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

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(restored the title of this incident, the archiving bot copied it here without the rest of the incident - slicing it in two - because Editor5435 accidentally added a section to the top, cutting the top off from the rest of the discussion. Attempting to repair manually.) - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I gave Editor5435 a 24 hour timeout, but he is right on one point: Spot (aka Scott Draves) has been editing articles on himself and his own endeavours, and many of them do not actually have external sources do demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I would like to point out another inappropriate Wiki entry that appears to be self promotion. In the Wiki article Spot there is an entry under the heading Other meanings - *Scott Draves, digital artist and VJ. Based upon the contents of the list I feel this in an inappropriate example of self promotion and should be removed.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting your comments into the top of discussions, that's not polite. I am google hit #6 for "spot" so I think it's entirely appropriate for me to be in a any list of "spots". Any errors I have made editing other pages in no way justify what you have done to the Fractal Compression page. I also invite you to reveal your true identity so we can assess your conflict of interest. Spot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again serving your own self interest by shamelessly advocating and editing articles/discussions about yourself. Its a blatant violation of Wikipedia's COI and self promotion/vanity. As for the fractal compression page you might want to check out the discussion page, finally someone agrees with what I have been trying to say. Again, I believe it is you who have an agenda to spread misinformation about fractal compression for some unknown reason.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for bringing this to the attention of the admins, and Guy for stepping in. I don't know if I have time today to redo the article, but I'll get to it asap. Frankly I am really sick of dealing with this and if someone else who knows fractal compression would step up, that would be great. Perhaps if the text came from someone other than me, Editor5435 would be less incensed. If you don't really know about fractal compression and the history of deception surrounding it, please do not just assume the truth lies halfway between his claims and mine. Read the FAQ for starters, including the "Reader Beware" section. I think the Wikipedia article should have a similar warning.

As for the notability and sourcing for the articles about me and my work, this probably isn't the right place to address them in full but note that I didn't create these articles and they they have survived for a long time and been edited by a lot of people. I have made some edits to them under my own name without any deception, but I believe I am allowed to correct basic factual errors. If I have overstepped the rules then I apologize and invite an audit and the chance to provide references. Re notability, have been covered in Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. See my bio. Spot (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused by Ronz of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. This was not an act of vandalism, my intention was to end this ridiculous controversy. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The below brought here from Ronz's page who asked us to continue the discussion elsewhere and suggested here. Spot (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Wikipedia's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Wikipedia administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that my statement "TMMI has a history of fraud" (iirc) has been confirmed by Editor5435 saying: "Fraud was committed against the company and its shareholders by a scam artist." on his talk page. Rather than respond there I will try to bring the conversation here since he objects when I respond on his talk page, calling it harassment. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot, you were insinuating that the company was committing fraud, quite a different thing than being a victim of fraud. Also you said "pump and dump fraud" which is libelous, Wikipedia could be sued that have such things displayed on its website. You should be more careful about the accusations you make--Editor5435 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release says that the perpetrator was a Director of the company at the time. Regardless of who the victim was, illegal shares were apparently issued and entered the market. As for your accusation of libel, iirc I only said the possibility or appearance of a pump and dump (please point me at the exact quote, you seem to have deleted it). Merely stating my opinion is not libel, and neither is a statement in good faith. There are various people on the stock discussion boards saying the same thing, and in stronger language. Your threats will not intimidate me. Spot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing OFF TOPIC irrelevant discussion to fractal compression, none of the above has anything to do with the subject of fractal compression technology. Your obvious attempts to discredit this technology have failed.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You introduced the topic of libel. If you can't back it up, then I'll consider the case closed. I do, however think it's rather interesting that you interpreted a statement about TMMI as "libelous attacks against me". This is more evidence that you are part of TMMI or have some conflict of interest with them. I would appreciate it if you would directly answer this question directly: do you have a CoI with TMMI? Spot (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You insinuated I was involved in a pump and dump fraud, stop trying to squirm your way out of this, and stop trying to obfuscate your attempts to discredit fractal compression by constantly trying to bring OFF TOPIC TMMI into the discussion, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the fractal compression article, just STOP this NONSENSE! Fortunately there are others who support my views on fractal compression and disagree with your false and misleading information you have attempted to spread.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editor5435 has nominated the page about me Scott Draves for deletion in retribution for our edit war. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retaliation? Or because he saw it as shameless self-promotion? We do seem to have rather more articles on you and your endeavours than the limited sources would seem to justify. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of sources to the talk page on the article. I didn't create any of these articles. Spot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sources? I saw more self-promotion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sources listed here: Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? are neutral third parties and established print periodicals writing about me and my work. Spot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Scott Draves article has external links to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com which is gross abuse of Wikipedia, honestly, who makes web sites about themselves and uses Wikipedia as an advertising service?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. The article about Draves contains nothing that can be construed as POV and notability is established by multiple reliable sources per WP:N. The problem here is that two people are involved in a content dispute on the fractal compression article and it has escalated to personal attacks, accusations of COI and libel and people AFDing articles. I recommend both of you step away for a few days to cool off. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My Defense

Spot's unscrupulous methods to bring my contributions into question and to discredit fractal compression are obvious and transparent. If you read the fractal discussion board pay close attention the comments made by. Kevin Baast who is obviously well versed on the subject.

"After having read much discussion on this page, I have come to the conclusion that Editor5435's arguments are among the most rational and logically-sound of those made here. It's a pity to see so much of it fall upon deaf ears. I applaud and encourage his efforts, and ask other editors to consider his arguments more carefully. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Spot isn't being honest here and is acting in bad faith.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School?

Someone posted at Wikipedia:Help desk#Plano Senior High School about this edit. Thought I should repost here for some advice. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern was dealt with by Bongwarrior, who was also posted by the same party, earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deliberate hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should notify the police in Plano,Texas. With all the school shootings VA Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine High School.The world isnt some happy place anymore.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just phone Mike Godwin. Right now. ASAP , about this. What happends something happens. Any you guys are left thinking , feeling guilty about. And , what happends if it a real threat. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy that posted this threat has broken USA law ; they posted a teroristic threat. A felony. So, its some serious bs . Rio de oro (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to notify the police in Plano,Texas, and the WM foundation.--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this: Would I send my kid to this school tomorrow morning with a good feeling? No. Do we Wikipedians have sufficient background knowledge to make a final judgement about the seriousness of such a threat? No. So maybe it's better to notify the police. Of course, we are in the danger to turn a mouse into an elephant (that's a German saying). On the other hand: What if...? And finally, if it was a hoax: Maybe it's a good idea to send a message to bored kids: Don't fool around with threats like this. --Abrech (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: School is in Texas, IP that made the threat is from Pennsylvania. However, this is a major offense of US law, and does need to be dealt with seriously. ---CWY2190^TC 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's today's featured article just increases the likelihood that this is a poor taste of a bad joke. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. Metros (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we always do contact the autorities. Anyone in texas?Geni 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a joke... and has anyone notified the police yet? Sethie (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some shit you absolutely do not joke about. This is an example. HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the phone number of the Plano police; I'd be willing to call, but I'm not sure they'd take the words of a 16-year-old Wikipedia admin from Canada too seriously. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a licensed EMT and public safety professional, I'll volunteer to make the call. Bstone (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call has been made. I have informed them of the threat, time and location. Bstone (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BStone; I wish I'd spotted this thread earlier. I've now lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has arisen, and how it has not been dealt with seriously and expeditiously. Jimbo Wales' & Mike Godwin's positions has always been (to me, at least) that we are not qualified to judge the cogency of these incidents, the law enforcement agencies are, and they should always be reported for them to make the appropriate decisions. There was an addition to WP:SUICIDE to deal with this sort of thing, and every admin, at least, should be aware of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The second you even attempt to make a 'joke' like that, you deserve exactly what happens to you. HalfShadow (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone; the last thing this site needs is a real version of the Benoit incident. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got a call back from the Plano Police Dept in which I spoke to an officer. I sent him the diff with the offending post and a screenshot. I walked him through how to read it and he took down all the information and said they will investigate. The officer gave me a reference number, which is 08-43705. In case this ever needs to be brought up again this reference number can be used. Bstone (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon used a proxy to make that threat. Not much that can be done.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Cary Bass; the foundation is dealing with it, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this gets sorted out quickly. --Sharkface217 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we let this slip by, what happens if people actually got hurt then it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS.--Rio de oro (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We didn't "let this slip by". The authorities have been informed, as clearly discussed above. Good job, Bstone and MoP. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get the original IP address that did this. The proxy IP resolves to two CGI proxy websites- one of them says that all activity is logged, and anything against their TOS will result in a ban from the proxy. I'm betting that if we e-mailed them, we could get the IP address from them that made the threat. Especially if it was from a wikimedia.org e-mail address. There's two domains that I believe I found (I'm behind a filter right now, so I can't check)- enjoylearning.com and clanzhost.com (or clanzhosting.com, not sure). I'll be able to tell for sure once I get home. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you figure it out please post it here. I have an email address for the police dept and can forward them any info. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bstone, for making the call! and h2g2bob for reporting this. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anything happend or was there a report , or did anything unusal happend at the school. Rio de oro (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the domain registrants for the proxies behind the IP. So now, we wait and see. And for those interested, the domains I found behind the IP are enjoylearning.info and clanzhost.com, so if you find any more, please let me know, so I can contact them as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did anyone contact the school? They should investigate on their end, in case someone made the threat from inside the school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for a moment that the police informed them, but I can't WP:V that. Bstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news! I got the logs for one of the proxies, and I'm looking at them right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, from the logs, there's an IP address I'm currently investigating. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your email just now and am logging in on Lyn's laptop! Checkuser says that's a direct match for user agent, tho' it's a reasonably popular one - Alison ^❤ 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's a new proposal at Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence - intended to avoid having to cover similar ground repeatedly at noticeboards - take a look if you're interested - thoughts welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I got a call from Det. McClendon from the Plano Police Dept today. We went over the fact of the case, the threat, etc. He has stated his interest in working with us in order to get him and his department information which would lead to the identity of whomever issued this threat, but indicated he is not the most technical. I said we're a bunch of geeks who would likely want to help and I see above that Nwwaew and perhaps others have begun to work on this. I am waiting for a call back from him as we got disconnected (my phone died), but I thought I'd update you all. Bstone (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mailed Bstone with what I have so far. It's not much, but it's worth taking a look. I haven't heard from the other proxy yet; I'll probably re-email them later on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded it to the email I have for the Plano Police Dept. Thanks for the digging, tho the country where it seems to have come from (Netherlands) is a bit out of the jurisdiction of the TX police. Are we sure it's from Amsterdam? Bstone (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the only IP that accessed the edit page for the high school. From that proxy, at least- theres another proxy that I'm still waiting for a reply from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talked to the detective again. Sent him all of the information you sent me and also included a link to this discussion. He thanked us for our hard work and said to always report incidents such as this as the police will always been interested in investigation a threat of violence. He asked that we do our best with the logs and investigate where this came from if it seems Amsterdam is not the location. Something in the US would be better, of course, as the NL is a tad bit outside the jurisdiction of the Plano police. In any case, he thanked us very much for our assistance. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the guy that posted the threat lives in Holland(aka Netherlands) do we need to phone The Hague , or INTERPOL. My opinion we need to phone interpol because its an international incident. PLANO PD cant just cross international boundaries like that. So, we need to file an Internet Crime form. Its on some web site called IC3 or something like that I'm sure of. Also, someone needs to send a email to the FBI , or if anyone can type in DUTCH alert the Dutch Police(or their own FBI ASAP) if the this guy is from the Netherlands.--Rio de oro (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will email Det McClendon and ask if he would like us to fill out the complaint form here. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragging INTERPOL into this strikes me as a bit of an overreaction at this point. It was pretty obviously not a credible threat. All you're doing now is trying to teach this guy a lesson. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A lesson's one thing though... all it takes is one vandalism edit saying "I'm so excited to kill them all on 3/20/2008" etc. that actually does happen for all the shit to hit the fan. Jmlk17 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was some INTERPOL thing ; because it crosed COUNTIRES borders.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors,[1] and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with.[2][3] I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess.(link removed) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

removed link above (that was added in good faith) per WP:PROBLEMLINKS -- Jim Butler (t) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has added these to the spam blacklist. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag; Natalie Erin has made a lot of progress at Amanda Baggs, but the situation continues at Donna Williams (author) and doesn't show any signs of letting up. BLP, COI, NPA, Civil, AGF; you name it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will an admin please help with the ongoing disruption from Appto (talk · contribs), who is removing talk page posts,[5] removing warnings from his/her talk page, and all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm back from lunch now and can probably work on this. I'm not sure is Appto really gets it, but if this continues s/he should probably be blocked, although I would appreciate some other opinions about this. Natalie (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him/her for more than a day now, explaining policy and guidelines to no avail. Time consuming just to keep the BLP violations off the talk pages, and reinstated deleted text from talk. Either s/he can't understand, or won't understand. Unclear yet if Appto and Bettwice are the same editor. S/he has posted one reliable source to Donna Williams, which I would incorporate into the article if I could ever get a break from the disruptive editing. Timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've warned and have their contribs page in my background. Next violation is a block. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Appto and Bettwice are the same person. Bettwice has self identified as John Best, a rather aggressive figure in the anti-vaccination community and the writer of the Hating Autism blog. That user's writing style up until the self identification were also consistent with Best. Appto, on the other hand, writes in a very different style and in my experience, Best has a hard time moderating his own choice of words, so I find it doubtful that Appto is Best, yet somehow remaining mostly calm through this entire thing. The post linked above, where Best identifies himself, is a pretty typical example of his conversational style. Honestly, we could probably block the Bettwice account now, as I sincerely doubt it won't be disruptive, but I'm more than happy to give people enough rope to hand themselves, as the saying goes. Appto, on the other hand, seems somewhat reasonable, just laboring under a misimpression of how Wikipedia works. The conversation is continuing on the talk page, so perhaps it will be fruitful in some way. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because somewhere in all the mess of the last 24 hours, I thought Seidel accused Appto of being John Best. Well, the 12-hour break is welcome so I can get something done around here. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he did, because both accounts were linking to Best's blog. John West has also identified himself as Bettwice on his blog, so I think that ID, at least, is pretty airtight. Natalie (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I identified Best when he posted under an IP address, which I recognized from another (non-WP) context. I apologize for the rules violation and will not do it again. - DaveSeidel (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block for Appto for Disruptive editing → [6][7], a continuation of yesterdays removals and alteringof comments[8][9][10]--Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Bettwice33 (talk · contribs) for this, which is a copy-paste from his blog and contains various personal attacks, following several stern warnings. I have also removed the blog post from the talk page, as it is either a copy of discussion here or personal attacks. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Appto being John Best; he has a history of being capable of writing in a number of different styles. He has even acted as a female on a forum at one time. The man is obsessed with the issue of Amanda Baggs and anyone who supports her - including Dave Seidel - and is capable of anything. The only way to be certain is to do a checkuser between Appto and Bettwice33. If there isn't a match, there may at least be some evidence to meat puppetry if not sock puppetry. GetDumb 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Dumb is right. He must be reading Wrong Planet, because the subject was indeed mentioned that User:Bettwice33 was playing a woman on a forum (it was Autism Speaks by the way) and further even used it to threaten someone privately. I myself have been the victim of this man's erratic and psychotic behaviour. It is not beyond reason that User:Appto is a sock puppet of User:Bettwice33. He has been irrationally unhinged by the publicity Amanda has received because he is convinced that she is not Autistic. His so called "million sources" do not exist beyond information from two people who claim to know her and do not. User:Bettwice33 is trying to involve WP in his personal war against Autistic Spectrum Disorders - all because he has been driven to meglomania by the fact that his son is Autistic and he can't handle it. Banning him is the best course of action against this person, and his IP should be blocked as well if it hasn't already. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read two posts up, Fenric - the account has been blocked indefinitely. My experience with John Best online has been quite different - although he may claim whatever he wants about his identity, I've found that anything he's typing deteriorates into the same spiel after about three posts or so, and thus it seems unlikely that Appto is John Best keeping up a charade for an extended period of time. It wouldn't surprise me at all, however, if the two were confederates.Natalie (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see that. Sorry if I confused you. I was pushing for the check user and the IP block. With respect, my experience with Best goes a long way back, and he can (if he wants to) maintain such a charade. I've seen it. But it is also possible that User:Appto is a meat puppet rather than a sock puppet I agree. Either way - a check user would certainly resolve that matter once and for all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ay. I didn't realize what all I had walked in to; before I add it, can I get some extra eyes on the proposed text I've added to the talk page of Donna Williams (author), based on the one reliable source that came out of all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, and given that I understand that Donna has disputed the content of the interview and the context of it, it's reliability is questionable. The fact that it's more than ten years old also doesn't help. I think the source needs back up. By itself it may be okay but because it's being disputed places a cloud over even using the thing. GetDumb 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're questioning the reliability of an Australian Broadcasting Interview of Fred Volkmar, the leading autism authority in the United States? I agree that it needs to be used very conservatively because of its age, but I'm unclear on what basis in policy the source can be ignored ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning if it's his current opinion, or his opinion from 1996. If it's current (and this should be mentioned) then it's not a problem. But if the opinion is as old as the interview then the rejection of the opinion by Donna Williams take precedence. Volkmar should be pursued for a current opinion that being the case. I wouldn't be surprised if it is different. GetDumb 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note on Bettwice33, he has made a number of what I would consider slanderous remarks against Wikipedia on his blog in relation to this issue. FYI guys and girls. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of user using his User space to CANVASS for AfD warring

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has apparently heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Wikipedia can be kept, even going so far as to say that policy should not be followed ([11]) and saying that "policy is not binding" ([12]). He's created User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight and linked to it from his User page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We really need to have a word with Kmweber. The RFA opposes are in good faith, but now it looks like he's picking a fight. Will ^(talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did this administrator put out a call for on-wiki disruption? Link? Lawrence § t/e 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called for "disruption" and its on WikiEn-l. I don't think there is a problem with putting a list of AfDs you're interested in on a user subpage, and if this wasn't Kurt with his history at RfAs there wouldn't be an AN/I thread about it. Avruch ^T 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw Corvus write, "heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Wikipedia can be kept", and that did not sound good. But thats why I asked. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been actively discussed on Wikien-L for a couple of days now. This is entirely appropriate - canvassing for a particular AFD issue is questionable, but calling attention to process issues writ wider is completely legitimate community activity. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: Kmweber is pretty much exactly the wrong person to be encouraging to use Wikipedia as a personal battleground regarding deletion policy, given that he -- literally -- believes everything, without except, belongs on Wikipedia. Witness this and his arguments here (like this claim, this claim, and this claim. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I claim no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Kurt reads wikien-l and will use it as a launching point to go off and be Kurt - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Whats wrong here? It looks like he may be taking WP:IAR a bit far, but policy is not the end all solution to everything here, and if it gets in the way of a constructive project then go around it. And as for the links to AfD's, I know a ton of users who have those, just a list to watch, and it is not canvasing if it is in his own userspace. Tiptoety ^talk 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's call for AfD warring is at [13] and following discussions on that thread name. This has nothing to do with Kurt Weber's history on AfDs, I don't even know what his history is on the matter. It wouldn't have been an issue if David Gerard hadn't begunt his campaing and Kurt hadn't followed along. What would you call Kurt's vote to keep articles on non-notable bands which violate a LONG-standing guideline at WP:BAND except trying to turn AfD into a battlefield to keep garbage? Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"AFD warring"? This is a perfect example of the problem with AFD: it's hopelessly inbred and inward-focused, with active hostility (which has even been noted in Third-Party Reliable Sources) to anyone perceived as an "outsider." AFD can not seriously be claimed to represent community opinion if its regulars are "reporting" people to ANI for pointing this out and asking people to participate in it, which I did indeed do, so help me Dawkins - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David, this is the fifth or sixth time you've referred to "Third-Party Reliable Sources" without bothering to elaborate. Which Third-Party Reliable Sources? Could it be that you're getting a bit worked up about an article in The Economist? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an article in Slate about AfD at one point? I remember it not being particularly well-written, but also not particularly flattering to WP. I think I've seen others as well, though I can't remember off the top of my head where. In any event I think it's fair to say that third party sources have criticized the deletion process on Wikipedia -- whether that criticism is valid or not is of course a different matter. --TheOtherBob 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The song remains the same: if they rightly criticize us over AFD, we should fix it, but only because there's a problem to fix; if they wrongly criticize us over AFD there's nothing to fix. This isn't the first time we've been covered, and it won't be the last time. The "public relations" issue is irrelevant since we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. There's no immediate urgency justifying the way David Gerard and others are going about things. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can chalk this up to "don't ask a question if you don't want an answer." The question may be irrelevant -- but, hey, since you asked it...

To answer your point, though, no one has said that we should change the AfD process to enhance Wikipedia's public image. Rather, the point (as I understand it) is that we're (in David's view, apparently) receiving a fair amount of outside criticism, and that we should consider the possibility that this criticism indicates that our processes aren't working as well as they might. If David is right and AfD has become so hostile to outsiders that it's become notorious...well, then it may not be working properly. That's not PR -- that's hearing criticism and taking a long, hard look at ourselves. And maybe that long, hard look will tell us that all is well (I hope it will -- I've never considered AfD to be as broken as it's made out to be here).

Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with encouraging participation in AfD, particularly with an eye towards improving things there -- so this seems much ado about nothing. --TheOtherBob 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not a call for AFD warring - if the community is concerned about the way AFD has been going of late (and I for one am, and was long before this Wikien-L thread) and we're motivated to get involved, this is entirely legitimate community process. Corvus, you may not like what we think about things right now, but please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets WP:AGF here, no policies have been broken, and no damage done to the project (not yet at least). Tiptoety ^talk 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. That an AFD regular can react like this at the prospect of the community they claim to represent actually showing up fails to demonstrate that AFD is fine and dandy and non-pathological - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no claims of representing anyone but myself. I do feel a bit of dismay when you, or anybody else for that matter, start posting calls for war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that what I actually said was (to quote the message in its entirety): "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?", I am completely at a loss to make sense of your bizarre characterisation as other than seeing yourself as defending AFD against invading forces. That the invading forces would be the community that AFD claims its mandate from seems to have completely escaped you - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing a different side or something, but as of late, AfD seems to be improving. Whenever I've nominated a questionable article, it's either accepted to be deleted due to no sources after a couple people looked, or kept after being vastly improved. Doesn't sound so bad. After reading the mailing list I don't see anything about it making it a battleground. In fact, I'm not positive what they want. To quote David: "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there." Now, what attitude he means I'd like to know, this way I'll knwo whether I'm for or against this. Wizardman 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to the general AfD attitude of deletionism that has been turning into a battleground against "outsiders" interested in real discussion. I haven't seen what Wiz has sen in an improvement, personally, in fact I think it's getting worse. ANI threads like this only add to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WEll, whether circumstances are betting better or worse, I have no idea what Kurt is trying to prove with his edits other than a point. Wizardman 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to that, closing admins are encouraged to use their best judgment. AFD is allegedly not a vote, so if Kurt is proposing things that don't have consensus, what's wrong with that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, our deletion processes suffer from a lack of sufficient participation and are often dominated by two groups; AFD regulars and the authors of particular articles. Neither are a good gauge of wider consensus, I feel, and David's attempts to encourage AFD participation are praiseworthy. Note that he has explicitly encouraged those who disagree with him to also go to AFD and participate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, getting different users to look at different AfDs is a good idea. Hopefully this will continue, since I do tend to see the same editors pop up every so often, though I do see occasional new afd users. Wizardman 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there even are "AFD regulars" shows something is seriously wrong around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is barring you from participating. Corvus cornix_talk 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If only everyone was an AfD regular. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an admitted "AfD regular", as nominator, participator, and now more recently as closer, I would be more than thrilled to see wider participation. I probably relist for consensus more than I close as either keep or delete because nobody (at least whilst looking through the older debates, seems to be chiming in. Just an observatin. Every editor, regardless of how they arrived there short of being a SPA or canvassed, IMHO, is welcome. Also, IMO, Kmweber was not canvassed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a secret that I consider the general atmosphere on AFD severely problematic and damaging to the project's internal workings, let alone its public relations. (When you get written up in The Economist, you've, ah, arrived. The people on WT:AFD who dismiss the article as merely a pissed-off deletee are just ... rather too highly focused on AFD itself.) The best possible way I can think of to get it fixed is more community involvement - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think things have settled a little but this is where I get a problem with consensus WRT deletion-minded people predominating there while others of us are making content. I sometimes wonder whatever happened to AGF, where editors have to hide stuff on their sandbox so it doesn't get speedy-deleted. Just seems to be the wrong way about it all some how (flower power, man...that's where we should be at..) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on "public relations" is grating. It has soured at least one editor and possibly more on the whole article deletion process, which is ironic given the calls for wider participation. Aren't we were supposed to be neutral and objective? Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wishing that people would participate more in AfD's is hardly "a call for AfD warring". (that was to address the David point.) As to AfD, it really does just need more people to chip in, and more people to close the debates too. I've been starting to do non-admin closures but I don't think I'd have much luck doing that to something with only one or two responses. And are AfD regulars really 'abnormal'? :):) As to Kmweber, I disagree with his position on keeping all articles, but he's allowed to list some AfDs in his userspace. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But David didn't just "wish that people would participate", he wished that people would participate and make sure that iffy articles get kept. He was requesting that like-minded individuals to participate. Corvus cornix_talk 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

At least once he stated that he also wants those who disagree with him to also edit there. I suspect David would agree with me that one of its flaws is such minimal participation that many deletion debates aren't properly representative. Additionally, he stated all these things in a neutral forum (wikien-l) frequented by those with pretty much the whole spectrum of opinions on AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of AfD, there are three kinds of articles: ones that are clearly keeps, ones that are clearly deletes, and ones that could be kept if improved. I don't see the problem with keeping an article and improving it, instead of discarding the whole thing. I've recently been involved in a contentious no-consensus deletion of an article on the grounds of its POV. The button to press to address POV isn't delete, it's the one at the top of this screen that says edit this page. If we would do more creation and editing and less destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia. The article rescue squad has the right idea.

For articles "on the bubble," could we give them a suspended sentence to allow time for improvement? And for all deletion discussions, could we emphasize the discussion over the voting? Based on deletion policy, it seems to me that the strength of the reasoning for deletion is what matters, rather than the strength of numbers. --SSBohio 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII article, AFD, and sock puppets

Hello. A short while back I started work on an article for a Famicom pirate cartridge, based off the original article User:FightingStreet had started, and another user, User:Wiki22445 nominated it for deletion. That in itself wasn't unusual. However the account holder nominated several articles in his short time here and did nothing else, and additionally as his contributions will show he vandalized the page, breaking the tags for several citations.

Additionally another account, User:Foxit22, appeared and placed a vote on the page. However the poster was completely new and hasn't posted any changes with the account since. Additionally the username of it seems to imply "fox it", a term for copyright holders to hand copyright infringing projects a cease and desists kill.

And then there's User IP:68.209.235.149, who oddly fired accusations of sock puppets under my control as the only possibility of anyone voting Keep for the article, and I'm led to suspect he might have set up some for himself. After speaking with one admin regarding what could count as notable online sources and validating those cited in the article, I posted that, and a short while afterward a user posted another comment, 68.209.235.149 claimed he was a sock puppet I was using, and then in rapid succession 4 IP only posts shouting delete appeared...the strange part about which being though is that all 4 either had no prior posts or the ones they did were entirely vandalism. Yet they suddenly speak in the same tone. There are additional factors as well, such as the user using a shield of "good faith" and posting such on the talk pages of myself and User:FightingStreet, but not practicing such as his attitude clearly shows on his own talk page.

Lastly, User:Ham Pastrami stepped in on the discussion page and pointed out he'd learned of it from someone "bemoaning its existence", which shows someone is attempting to play this situation unfairly.

I'm certain there is something going on regarding the deletion discussion for the article and disruption of said discussion, and would ask that it be investigated by an admin. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also take a look at the evidence regarding User:Kung Fu Man, as outlined in the AfD discussion. Several proxies and single-purpose accounts have appeared for both sides of the issue, as well as obvious meatpuppets by Kung Fu Man. (see AfD discussion for clear admission of this) I would call this a bad faith nomination, but then again, it looks like something everyone was in on. The majority of the discussion (not considering the sockpuppetry that took place later on) was in favor of removing the article due to issues with verifiability and notability, as outlined. As you can see, several suspicious IPs appear immediately afterwards, first following with "keep" votes, and then some single-purpose accounts opposing them with "delete" votes. The consensus before suspected sockpuppetry became involved seemed to be in favor of deleting the article, which aside from administrative action against the suspected sockpuppeteers involved, would likely be a good idea considering the dispute in following. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Following up on User:Kung Fu Man's edit, it would be a good idea to investigate some of the submissions of the suspected proxies of Kung Fu Man, namely Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) User_talk:Robert the Small (blatant single-purpose account) User_talk:Krator(blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/98.26.120.149 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/Zsabreuser (blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/206.162.204.6 (possibility of proxy)
  • Excuse me? I think if you look at my (Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153)edit history, I have little to do with the topics Kung Fu Man talks about except for a few in the Mugen article. If you look closely, I'm practically fighting with him in the M.U.G.E.N article on some of the stuff he has in that article. By the way, I do have an account, I just rarely log in with it. EvilThouther (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these accounts / IPs have edits outside of the AfD nomination. While Kung Fu Man is pleading a bad faith nomination, his side of the issue currently hosts the most suspicious accounts. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so blatantly false that I question the judgement of the submitting editor. I'd encourage someone to strike up a conversation in Dutch with Kung Fu Man, too. User:Krator (t c) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit a lot of the same articles as Kung Fu Man. Guess that makes me a sockpuppet, too? Don't be ridiculous, anony. Your bad faith accusations really make it all the more obvious that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User reported and is pending further investigation. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kung_Fu_Man Nori198 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:JuJube followed up with a threat on my talk page [[14]]. I thought this might be of interest to the case. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And this just gets more and more ridiculous. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, looking at my talk page will show KFM asking me for help. Which can only mean it's a carefully orchestrated plot to make this sockpuppet account look valid! lulz. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the entire posting history of User:Nori198 seems based around just making the report page XD Yeah this should be a hoot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving an outsider's point of view, the amount of anonymous and new users who came for that AFD was pretty interesting. I don't think they are sockpuppets, but meatpuppet, asked to come here in some forum. I suggest putting it for deletion review to get it back to AFD. The blogs are not reliable at all (had IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy or any other consumer site posted about this? No, because it is not even worth a mention). Keeping the article here is why people think video games only bloat Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure IGN and GameSpot will get around to covering it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a tracert on some of the IPs to verify whether or not any proxies were involved. We can procede with blocking if anything comes up. In the meantime, I'll be sure to put in a request for the AfD review. Nori198 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kung Fu Man has proceeded to vandalize my talk page [[15]], [[16]] and [[17]], and is likely to continue to do so as long as I revert him. Suggest temporary block if disruption continues. Nori198 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy (II)

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [162] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [163] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Connolley was involved in a content dispute with me. He still is, and it's not the only one. I have linked to a plethora of outside sources, only to be told that I was doing too much unnecessary referencing. Automatically assuming admins are in the right at all times do neither of you any favours.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, this is a rediculous interpretation of policy. If correct, a user could become exempt from being blocked by vandalising each admin' s talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Undoing the work of a disruptive user is NOT a content dispute. I see no evidence of that here. Admins, and indeed ANY editor, is within their rights to stop disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin has the right to prevent further vandalism of his/her user page(s). Bearian (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought this up on WP:AN/I ([18]). Last time you didn't get the answer you wanted; asking the same question again a week or two later is forum-shopping at best and WP:POINT at worst. You've had your feedback. Continuing to hunt for the response you want is disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly when does this:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

apply? Each of you seem to be taking Connolley's assertions at face value. I'd prefer if you had a closer look.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed in several forums by a number of uninvolved administrators. It would seem that most or all have actually reviewed the incident in question. Continuing to push the same issue in different forums in hopes of getting a different answer is disruptive and inappropriate and is highly unlikely to have the effect you desire. If there is a major issue with abuse of admin tools, consider WP:RfC, which is the normal mechanism for dealing with such things. If you continue to forum-shop this in inappropriate venues, you'll end up being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the comments above (e.g. those relating to vandalism of user pages) tell me that, far from having "...actually reviewed the incident in question.", they haven't the slightest clue of the what the dispute concerns. I don't understand your references to "different forums", I've brought the issue to the attention of admins here and nowhere else. I refer you to the excerpt of blocking policy above. How can it not concern an administrator with whom I am still involved in a content dispute with? (See Shell to Sea.)

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight, King Dedede et al now that the TV 2 case is closed

Meta Knight and King Dedede have already been resurrected without discussion now that the TV 2 case is closed; I have restored the redirects. So, what's the plan to keep throw-away accounts users like User:Yair rand from running amok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how his is a throw-away account given he's been doing some contributor work here (and I do have to add that it wouldn't be difficult to make either character's pages into proper articles rather than condensed sections on a character list). Just my thoughts on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted that bit. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 for context. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed the arbitrators and stop edit-warring on these articles then "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." Catchpole (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, IPs and established editors (sans TTN) are continuing the edit-warring. The problem is, the IPs and newbies restoring the articles cannot effectively be punished, even with the arbcom prohibition. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that new discussions need to take place on Talk:Meta Knight, Talk:King Dedede, and Talk:List of Kirby characters, rather than revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Colonel Warden has resurrected the articles again without discussion. So the difference that the RfAR has made is .... once again, fuck all. Black Kite 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Unresurrected per Black Kite — although I had not checked back here when I did it. Such resurrections need to be discussed prior to their performance; this the spirit of the case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  And the articles are again on the verge to "edit-wars". Jack and me reverted twice to the redirects with the words "restoring redirect again per prior concensus on talk page; take it to talk, people", but an IP is already openly declaring "I heard you. I'm just ignoring it." – sgeureka ^t•c 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd revert, based on the lovely nuggets of conversation such as "I heard you, I'm just ignoring it." and "TTN has been punished by Arbcom for his actions and now we undo the havoc that he wrought." As the AC have found, all sides in the conflict have been uncivil, but what I've seen is that the deletionists and the mergists are the lesser of the two evils. What I suggest is a unified discussion on the character list, stating what is disputed (notability and plot guideline compliance) and what is desired (real-world content creation, or merging into the list). Will ^(talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I realise a discussion may have taken place, but I'm finding it hard to find it, let alone a consensus to merge. Will ^(talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherine de Burgh redux

If you are lacking in sources of amusement you might want to glance at this page since it was restored a day or so ago. She seems to be having some sort of argument with her sisters. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. No disruption, no abuse, nothing administrators can act upon. Just a humorous userpage. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it at least be identified per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you like your bureaucracy to cross every t and dot every i then yes. But if no foul == no harm, then there's no problem and we can do other things. Drink cocoa or write an encyclopedia or clear a backlog or something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is there really no policy about a satirical userpage masquerading as an article? Avruch ^T 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now some horrid, nasty person wants to delete the heirloom photographs I have uploaded for posterity [19] I despair, I am undone. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay

Resolved

 – PER WP:BOLD WP:NOT#CENSORED Nothing to see here -- move along

Can someone please explain how this user page is not polemical and a violation of WP:USERPAGE. I have tried to have it MFD'd once before yet was howled down and blocked for doing so. I still do not see how this helps create an environment of encyclopedia building. Prester John (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is completely against WP:UP policy. It's completely offensive, and potentially disruptive if the user wishes to edit regularly. Be WP:BOLD and delete on sight. If anything, I'll nominate it for WP:MFD if there is a problem. I personally am not offended, however WP:SOAP. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that a MFD exists [20]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christopher Mann McKay, Prester John nominated this, 3 months ago. That discussion was speedy closed as keep and Prester John was blocked for point disruptions. Metros (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What were the other cases of point disruption besides the MFD? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall the surrounding context right now. But if you're interested, explore his edits and the history of his talk page for early December 2007 to see what else was up. Metros (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prester John's userpage was MfD'd (I won't go into why, don't want to rehash, but there was ample cause, at least in the opinion of many involved). In response, he MfD'd quite a number of the uerspages of people who had raised the concerns about his userpage. Completely POINTy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The only thing that troubles me is how several of the userss said it wasn't illegal to burn the flag. I'm not entirely sure that's the issue, or was the issue. And if it was, it's erroneous. However, wikipolicy is still wikipolicy. And according to user page policy, anything that is likely to cause widespread offense is deemed inappropriate. Just my two cents..three or four. I'd advocate asking the user first to remove it though. That would be the better approach. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at the previous discussion, the page looked like this. The flag was just a smaller part of the user page. Also note that the basic reason for deletion was that it, according to Prester John, displayed the flag which is an illegal act (which is not true). It's just like his calling WebHamster's image child pornography without any factual basis or truth. Metros (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that discussion was erroneously snuffed out after 20 minutes and 4 votes. I believe it was kept in error and warrants input from the wider community. The "keep" votes in that archive never detailed 'how' this page is in line with WP:USERPAGE and why this does not qualify as a "polemic" statement. Prester John (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets please not start this all over again, I see no disruption to the project (other than this thread) , and no violation of WP:USERPAGE, if you dont like it, then dont look at it. Tiptoety ^talk 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the userpage should go right now; it is a clear violation of policy, deliberately meant to provoke and insult. The WebHamster incident is in no way relevant. IronDuke 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then are we going to remove the image from this userpage as well? Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost curious if PJ will be complaining about every user page that may so offend his overly strict definitions? At least he hasn't started forum/admin shopping about this bit yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all quite amusing given the previous battles over his own polemical userpages and userboxes in times past. Orderinchaos 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not polemical because it is not an argument "written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach". In this case, the argument is contained in a visual representation of an activity which the United States Supreme Court has ruled is a valid expression of free speech, in Texas v. Johnson. The issue as far as Wikipedia is whether it prevents cooperative editing, and that is a subjective test. The fact that you find it offensive is neither here nor there; you are not compelled to view that user page, and the overall impression I get is that you continue to make these points as retaliation to the deletion of your own user page some months ago. I suggest you move on and edit some articles, if that's what you're really here for. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all look at the relevant part of user page policy [[21]]. And I quote from the policy; "There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images". Do you guys really believe that this image does not bring the project into disrepute? If you honestly do believe it, would you hold onto this principle if I include on my userpage a "Koran being flushed down the toilet" picture? Prester John (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Either is perfectly legal; how would perfectly legal behaviour "bring the project into disrepute"? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

@Tiptoey: absolutely remove it. Political userboxes are an inherently bad idea anyway, but if we have them, let's not allow (literally) inflammatory ones. Rod is right that the test here can only be subjective. I personally find it quite offensive. IronDuke 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This violates the WP:Soap portion of WP:USERPAGE. It's a no-brainer, I think. IronDuke 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Then I suggest you send it to MfD to assess community consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if it's already been sort of deleted. I'm now very confused. See: [22]. Someone clue me in? IronDuke 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The deleted image was hosted here; the one on the user page in question is on Commons. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But the link to the user page image, when I try to edit it, tells me I'm recreating it. Sorry if I'm being dense, appreciate the help. IronDuke 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. If you click on the image on the above user page, it takes you to commons, where the image was moved from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would happen if somebody decided to this is literarily? The username was "BurningtheAmerianFlag!!!". The username would be reported to UAA and then instantly blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the difference is that the username would show up in every edit, whereas the image is only on the userpage, which people are not forced to visit. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"People are not forced to visit" it is not a valid argument for allowing it. That would open the door to pretty much any image, as long as it wasn't a copyvio. IronDuke 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So? WP isn't a soapbox. but WP isn't censored. Seems to me there is a potential conflict there serving those two goals. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why it should go to MfD. This debate is obviously going nowhere. Clearly nobody is keen on deleting the image right now, and it's an issue where consensus should be sought, including, if necessary, clarification of policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"bring the project into disrepute" - Not at all. WP:SOAPBOX - so far-fetched, it's laughable. And offensive is the most objective word--for me seeing a Wikipedia userpage displaying the American flag not burning is extremely offensive because it is showing that user is proud of a country that is directly responsible more injustice than any single nation on earth. This effort to tell me how large my images can be on my userpage is unnecessary censorship.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People love to invoke WP:CENSOR without appearing to have read it. This policy guideline is explicit in describing how it is applicable to wikipedia "Articles" only. WP:CENSOR does not apply to userpages. Let us read from the policy; "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)" User pages are not protected by these rules and are kept with the will of the community. For McKay to justify his refusal to remove this image as; "the American flag not burning is extremely offensive", is so moronic that it defies belief. Prester John (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Nevermind that then.... I just don't understand what the issues is: the size of the image, or the image itself?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We should all be aware of Prester John's biases/opinions/beliefs, and his angle on this issue should be clear (PJ, let's not hash that out, I'm just making clear what is a visible thread in what you've already said). I don't agree. I do not consider this image to be intentionally or fundamentally offensive - offensive to some (e.g. PJ), but not offensive prima facie (and certainly not illegal). Content that is by its nature questionable, illegal, or restricted to certain viewership should not be displayed on userpages - that issue is certainly not universally agreed upon, but if I had a public domain HD (1080p) picture of a penis and stuck it on my userpage, I think I'd get in trouble. Even though this is not comparable to your image, it is still problematic on similar grounds - WP:USER makes it clear that the purpose of userpages is to facilitate building the encyclopedia. While we are given great latitude (using that picture in a userbox, for example), there still has to be a clear indication that your userpage is primarily or deliberately designed to benefit/build the project in some way or another. Up until recently it has, but then you changed it to just this image, which doesn't seem to fit the bill anymore. OH and a note to Prester John: please refrain from making personal attacks like calling people "moronic" - it's not necessary, you can make your point without further inflaming (no pun intended) the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I agree this should go to MfD. There's no clear policy here, and no consensus will be gained here that matters. It's a policy dispute, and should be settled officially. For the record, I think making any kind of political statement on here with your user page is kind of silly (including userboxes), but it doesn't bother me. I think it's up to wikipedia to make an official policy, though, on what's offensive. Four years ago, we would have been talking about banning people with "This user listens to the Dixie Chicks" userboxes. Redrocket (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be opening up a hornet's nest - many of our users are not from the same geographical regions or political viewpoints and as such it is likely impossible to satisfy everybody. There's a smell of WP:POINT lingering over all this, anyway. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup

I just reverted a gloating message from Christopher Mann McKay on Prester John's talk page (who is currently blocked over an unrelated issue), in which he claimed "You get to show your support for this unmoral horrible country and I get to show my hate for it--that is how Wikipedia works--get used it to buddy :) :)" Trolling aside, I reckon that statement confirms that Christopher Mann McKay's user page is a blatant case of disruptive soapboxing. Hesperian 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Short of a policy that such is forbidden, though (a quick scan of many people's userpages reveals userboxes or statements which love or hate something that is likely to be controversial to somebody or other) I think MfDs are a better venue to resolve such. Prester himself has been no stranger to such controversy in times past, with blatantly offensive userboxes and the like. A couple of his pages got deleted or redirected at MfD, and in recent weeks he's been making something of a point of bringing any user page which disagrees with his own opinions to AN/I - some of which have subsequently been kept at MfD. As they were previously not issues, and the only reason we're discussing them is their raising here, I tend to agree with the "nothing to see here, move along" closure of this debate. Agree that the gloating merits a block (which I note has been issued) for personal attacks... there's simply no room for that kind of conduct here. Orderinchaos 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for another indef-blocked editor harassing me and SchuminWeb

I now ask the community to look at Mickylynch101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Markanthony101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as confirmed by CheckUser.

Besides the accounts, he continually comes back using anonymous IP addresses, despite rangeblocks, such as these recent attacks here, here, and even in his unblock request.

I'm tired of putting up with this user, and I feel he's exhausted our patience. Would the Community please take a look, and consider a ban? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

endorsed- This user has promised further disruption, has been an absolute pest on WP and has already resulted in numerous time-wasting checkuser requests - Alison ^❤ 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nwwaew, It may be helpful for you to read the essay on Friday's user page. It gives some very valuable tips on how to due with these types of users. If I was in your position, I would just leave the vandal alone, as he will soon become board and leave you alone. Also, if I may add, posting messages here is just showing the vandal that he can get to you and will keep it up. I suggest emailing an admin instead. Let them take care of the issue for you. Hope this helps. Blessings Thright (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

However, Nnwaew is asking for a community ban, which would allow us to block him on sight, thus balancing out the necessary post here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup - WP:RBI is the order of the day - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ostracision Ugh. and I thought BlackStarRock was bad... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent one, just confirmed by Alison: [23]. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obnoxious and persistent, a bad combination. Therefore, ban. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of him and all his nefarious socks — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possible one here, I'm waiting for confirmation from a CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandstein

I need any and all administrator input on the actions of User:Sandstein against me. Most of the discussion is on his user talk page. It all rests on his misunderstanding changes made to the Talk:Lake of Gruyère page by User:Docu who did not understand the wiki guidelines of being able to enter in line item comments (as I did). I also followed up with an edit to ensure his signature to the line items so that no confusion would occur.

Sandstein is threatening me, even after being addressed by another admin (User:Ezhiki), as seen on Sandstein's talk page. I would like further input from other admins as to clarity in this matter.

Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please come down from the Reichstag and take off the spider-man suit. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Cabal strikes again! KnightLago (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. And the cabal will ban you if you so much as suggest otherwise. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Rarelibra (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein's judgment is pretty sound. The edit he asked you about (which you never directly addressed yourself) does appear to be you editing the meaning of Docu's comment. If your undo was a mistake, you should've said so. If you in-line someone elses comments and they remove it, you should respect that and not do it again. You don't have an inalienable right to interleave your own views with the views already expressed by someone else - many, including me, find that annoying. Otherwise, this is a tempest in a teapot. You weren't blocked, you were warned not to repeat prior bad behavior that seemed to connect with the edit Sandstein posted 4-odd times in the discussion on his talkpage. Avruch ^T 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggest thing for me is, I don't take kindly to being threatened. And it is quite clear that he threatened me - twice. All over something that was within my right - whether or not the person liked the fact that I interwove the comments like I did (and like you stated annoyed you)... but is covered in wiki guidelines. His whole beef was about reverting the summation comments that were unjustified after I restored my interwoven comments. But again - I don't take to being threatened if I am not breaking any rules. The edit he posted 4-odd times is his misunderstanding the whole situation. Rarelibra (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the situation that sparked this, no one was blocked, injured, maimed or killed. Let's keep things in perspective and try to find common ground instead of looking for things to argue about (this is meant as a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular here). Let's forget arguing about whether you did or didn't observe the talk page guidelines, and who threatened who. Let's just all agree that we'll observe the talk page guidelines going forward, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One wonders why we don't have a guideline as Wikipedia:Mummy, the nasty man shouted at me!. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Aziz1005

Hello! I'm not sure why were Aziz1005 blocked. He is very useful user in English edition of Wikipedia and Arabic edtion of Wikipedia. I haven't found a checkuser page for him. Is there a valid reason for this action? Please don't lose Wikipedia's users!--OsamaK 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined block request it was because of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be at least a minimal effort to demonstrate that accusation, instead of merely stating it? Thanks. -- 128.120.63.210 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the declined request, a WP:RFCU was performed in conjunction with edit examination. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even without checkuser request? Anyways.. Be more fixable. English Wikipedia has too many users and you don't care about your user (Maybe). But, remember that your actions in English Wikipedia doing reactions in Arabic Wikipedia. Users who leave English Wikipedia will leave Arabic edtion too!--OsamaK 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing talk pages for survey

Resolved

Bestchai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi xxxxxx. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found http://michael.cs.washington.edu/~wiki/exp/index.cgi . Thank you! Bestchai (talk)

Seems there is some canvassing for a barnstars survey by the user, Bestchai.--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is this a violation of policy? Should I not post this message on any more user talk pages? This is a pilot study for a class I'm taking. I've posted this message on 23 user talk pages, and am not planning on posting more than 5 more perhaps. Bestchai (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation of policy, please take a look at WP:CANVASS, along with this. Tiptoety ^talk 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to post it once at some central spot, such as the Village Pump, and link to the page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted a controlled turnout as this is meant to be a small pilot study. I won't post any more, and will use the Village Pump in the future. Thanks. Bestchai (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression WP:CANVASS related to violations which impacted editing or voting or other community processes on Wikipedia, rather than what is probably better described as a mass invite which does not itself impact upon Wikipedia. This doesn't fall under any of the five categories of "Types of canvassing" in the above document. Orderinchaos 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not canvassing and should not be treated as such. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not disruptive, but...

I didn't really see the need to put this on the sockpuppetry noticeboard, as it's not disruptive, but probably warrants further investigation.

Earlier today, a number of different accounts began editing Grime (music). All of these edits were constructive, but seemed very similar. When I probed further, I found that all of these accounts (listed below) had been created at roughly the same time in January and had (1) edited much the same material and (2) done it at roughly the same time. I contacted these accounts on their respective talk pages, with a message similar to this one:

I noticed that you and several other editors (Marissa22 (talk · contribs), Leorga (talk · contribs), and Eduhkay (talk · contribs)) edit in a very similar manner on the Grime (music) article. None of these edits are disruptive or violate Wikipedia policy that I know of, but they do come from accounts that seem very similar. All were created during a very short period of time (see [24], [25], [26], and [27]), and have edited around the same times ever since. All have edited Grime (music), three have edited Cuban hip hop, and two have edited Reggaeton. I wonder if these accounts may be used by one person, because of the similarities I have noticed. Please respond if I am in error or if you have any comments. --Kakofonous (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of users

• Frazydmd (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Eduhkay‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Leorga‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Marissa22 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Daedakidd‎ (talk · contribs · count · logs)
• Cohenh (talk · contribs · count · logs)

I did not receive any responses, but, a couple hours after I had last edited Grime (music), another account with a similar edit history to the others edited the article. The problem is that all the contributions of all the accounts seem to be in good faith. Suggestions? Somewhere else I should move this thread? --Kakofonous (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this looks odd, but if the edits are constructive, there's not really a problem to be dealt with. Unless and until the accounts start editing disruptively, this isn't an issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem odd. A week ago something similar, but on a larger scale happened on the Tanzanian hip hop article. 20/30 new(ish, they were mostly about a month old, with most having no more than 20 previous edits) editors added to the article in 1-3 edits each, and in two days of almost constant edits it went from being a redirect to being 43,000 bytes long. While the article doesn't seem bad(perhaps a tad spammish) is still seems strange to me. I brought it up here, and recieved a similar response to what i expected - edits are fine, therefore not a problem. However, with this too, i wonder if its some set of class projects or soemthing.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Class projects was my guess. We seem to have had a rash of students recently on the most obscure topics. Orderinchaos 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay #2

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christopher_Mann_McKay&curid=11186532&diff=197869413&oldid=197858005

"This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" -- From User:Christopher Mann McKay. Reverted once on the basis of civility, WP:UP, personal attacks, divisiveness, inflammatory, etc. Anyone else want to have a go? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:06, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted his undo. Pretty much a clear case of WP:DICK. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Disruptive editing including trolling, abuse, incivility, you name it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. I reverted some of his trolling at Prester John's talk page a little while ago too. Clearly no interest in collaborating on an online encyclopedia. Hesperian 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if there is no problem with this users' contributions, it may be more appropriate to simply withdraw the privilege of having a user page, by deleting and protecting it. Hesperian 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That would not deal with his general attitude, which is amply demonstrated elsewhere than on his user page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support Hesperian's proposal. All it would involve is deleting and protecting his user page, and would seem to deal with the specific disruption. Orderinchaos 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed the image and caption from his user page since it's now obvious to me he was only using it to goad other editors, and that cannot be acceptable. I was prepared to cut him some slack last night but I've run out of patience with him. We just don't need people like that here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User is requesting an unblock. PS. This seems like common sense, but for those users who cry policy when getting blocked for such reasons, I made an addition: WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page? - [28]: "Statements that encourage violence against any person or group." Equazcion •✗/C • 04:05, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Careful with that. Make your wording specific and narrow, otherwise we'll go through a TON of problems with every user who feels that one side or another in a conflict should 'resist', be it Hizbullah or Tibet. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it to "Statements that specifically encourage violent acts against any person or group". That should include murder etc. but not support of questionable regimes or organizations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:23, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I believe the block should be shortened to either 72 hours or one week, based on his general lack of prior form (one previous block in December) and his generally helpful edits to Californian topics - indefinite seems a bit extreme and people do get a bit silly in polemical arguments. This appears to be a relatively isolated incident and he should realise that the community does not approve of such conduct, but if he sticks to helpful edits then no further attention need be paid. 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, seems it's been resolved. Black Kite unblocked him after extracting a promise the stupidity would cease. Orderinchaos 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence does not advocate violence towards Americans in any way, shape, or form. 68.101.199.103 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder is violence. If you say it's good if people die via murder, you are advocating violence. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User:Mackan79 apparently WordBomb sockpuppet

For the record, Mackan79 has chosen to do what no editor should have to do - that is, to prove his innocence. Alison has confirmed Mackan's real life identity, and can now categorically state that Mackan79 is not Judd Bagley, and thus is also not a sock of WordBomb. Since GWH has not edited in a couple of hours, it is likely he has yet to see Alison's post, and he will hopefully come to his senses and post the necessary (and hopefully fulsome and contrite) apology. However, I see no reason that Mackan79 should have to wait to have his innocence recorded publicly here, where he was falsely accused of being Judd Bagley. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is as clear-cut a case as any of the "Express the 'wrong' opinion, get blocked as a sock" problem that has plagued this case. —Random832 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received private assurances from Alison and an arbcom member that the evidence they have is pretty complete and unambiguous on the point of Mackan79 being another and unrelated person. I goofed, and have apologized on Mackan79's talk page.

On the issue of "express wrong opinion, get blocked" - There have been probably thirty or forty editors (possibly more, I'm not counting) I have seen comment or contribute similar opinions on the arbcom case or community block. Several have criticized me in some way or another. I have never had any reason to believe that any of those people were sockpuppets of anyone, with two exceptions, which I had been running by checkusers and arbcom for followup. I don't see how one could try to change the outcome of a massive community consensus by any action against one of forty people, nor did I particularly object to the wording Mackan79 used in arguing with me. Had it not apparently completely coincidentally closely matched language Judd used I would not have taken any action whatsoever. I see how it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, but it really wasn't. If I had tried malignly to deflect the debate bluntly in that manner it would have been totally ineffective, in addition to an abuse of power. If anything, and I was aware of this before I acted, the incident was likely to upset and embolden the anti-MM coalition.

It clearly would in retrospect have been better to hand this evidence to Arbcom and let them sort out what was going on. I have done so with other concerns - this one at the time seemed unambiguous, though that was looking back on it an error in judgement. But I couldn't have changed the overall debate through this action, and I didn't intend to or try to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Niranjandeshmukh

Background: Let me first admit that I had a small fight with this user few days back. Matter was quickly settled with an advise to me and warning to this user. History rests here.
Issue:Later, while working on my native city's page - Nagpur, on which I am working very very hard for past 2 months, I happened to land on page Katol which is of nearby town. Unfortunately, I found a few images which I thought are copyright violations. These images were uploaded by my not-so-friendly friend. I marked them for speedy deletion, with original source specified, but later user:mecu said they may not be so. See the discussion on our talk pages. After little more discussion, mecu pointed that I mark them at WP:PUI, which I did. A bot and me left message on talk page of Niranjandeshmukh saying please clarify. No images have been ever deleted. All well till now....
Suddenly today - very abusive response came from User: Niranjandeshmukh and later I found this image - check the comments column on this image page. I take this as a very very offensive comment against me. This user has been warned once. I am in no mood of responding to these A-rated comments and so did not demand an apology to forgive him. Instead directly reporting him here for second time. gppande «talk» 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see other incidents being replied quickly by admins. Am I invisible? gppande «talk» 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given Niranjandeshmukh (talk · contribs) a final warning for personal attacks. If he does it again, then blocks are in order. However, your spat with him a few days ago is obviously still a sore point and nominating his uploads for deletion is whacking an already buzzing hive. You might want to disengage from the user for a while. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. Actually this image was not nominated and deleted by me. I had nominated 3 other images still present on Katol. This image was removed by some bot for lack of licensing information. However, today I noticed the image is again uploaded with this horrible comment. I would certainly want to get that comment removed. gppande «talk» 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what may have gone before, that image summary needs to be edited.DGG (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My impulse is to delete the whole thing and then re-upload the image, but can I then declare the image public domain per the original uploader? The summary is OK, as it stands, but the upload log still has the personal attack - which deleting should fix, because the replacement image would have a new log, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do the needful as I have been told to stay away from Niranjandeshmukh. If I nominate it for deletion it would incite him again. gppande «talk» 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in that it's not worthwhile to continue to engage this user. The image is acceptable under our policies, except for the upload log, which is being fixed. As I advised last week, I'd let it go. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted and reuploaded the image, removing the personal attack from the upload log. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ultraexactzz gppande «talk» 14:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested

Can someone please unblock User:Christopher Mann McKay with an unblock summary of "user has agreed not to repeat tendentious behaviour"? I have agreed the conditions with him, and posted to his page, but for some reason the webfilter here at college won't let me load Special:Ipblocklist. Thanks. Black Kite 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd normally say we should wait for input from the blocking admin, but it appears there's a pretty strong consensus to unblock given such an agreement. Went ahead and fulfilled the request on your behalf, pending any new developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin also did say "If some other admin wants to stick their neck out for you, on their head be it." So on my head be it :) Edit: Ah, I now see that this was the declining admin, not the blocking one, so I have contacted the blocking admin as well. Black Kite 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really object to this unblocking. Perhaps indef was too long but it seemed to me that having reached an impasse on WP:ANI over the use of that image, he was then upping the stakes by not only taunting User:Prester John (for whose stance I have equally little tolerance), but also adding an even more offensive caption to the original image. However, CMM seems to have realised that this sort of behaviour is not going to go down too well. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl: Opinions welcome

Is this disgusting, racist link on this user's user page acceptable in Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATharkunColl&diff=197826917&oldid=197826732 Bill Reid | Talk 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I have removed it and warned the user. Black Kite 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Further: I had to remove the link three times and threaten a block before TharkunColl stopped reverting it. He then posted on the page instructing people to look back through the page history to find the link. I have therefore wasted more of my time deleting all the revisions containing the link, and am very close to blocking merely for disruption. However, given this user's unwillingness to stop editing tendentiously (the extensive block log, this particular episode, and the image on his userpage being typical), I wonder whether we are approaching the point at which community patience runs out? Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, what's that sockpuppetry show, with this apparent "fan club" of TharkunColl involving ShieldDane (talk · contribs), Trynaa (talk · contribs) etc.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not racist to express an opinion about an ideology. I have now removed all reference to the link on my user page. I was under the impression that user pages were precisely the place for one's own opinions - apologies if I have been under some sort of misapprehension about that. TharkunColl (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the alleged sockpuppetry? Rudget. 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no suckpuppetry. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) TharkunColl's very lucky a more block-happy admin wasn't around. I was watching the whole thing and waiting to see how far it'd go. He received a two-week block for similar anti-Muslim misdemeanors a little while ago. Having said that, since I think TharkunColl may interpret the community's distaste as an attack on his freedom, maybe it'd help if it was explained to him why such things are unacceptable in wikipedia policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has no place for racists. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Once more we see an example of a mindless, knee-jerk reaction. Stifle all debate by shouting "racist". Criticism of Islam is not racist, for the patently obvious reason that Islam is not a race. Incidentally, I just happened to notice that you're a member of Wikipedians against censorship. Is there such a thing, I wonder, as Wikipedians against hypocrisy? TharkunColl (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure TharkunColl can really be accused fairly of racism. My take on him as of now is that he is reactionary and strongly motivated by anti-"political-correctness", like many users (e.g. User:Tymek). He does need to review WP:BATTLE, to learn discretion and to respect (and not get annoyed by!) people's sensibilities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's possible to be "anti political correctness" (usually just an excuse for being offensive in my experience, but whatever), without having an image on your use page that says "Islam sucks" and a link to a very offensive anti-Islam website. Black Kite 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I in no way wanted to imply that I condoned his actions this morning. TharkuColl is overly fond of being needlessly offensive, there's no doubt. He was lucky you didn't block him this time, esp. given that he had received a 2 week block for a similar offense earlier in the year. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, if you had bothered to check the other pages on that site, you might have noticed that they also have respectful and pro-Islamic images of Muhammad, made by Muslims. Saying that "Islam sucks" (even though those words are not actuaaly used, but that's a minor quibble), is no better or worse than saying "Communism sucks" or "Nazism sucks". TharkunColl (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point, Wikipedia is not a place for broadcasting your opinion, and please remember to be civil. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that they're equivalent, but equally I don't see any reason for anyone to have either of those sentiments on their userpage either. Why do people insist on trumpeting their prejudices on their userpage? Apart from the fact that no-one really cares, this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Black Kite 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The images IMO were not only disgusting but racist in the way they portrayed gross caricatures of Islamists and Mohammed. The link took you straight to those offensive images, not to other images. Tharkuncall said to his disciple that it was a pity the images in question were copyrighted or he would have used them on Wikipedia. Bill Reid | Talk 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Racist? How so? Or by "racist" do you mean "anyone who holds an opinion different from mine who I want to shut up but can't be bothered putting forward any reasonable refutations of his opinions"? TharkunColl (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be blunt - you have a problem with Islam and you troll pages on that basis, that's clear to me from my very limited interaction with you here. Why else would a long-term editor be suggesting such a junk site as a source? the link discussed here has been removed from the history but I'm guessing it's the same junk site? You believe what you like but keep that shit off here, get a blog instead. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with any ideology that promotes murder, torture, and oppression. Don't you? TharkunColl (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with lots of things but what's that to do with wikipedia? nothing at all. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that these things need stating, rather being swept under the carpet. TharkunColl (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But the religion in question doesn't promote those things. Some people who belong to it do, but not the religion itself. Some Christians and some Hindus promote those things. That doesn't make their religion guilty of it either. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the religion of Islam does promote those things - the Koran has numerous passages ordering Muslims to kill the infidel, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely within your rights to believe that this needs to be stated and not swept under the rug...but that doesn't mean you have the right to state it here. Wikipedia is not the soapbox for you to stand up and shout from. --Onorem♠Dil 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, people are being too sensitive. But then, I'm atheist anyway. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For those with somewhat more open minds on this issue, and who believe Wikipedia should not be censored, here are a few quotes from the Koran:

• "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they.... But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them...." [4:89]

• "Seize them and slay them wherever ye get them...." [4:91]

• "For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.... The unbelievers wish...to assault you in a single rush...." [4:101]

• "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides....and heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." [5:33]

• "Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith...for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous." [8:74]

• "...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war)...." [9:5].

• "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day...nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth...." [9:29]

• "...fight the Pagans...." [9:36]

• "...wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)." [33:61].

I doubt that pointing out the unwelcome truth is likely to make any difference though. TharkunColl (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh! Soapboxing on ANI - just want we needed. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely defending myself against unwarranted accusations of racism and bias. Or isn't that even allowed? TharkunColl (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one here is an Umayyad or pre-Umayyad Arabic scholar, so debates about the meaning and background of Qur'anic passages will get the world nowhere! That's not to mention the fact that AN/I isn't the place for such things. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion has gone on long enough, I think it is time to call it an end. TharkunColl, you simply cannot go around trolling on islamic articles, it's not on, ever - regardless of your own opinions, I think some kind of block is in order here, if not for trolling, then vandalism - not being an admin myself, I cannont implement one, any admin willing to issue a block has my support. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl uses almost any pretext to launch a tendentious tirade about Islam: anybody familiar with his block log or disruptive behaviour on Talk:Muhammad can discern that instantly. In all cases, he is as ill-informed as he is a disruptive soapboxer. A block is warranted, but I question how many times this has to happen before the community realises that enough is enough. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since opinions are welcome, after watching this develop for the past hour or so and reading up on the linked pages, I have to say TharkunColl's actions have soapboxing written all over them. The Koran quotes he put up to convince people of the 'truth' really seals it, he goes and digs up everything related to violence in the Koran without acknowledging alternate stances, similarities with myriad religions, or respectable sources/scholars analyzing the quotes. A block may be advisable. Isikari 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Tharky personal page? I think people have over-reacted. However, concerning public articles? their reactions are understandable. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's interacted with TharkunColl quite a number of times over an extended period, I tend to side with GoodDay in this. Yes, TharkunColl is tendentious. Yes, TharkunColl is abrasive. Yes, TharkunColl is obstinate. But, I don't think TharkunColl is racist (he's quite right that Islam is not a race), and he does indeed seem to believe strongly in the notion of freedom of expression, and who can fault him for that? What I think needs to be made clear to TharkunColl is that throwing out inflammatory idiom is a juvenile way to combat censorship; that his opinions may be put down because they are proven wrong, and not because they're being censored; and that Wikipedia is a team effort wherein one has to be flexible and recognise a fact, even when it contradicts what one has previously been seeing from their own viewpoint. Believe it or not, Thark has actually gotten better than he was before; again, GoodDay is right in that there's a difference between TharkunColl pushing his ideas in articles or talk pages (which he used to do), and doing the same in his own user space (which he has just done). So, I don't know whether a block now would do more harm than good. Perhaps a shorter one? --G2bambino (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the image that said Crescent Moon with a Star Sucks, Not TharkunColl. He just uploaded, had he asked I would have though. Therefore I feel somewhat responsible. It wasn't so much that I was trying to insult Islam, as I was making an image that in my opinion defined some of the beliefs of TharkunColl. I'd like to point out on the same image I had the Coat of Arms of Great Britain with an X through it, in my opinion that shows just as much dislike for that as it does for Islam, however there was no herd of Defenders of the Crown who quickly pounced upon it and gave it some poorly picked term like 'raciest', Perhaps they would have said "Offensive"? Point being, I would hazard a guess that had the crossed out coat of arms been the only image there, the entire image it self would have been left alone, when then the general idea is identical to the Islamic one. Blank Sucks. In which case it appears to me that it is OKAY, for some things to suck and NOT OKAY for others to suck. I find that idea rather suspect in itself, is Wikipedia a qualified paragon of morals, who can easily define what we should like and what we shouldn't? In a world, or indeed a website where many cultures are coming together with all sorts of different upbringings and values, how can anyone decide that they know better than anyone else what is okay to 'suck' and what is not okay to 'suck'? Lastly, I noticed one of the reasons given for it to be deleted was that it is not NEUTRAL, on a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I agree the statement that ANYTHING sucks, cannot be seen as neutral, I can only imagine the person who said that expected everything on wikipedia, including User pages to only contain sanctioned neutral information. In that case I feel it's important to let you know I have seen many user pages where a user has Liked Something. That's right, you heard it from me first, where they put in a little box "this user likes blank". I feel those statements are just a un-neutral as statements that say something 'sucks'. One is in the positive, and the other the negative, but neither is neutral. Therefore based on the criteria in which the image was deleted, I feel something on nearly every member of wikipedia's user page should also be deleted, since most establish something that user 'likes'. Gotta keep it neutral. ShieldDane (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's personal political POV is his own problem. If he is a racist, anti-Islamist or whatever, there's nothing we can do about it, and after all, that's one of the POVs that needs to be described in articles, and that's hard to do correctly without people who actually hold such views.

However, that has nothing to do with what he can or can't have on his user page. We restrict the kinds of things people can put on their user pages, not because of NPOV, as ShieldDane mistakenly believes, but because user pages are there to be used for the good of the project, and not as personal web space. Saying "I like X" is not the same as saying "Y sucks", even if X and Y are diametrically opposed. The first is a neutral description of somebody's personal preference, the other is a disparaging comment on people who hold the opposing view, or even worse, simply happen to belong to the disparaged group because they inherited it from their parents (like race, ethnicity, or religion).

Descriptions of personal preferences are ultimately useful for the encyclopedia - they are good for "community-building" and useful for understanding what a user's concerns are when you debate something with them. OTOH, disparaging comments are bad for community cohesion, and invite nothing but fruitless flame wars. Not to mention links to external websites which contain more of the same.

So, removing the userbox and the link solves the user page problem. If there are other problems with this user's behaviour, they should be looked at separately, and the popularity of his personal POV should not have any influence on the evaluation of his actions. Zocky | picture popups 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not quite done yet. You know almost everything is offensive to someone. I've seen more than a few Wiki pages where a user has stated they are atheist, and even put forth some quotes and reasons why this is so. Many religious people I believe would find that at least somewhat offensive, here is a guy who is saying in his opinion on his user page, that everything you believe in is a lie, and through his quotes and words, you get across the idea that people who do believe in it are fools that believe in magic. Or I've seen pages where a user says they are firmly against something, which in many cases there are people who are a part of what that person is against, in which case the user supporting a cause (perhaps no more 'radical' then American Democratic Party), is saying things which could be found offensive by others (Members of the American Republican Party?), and it seems to me..since you guys are not rushing to cast down these offensives bigots, that it's okay to have something offensive on your page towards someone, since your user page is about your personal opinions and beliefs. In which case, in this case, it seems you guys have dropped the ball. ShieldDane (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also for those of you jumping on the anti-TharkunColl bandwagon, this noticeboard thing was not created because of TharkunColl trolling topics, it was created FOR what he had on his USER PAGE. ShieldDane (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, quite right, it wasn't, but the image was a direct link to trolling, as was the offensive link removed three times. Regardless of what ever this started as, serious behavioural issues have been raised that IMHO, urgently need to be dealt with, of course, everyone has their opinions, but when they spill out onto wikipedia through pictures, links, trolling and vandalism something needs to be done. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why not an uproar over the crosses through the British Coat of Arms? ShieldDane (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the trolling, vandalism, POV Pushing and other such distruption, not the content of the picture. The picture is deleted, gone for ever, thankfully. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that is what this article was created for, TharkunColl has been punished for the aforementioned affronts to Wikipedia. I think you are just trolling his thread here, and are POV pushing. Working to bring about another's downfall isn't very nice, you should try to be a nicer person. What would Jesus do? ShieldDane (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, where do you get off telling me to be a nicer person? You've never met me, you don't know who I am, secondly, please point out where I have trolled, what I have done is try to seek a suitible punishment for a troublesome user with no apparent agender to build or improve this encyclopedia, thirdly, you were the one who created the image in the first place - so who should be a nicer person now? Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I would like to bring your attention to Paragraph 1 lines 2-3 "Where ever Islamic Editors need to be baited, I SHALL BE THERE!". Oh, sweet hypocrisy. I am requesting a checkuser on you, something dodgey is going on here. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously humor is a foreign concept to you (and not in just the British Way) I wrote that based off of what I read on his talk page. Anyways I'm not sure what checkuser does, but since I've been pretty straight forward with who I am, no amount of your tattle-telling will harm me. ShieldDane (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits

The title says it. This is a recurring pattern with this user. One example can be found at Mary Stalcup Markward. The discussion, such as it was, can be found at Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward#census image. I asked a question, and got a single response. When I followed up on the response and corrected a misimpression on his part, Richard Arthur Norton had no more to say. I saw that he was doing extensive editing on other articles, so I posted a notice on his Talk page asking for him to respond on Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward. Still nothing, so I edited the article. The next day, I see this edit to the article -- he reverted my edit "per talk page", despite the fact that he never responded to my follow-up on the Talk page.

A similar pattern of behavior can be found at Annie Lee Moss, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless and Talk:Annie Lee Moss#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits. He rarely responds at all, and when he does his comments are usually off the point or meaningless.

I've heard from another user that this pattern has been repeated by Richard Arthur Norton elsewhere. RedSpruce (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Do you "have here in your hand a list of names made known to Wikipedians as those who have accused Richard Norton of 'repeated patterns'" or "hold in my hand the names of 57 card-carrying Wikipedians who have abetted Richard Norton". Its amusingly ironic that you edit articles on Joseph McCarthy and then use his same tactics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1) What do you want an admin to do? 2)Your Mary Stalcup example isn't great - he seems to have added a verifiable reliable accurate source to some information in the article. Why do you feel that's wrong and needs to be removed? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that refusing to discuss disputed edits is something that undermines the whole principle on which Wikipedia is based. It ought to be a blockable offense. If it isn't, I'm open to advice on how to proceed. What you personally think of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He added a reference to an unreferenced statement...and you took issue with it...and now you say he should be blocked? Am I the only one utterly confused? Why are you disputing him adding a reference? --Smashville^BONK! 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: What anyone here personally thinks of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: mentioned this thread on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s talk page. I think that ought to have been done by this point... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As for your question of how to resolve the conflict, I don't think "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you."[34] is the most constructive thing you could have done. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but it was no less productive than my many and various previous attempts at more-rational discussion. And it made me feel a little better. RedSpruce (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait...you attacked him because it made you feel better? How is that reasonable? --Smashville^BONK! 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"it made me feel better" was an effect, not a cause. And I didn't say it was reasonable, I said it was a mistake. RedSpruce (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence? --Smashville^BONK! 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ever see you apologize for calling him an idiot and a moron. I saw that you called the comments deserved and then you brought this to ANI. Why would he have continued discussing something with you when you continued to make personal attacks? --Smashville^BONK! 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that your only response now? It absolutely does apply. Your complaint is that he would not continue communicating with you after you made unapologetic personal attacks at him. --Smashville^BONK! 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

←No, my complaint is that he never communicated in a meaningful manner. If you'd read more carefully, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. RedSpruce (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And being uncivil and making personal attacks is a "meaningful manner"? --Smashville^BONK! 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, the answer to "Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence?" is 'yes' (and I've done so many times). This is the practice recommended by NPA#Responding to personal attacks. RedSpruce (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks? The one where the very first sentence is "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all"? --Smashville^BONK! 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being sophistic, Smashville. RedSpruce (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not. I quoted the first sentence of the policy. And it's beside the point. You're now complaining that he wouldn't respond to your personal attack (while acknowledging it was a personal attack). Do you not see how backwards that is? --Smashville^BONK! 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that you honestly believe that the meaning of the first sentence of WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks is "stop all discussion with the person who attacks you; make no further attempts to discuss anything at all with that person ever again."? If that's what you believe, then no, you aren't being sophistic; I withdraw the comment. RedSpruce (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God...you are seriously not arguing this, are you? You made a personal attack...and you are complaining to ANI that he is not responding to your personal attack. --Smashville^BONK! 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. RedSpruce you have zero case. Please stop posting here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in with your constructive, carefully reasoned and well-thought out comment, Theresa Knott. RedSpruce (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I have responded on the talk page of both articles, and using Wikipedia policy I asked for a third party to look over the sources used in the articles at the Wikipedia:Biography page. This was to help decide if we should have both references, or just the Spruce references. I reverted the deletions of my references, so that the third party could see the version with both his and my sources in place, and left a message on the talk page of why I reverted to the version with both references. I tend to use contemporaneous newspaper accounts because I have a paid subscription to the New York Times and Washington Post archives. Spruce favors books. I like both his and mine in the article. Most readers don't look at the references except for the more research oriented reader, and that reader may want references from both newspapers and books. I can't predict what references will be helpful to people, so if I find a new fact, I add the reference. You can always ignore the reference section, but if you really need to know the source, it is there. The New York Times articles and the book references look great side by side. I have never deleted Spruce references in favor of mine, only him deleting mine in favor of his. I stopped engaging Spruce after the threats and name calling left on my page. Thats when I asked the third party to look at the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that Richard Arthur Norton did right was to ask for outside comments. Unfortunately none have been forthcoming. Here, as always before, he persists in misunderstanding my point. I was not deleting newspaper references in favor of book references. I was deleting footnotes that were incorrectly placed, irrelevant to the text that they were attached to, included meaningless and irrelevant quotations, included links to images of illegible and irrelevant documents, showed a misunderstanding of what they were supposed to document, and were, at their very, very best, unnecessary. I did not delete links to sources that were available online. (Most of RAN's footnotes, as he notes above, were links to subscriber-only newspaper websites). I've made all of these points before, but as you see above, RAN persists in not understanding them or responding to them. The difference between what the two of us want is not large, but with no true discussion, we couldn't come to a compromise. RedSpruce (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless he clearly doesn't need to be banned, no action needs to be taken by an admin, this is a content dispute, and since he clearly is responding you still have zero case. So this discussion can now stop here on an admin noticeboard. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since RAN is now engaging in something resembling real discussion on two articles (yay!), it appears this ANI has served spme purpose. Unfortunately, as I noted above, this is a pattern of behavior with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and I'm sure other editors will have similar conflicts with him in the future. RedSpruce (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Its not quite stopped, his last action was to delete all my additions to the articles then ask that they be protected, so his changes could be locked into place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Page protections expire. In the mean time third parties can have their say. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce

Please note there is another ANI on User:RedSpruce here

A disturbing pattern of disruptive edits has been made by User:RedSpruce to a series of articles related to Joseph McCarthy, including Annie Lee Moss, Mary Stalcup Markward and G. David Schine. RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of these articles, repeatedly reverting edits made by myself and other editors that primarily focused on adding sources to the articles, starting off with this revert and this revert, moving up the abuse scale to "rv undiscussed edits", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", again, "rv to compromise version", and the warm and fuzzy "rm stupid and useless quote" and "rv, you are being an idiot". There are numerous WP:3RR violations mixed in here, but the far more troubling issue is gross incivility, such as the edit summaries cited previously, and topped off by the WP:NPA violation "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you", which was reverted by an edit stating "rm personal abuse, albeit deserved". Unfortunately, User:RedSpruce's pattern of refusal to work on a consensus basis is only aggravated by his egregious incivility. Alansohn (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a revenge-post, in response to the incident posted immediately above. User:Alansohn has a history of backing up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) when editing disputes occur. I've seen this in Annie Lee Moss and another editor reports to me that it's a pattern. User:Alansohn doesn't engage in any discussion, he just blindly backs up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), often with blatantly dishonest edit summary comments like this one.

It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton. It's also true that he deserved it. It's rather frustrating, to say the least, when you put a lot of work into improving an article and another edit starts "dis-improving" it, and then utterly refuses to engage in meaningful discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He deserves uncivility for adding sources? How is removing sources improving Wikipedia? And how is saying that consensus is that we don't remove sources "dishonest"? --Smashville^BONK! 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to discuss the value of the edits in question with you, Smashville, but that is not the issue here. The Talk pages for the articles in question are open to all comers. RedSpruce (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can't bring something up...and then when someone responds, tell them to discuss it somewhere else. No offense, but this complaint is about you - you don't get to pick the forum. --Smashville^BONK! 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When sentence one in a statement about claims of incivility reads "It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton", one would hope that sentence two states "I understand the issue and will do everything I can to work in a constructive and polite manner". It's rather disturbing to read the actual follow up, "It's also true that he deserved it." The first step to solving this problem needs to be a genuine recognition by User:RedSpruce that there is a major incivility problem here, which only compounds the refusal to work by consensus in editing and improving the articles in question. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is one issue; claiming that I "refuse to work by consensus" is a separate issue, and is also both incorrect and ironic. The source of the frustration that lead to my incivility was the fact that both User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:Alansohn refused to discuss the edits in dispute. RedSpruce (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...he answered you right here 32 minutes after you asked. This is after - in your very first contact with him - you called him unintelligent, you threatened to block him for adding sources and "an idiot and a moron" on his talk page. You then responded to his comment 5 times. All because he added sources to unsourced statements. --Smashville^BONK! 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce, what is your definition of consensus? It appears to be you disagreeing with two other people that agree with each other. I don't see how one out of three represents the consensus position. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here aren't very informed, Smashville. Your first link above is incorrect, for one thing. RAN answered me a few times, but never in a meaningful manner, leading to my comments: 1, 2, 3. Interspersed with this fruitless attempt at dialog, RAN continually re-added his edits without any discussion. I would ask a question and he would make several article edits that ignored my question, and then go back to the Talk page and make some meaningless comment. Whether through willful deception or a communication disability, his responses were always off-target and never addressed my points.

It is incorrect to say that RAN only "added sources to unsourced statements", and this shows that you haven't read the existing discussion on the article's Talk page, but I'm not going to discuss that any further here. If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I have read the discussions. All of your issues are with him adding sources. You realize if he is constantly reverting your edits then you are also constantly reverting his edits...it seems as if you are trying to assert ownership over these articles. --Smashville^BONK! 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page.RedSpruce (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't bring something to ANI and then tell someone to go to the talk page. That's not how this works. --Smashville^BONK! 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The heading here is that I have a "pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing". If you're saying that my edits to the article were, in your opinion, deliberately disruptive, then I'll respond. Otherwise the quality of my article edits is off-topic. RedSpruce (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You made a claim that he constantly reverts you...I said that in turn you constantly revert him. It's a two-way street. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. None of this excuses incivility and personal attacks. --Smashville^BONK! 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You said that I was removing sources (by implication sources that were valid and appropriate) from the article. That is a quality-of-my-edits issue. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. I claimed he never answered me in a meaningful manner or answered my questions. If you disagree with this, please point to a question that I asked or a point that I raised and then point to his response and explain how it addressed my question or point. RedSpruce (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you have discuss all the surrounding facts. That's how a discussion works. And again - the fact that you didn't find his responses "meaningful" doesn't give you free reign to be uncivil and make personal attacks. --Smashville^BONK! 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Loren.wilton, your comment doesn't make any sense. I never claimed that there was a consensus. Alansohn incorrectly made that claim, even though a) he had contributed nothing to the article discussion, and b) the discussion, such as it was, was a disagreement between two people. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a "pattern" you're looking for, I have some diffs I'll be digging up. This discussion was the final act of a series of edits that culminated in RedSpruce accusing me of being homophobic. When asked to apologize for his personal attack, he bizarrely apologized "to Wikipedia." Diffs of said discussion will follow upon request, if you don't believe me. Bellwether ^B_C 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one diff where he calls me homophobic. I'm haven't yet tried to find the bizarre apology "to Wikipedia", but if it's necessary, I will. I don't think I've touched the OSC article since his attacks. Bellwether ^B_C 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article since his edit, including the source for the name of her parents. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• here in G. David Schine he is removing the quote parameter from each reference. Can someone take a look and decide? Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual.[5]" Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article places in the reference using the Quote= parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person reread the entire article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. You cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a matter of developing consensus, its a matter of deleting everything I add to the article, no matter how well sourced it is. The only reason for deleting it appears to be that RedSpruce didn't add it to the article. He keeps adding to the edit summary that my additions are "irrelevant". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what is most telling is the above discussion...where he says that WP:NPA says that he should respond to his personal attack...kind of like, "Officer, I just punched that guy in the face and now he won't talk to me..." Not only is he admitting the personal attack, but he is finding something wrong with someone not responding...to the point of taking it to ANI...which is very, very, very bassackwards...He also said in this thread that Richard "deserved" it...--Smashville^BONK! 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are fond of repetition, aren't you Smashville? You'll have to continue it without me from here on, Im afraid. And I apologize for calling you a sophist. A sophist, roughly speaking, is someone who pretends to be obtuse for the sake of argument. I no longer think that description fits you at all. RedSpruce (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is a certain irony in your basically calling someone stupid in a thread about your incivility. Bellwether ^B_C 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but at what point was any of this about me? You are being called out on this thread for incivility. The only interaction I've ever had with you has been in this thread and in the above thread. --Smashville^BONK! 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are three ironic moments: 1) above as you point out 2) telling Smash that he will not converse anymore inside a discussion about RedSpruce complaining that I don't talk to him. 3) using a McCarthy like threat in the previous ANI that he know of others with the same complaints about me, like McCarthy's "I hold in my hand a piece of paper with the names of ...." It is deliciously ironic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protect my user page?

Can someone protect my user page? James Ewing is using anonymous proxies to add false Linkedin profiles to my user page: User:Spankr Is it possible to do it myself? —Preceding comment was added at 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Only an admin can do it and I have done so. Protection lasts one month. Viridae^Talk 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If this ever needs to be done again, you may visit WP:RFPP and request, which is the formal way to do it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

today's AfD format seems a bit different/wrong

Hi, I'm sure in AfD only closed debates are usually in a blue box, then it's really easy to scroll through to find ongoing debates. But today at the mo it all seems to be in the blue (unless it's my tired eyes lol), rather than just those debates which are closed. I hope this is a mistake, but don't know how to fix it myself. Please could someone have a look? I'm off out for a bit in a mo. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Aah, it does now, something someone did must've fixed it. This [35] is what it looked like earlier. Out of interest, if it does that again, anyone know how I can fix it? Reply to my talk page if you prefer. Anyway, problem solved.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. KeeperOTD (talk · contribs) sought to reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased Material by Britney Spears. To do this, he took the old AfD and started typing at the bottom, overwriting the {{Afd bottom}} template. That caused an unclosed <div>, so when it was transcluded, the formatting of the AfD spread down the page looking for a </div>. If you ever see this happening, find the first one to go wrong, click "View this AfD", edit it and shove a subst'd {{Afd bottom}} at the bottom. That'll cure it. Then tap the last editor lightly with a cluestick. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks and public computer

Hi, I continually get autoblocked and people vandalising using my account (one happened just today) because I use a public computer. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Littleteddy (roar!) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could create an account for yourself. WP:ACCOUNT. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my own account. I will log out in future, but I still get autoblocked occasionally. I'll just add the template ASAP when I do I guess. Littleteddy (roar!) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, I misread - Yeah you need to make sure that you don't have the "keep me logged in" checked off - so that when you end your session you don't remain logged in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The autoblocker doesn't (or isn't supposed to anyhow) block logged in users on IP users. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Used to happen to me in 2006 when I was on a large ISP that channeled its entire traffic through one proxy filter. Orderinchaos 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP is autoblocked (due to another logged-in user), my understanding is that it will prevent logged-in users from editing from that IP. —Random832 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding, it will block any users who try to edit through the blocked IP. Woody (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But not if the IP was blocked independently of a user? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks can either block logged in users or not, although the default is obviously to not block logged in users. My understanding of autoblock is that it is supposed to catch other logged in users, and I guess I do find this to be a useful way to ID sockpuppets. Not infallible, obviously, but useful. Natalie (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Logged in users used to get caught by the autoblocker but not for ages now. I suppose we'd better ask someone in the know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The original block could have been set to autoblock. It is just a tickbox that needs unticking Agathoclea (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point in autoblocks, it enables blocking of an IP and all users on that IP without knowing what the IP, as is the case for all non-checkusers blocking signed in accounts. This stops someone using strings of abusive accounts from the same IP. This causes problems with those whose ISPs used proxies which either don't send x-forwarded headers or the software hasn't been configured to use (ask the SAs to add them). This used to be a huge problem for AOL with their superproxy system but that was resolved sometime ago by them adding x-foward info, it was also a problem with google accelerator (don't know if it still is), where adding WP to the sites not to accelerate eases the problem. Perhaps unsuprisingly WP:AUTOBLOCK gives some info on this --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I'll just add the unblock template when it does happen. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Garyfreedman

Resolved

This account is possibly compromised based on the two sexually oriented edits it made to my talk [36] and to it's own talk [37]. There is nothing like that in it's prior history. To my knowledge I have never encountered this editor. No edits since August 2007 [38] and then this. Bringing here for comment.— Ѕandahl 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, based on the diffs, I'd say the account is comprimised...Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks compromised to me. Block it. Tiptoety ^talk 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and placed notice on it's page.— Ѕandahl 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alloacab 213.123.175.151

Resolved

I tracked this ip address (213.123.175.151) to the Alloa Citizens Advice Bureau! I have absolutly no idea why somone there would hurl abuse at my talk page, it was deleted but i reverted it so you can see it at my talk page. Terrasidius (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How strange, have you left any warnings? If not, do so, if you have, hang tight, I'm sure someone will be around to help. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a recurrent event, then I'd bring it forward here, or continue with this notice. If it's a one time offense, goodness knows whose behind the terminal, even at the Advice Bureau. Vandalism is pervasive. Just revert and ignore for now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

160.7.114.166

Resolved

 – No vandalism after final warning, Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued to vandalize after repeated warnings. See 160.7.114.166 / talk 199.125.109.37 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct place for this is WP:AIV, and he has not vandalized past final warning, I will keep an eye on him though. Tiptoety ^talk 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tagging of French commune stubs

User:JonHarder is adding unreferenced tags in the French commune stubs. However I think as there are thousands of French communes, so tagging all of them is not needed, or quite impractical. The French communes are inherently notable, so no one will challenge their notability. I have removed the tags from the stubs which this user added. Another user User:Gene Nygaard supporting addition of tags saying "it is entirely proper to tag them all—and highly improper to remove those tags without discussion". The tagging generally looks bad, and in uncontroversial articles like the French commune stubs is not much important. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite impractical to tag more than 30,000 French communes with unreferenced tags. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So if they are all getting tagged as unref (sorry I don't have any diffs to check), then is there a single reference, somewhere, that can be added to the French commune articles? Where is the information about them coming from? An atlas? Add a ref, that's all that seems to be needed. Adding a tag draws attention to the article and maybe someone will do a driveby ref for each. Without looking at a single article, it doesn't seem harmful to have the tags if the articles, like any other, are truly unreferenced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They likely all came from an unreliable source in the first place (i.e., Wikipedia). But yes, somebody probably could find reliable sources for them. Until they do, those tags are quite proper. The fact that others which could have the tags do not is completely irrelevant. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Unreferenced tags are not the same as notability tags. If the articles they are tagging do not have any references, what reason do you have for removing them? --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags are often not used in uncontroversial articles because these make the appearance of the article bad. The article United States is too long. But a too long tag is not allowed in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a reference then. Problem solved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are unreferenced, "looking bad" is the least of their problems. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will work? Seems reliable and independent of Wikipedia. Verifies the existence. Add it to unref articles and remove the tag. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, its a pay for service. Still looking....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And fix the sort keys so the articles appear in the proper place in their categories while you are there. Like this one at Chalé. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have done that while tagging them, or indeed, instead of tagging them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nygaard's been complaining about that as long as I can remember, and he's never very pleasant in going about it either. In the two years and more that he's been spreading misery, he could have submitted Bugzilla reports - it is a bug, English ignores accents when sorting - or even tweaked {{DEFAULTSORT}}, but apparently he prefers being curmudgeonly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly he should not be going round telling other editors what to do. He should shut up or do it himself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We expect stubs to be unreferenced in many cases; the unreferenced tag isn't needed if there is also a stub tag on the article. That is, the stub tag isn't a compliment, it's a cleanup tag that indicates the article needs significant work before it will be of high quality. I often remove unreferenced tags from stubs for that reason, if I am looking at the stub for some other reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The time spent tagging stubs as unreferenced is wasted. It could have been spent fixing them up. Basic info for French communes: INSEE - census data, INSEE - "Inventaire communal", IGN - very basic geographical data. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several aspects to consider with respect to this discussion:

• What policies or guidelines address articles that are unreferenced and how does this apply to the {{unreferenced}} tag?
• To what extent are stub article exempt from WIkipedia policy?
• When is it appropriate to revert dozens of good faith edits without notify the editor that there is a problem, in the process carelessly discarding many other edits not related to the tag in question?
• When is it appropriate to use an automated tool, Twinkle in this case, to undo work that clearly is not vandalism?

I recently have increased my new page patrol activity, and this edit is probably what set off this particular thread. Six days later, on March 9, Otolemur crassicaudatus used Twinkle over a period of half an hour reverting my edits and then more again. When I asked what was up, it was suggested they go to AfD instead.[39] With some amicable back and forth, I declined bringing them to AfD and since no evidence was presented that a guideline was violated, I suggested that the tags be restored, which I did some time later. I thought the matter was settled until a new wave of reversions on different articles started.[40] It is quite frustrating to have my edits reverted as if they were vandalism, having to ask what the problem is and receiving no solid response. It became clear there was disagreement over the unreferenced tags, but I still don't understand why article improvements not related to the tags are also being removed. Apparently other editors are experiencing the same thing.[41][42]

The policy behind tagging articles as unreferenced is obviously the core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Whenever I create a new article my screen always presents me with as you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. I see no reason to exempt stub articles from this policy; Wikipedia:Stub specifically says … Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub… With these as a basis, when I patrol new articles, I will continue to add the unreferenced tags as needed and object to their removal without providing the requested sources.

Currently many geographical location stubs are being added and the majority are referenced. The outstanding editors in this process include Cxz111 (talk · contribs), Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs), Afil (talk · contribs), M-le-mot-dit (talk · contribs) and Sadalmelik (talk · contribs). I'm sure I've missed some. It is quite effective to add the tag: the references soon appear (and who better to know where the material came from than the person creating the article), or the tag prompts the editor to include sources from that day onward. Apologies for this whole thread spilling onto the noticeboard. It belongs with the guideline and policy discussions. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment from probable RichSatan sockpuppets

• RichSatan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Byaahahaha (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 91.84.95.68 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.179.208 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.177.104 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.153.198.246 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.178.70 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

WP:HARASS states that "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

User:RichSatan and these IPs (which all resolve to the same company on the same street, in the same town, in the same county in the UK) has been making ad hominem and generally harassing trolling comments on Talk:Games Workshop. The purpose of these remarks is to remove User:Cailil from the discussion.

RichSatan (a confirmed Sockpuppeteer[43] and a user with a history of ad hominem attacks[44][45]) blames me for the policy based removal of unsourced and unsourcable "comments and Criticism" from the Games Workshop article[46]. A number of IPs from Exeter, in Devon (UK), have over a period of nearly a year made the same trolling remarks a) about me and b)insisting on the reinclusion of unsourced original research. If RichSatan had not used sock puppets this would be a content dispute but it is now a behavioural issue and in my view a case of harrassment.

Both RichSatan and these IPs claim I am on a "one man crusade" to remove criticism from this page for reasons other than site policy. This is not the case. The material is OR and unsourced. Also consensus has been reached a number of times. An RFC[47] was opened specifically in the matter and previous to that Sir Fozzie was ask for a sysop review of my behaviour[48]. On both occasions the community has pointed out to RichSatan and these Exeter IPs that my behaviour is proper and defined by site policy. (For those wishing to verify the content issue see here This is also a direct link to the unsourced comments and criticism these IPs and RichSatan demand be reinstated into the article)

On Feb 21st User:RichSatan began blanking all references to him on talk pages and in XFDs[49][50][51][52][53][54]. He was not only removing comments of his that had been replied to by a number of editors but was altering other users (mainly mine) talk page comments. When this was reverted User:Byaahahaha began engaging in the same behaviour[55][56] . When this was reverted by Sir Fozzie (whom I contacted) Byaahahaha blanked Sir Fozzie's page. That account was then blocked for vandalism and as a probable RichSatan sockpuppet.

Yesterday IP 91.84.95.68 (from Exter) made the same RichSatan comments to Talk:Games Workshop. I opened an RFCU case to identify whether RichSatan was a sockpuppeteer or note. It confirmed that Byaahahaha is a RichSatan sock-puppet, but made no comment on the IPs (see here). As far as I can see this is a case of WP:DUCK - all these IPs are making RichSatan's comments. All the IPs come from the same ISP in the same location. The problem is that 91.84.95.68 claims that it has never read the page before. Yet like all the other IPs it has made no other contributions to WP. RichSatan and these IPs have engaged in the same behaviour - trying to discredit, intimidate and undermine my editing, demanding that I do not edit the page and stop my "constant involvement". For the record I have not edited Games Workshop in 2008. In fact in the period August 2007 - March 2008 I have made 2 edits to the page. 1 removing link spam (September 2007)[57] the other (on December 10th)[58] in accordance with the findings of the RFC.

RichSatan's behaviour replicated by the IPs

Insistence on the inclusion of unsourced criticism at Talk:Games Workshop
[59][60][61] by RichSatan
[62] by 91.84.95.68
[63] by 82.152.179.208
[64] by 82.152.177.104
[65][66] by 82.153.198.246
[67] by 82.152.178.70

Current situation

User:Byaahahaha was blocked indef blocked (on Feb 21st[68]) as a vandalism only account and a probable sock of RichSatan. The User:RichSatan is dormant but as yet unblocked for disruption or sockpuppetry (his last edit was Feb 21st[69]). The current Exeter IP is active (User:91.84.95.68) and engaging in the same ad hominem attacks on me and claims of no consensus on Talk:Games Workshop[[70]][71][72]. I'm requesting uninvolved sysop overview and intervention as I think this is a simple case of WP:DUCK - these IPs are probable RichSatan socks and are engaged in a campaign of harassment against me.

Apologies for the length of this post.--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it wasn't already, I've added a link to this section to Talk:Games Workshop Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for placing that link Darkson.

Also it might help if a sysop examined whether the main sockpuppeteer account (User:RichSatan) should be blocked and to generally keep an extra pair (or pairs) of uninvolved eyes on the page--Cailil ^talk 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on from 91.84.95.68 yesterday (I may still be, for that matter). I am not RichSatan. I am based just outside northeast London. Probably my IP looks up to Exeter because that's where Eclipse Internet, my ISP, are based. I wish to repeat and reinforce my objections to Cailil's content edits - there are sourced comments in the referenced section. Notice that my objections are to his edits, not to him personally, and I object to the characterisation of this as ad-hominem. I consider that Cailil is using the ad-hominem rules to defend questionable edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Block request of User:RichardCoxMongler

Resolved

 – blocked indef as vandalism-only account

Another template hacker! This one hacked the {{Citequote}} template. silly rabbit (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out where this vandalism (screenshot) came from (template? image?). I caught it at Beslan school hostage crisis [diff (Current revision (12:49, 13 March 2008) (edit) (undo) 84.234.60.154 (innocent ip) (Talk | block) [rollback] (→Motives and demands)] Any guesses about the source? El_C 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This diff, it seems. – Steel 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, see two sections above :) — Edokter • Talk • 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I merged the threads. El_C 17:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:AIV and WP:UAA

Resolved

These pages are backlogged, and reports on AIV have been standing for 20+ minutes. I would help, but I'm at a public computer and won't risk account compromisation, so I need help. Thanks, Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kendobs1 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Both now blocked indef for sockpuppetry & abuse of other editors --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kendobs1 (talk · contribs), more than likely the same person as Kendobs (talk · contribs), is making personal attacks at several editors' talk pages. The editors he's attacking are of Serbian origin and the attacks he's making are nationalistically oriented and, I believe, are a result of an ongoing dispute in some Kosovo related articles. Kendobs is currently blocked for disruptive edits (although he also made the same kind of attacks under that username) so he's using a likely sockpuppet name Kendobs1 to circumvent his block. These are some of the attacks in question: [73] and [74] are by Kendobs1 and [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80] by Kendobs. Since not many people here understand the Serbian language, here is an english translation of some of those words:

• jebem - I fuck
• majku - (your) mother
• srpsku - Serbian

I didn't bring this to WP:AIV nor to WP:SSP because, even if Kendobs1 gets indef blocked and Kendobs gets a block extension, I suspect that by the end of the day today or tommorrow Kendobs2 will rear his ugly head and start this all over again. This needs to be dealt with thoroughly so I thought I'd ask for advice on how to stop these attacks effectively.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked indef, please monitor for further sockpuppets, which will now be blocked on sight.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed several admins know this guy on sight. If he returns under another Kendobs name, or any random name, and starts again, drop me a note on my talk page. I will personally handle it ASAP... Or just post a thread here, and someone will deal with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks gents and/or ladies. SWik78 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Osroene article incivil editing

Can you please, check the anon IP revert war and incivil language in this article (see revert comment slang), and address the issue:

• [81]
• [82]

Please, also, see this recent relevant exchange at ANI [83], as well as checkuser identified and banned sock accounts: Azad chai (talk · contribs), Azerbaboon (talk · contribs).

Also, please, again note that the reverts by anon IP were made to the version by User:TigranTheGreat, who is himself engaged in reverts [84] on that article, but is limited by 1RR parole. Also User:TigranTheGreat earlier used the "baboon" slang [85], [86] very similar to the comment used by anon IP here. Atabek (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Baboon is not a slang. It's an animal which I currently study in my anthropology class and which I happen to find a disgusting creature. You can't assume that everything is about you and prevent people from using ordinary terms.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If Americans Knew article is being attacked by malicious, uncivil editors

Extremely uncivil, inaccurate, and defamatory comments about living people were put on the discussion page ("If only Americans Knew that the entire board of this group has a Jew-hating skeleton in their closet...") These need to be removed and the poster needs to apologize or be blocked from further posts. In addition, the continued malicious reversions need to stop. The information I posted about If Americans Knew was sourced, verifiable, and accurate. It needs to be protected against group vandalism. "Editorforaccuracy (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"

The above editor appears to be a spa and possibly the same user as Factualizer. IrishGuy ^talk 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - the sources seem to very weak in that article - I suggest it needs more eyes and lots of work. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

legal threats and personal attacks by EBDCM (talk · contribs) (review of indefinite block)

[87][88][89] Here is some background information in respect to EBDCM's behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=prev&oldid=197732974 EBCDM has been indefinetly blocked but MastCell is considering to unblock him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=196575226 EBDCM has responded to the attacks he has made initially at MastCell's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197584542 EBDCM had been warned about making attacks. His initial response is below.

Disagree, Jayron. I'm not using Eubulides affiliations against him. I'm merely stating a fact. His edits are not good are are severely biased AGAINST chiropractic including unilaterally deciding what is an acceptable reference and how it is to be used. Just like how you've unilaterally blocked me without proper discussion especially with the points raised on MastCell's talk page. Regardless, all the points I raised above are valid and one needs only to look at the talk history to see how Eubulides and Quack Guru have seized the day and implement their agenda of fear mongering edits and having a double standard with respect to the chiropractic article. If I can make a formal complaint I'd love to do it because I had been intending to do so until Eubulides sneak attack to admin MastCell (whom I owe an apology).[90]

After being indefinetly blocked he posted more comments on his Wikipedia talk page. EBDCM explains that he has a lawyer friend and if necessary will take legal action. Read the comment below.

I am not making personal attacks, I am commenting on Eubulides' edits. Your SUBJECTIVE interpretation is reprehensible. You have also failed to discuss my rebuttal on MastCell's page; and if this block does not expire on the original date (which was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too long considering other precedents in similar circumstances) it will result, if necessary, in legal action. My good friend is a lawyer and owes me a favour. Please remove the indefinite block which was not justified or I will be forced to take remedial actions against yourself and the entire Wikipedia project if necessary. I expect a response ASAP.[91]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197889014 EBDCM claims his attacks are not personal attacks but a "play-by-play of what is happening on chiropractic Talk."

EBDCM is very combative at the chiropractic talk page, has made legal threats, and personal attacks. I would like the community to decide whether EBDCM should stay indefinetely blocked or unblocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are not acceptable. This one has been withdrawn ([92]). EBDCM is in a hole and I think the blocks placed by Jehochman were appropriate. I also think there is the potential to make some headway here; I would ask that Jehochman (the blocking admin) and I be allowed to work this out in as calm and rational an atmosphere as possible. Neither Jehochman or I are going to facilitate abuse of Wikipedia or legal threats, and I'm not going to unblock unless Jehochman is fully on board and a clear set of behavioral expectations are in place. In any case, I've asked EBDCM to take a few days away from Wikipedia and think about things before we make any sort of decision. Feedback is of course welcome. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Canvassing

This page Template:Canvassing is worrisome because it encourages violation of our canvassing policy. The editor who created it, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) was recently involved in the highly problematic Wikipedia:Delegable proxy proposal under a former username, and was blocked for sock puppetry. I am concerned that we have an editor who is engaged in creative disruption. These serious-looking proposals appear to be wasting time and aggravating the community. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Opting in to canvassing.[93] Accounts that don't write articles and only put forth disruptive proposals eventually need to be restricted. Wikipedia is not a game; it's not a laboratory; it's an encyclopedia. What shall we do about this situation? Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the template under WP:CSD T2 ("blatant misrepresentation of established policies"). A template encouraging canvassing seems inappropriate - I'm not really looking forward to hearing "...but they said they wanted to be canvassed to vote in this AfD!" Appropriate notification of discussion does not, and has never, required a template, so it's hard to see any utility here. No comment on the larger issues. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this userbox? — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel these proposals are a waste of time, it may help to remember that it is not mandatory for you or any other editor to involve yourself in them; you are free to leave it to others. Incidentally, delegable proxy was designed for just that purpose; so that one user could express the views of many and thus save time, while still allowing each user's opinion to be represented. That particular proposal may not have been the best vehicle for doing so, but there's nothing wrong with throwing out ideas. However, this community seems to be pretty harsh and conservative about that kind of stuff. Granted, the methods used to promote WP:PRX weren't all that great. Anyway, it is clear that you can crush these ideas in a lot less time than it takes me to create them. Moreover, I have little to gain by stirring up trouble for trouble's sake.

Creative disruption usually involves trying to find loopholes in rules in order to cause a negative kind of disturbance. But opt-in canvassing seeks to close a loophole, which is that users can presently communicate on IRC, email, and other off-wiki channels that they have established with informal caucuses, and it goes under the radar. Those who have not had time or inclination to set up effective off-wiki caucuses are at a potential disadvantage, which opt-in canvassing seeks to, at least partially, fix.

In the wake of the likely (and misguided) rejection of that, then it becomes necessary to think of another creative solution. Am I supposed to read people's minds and know what they will object to? I have yet to understand what exactly motivates the community to do what it does in these cases, as the logic I'm seeing does not seem entirely consistent. Abd would say that the motivation is a desire to cling to power, although, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm more inclined to apply WP:AGF. The phenomenon I'm seeing here is somewhat familiar to what I've read about in Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People.

The standard process for dealing with proposals on a wiki is WP:BRD (see diagram at WP:CCC. Someone makes a bold edit, and if it's not reverted, it becomes policy. Otherwise, we discuss it. There has to be leeway for creative solutions or we stagnate. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia before suggesting further changes to policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a chat room for exploring novel policy ideas, nor is it an experiment in unlimited free speech. Perhaps you want to obtain a dump of the Wikipedia database and download free MediaWiki software so you can build your own version of the encyclopedia with your own rules. It is disruptive to continuously propose large, unsupported changes in many policies. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the template under CSD T2. This should start out as a policy proposal, not a template creation. It's not clear what problem this template is solving. People understand the present canvassing rules, and it's a troublesome topic. There is no reason to revisit that entire area without an urgent cause. The memory of WP:Delegable proxy is not pleasant, and per User:Jehochman's comment about 'disruptive proposals', editors who we associate with that topic should perhaps avoid the subject of policy reform for a little while. Working in safe areas might be a way to regain their reputation and earn general respect for their work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this editor. Obuibo Mbstpo seems to like playing devil's advocate and seems to also be an avid WikiTruth enthusiast. See these edits, where he actually used them as refs: [94] [95]. He's also posting this canvassing proposal at many different talk pages and making policy changes in the interest of getting the proposal passed more easily. No offense intended -- but I've already reverted him a couple of times and I don't want to be accused of stalking, so I just want to bring this to others' attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:24, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

:::Am I really that drunk? Or are there actually double edits above...? _GB^T/C 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Turns out neither... _GB^T/C 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There were, that was my mistake :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the idea Obuibo Mbstpo is the new User:Radiant... except has more trouble keeping his nose clean. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) A possible hypothesis is that he's simply not dutch enough ;-)

Just to note that following the deletion of this template under CSD T2, the user simply went over to WP:CSD and deleted T2, marking it a depracated (without discussion). It is certainly a novel way to go... "If what you are doing falls foul of a policy, unilaterally revise that policy to allow you to do what you want. Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On Village pump, this same user, Obuipo, proposes a similarly bizarre pro-Myspace class system. See here (subsection). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm no one that anyone has ever heard of to the extent of someone like Radiant. Anyway, I don't mind people watching my contribs; to paraphrase Barney the Dinosaur, "I stalk you, you stalk me, we're a wiki-family. With a quick revert, we're back to status quo; AfD the rest and make it snow!" (Actually, most of my AfDs don't end that way, but I was having trouble thinking of a rhyme.)

Anyhoo, if you want to settle this once and for all, might as well force the issue and take it to RfC, and see what the wider community thinks. I'm going to continue coming up with creative ideas and being bold about implementing them, or at least throwing them out there to get the creative juices going. And the reason I think that's okay is that while it's an encyclopedia, it's also a wiki, and we're screwing it up by compromising the wiki aspect in ways that aren't necessary to preserve the encyclopedic aspect of it. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, you have to go through proper channels to do stuff; here, you are free to make good faith edits without asking permission, as long as the change you make is easily reversible.

I'm pretty well-versed in Wikipedia's policy, although there's always something more to learn. Then again, You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Ah, Wikipedia. So many paradoxes. Enough that you can claim policy is on your side no matter what you do; or conversely, that you can accuse anyone of breaking it if you don't like what they're doing. As long as the mob's on your side, you're OK. Unfortunately, the mob does not appear to be on my side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with WIARM and IAR and BOLD, I do not particularly like being called part of a mob. But thanks anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All well and good. However keep in mind that if we think you're just throwing out ideas for the sake of experimenting, there are things that can be done to put a stop to it, despite you feeling that it's beneficial. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And Obuibo, if you spent as much time making sure your "contributions" to policy discussions were valid, novel, and appropriate as you did to making sure your "barney quote" that you revised a couple of times, was appropriate, you might get a better response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to get it juuuuuuuuust perfect. However, you are welcome to be bold and improve it. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: You need to realize these people have a point. You're very energetic, but your ideas are missing the mark badly, probably because you don't really understand Wikipedia. The best way to gain that understanding is to participate more in it without trying to change it. You know the basics, I think, but you don't really have a sense of the place. Mangojuice^talk 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: Dude, I figure you have the right idea. You just need to go slower early on, so that you can pick up feedback and respond to it before you get into too much trouble. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a couple problems (in addition to my approach): (1) People don't give ideas a chance to be tried, and (2) They take my ideas as immutable proposals that needs to be shut down rather than as something that maybe we can tweak, build off of, maybe take a few aspects of the concept and work with, etc. Obviously most of the stuff I propose isn't ready for prime-time, but I put it out there to get feedback, and people feel the need to MfD it. If you conceal it from view, how will it be improved upon?

But in most cases, people say the basic ideas are flawed. That is pretty much the most common problem I encounter when I try to reform anything, whether IRL or here – people saying, "What we have now is fine." If it's working so well, why are we going downhill? By the way, some people find it objectionable that I quote from Wikitruth but I feel pretty much the same way they do: "Make no mistake, we wouldn't be bitching this much about Wikipedia and Wikipedian failings if we didn't, at the core, love the whole concept."[96] (Right on, brothers!) By the way, I hope I don't come off as shooting the messenger here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most of your knowledge of Wikipedia comes from WikiTruth (you even created a userbox denoting that, I believe), and their information will obviously be slanted towards the viewpoint that Wikipedia is broken and needs to be changed. So it makes perfect sense that you're immediately trying to make such sweeping changes. As everyone else here has already advised, I too suggest you gain more knowledge from experience first. Wait a while before you decide things need changing. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Users with less experience here than Mbstpo seem to think this. He has the experience. He also has ideas. There are serious problems we have; there is a project Mbstpo started to collect "exit interviews." We can already see, in the parting comments of many ex-administrators (on and off-wiki), that something has drastically shifted. Sweep it under the carpet if you like, but don't complain if the carpet starts to get lumpy. What worked some years ago isn't working so well any more. Edit patterns are shifting, and more and more editor time is wasted in just maintaining articles from vandalism and POV-pushers. It's a losing battle, in fact. Vandalism, easy. Long-term dedicated and cautious POV-pushing, well, from my observations, we're a push-over. All it takes is patience. We have substantial effort going into AfD, and the argument for AfD is based on improving the reputation of the encyclopedia for reliability, but deleting non-notable articles does not improve the reliability of the encyclopedia (particularly as long as they meet WP:V). The reliability problems that harm our reputation are with more substantial articles. And we are not addressing the problem, we haven't even begun to address it. To do so will take structural changes (not, by the way, changes in policy, which is generally quite good; the problem isn't policy, but how policy is applied -- and misapplied). I follow Mbstpo's Talk page, and I'm not seeing warnings of substance. There is no pattern of tendentious editing, no incivility beyond some occasional sarcasm, quite mild by Wikipedia standards. Abd --23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially by the standards of Talk:IRV. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, MfDs aren't started in order to conceal things from view. If something doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it's simply deleted. We don't keep things around on the basis of experimentation. Also: No one finds it objectionable that you quote from WikiTruth. But they aren't a reliable source so you can't use them as refs in articles. Plus, this edit in particular is of course not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, as the only point of it seems to be to criticize use of the word, and offers no actual information. It may even constitute intentional disruption, ie. vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The intent may not be to conceal stuff from view, but that's the end result. Also, I didn't get most of my knowledge of Wikipedia from Wikitruth; I just happened to stumble across that site a few days ago and was like, "Whoa, this is awesome." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The point applies nonetheless. We don't keep things around just so that people will see it. If it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, it gets MfDd. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I figured this template didn't actually endorse canvassing, and tried to clarify the matter on the talk page, but since it's deleted no one can see those comments, nor do I know if I ever got a response. I wonder if the deleting admin even took the time to read those comments. In a nutshell, this seemed to be a poorly named template that should be used when someone wants to indicate they're not bothered by receiving lots of notices, which is one small reason we discourage canvassing. Besides the name itself, I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc.

So I have to ask, are all of you just responding to the name and what you thought would happen, or did you look and see what it actually was? -- Ned Scott 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

82.19.153.51

• 82.19.153.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Serious and unprovoked personal attack [97] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be related to this ip 90.209.209.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Have warned both users (final and only warning for the first one)--Jac16888 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You (Gordonofcartoon) reverted their earlier vandalism. Doing that brings the risk of this type of pointless and groundless attack. Death and legal threats are also not unknown. Or at least I've often had both. Also a lot of stuff about how big a gay I am (true) and how much of a cocksucker I am (also true). WP:RBI is the only way to deal with this childishness. And a deep breath. Taking the higher ground, that's what I call it... as I curse their parents :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I use pots. :) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs), ban evasion, and enabling

Davkal (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked/banned prolific sockpuppeteer. He's currently socking and evading his ban fairly actively to advance his view on the SPOV/expert withdrawal issue. A representatively constructive comment describes opposing editors as "sucking <James> Randi's cock each night before bed" and boasts of a much larger sockdrawer. Most recently he's evading his ban to lob inflammatory "questions" at the proposed Martinphi-ScienceApologist interview.

The problem with revert, block, ignore is that he's receiving encouragement from Martinphi. Example: one of Davkal's socks inserted the same comment (targeting an old antagonist) 4 times in rapid succession ([98], [99], [100], [101]). He was reverted each time, as a banned user. After the 4th incident, Martinphi adopted the questions as his own [102]. He was well aware at the time that this was a sock of a banned user ([103]). Martinphi defends Davkal's comments as "useful" and "helpful", despite objections from the moderator, among others, that they are simply argumentative. I raised the issue on Martinphi's talk page here; Martin's response was that Davkal is "behaving well" and "deserves to be heard" ([104]).

Davkal is, quite properly, banned. Banned users are not welcome to contribute. If the input truly was helpful for the encyclopedia, that might be one thing, but it's simply argumentation and pursuance of one of Davkal's old grudges. He's not "behaving well" at all. While Martinphi may find Davkal's input "useful", I think Martin has crossed a line in terms of enabling and encouraging Davkal to continue to evade his ban and pursue his old grudges, which is inappropriate behavior for an established user.

Martinphi is already under ArbCom sanction for "a variety of disruptive behavior". I'm not asking for any administrative action at this point other than some feedback about this issue. We should be reverting Davkal on sight as a banned sockpuppeteer. Martin isn't obligated to revert him and enforce the ban personally, but he can at least resist the temptation to enable and support Davkal's abuse. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi should be warned for disruption with specific diffs and citation to the relevant policy and arbitration case. If the behavior continues, then report to WP:AE or block, as appropriate. Proxy editing for a banned use is not allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you, or any other outside admins, be willing to oversee this? I have enough involvement with Martinphi that it would be inappropriate for me to block him or use the tools under pretty much any circumstances. Also, his ArbCom remedy allows for banning him from pages he disrupts - it wouldn't make much sense to ban him from his interview page, so if any remedies are appropriate they would be outside the letter of the ArbCom decision. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, the problem has already been solved. I re-inserted some of the stuff Davkal contributed because I thought the content was good, and because I personally was willing to take responsibility for that content. I wasn't enabling a specific editor. Since then, I agreed not to do that, but merely -if the occasion arises- to take his ideas and insert them as my own. Thus, the appearance of my "enabling" him would be eliminated. Though, why his good edits shouldn't be enabled, I'm not completely sure.

In other words, I said I'd do as MastCell asked, except that I don't want good ideas to be rejected merely because of the source. So, if it comes up again, I'll take the source's ideas and insert them in my own words, without reference to the source. There isn't anything wrong with that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Interview? Is this an encyclopedia or it is Crossfire (TV series)? If a deliberately dramatic clash of POVs is stage-managed then what do you expect but drama? <shakes head>. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at colonel Warden. Anyway, tThey're not really inflammatory questions. The first one asks about ScienceApologist's dismissal and misrepresentation of a central tenet of scientific skepticism (according to CSI); and the second asks for some explanation of the fact that a professor of biological sciences (Curtis Clark) recently referred to ScienceApologist and others as "fundamentalists" and only took consolation in the fact that while his edits could be edit warred out by the "fundies" at least he would know that he had acted as a scholar. In the context of the interview at hand these are highly pertinent questions and it is little wonder than martin would feel they should be addressed.

Colonel Warden, (-: Well, quite so, and actually in this case drama is actually somewhat constructive (entertaining, and also instructive). Anyway, I don't know why MastCell reported this, when I already said I was going to do things differently. I don't happen to know the rules as apply to banned users, never came up against this before. I thought it would be just fine as long as I took the responsibility for the content. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[Post from banned User:Davkal redacted]

As far as I know, people can be blocked for proxying for a banned user. Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly dare say it, but Davkal is right that they weren't really inflammatory questions. See what I mean about his having good ideas? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're not doing things differently but continuing to encourage him. If Davkal wants to fix errors in the Wittgenstein article, I doubt anyone would notice or care. The objection is to continuing to pursue a pet grudge which led, in part, to Davkal's banning. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly unusual case, and from a moral POV, one could argue Davkal has a right to be in on it, since as you say he was banned partly through contact with SA. But I'm not making that argument. Since I already said I wasn't going to do what you asked me not to (encourage Davkal by putting his material back into the interview page), I don't understand why you continue to persue this? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I pursue it because when I addressed the issue directly with you on your talk page, you repeatedly asserted that you would continue encouraging Davkal's input if you found it "useful" and "helpful". I appreciate that he often echoes your arguments, but I don't see that as an acceptable approach to handling a disruptive banned user. So I came here. For outside input. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I really said was that I'd use his ideas as my own if I wanted to (if they were good), but not insert his own edits, nor give him credit. You already had what you wanted. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds almost as if you are saying that you intend to continue proxying for Davkal, but that in the future you will be careful not to get caught at it. If that isn't what you mean, what do you mean? Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, Davkal has no right to be in it, either personally or by proxy, because he is banned. If he wants to ask ArbCom for a temporary lifting of the ban then he can do so, but while he is banned he is not welcome. Editing on behalf of a banned user is forbidden. Don't do it. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti - Infobox and Talkpage

I'm not certain if this is quite an admin issue, but I was very troubled by a recent post from an editor regarding the addition of an infobox by an anon editor. (see this section [105])I have replied extensively but would like some more input on whether I'm correct in my assertions in response to what I saw as an attempt to use a wikiproject to stifle dissent. Exxolon (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still not clear whether there is any legitimate dissent being stifled. But Fram has blocked Warbler123 (talk · contribs · logs) indef as a sock of WJH1992 (talk · contribs · logs), and 88.111.201.28 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week, for the same reason. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy (User:WJH1992) edits mostly UK television-related articles and now seems to have branched out. He is relentless to the point of pestilence. He has a sock-drawer that can only be described as overflowing, and seems not to be getting the message that his edits are unwelcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since WJH1992's original block in December, I have blocked 13 socks (IP adresses and usernames), and other admins have blocked a lot more (the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992 is far from complete). The original block was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115#Block review of User:WJH1992, and nothing has changed since then. It is very annoying to have to check hundreds of edits (and he makes many, many, very minor edits) to see if they are useful or not, and things like this[106] are not really helping (although it made me smile the first time he did it, by the third time it became rather stale). Fram (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

Can someone explain why Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg is showing up in the documentation section of a number of templates? Example: Template:Navigation with collapsible groups. — Scientizzle 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've just felt my way here to report the same: looks like something called via one or other of the documentation templates, but, taking a quick look at {{documentation}}, I can't see anything obvious. Someone's prank, I guess. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just traced it to Template:Documentation/docname‎, which seems to be transcluded through several levels. I've reverted it, but it may take a while for the change to filter through. Possibly semi-protection in order? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to figuring it out. I semi-protected the template. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection would make more sense. How often would this be edited by any user, including admins? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing/protecting. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn (return of GSNGuy, or his "dad", or whoever...)

From my talk page (and Mrschimpf's, as well): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gladys_j_cortez#A_Speech_of_Apology Allegedly from banned user GSNGuy's "dad", User:Mr.GSNII. Could we run a checkuser and clear out the sock drawer again, or does that count as "fishing"? Gladys J Cortez 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Mr.GSNII has been blocked indefinitely. --clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediate semi needed, please help!

Resolved

 – protected

Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal & Eliot Spitzer. Please semi these for a few weeks; look at the history on the scandal page in particular. The BLP vios are like machine guns here. Help! I can't protect, I'm not an admin. Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have semi'd the former for a month; the latter was already protected. Black Kite 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New account User:Basegirlball posting lots of AfDs

Would someone take a look at this, please. This is a new account, began editing just two days ago, and the person is posting AfDs left and right. The one that alerted me is for Dance Theater Workshop, one of the premiere dance presenters in New York, and an organization that easily fulfills notability requirements. There's absolutely no justification for an AfD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is significant, but the first edit for this user has the edit summary "Created page with 'importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');')". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD in question as I agree, and you beat me to posting here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And I closed the AfD for Independence Air. A couple of these AfDs may have some merit for discussion, but this account's limited history is rather interesting. Resolute 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have removed Twinkle from this user until she convinces an admin that she understands deletion policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we get the AfD removed after the resultant KEEP? referring to Heart of Brooklyn EraserGirl (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If its clear cut, then speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin will remove the AFD tag when they close it. Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is weird actually, though disruptive, some of the AfDs have merit (i.e.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Salamat_Ali though not exactly phrased well). Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It only appears to hold merit. Observe the reasonfor deletion. Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC). SynergeticMaggot (talk)

No - my point is that it'd be considered a reasonable AfD if posted by a user in good standing. The others are fairly obvious Keeps. Black Kite 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this, as I had noticed the other nominations warranted deletion. Which is why I didnt close the rest myself. It hasnt been established that the editor is a sock, or just really, really confused. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a scintilla of confusion there - this person hit the ground running. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Though they may not be a confirmed sock, their editing style sure looks like it. How does a new account know to cite COI and WP:N in their AfD noms? Tiptoety ^talk 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I only meant that I wont close the other afd's since they aren't as clear cut as the other ones. I'll leave that up to an admin for them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent - e/c*4) Well, I think that the user’s first edit should dispel any thinking that she is a new user. —Travis^talk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new user, first edit twinkle, second edit AFD. Most new users are trying to figure out how the buttons work, not mass AFD nominations. The only serious AFD is Mohammed Salamat Ali. KnightLago (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of Brooklyn as speedy keep. Tiptoety ^talk 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And I did the same as well with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitforms gallery. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should we do a RFCU to find out if this user is a sock of someone? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that knowing how things work isn't a blockable offense. While it may be unlikely in this case, legitimate reasons exist for a user with experience to operate under a new account. Speedy close what needs to be speedy closed. Let run what should be let run. The user has been warned, and hasn't made an edit since. Unless this is the MO of a known sock, I'm not sure how a checkuser wouldn't be a fishing trip here. --Onorem♠Dil 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also User:Bananaqueen, who has also been on a deletion spree today with similarly mundane rationales. Bananaqueen has been around since 20 February 2008, but today imported Twinkle to their monobook.js from the same account as Baseballgirl (User:AzaToth/twinkle.js). --Canley (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, everyone gets Twinkle from there, sorry. --Canley (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, turns out your gut reaction was correct, Canley; Basegirlball and Bananaqueen are the same user, confirmed by Checkuser. I'll leave it to someone else to tag these up and block if not done yet; there are more, too, investigating it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're all socks of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs) etc. So blocked and tagged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Resolved

I'm going to shamelessly steal from GWH here:"We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting ANI. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move. In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection". He's moved from AN to ANI,so keep an eye on other boards for this crap. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the same vandal, I think. Different MO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted wikifollowing

User:Ns tyrantk keeps following me around and keeps trying to talk to me on my user talk page with pointless things, like saying that today's featured article looked interesting. I want him to stop, but he isn't. I also suspect him as a sock of User:Durzatwink, since he had a very similar record of tracking me. Can someone help me? STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Such behavior can be sanctioned with a block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It told me to come here. STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know - an admin will have to look into it. For now, I dropped a message/note on the user's talk page as an advisement/warning of the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you check my sockpuppet suspicions of the user and Durzatwink et al. ?--STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

*sighs* [107]... looks like vandalism, but consensus is to treat them seriously, so I'm bringing it to everyone's attention. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that random on-wiki threats such as this merit any special attention - WP:AIV is still fine for those I think. I believe the emphasis is on actionable, real-world threats - e.g. bomb threat at a school. Ronnotel (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppy girl 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef. blocked as being a vandalism-only account as a result of a submission at AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2)I don't think this one falls under the new WP:Threats Of Violence, since its not actually a threat against a specific person/group/organisation/institute, its just a general rant, all this needs is a block i think. As has happened--Jac16888 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a threat, then I have come across hundreds of those while doing recent change patrolling. Just revert and warn like normal. (The user has been blocked anyways) Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, saying you're gonna hunt down and kill wikibastards (I guess that's us) sounds like a threat of violence to me. In any event, WP:RBI seems like the right way to go. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard as trolling, I doubt its even possible to kill ClueBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Without an identifiable target, there's probably not much any authorities could do about it anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends how you want to play it. Sure it'd be nice to block, revert, ignore. That's step one. But this is a threat of violence and it should be taken seriously. Local police would be very interested to see that this person has threatened murder. True, a specific target hasn't been identified. It's likely a hoax. It's a registered user so a checkuser would have to get the IP info and relay it to someone trustworthy of the info and reporting it. So, what's the threshold? I'd say we take it seriously and inform the local cops. Bstone (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And tell them what? And anyways, we dont know who the "local cops" are, we dont have an IP. Tiptoety ^talk 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell them that this person has threatened murder. That's more than enough to start an investigation and to get the cops very, very interested. As far as the IP info, as you can see in my previous post I mentioned we'd have to get a Checkuser involved who would then relay the IP info to a trusted party. Bstone (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are welcome to. Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. I would just need someone to furnish me with the IP info. Bstone (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is someone going to really contact the police? what will be told? "excuse me officer, I am calling to report a death threat against a semi-automated bot account" doesn't sounds logical, why aren't we applying WP:DENY here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The police are always, always interested when there has been a threat of murder. And this was not against a bot. It was against Wikipedians. Bstone (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks serious to me, why should be have to take this kind of Crap? "just because its the internet" is not good enough anymore, so many editors have left this project because of this stuff. One admin had death threats at home, this has to be stopped. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it need be said that there is a significant difference between particularized threats of harm credibly leveled at specific individuals and generalized threats that don't reasonably trouble anyone; this is of the latter variety, especially because, pace Bstone, it was emphatically against a bot, to-wit, "wikibastardbot" (sic) (to be sure, the precedent phrase "wikibastards" might be understood as relating to individuals, but who those individuals might be is entirely unclear, and I cannot imagine that anyone is actually concerned or need actually be concerned). If someone wishes to report the "threat" to law enforcement, he/she, in his/her individual capacity as a citizen, may (even as it as it might strike some as utterly bizarre that anyone should be so inclined), but we need not, IMHO, trifle with it here further. Joe 07:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious the threat itself is against "wikibastardbot", its pretty safe to assume it was directed against ClueBot who had left the user a revert notice a few minutes before this rant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with wicked bizz-ah autoblock behav-yah

Resolved

Could someone look into this: User talk:ShirleyPartridge. I lifted the autoblock earlier today, and the user says it didn't work, and she is still blocked. So she reposted the unblock-auto template, and it seems she still can't edit. I tried to lift the autoblock, but it says she isn't blocked. I am megaconfused... Can someone PLEASE help out with this. Mooch ass Grassy ass... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Partyhard2008

Partyhard2008 (talk · contribs) is creating several attack articles I've deleted that reference 4chan. I know that is related to some other issue. And reading their userpage, I suspect there are more new accounts. I've blocked for 12 hours, but please extend if this is part of a larger issue. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 4chan is a larger issue right now, and i feel that an indef block is suitable here. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I'll be bold and extend it; they've been harassing users as of late and as such I have adopted a one-strike-one-week policy in re the IPs threatening and harassing users. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd seen 4chan mentioned in a bad way, but couldn't find a discussion quick enough and figured a fast block + extension review would be best. MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. I'm just sitting here waiting for the next scratch monkeys from there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to block?

Resolved

 – Dealt with by FP@S; Coll blocked indef for socking. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently filed a CheckUser on User:TharkunColl which unturned numerous sockpuppet accounts being used to distrupt wikipedia through racist editing and vandalism. The checkuser can be found here, I believe an indef block is needed on this account. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the CU: [...][A]ll the above accounts have been blocked[...]. FP@S took care of it already. Misread the first time; blocked Coll indef for sockpuppetry. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And an unblock. I declined the first one, would another admin care to give it a shot? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I blocked only the obvious throwaway accounts I listed at the bottom of the checkuser. I did not claim TharkunColl was himself the sockpuppeter. Haven't got time to deal with this right now, will be back later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A question about this - the block on TharkunColl says that he's been blocked because checkuser says he is SheildDane. However, the checkuser is just a request at the moment - it doesn't say that they have the same ip address. Has someone jumped the gun here? --Bazzargh (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked based on what Joseph said and what FP@S said at the CU; it's a behavioral sockblock and can be rescinded should CU come back "Unrelated". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)