detail -- all three or four sentences worth -- to overlook the two other references. Again, literally true regarding your characterization of one of the references, qualitatively false to not mention the other two.

Ultimately, yeah, it's a question of your playing rhetorical games to minimize egregious conduct and make false equivalences. Personally, I'm thinking that all this contrarian behavior on your part is just a game for you, a chance to play a junior-league defense attorney on the internets. It certainly seems that your standards as to what is defensible directly correlates to the likelihood of the "defendant" being blocked or banned: your essentially unilateral defense of User:Pigsonthewing in his two ArbCom cases -- User:Pigsonthewing hisownself couldn't be bothered to respond -- is an obvious showcase, and funny how his incivility deserved a pass, hmm?

And just a thought: regular readers on this noticeboard should think back on CBDunkerson's various contributions to it. It might be worth considering how frequently he jumps to the defense of the badly behaved with his "Fight the power! Admins can't be trusted!" rhetoric. How seriously should he be taken? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea what is going on or how this has suddenly exploded. For the Will Geer article, I did not feel the information claiming his sexuality was verifiable enough to warrent such an inclusion in the article. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt this way. I cant see how it could be called an edit war, as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me, rather than caring about the article, which is why I was trying to prevent what I felt was not notable sources removed from the article. In the interests of fairness however, I will cease to work on the article as apparently Calton will not give me any peace over it. I still maintain the sources being given are not notable enough, but I will allow others to make that call now.

As for this so called Wiki-stalking. I admit my past on Wiki hasn't been stellar, as evident by my block logs. However, I have NO idea what Calton is on about. He hasn't shown me or anyone outside his circle of 'friends' any evidence at all and I honestly have NO idea who he has decided to throw this at me, of all people. I have remained civil in this matter, despite my temptation to unload on him, which is something I wish to point out he has not. I can't even think WHY he would think I would WANT to harass him, I had forgotten he had even existed until I logged in one day to find a rather nasty message on my talk page. There DOES seem to be something fishy going on, and I wish to point out that part of my problems in the past were caused by a multiple banned user named Chad Bryant, who would do what he could to get me banned or in trouble. He HAS impersonated me on the Internet many many times, and I am starting to wonder if this may be the case now. Just look at my past talk pages/incidents/block logs of myself and Chad Bryant to see. That MAY be what is happening here because I damn well know I would not waste my time with anything to do with Calton. TruthCrusader 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this investigation however, as I do not like lies and slanderous remarks being made about myself, even on Wiki which, by the way, I don't even visit much anymore due to real life.

as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me - Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 2...: I provided THREE reliable sources -- two from books, even -- and yet you reverted with the edit summary "...Not sourced, not verified...". So, who, exactly, seems to be reverting for its own sake? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted on Talk:Will Geer the results of a brief search for references regarding the alleged bisexuality of Geer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "off-wiki" behavior should be considered. How can Wikipedia's rules have any bearing or weight over real life actions? As I read this, Calton seems very insistent that TruthCrusader is harrassing him off-wiki and that this should factor into a banning decision. In the interest of balance and fairness, I'd like to bring the following website to the community's attention : http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php The host of this site is apparently a US government expert on Cyber stalking and Internet harrassment. A google search of Calton's name brings up quite a few sites on which people seem to be accusing Calton of online harrassment. Amazon's website seems to have had two major incidents regardng Calton harrassing famous authors. Take it for what it's worth, but I'd be inclined to question Calton's credibility. The majority of his editorial contributions seem designed to provoke confrontations with others, particularly new users. MegaMom 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above information is certainly new to me. Since this is apprently the case, unless of course Amazon is 'lying' I respectfully request this matter is dropped as Calton it seems has a massive credibility problem now and any information or "evidence" he claims to have MUST now be considered highly suspect. I have already agreed to leave the Geer article alone, despite my objections to it, and hope this matter now goes away. TruthCrusader 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a 207.69.137.* user

Some user of what looks like to be an Earthlink controlled IP range (207.69.137.*) seems to be engaged in a campaign of subtle vandalism around Wikipedia. For example here, where chunks of the article have been repeatedly ripped out under the claim of not verifiable. Looking at the talk pages of the anonymous users involved 1, 2 and 3 show a pattern of vandalism disguised as concern for one policy or another leading to temporary blocks and such. Is there anything that can be done that is more permanent? Feel free to shout at me if this isnt the right place for this concern btw. --Martin Wisse 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With an ISP IP range like that, it's tough to tie all those edits and warnings to a single user. A lot of vandalism originates from ranges like that. Especially with dial-up ranges, as those change every login. That said, its probably best to treat these like any other vandalism events: Revert and warn the user, then list on AIV if it becomes epidemic in a short period of time (within a few minutes of the last warning). Arakunem^Talk 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:88.97.18.12

This user just came to my attention because he has been removing the LGBT tag from Eddie Izzard (an out Transvestite performer, so he falls under the T part of LGBT). He seems to think that Izzard isn't a transvestite, but just dressed in drag to be funny.[43] A quick look over his edit history indicates a passive homophobia; he has changed 'partner' to 'girlfriend' (minor, but on many pages, such as Andy Kershaw and Jools Holland; he declares '"Partner" only means boyfriend in Britain/Antipodes', and I'd like a Brit to clarify this[44]), and changed

'expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values'

to

'expressing the belief that homosexuality is immoral or harmful) is, to some, a human right;'

(removed the quotes about immoral, and that human right bit)[45]

It's a very subtle sort of POV editing to a homophobic view, possibly not notable in one or two cases, but seems to be a persistent pattern in this user. If someone could look at his edits, and also keep an eye on Eddie Izzard (because I believe he will hit 3RR there with the tag removal), that would be appreciated. --Thespian 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK "partner" signifies "partner", there is no sexual difference. It is of course used for same sex errr, errr partners, but it isn't mutually exclusive! I referred to my 42 year old 'girlfriend' as being my partner as "girlfriend" seems a little 'teeny bopper' for our age group. So basically that IP editor is dishing out the BS in shovel size portions. ---- WebHamster 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit is more than a little POV. IrishGuy ^talk 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Irishguy hence out of place) - I don't think that's POV pushing - the measure she was opposing was in relation to civil partnerships, which (as the bill was drafted) were only to be permitted for gay couples, so "special treatment" is a legitimate phrase in the context — iridescent 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary made it clear that wasn't exactly what he meant. IrishGuy ^talk 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not arguing - aside from anything else, it's clear from the history that they do have an agenda to push, and the "homosexuals have always had equal rights" claim is just plain odd - just saying that that particular edit doesn't seem worth revert-warring over — iridescent 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I can handle the Eddie Izzard issue; I've been doing it for a year, and it dropped off after I added several cited quotes of his explaining that he does think of himself as fitting into transgender politics (indeed, if the IP editor had read them, one cites that Izzard believes it's important to him to be out because a guy in a dress is always presented in comedy as a buffoon). The IP seems to think that Izzard is doing the drag thing just for a laugh, the way Monty Python or Kids in the Hall do. But that I can deal with. I just more wanted to bring it to the attention of admins that in a very subtle way, this IP is adding POV to a whole bunch of articles, in a way that might not be connected under normal circumstances; I just always check the history of anyone whose edits I need to revert, just to check. Hadn't seen an edit history this pervasive and intentional before, though. --Thespian 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a pure content dispute; I could make a legitimate case that Izzard as a Transvestite doesn't necessarily qualify as Transgender (the T in LGBT) as there's nothing to indicate he self-identifies as part-female^{(see below)} rather than a male with a particular clothing preference (any more than a fondness for carrots necessarily makes someone a furry as part-rabbit). The whole transgender definition thing is a can of worms I don't propose to get into any deeper than I am - I get enough flak keeping Transgender musicians from slipping over the edge. I'd suggest raising the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — iridescent 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, there is a quote on Talk:Eddie Izzard in which, if correct, he did describe himself as "transgender" in 2000 — iridescent 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

From my experience of Trannies (I know quite a few), the majority would take exception to being considered as "Transgender". The die-hard Tranny doesn't consider himself to be anything other than a male who likes women's clothes. It certainly isn't a statement of sexuality, it's a sexual fetish. All the Trannies I know are proud to be male and have no wish at all to be female. I'd suggest that they don't (at least the majority don't) match the requirement of the "T" in LGBT. ---- WebHamster 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject LGBT and a crossdresser (the term transvestite is generally seen as deperecated in much of the english speaking world), I'd just like to point out that there is some apparent confusion here between transvestic fetishism and cross-dressing. By definition, all cross-dressers are transgendered, but transvestic fetishists are not. The biggest problem with the term transgender is that its definition varies in different parts of the world. In some places, transgender is seen as a synonym for non-op transsexual. We can take this discussion across to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies if anyone feels that it is necessary, but a quick read of the relevant articles will show that Izzard does meet the normal definition of transgendered. --AliceJMarkham 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, unban User:Robert Lindsay

I've just read his lengthy post on his blog. (If you find the link offensive, please remove it.) I've read the reasoning for the permaban and an appeal against it as well. In my view he was banned for his opinions, but even bad opinions are not a wikicrime. That's why I ask for his unbanning. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• We couldn't care less what his opinions are; we just have no reason to provide a platform for him to express them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Never heard of him before but on reading the sorry saga I agree with Jpgordon - there's a difference between "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Wikipedia welcomes trolls". Since this guy claims to hate us so much, why would he want to come back? — iridescent 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The project is better without such people. Let them have their fun at their blog, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should he be unbanned could I suggest that there be a brevity requirement that goes along with it? :) Anyway, who gives a crap if the Jews are in charge? So long as the info is available and editable I couldn't give a monkey's left teste if it's left-handed lesbian Moslem with AIDS and a limp that's in charge. ---- WebHamster 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a Yahoo! Group for them. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Depopulation

SchmuckyTheCat is emptying Category:Universities in mainland China. [46] Kowlooner 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a category and list for both 'mainland China' and 'People's republic of China'? isn't that sort of redundant? Or am I missing some subtle difference? ThuranX 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Schmucky's blanking of the section. I don't know what's going on here, but it doesn't look very legit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Instantnood can take a hike with his complaints. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that they are the same person. If you continue to mass revert again, I'm blocking you for disruption.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I got a message from Kowlooner which said the two are different, but I'm not sure in what way, as he specifically said that "Yes there is. In PRC legislations, regulations, directives, etc., mainland China does not include Hong Kong and Macau." I didn't think that PRC included those two either. I'm not sure what Schmucky's trying to do with that, but I do note that instead of clarifying Kowlooner, he just erased the comments off my talk page, which I generally take as rude in two ways: One, although no one 'owns' their talk, I've repeatedly read here (AN/I) and elsewhere that messing with others' talk pages shouldn't be casually done, and two, because it interferes with user to user communications. Now, can we get a simple, one para clarification about why there is or is not a difference between Mainland and PRC? ThuranX 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, That makes it twice, at least, that Schmucky has deleted another editors' comments, once here at AN/I, which I've seen before treated ESPECIALLY poorly, and on my talk. Is there a checkuser to actually support the contention that Kowlooner is banned? Further, now that it's been brought up, let's not drop it at the moment a CU proves it. I'd still like an explanation. ThuranX 03:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 33 Political divisions of China 22 provinces, and some others. Instantnood wants their to be three (Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau).

This conversation is so old and stale it is ridiculous - and the perpetuation of this and INSTANTNOODS perpetual edit war over it is what got him banned. He returns with a sockpuppet every few weeks to carry this argument, just long enough for any CU data to expire. But check the RFCU archives to see that I can spot an Instantnood sock a mile away. I'm not waiting for weeks of some process to AGAIN remove the same revert warring abuse that went on for two years. SchmuckyTheCat

[47], [48], [49]. I'm not sitting still while the latest incarnation of sockpuppet edits a few hundred articles that will need fixing later. I've had this exact conversation several times. SchmuckyTheCat

It's your duty to file a RFCU, or to report him here or at AIV. It's NOT your duty to make massive, disruptive reverts of every edit this guy makes, without so much as the slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet. It's even worse to do that in the midst of a massively POV category depopulation. Weren't you involved in an arbitration about all of this relatively recently as well? I've warned you once already on your talk page, and once here. If you continue to revert him, I'm blocking you for wikistalking and disruption. You should know better. The proper move here is to file an AN/I or AIV or RFCU report. Not to massively remove every edit this guy has ever done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet?

1. [50] Look at that article history, it's all Instantnood socks.
2. [51] Oh, another one.
3. [52] Oh, Kowlooner makes the same exact edit as Qaka? Who is Qaka, well, User:Qaka says it's an Instantnood sock.
4. [53] How about this one?
5. [54] BTW, who's wikistalking?

Should I go on? SchmuckyTheCat

And, I'm not removing every edit. I'm looking at every single one. I don't care about the majority of them, actually. Instantnood has always had useful edits. But the insistence of edit warring about the political structure of China and various spelling issues is defining. He has an amazing ability to make these changes to hundreds of articles in a short amount of time, and THAT is incredibly disruptive. Waiting a few weeks to "settle the issue" every time he pops up leaves hundreds of articles in a bad state - particularly when he is editing stub templates which, in turn, affect hundreds of other articles. SchmuckyTheCat

Re ThuranX: The PRC has 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and four cities directly under the central government. One of the 23 provinces lies wholly within the ROC, which the PRC claims but have never ruled. Three other provinces claim territories in the ROC. In addition to the provinces, autonomous regions and direct cities, the PRC has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau. The 22 provinces, five autonomous regions and four direct cities are collectively called Mainland China. They constitute what PRC was before Hong Kong and Macau became part of the PRC. Kowlooner 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll talk your head off about this. SchmuckyTheCat

OK, so Mainland China WAS the PRC, until the PRC gained Hong Kong and Macau. So ... Mainland's now an outdated term, and the PRC represents the current state of China's geography? So why is it bad that he's depop'ing Mainland to move them to PRC? ThuranX 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he's a political crank and that's what he edit wars about. SchmuckyTheCat

Nice Personal Attacks and trolling. Remember, just because you 'got him', doesn't give you free license to break policy too. ThuranX 05:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The PRC is the 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 direct cities, and (after 1997 and 1999) 2 special administrative regions. Mainland China is 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 direct cities. Since the special administrative regions are different from the rest of the PRC Mainland China is used to denote the rest from the special administrative regions. 203.218.133.216 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with SchmuckyTheCat here and I've blocked Kowlooner indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Should a checkuser prove otherwise, he can be unblocked. I saw one of his earliest edits as changing the use of any PRC templates to Hong Kong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The diagnostic evidence shows the same. SchmuckyTheCat is unblocked, Kowlooner and the IP are both blocked as sockpuppets of a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So SchmuckyTheCat got blocked for helping Wikipedia and reverting the bad faith edits of a sockpuppet? No wonder so many solid editors leave Wikipedia. Poor kitty. You deserve a saucer of milk for your troubles. Jeffpw 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: the checkuser came back inconclusive. The only thing we have to go on here is the quack test, which is inherently inaccurate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I said CU would be inconclusive, because IP log data is only kept a few weeks. But second, what CU report came back inconclusive? Not the current one, which hasn't been acted on. SchmuckyTheCat

Ryulong and I contacted Dmcdevit on IRC. The conclusion was that the IP data was indefinitive, but it was his opinion that based on editing patterns it could be the same person ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

fwiw, I've never been incorrect when anyone else who knows Instantnood's pattern has been asked to take a look. I've been right close to a dozen times. I've never cried wolf and said a user was Instantnood just to see some smackdown action on some newbie I disagreed with. It is more disruptive to let a banned user - who by definition are disruptive - have their way with the wiki than it is to have a recognized user block their actions. Banned users are banned for a reason. When they pop up as a sock they should be acted on. Even if it was not Instantnood, if the edits were so similar to be unrecognizable, then the edits were just as disruptive as if it was. I'm all about not biting newbies, but a new account whose first edit goes straight to POV pushing stub tags is not a new user and knows exactly what they are doing and fully intend that disruption. You said I should wait until an admin justifies the actions. That's bogus. Admins just have extra buttons and if I can clean up disruption from the project, I will. SchmuckyTheCat

Edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians, two blocks resulting

Three users, Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently got into an edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is nothing new, nothing new at all. I blocked the first and third users for 48 hours, and left Taharqa a warning because he made fewer reverts. Then I realized there are a half-dozen more users liable to continue the edit war, so I protected the article for a week. I'm unsure which of the two I blocked broke the 3RR, but it doesn't matter much to me, as they've both edit-warred (and been blocked for it) before, and should have known better. Comments on whether I was too harsh, too lenient welcome; I just did what seemed most likely to end the dispute (for the time being). Picaroon (t) 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off now. If any admin thinks these blocks were the wrong solution, no need to wait for me to respond, just gain consensus here and unblock. Picaroon (t) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy definitely broke 3RR, and looking at his block log, it would have been justified to block him for longer. Jeeny's violation isn't as clear, since he says he was trying to restore some grammar/spelling corrections, but this edit is more than just spelling and grammar, and the edit summary is indicative of edit warring. Looking at his block log, there's a lot there, but a lot of the blocks were overturned after they were imposed, so the 48 hour length seems fine. It looks like Taharqa had 3 reverts today (of different content each time); a warning was certainly appropriate, and from what I see of his/her conduct on the article (see esp. 23-24 October), I'm not sure I would have stopped at a warning.

Given the ongoing disputes at this article I wonder if it's a good idea to impose a 1RR parole on the article, or other editing restrictions. It's been protected from editing several times already. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3 full blocklogs. 48h for this kind of long blocklogs is in no way too harsh. Taharqa doesn't need to break the 3RR to be blocked. Egyegy has had some problems discussing at talk page. Same for Jeeny. A bit of a confrontational behavior. I've just blocked him/her for 48h in accordance w/ other blocks. IMO, 1RR is definitely better than protecting the page. Please read these comments at the AN. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heinz2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The checkuser who responded to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heinz2007 determined that "The Heinz2007 account has already been noted as a disruptive account that is behaving in a manner that merits a block" [55], and declined to perform a check to determine whether Heinz2007 has been using an abusive sockpuppet on that basis. Could an administrator please block Heinz2007? Thanks. John254 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

He's attacked me both on my talk page, and at Talk:DreamHost. J 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamripoff seems to come from the same forum he/she is using as a reference. Refer them to questionable sources and see what they would do. I've left them a warning re the comments at your talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats by an Editor

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by User:Ricky81682.

Unhappy with the discussion going on at the Talk Page for the article on Pro-pedophile activism, BadMojoDE advanced a legal threat against other editors active on that page. His edit could be seen here: [56]. Such action definitely goes against Wikipedia policy, and I have informed him of this fact. If this editor repeats this threat, I believe admin intervention may be warranted. ~ Homologeo 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Has he rescinded the threat? Legal threats usually don't get warnings, they get blocks per WP:NLT. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I warned him because I'm not an admin and cannot issue a block myself. Since I posted the warning on his Talk Page and told him the same thing on the article's Talk Page, he has not responded yet and has yet to rescind the threat. I do not know if he will do this. ~ Homologeo 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking. In the future, come here or to WP:AIV when a user goes Harvey Birdman on you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Per Jeske, go to AIV instead. If he rescinds, I will unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

I'm unsure of how to even handle this, and so I figure it's best to report the incident and let administrators make the call. Today I received this message from Kizor (talk · contribs · logs) in which I was summarily dressed down for my opinion on an AFD. I'm just about at a loss for words... for one, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPA ("your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content"). Secondly, it doesn't appear the editor in question applied the same inappropriate message to others who !voted the same way I did. Thirdly, the discussion is almost a month old (early October). Finally, he tries to "shame" me into !voting differently in future discussions. He may have said "without malice" at the bottom of the message, but the content speaks for itself. In my opinion it is wholly inappropriate; I've learned that tis usually better to let an uninvolved party handle the situation instead of exacerbating it by replying to the editor directly. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I was unaware that Kizor is an administrator, however it doesn't really change my opinion on the matter. The only thing that changes is that I'm sure his intent was indeed without malice, but it certainly doesn't make his message any more appropriate. /Blaxthos 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, i just see no single sign of a personal attack in what you refer to. The tone is a bit harsh but i see nothing else which needs any admin action. The bottom line is, as you said, that he did it w/o malice. So? Is there any harassment or Wiki-stalking? No. Just let it go Blaxthos. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Notified Kizor in case he offers some more insight. I'm more curious why he said it was AFD"s"? Is there a larger history behind this? Either way, I don't really see a personal attack but will leave my mind open. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I said "AfDs" in reference to this one and future ones, we have no other history that I know of.
To address Blaxthos' points, For the second, the two other editors voting delete are casual users, not esteemed editors extremely active in AfDs, so their behaviour is a couple orders of magnitude less significant and I do not feel that there's a need to message them. For the third, it's three weeks old, which I consider recent; not that resent, but not history either. For the final one, any changes made to Blaxthos' behavior would've been a result of himself, agreeing with me. For the first one and the issue of civility, it was indeed written without malice (I checked before saving). There being no polite way to issue a dressing-down that one feels necessary, I went for open and straightforward. What do you guys think - too harsh? --Kizor 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found Kizor to be both friendly and fair and I believe that in any event he meant well and is doing a good job overall. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I believe what you've caught has entirely been my good side, too. --Kizor 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what's appeared below while I was slapping the above comment together, yes, apparently too harsh. Blaxthos makes a good point in his quotation of NPA. At least an "apparent" or "actions that would be indicative of" or something would've oriented things more to that direction, and on reflection everything from "haste" onwards is redundant. --Kizor 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
• USER:Kizor - "I'm deeply disappointed in your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content..."

The title of the section he created is "Your behaviour in AfDs". He is directly calling judgement into question (because of an afd !vote, no less!)... how is that about content? Also, do you think it's a fair action, considering there were others who shared the same vote during that AFD? His comment implies that there are other (uncited) AFDs where my judgement is suspect. That is definitely fodder regarding the contributor. /Blaxthos 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Even more follow up - I've been around the block more than a few times, and would consider myself a fairly established and dedicated editor. I don't expect this thing to go anywhere, especially given that Kizor is an administrator. Do I think that his message is appropriate? Absolutely not. Do I think he should suffer for it? Not at all. I just wanted it on record somewhere, with someone, that perhaps such bullyish comments aren't the best things for our administrators to leave. I'm certainly entitled to my opinion that article foo is unencyclopedic/gamecruft, and I am not concerned with "impressing" or "disappointing" other editors (especially the staff). Take from that what you will... /Blaxthos 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he is an admin doesn't give him immunity so it is irrelevant. Yes. That's policy but you have to check the context. Some comments are more objective than subjective and vice-versa. He talks about your "disregard" and not "you". In fact, i am concerned more about the tone than any other thing.

Have you first tried to ask him about his comments or inform him about this report? It is always suggested that we inform users about reports so they can explain their actions. This is what Ricky's has volunteered to do. So at least let us hear him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Kizor's comment was a bit abrupt, but I'm really not seeing a personal attack. Instead, it seems that there's a good faith concern being expressed, even if it's being done in a slightly uncivil and/or uneven manner. I don't really see a need for administrator action here. Blaxthos, if you have a concern with Kizor's tone, I recommend bringing it up at Kizor's talkpage. A good faith "Hey, are you aware that this could be seen as a personal attack? Can you tone it down a little?" can have huge weight on someone's talkpage (especially to a new administrator who is probably under closer than usual scrutiny anyway). I'd recommend at least trying to work it out directly with him, rather than heading straight to ANI, which is really for more egregious cases of personal attacks than something like this. --Elonka 06:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. For full disclosure, I only responded to his comment on my talk page, but I did reference this report in the reply. Due to past drama I usually try to avoid direct conflict with other editors, and often find that the involvement of third parties keeps things in perspective (as it did here). Thanks for taking the time to give your advice. /Blaxthos 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block Disagreement

Jeeny has disagreed with his/her block and so have other users, Swatjester is the reviewing admin and does not think that Picaroon (the blocking admin) block was wrong. Many users have stated they think that the decision the deny the unblock was in bad faith, and when Jeeny made attacks toward Swatjester, Swatjester blocked the user for another week (which users such as User:A.Z. disagreed with‎.) I have put this incident up for mediation, but Swatjester does not think that is the appropriate place to do so and states he will no longer participate in the mediation. Tiptoety 05:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the original block (which caused all of this) was unfounded. The block was for "edit warring", while the only edits Jeeny has made were spelling/grammar/punctuation edits, that User:Egyegy kept reverting because of prior conflicts with Jeeny. - Rjd0060 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4. These are not reversions of vandalism, they are substantial changes to the article that are controversial and done without consensus. Picaroon's block was appropriate. After showing Jeeny this evidence, she referred to the blocking admins as fucks in edit summaries, " fuck you", called me a moron, also fuck you in edit summary, a second "fuck you" in both edit sum and talk page, etc. Personal attacks and the like are always unacceptable no matter what. I will not participate in a frivolous mediation, especially when mediation is not the proper forum. This is ridiculous that we're even discussing this. Jeeny has been blocked seven times, including my block. See:

Blocklog

00:35, 28 October 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (civility.) (Unblock) 00:35, 28 October 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jeeny (Talk | contribs) ‎ (extending) 23:25, 27 October 2007 Picaroon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (revert-warring on Race of ancient Egyptians) (Unblock) 01:32, 4 October 2007 Raymond arritt (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users) (Unblock) 09:25, 30 September 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (Jeeny has expressed concern that my previous block of her would be used against her by other admins considering future blocks. I would like to request that other admins not consider that block.) (Unblock) 10:08, 22 September 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Personal attacks, misleading edit summaries) (Unblock) 00:43, 18 August 2007 Mr.Z-man (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Civility issues, persoanl attacks) (Unblock) 00:05, 10 August 2007 MastCell (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jeeny (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Unblocking - user had already self-reverted after hitting 3RR) 18:26, 9 August 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 10 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: at White people; per WP:AN3 report) (Unblock) 15:14, 21 April 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (Unblock) 15:14, 21 April 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jeeny (Talk | contribs) ‎ (make that 24) 15:08, 21 April 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeeny (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism: to The Mather School) (Unblock)

The fact that we're even discussing this is ridiculous. Saying "fuck you" to another user repeatedly is entirely unacceptable on the project. 3RR is entirely unaceptable on the project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroons block was valid, and I should note that I believe Picaroon blocked Egyegy as well. These were not "simple spelling corrections." These were substantive edits. These were contextual changes to the article. This is the sort of thing that 3RR was intended to prevent, POV pushing. Furthermore, that hardly excuses Jeeny's outrageous actions after the block, which are never ever EVER acceptable on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. It has been reviewed more than enough. Up here and by SwatJester. All three editors who have been edit warring blocked for 48h. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that she was uncivil. However, as blocks are not meant as punishment, but they are to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia, why were the users blocked, if the page was going to be protected? The page protection would prevent any further problem, so why the blocks? - Rjd0060 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As picaroon said, we shouldn't punish other users by protecting the page just because these twothree can't play nice. The block is preventative, preventing Jeeny from damaging the project more than she already has in her last 6 blocks, to prevent her from the verbal abuse etc. There's no punishment here. By blocking Jeeny and friends, we allow everyone else to continue editing the page. By protecting it, we prevent everyone else from editing, which is why our protection policy limits the instances in which we should use protection. Plus, Jeeny should know better. She's been blocked for this before. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Was the protection removed once they were all blocked? - Rjd0060 05:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from the ensuing verbal attacks, protecting the page will only move the battle to talk pages, with those serving as a forum for verbal disruption. —Kurykh 05:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which punishment? It would have been the case if they were edit warring yesterday or last year. They only have been warring an hour or so ago and been blocked on the spot. There are rules and they know them very well. Users who have been blocked several times for the same offenses w/o changing their way of editing and communicating plus saying "fuck you" need more than 48h to relax and kill the stress. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FayssalF in this case. Tiptoety 05:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Okay, like FayssalF said, nothing to see here. Tiptoety 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird

Resolved

I'm not quite sure what to do with this one so I brought it here. I was happily disambiguating some links to "Britain" when I happened on this. Funny thing is the creator of this lovely piece of vandalism Solidmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also seems to have created the page. Also take a look at Solidmantis‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks like a sock and this image, which seems to have been created just to vandalise the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs)

Judging by the little images on each of "their" userpages, there are two more socks somewhere. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Found'em:

• Solidmink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solidmongoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Dynaflow babble 06:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Try here: WP:SSP. Tiptoety 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Or here: WP:RCU. Tiptoety 06:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need for a checkuser. There were four accounts, all with nonsense user pages and a few nonsense images. It's all been speedy deleted as nonsense. -- RG² 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Itchy trigger fingers

Resolved

I just had a brand-new article blown out of the water before I even had a chance to finish it. It was about a new radio-controlled model, the HobbyZone Millennium PTU. There is no need to quote policy to me; I am well aware of it. However, it was tagged as being an advertisement, which it was not. Notablity was more than established in the text and I was in the process of adding external links when it was deleted. I had written many similar articles on other models under my previous username...and these may be in danger of being lost as well. One thing I learned early on as an administrator was to check the posting user's edit history. I made the mistake of not doing so on a number of occasions and got seven shades of hell for it. Believe me, I learned fast when it came to experienced editors. I would greatly appreciate it if this were restored. Thank you. I'm signing off for the night, so if anyone wishes to contact me, please do so on my userpage. --PMDrive1061 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to make a post to WP:DRV, alongside the references that you want to add. This makes the undeletion requests easier to track as well as giving a more stable refernece on why the article should be kept (at least temporarly.) --Sigma 7 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's the appropriate place to discuss this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Those sorts of discussions used to be under the heading of "articles for undeletion." Thanks again for sending me in the right direction. I'll list it there right now. --PMDrive1061 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Two months ago, I left Wikipedia. I have not returned. I am merely opening this discussion to try and get things in the air.

I decided to see whether the time was right by experimenting with a new account, User:JohnEMcClure. Before this, I reread WP:SOCK, and I'm quite sure I didn't violate anything. I didn't edit any articles that I did before. As to what happened, you can see. I did, with some deliberation, try and see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary (but I didn't do anything I deemed as a personal attack, as commenting on actions are different from commenting on people). I would request a larger-scale review of what happened, as I feel it reveals some serious problems with how we deal with these things. Perhaps some of you disagree, and I would be interested to see what people think. --Eyrian 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)