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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode

Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as 64.142.90.33 (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment,[6] then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[7] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint,[8] and took the dispute to an unrelated article[9] with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking.[10] I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw (or clarify according to Atom' interpretation) the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable.

JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am dense. I looked carefuly at the cited diff[11] "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer. This is intolerable and will be treated as such. catherine yronwode a.k.a." This sounds like a basic user dispute. She has not threatened any legal action, only mentioned two legal terms. I see no reason to block her. He comment regarding "a legal threat is real" was her concern that she what she perceivces as slander may damage her reputation as a freelance writer. She has not suggested that she plans on, or is threatening to sue anyone, and has only asked the uncivil editor to not do that any longer. Try asking her a direct question "Are you threatening legal action against editor Hrafn or Wikipedia?", and base your action on that? I think I will. Atom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that expressing concerns about copyvios is "slander" or "libel" clearly runs afoul of WP:LEGAL. The fundamental problem with such statements and the point of LEGAL is that they can be highly intimidating to users. Even if someone doesn't file suit directly the same problem exists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom, for raising the issue more directly. I'm a bit concerned about the question "Do you have any immediate plans to sue Wikipedia, or User:Hrafn?" as it would still be a legal threat if deferred or conditional on some future action. It did seem pretty clear to me that "The legal threat is real" meant what it said in the context of the discussion, but it wasn't clear if she was aware of the policy and further clarification is useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On first blush, I also interpreted her response as a legal threat, but upon careful reading (after Atom's post) I do see that it could be interpreted in various ways. It's best to ask.

BTW, Cat is a long term contributor to Wikipedia who has worked long and hard to add material and to create articles throughout Wikipedia. We certainly owe her the benefit of doubt here. Madman (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats of libel are enough. The account should be blocked and the issue dealt with on the talk page. This is, I believe, to stop wikipedia from getting into any legal problems with things being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a forum, the threats should just be removed or the user blocked while they deal with it or not. The user has already been asked and warned per the diffs above. Verbal chat 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, I saw (and respect) your opinion stated earlier. No need to reiterate it, I was just offering my own. Should I state mine again too? You said "threats of libel" my point was that she made no such threat, she only used the word. Atom (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to restate - I added some new thoughts I thought, such as WP not being a forum for discussing libel and slander. Saying a comment is libellous is enough too, just from using the word in that way. Dispute resolution should be used so this doesn't arise. My comment about WP liability was new also. No hard feelings. Verbal chat 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought carefully about the "Do you have any immediate plans..." wording. My thinking is that we need her current state of mind, not past or present. We could not hold someone to "I don't plan on legal action in the future" anyway. Our main desire is to determine if by definition, WP:NLT applies or not for this case. Atom (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One point here. We really shouldn't be accusing fellow editors of committing illegal acts. If you are wrong, then that is a problem. WP:NLT doesn't give people carte blanche to accuse someone of everything and anything, and then yell WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response. Some common sense is required as well, and careful and professional handling of copyvios and other similar issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, though in this particular case it's wrong to suggest that the original accuser yelled "WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response." The question of it being a legal threat was introduced after Hrafn had struck his accusations and accepted that he was in error, when Aunt Entropy pointed out that legal threats are a blockable offence.[12] It was Catherine's response to that which included "The legal threat is real." [13] Catherine followed that up by stating on Hrafn's user talk page that "The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn", and that she would "continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize." Hrafn replied at 04:00 on the next morning, 3 September, then at 04:18 said that since she had made an explicit legal threat, he was "ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT".[14] In light of the statements below do you now consider it appropriate for Hrafn to reopen communications, and would you advise him to delete the comments she finds offensive? He's already struck the comments on the Haane talk page, and her assertion of "deliberate copyright violation in the Haanel article on Talk:The Science of Getting Rich"[15] appears to refer to Talk:The Science of Getting Rich#Page restored to existence again which makes no accusation of copyright violation, as it's an argument about which Wikipedia article text was taken from. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that i had deliberately committed a copyright violation was false and very harmful, since my *real name* (and therefore my *personal information*) was attached to it. I asked for Oversight to remove it, but they declined. Very shortly, however, hrafn, the editor who had made the charge, admitted he had been wrong, and acknowledged that the charge of copyvio was backwards -- that is, the web page on which he saw the text had actually copied the text from an earlier version of Wikipedia, and i had also pulled up the old Wikipedia text.

He then admitted to having based his belief that i was committing copyvio on the fact that my text had been dropped into Wikipedia as "short lines." The lines were short because i use a 65-character-width text editor when i work offline to help compensate for my low vision. (I have nystagmus and cannot read long lines.) That excuse was just silly enough to seem real. In my experience, hyper-vigilant people read all kinds of meanings into typography. :-)

Hrafn withdrew the charge against me and then, at my request, he also deleted the sub-head text in which my real name was connected with the charge of illegality. He did not apologize, but the matter ended there. That's all there is to it.

Building a controversy about this kerfluffle days after it all ended is a bit strange, 'cause anyone could have asked me what was up.

Meanwhile, it is true that i am preparing an AN/I report against hrafn in my user-space. He knows about it; it's no secret. It is based on a long pattern of editing by him and not on any specific incident involving me. The hoped-for result is not to block or ban hrafn from Wikipedia, but to restore, for review by other editors, the several pages he deleted without discussion, and, if possible, to restrict him from editing in that category unless he agrees to work cooperatively with, rather than against, other editors. I am taking my time to develop the AN/I statement, and have asked other editors to contribute to it and edit it, if they find it of value. There's no rush on it, and it is proceeding as i have spare time; hrafn's been making these undiscussed deletions for months, and it takes many hours to find out what's gone missing.

It is conceivable that the prospect of hrafn facing an AN/I report may have provoked this attempt to get me blocked or banned from Wikipedia, but of course, that may just be coincidence. None of the editors speaking against me here are ones i know through editing the pages concerned with the proposed AN/I report; perhaps they are friends of hrafn's.

In sum, the copyvio charge was retracted by hrafn, the connection between the charge and my *real name* was deleted by hrafn, and that's a closed book. Meanwhile, i am still working on the AN/I proposal in my user space -- but that's an entirely different matter.

So, onward and upward, as they say.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above statement lays out the detailed situation pretty well though the statement "the matter ended there" is rather misleading, the important point is covered in a similar statement on her talk page,[16] with her statement that "I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Wikipedia or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Wikipedia to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal."

The article talk page is a bit confusing due to interspersed comments,[17][18][19] but in essence the matter continued with an exchange about whether there was evidence suggesting copying, and was then left unresolved with Catherine's assertion that "The legal threat is real". In my country copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but your situation may vary.

I accept that the ANI complaint and the dispute on an unrelated article relate to her general dispute with Hrafn over removal of unverified or disputably verified material from articles, and should have made it clearer that these are not directly concerned with the legal threat. My involvement began when I was asked by Hrafn to take a look at the situation on that unrelated article, and while investigating I came across the legal threat and on consideration felt it should be raised here. In my opinion the threat appears to have been withdrawn, but I leave it to others to review that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a bit of bad faith on the conjurer's part. Perhaps if we repeat these bad faith allegations re hrafn long enough, the spirit world will assist in his condemnation. Or maybe not. Bottom line is that Cat's allegations re hrafn's "evil" plan ring quite hollow. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You aren't helping matters, User:Jim62sch, by name calling ("conjurer") and rehashing the dispute here. This matter concerns the perceived legal threat and that should be the only matter under discussion here. Madman (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, User:Jim62sch, don't call me names or lie about what i have written. I never wrote that hrafn or his intentions are "evil," so placing that word in quotes in a provocative and false statement on your part. Try to rmeain civil. My sandboxed notes for the AN/I proposal here have now been uploaded to the request for mediation against you, hrafn, and Dave Souza. Apparently some folks think that you folks operate as a tag-team or cabal.

As stated on my talk page, my research on hrafn grew out of requests from other users for my help in getting pages restored that hrafn had deleted or redirected without prior discussion, in all cases eliminating the entirety of the texts. In most cases i don't even know what the texts consisted of, as they are gone now, but i do note that they all fall into the broad ssubject-category of late 19th and early 20th secular self-help and religious New Thought and self-help authors and books. In researching those complaints, i found what i believe to be a pattern of elimination of text from many religion pages, falling short of deletion or redirection without consent. A pattern is evident. That's about all i know right now, but i worked a long time on establishing the dimensions of the deletiions and complaints, with a plan of trying to get the matter out in the open.

I reserve the word "evil" for serious matters; hrafn may be a one-purpose editor with a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint he wishes to enforce by elimination of historical material dealing with viewpoints counter to his own. That's not "evil"; that's just really, really POV-driven editing. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a brief response to Catherineyronwode's accusations. They are based upon confirmation bias, inaccurate hearsay repeated as fact, and misinterpretation of core policy (specifically WP:V). Her claims of "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" would appear to be directly related to her husband's (User:Self-ref) and her POV-pushing on Category:Pseudoskeptic Target and its CfD. I could provide lengthy difs correcting and clarifying many of her claims on User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal, but (i) this would take a great deal of time & (ii) they involve mainly content (and to a lesser extent WP:CIVIL) disputes that would appear to be off-topic for this page. I will however note that I apply my "hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" of attempting to see that WP:V is rigorously enforced, not to the "one-purpose" of New Thought articles, but to a wide range of topics, including my own editing speciality (articles relating to Creationism -- in which area an article of my creation, Academic Freedom bills‎, was recently favourably mentioned in the August issue [p11] of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology newsletter), as well as articles relating to the Unification Church, the woollier reaches of speculative Cosmology and other topics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Wikipedia. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Wikipedia policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Wikipedia saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Wikipedia, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Wikipedia. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review,[20] a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Wikipedia "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" [I had to search for that].

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Wikipedia editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report baofsed on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his [Ecoleetage's] request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption. [He removed the adoption template from my talk page after canceling the adoption. He is no longer my "mentor" and I am no longer his "mentee" or "adoptee".]

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet[ed]. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. [I actually did far more work on the article than he did.] Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Wikipedia that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Wikipedia.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Wikipedia (and hence Wikipedia); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Wikipedia to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Wikipedia editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Wikipedia.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all [at least to my recollection; there is no reason for "diffs." here, and in his manner, OIC has simply ignored my talk page and user box notices not to take my talk page comments out of context; he seems inevitably to take things out of context and to skew them to support false interpretations (misinterpretations) of the contexts.]

All my communications with him [Ecoleetage], except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or [series of images--2 in one article, 1 in another] is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on [the current one(s) I've been working on], if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Wikipedia work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Wikipedia that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my [user] page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[I missed some typographical errors in previewing and am now too tired to hunt for and correct them further; there are some important ones; I hope that the mistyping will not be too confusing. I'm exhausted by all this. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)]

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Wikipedia in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Wikipedia. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Wikipedia better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Wikipedia in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Wikipedia process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in summary mode and diffs would be overkill. The behavior is on display here too. We're not going to come to terms with this unless we stop beating around the bush with Wikipedia-speak and recognize this for what it is, an editing pattern and expressed sentiments for other editors that are far out of the norm. Or to use language that others have, hyper-editing coupled with constant accusations. This has been going on indefinitely and seems unabated so we can assume it will continue. It's clearly bad for the project. Any page this lands on more or less shuts down, degrades in quality, and more or less shuts down until the editor moves on. Efforts to change the project have all failed. So are we going to live with it or not? Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.

Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.

At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are diffs in the opening post. If you follow the very first diff cited in the opening post you will find the archived discussion of the last ANI and there you will find more diffs to other discussions. The relevant diffs are all in the opening post, no one is asking you to go searching the archives. Sarah 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Wikipedia is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Wikipedia results from the open editing procedure. To change Wikipedia from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Wikipedia. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Wikipedia, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Wikipedia. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me.  ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Wikipedia (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Wikipedia user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sanctioned": I have reviewed my archived 21 and see that "sanctioned" as used there refers to a "block"; I am not an administrator, and I do not always remember the lingo used by administrators; I was required to be adopted by the conditions of a "block" placed by User:John Carter (see my talk page archive 21), and, as soon as an adopter came forward to adopt me, I accepted the offer to be adopted by him (User:Ecoleetage); I've provided links to the exchanges between John Carter and me below, in reply to comments by ThuranX, which distort what actually occurred and claim the opposite of what occurred, claiming that I was "reluctant" to accept the adoption; that is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and proved false by the archive exchange in archive page 21. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Message from Eco Lee Tage I was hoping not to come back, as I am trying to take an extended Wikibreak due to personal problems that I need to address offline -- and the very last thing I need at this point in time is melodramatic distraction. Based on what I am reading here, however, I need to step back and answer some matters.

First, when I received permission from John Carter to "adopt" NYScholar, I received no parameters, rules or time limits on mentorship. Nor did I receive any instructions that I had to report to any person or entity that the mentorship was concluded. The statement "if you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community" is specifically not Wikipedia policy in regard to WP:BLOCK (as the adoption was linked to NYScholar's unblocking), nor was it part of my communications with the blocking admin in this case. Without specific instructions, I chose to exercise my rights as the adoptive editor and state that I did all I could for NYScholar.

The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely my decision, based on what I saw as NYScholar's positive contributions to the project and the appreciation of other editors to his work, most notably Keeper76's unusually strong praise. Keeper is not one to give out praise lightly, so his endorsement convinced me that there was no reason to keep the "adoption" going. Based on this editor's writing and referencing skills, and the manner in which he was interacting with other editors, it was my editorial judgment that NYScholar no longer required mentoring. Perhaps he requires muzzling, given his propensity to use 5,000 words when five would be sufficient. (That is a joke, by the way.)

Since nobody gave me directions on the mentorship, I find it odd that we are getting after-the-fact attempts to re-open a closed and resolved case and bring new punishment on someone who has already been held up to ridicule by his peers and blocked.

Furthermore, the mentorship concluded a month ago -- you people just noticed it now?

I also want to take a moment to address a comment made by one of the editors who felt NYScholar's "behavior is simply not normal." Not normal? This man has not brought physical, emotional or professional injury to any member of this project. He talks too much? Yeah, tell me something I don't know. His editing is overly exuberant? Uh, yeah, I know that, too. And do you know what the cited article, Czesława_Kwoka, is about? I originally rallied to save that article from deletion -- it is the story of a young girl who perished in the Holocaust. The main reason that article has been preserved and went on to win DYK honours is because NYScholar took his time and energy to expand the article's sourcing and provide it with content that ensured that poor child's life story wouldn't be erased from our pages. I don't recall any of NYScholar's accusers lifting a finger to help save that article. Thank you, NYScholar -- because of you, and solely because of you, that poor child did not have to die a second time by having her memory erased.

If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately. This does not contribute to the betterment of the project in any way, shape or form. And if anyone here who finds fault with NYScholar want to make him a better editor, I happily invite them to step up to the proverbial plate, "adopt" him and find success where you feel that I failed.

I am now returning to my Wikibreak. If you need to reach me, please contact me by e-mail since I will not be returning to these pages for some time. Thank you, and please be nice to each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ecoleetage. I see that Ecoleetage (who I know to be male from his self-description on his website and only from that) also assumes that I am a man. [I meant to type user page in last sent.; I don't know if he has a website; my only interaction w/ him is via our Wikipedia talk pages. --Ed. (NYS)] Even Ecoleetage does not know my gender. I can't believe how all of you regard this attack on both Ecoleetage and me to be reasonable or even "normal" (using a word he quotes from a comment that I haven't seen yet). May I just remind everyone again that scholars may be male or female. Re: the Holocaust-related article: I have done some specialized literary-related research pertaining to the Holocaust and given a paper at a major scholarly conference on the Holocaust, so the closely-interrelated subjects of Kwoka and then Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist became very interesting to work on and, because of (in my view) enormous importance as human rights issues (another subject of my work outside of Wikipedia), it became very important to me to make these articles well-documented and reliable and in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies and editing guidelines. The problems with the images are of concern to me because I fear that if they are not properly uploaded with all the proper licenses and proper fair-use rationales or whatever they need, down the road some administrator will come along and delete the whole article on Kwoka; I have taken it as a challenge to improve the Kwoka article and to create and develop the other two, but it is not a "personal" matter; it is an editorial matter. I am a very conscientious responsible editor (in actual life) and take such work very seriously. Perhaps that does not seem "normal" to others; but I also have devoted many, many hours to getting these articles where they are and I would not like that work to be lost to Wikipedia and other Wikipedia readers (as is the case w/ all the articles that I work on). My professional work is described in general terms in an archived talk page answer to someone who said I didn't have the degrees that I do have and so on. That too was highly offensive. Re: the anon IP user recently blocked: I rarely delete things from my current talk page; but that just seemed unnecessary to bear, and look what that anon IP user did to my user and talk pages afterward. I was unaware until administrators had reverted the changes bec. there is no orange bar for changes to a user page it seems. I was happy to have missed all that aggravation. --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What "waving"? I am so tired of your false accusations and AGF violations. I've hardly said anything and, in fact, am barely even on Wikipedia these days. I'm sorry but you were sanctioned. You were indefinitely blocked and required to undergo mentorship. If the community feels you no longer need mentorship, fine, I don't really care either way (although I think the screeds you've been posting here and elsewhere as linked by Orderinchaos indicate otherwise) but you can't just revoke a community imposed mentorship on your own. You have to come back here and tell the community and be willing to discuss it. It's most unfortunate that you insist on posting these incredibly long rants because all you're doing is making it incredibly unlikely that uninvolved admins will bother to step in and review it. And that's unfortunate for all parties. I would suggest, if you think you no longer need to be mentored, that you start a new SHORT section stating so so that it can be reviewed by uninvolved users. Sarah 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up SHORT(er) section [Well, it was....]

• From the top of this project page noticeboard:
  

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. template to do so). Please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.
This noticeboard is a busy and vital part of Wikipedia's administration. Complaints that are not serious and substantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.

1. I apologize for not being concise. I did not see the request for being "concise" until after I posted my long replies. The replies are long because of the unfounded and unsupported claims being made initially by Orderinchaos (at top of this long section).
2. OrderinChaos did not take his "grievance" up with me prior to posting this "notice".
3. OrderinChaos did not post any link to this notice to me to let me know that it was here. I came upon it by accident.
4. None of those posting their current (in some cases not concise either) comments making claims about a past incident (not this one) are posting any "diffs." links. The links in Orderinchao's first post here go to pages, not "diffs." If he examined the actual diffs., he would see that in one instance I moved an item intact to the appropriate article talk page (it was not deleted it was moved); the subsequent edits document that, and I refer to my clear notice in the "N.B." section to the poster in doing that. It was not deleted it was moved.
5. There is no truth whatsoever to the claims of "collusion" between the voluntary adopter Ecoleetage and me; that is patently untrue. My own talk page and archive pages 21 and 22 includes all comments by him and me posted there, and the whole history of our interaction. His practice is to delete old exchanges from his talk page, but they can be found in the editing history there. I am not responsible for his maintenance of his own talk page.
6. I will not be bullied into not responding to false accusations with continued complaints about the length of a response. If it takes time and space to respond, I am doing so. This is not a "rant" or a "screed" (and those are scare quotes). This is a reply.
7. It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to characterize another editor's sincere reply as a "rant" and to malign the person for having replied.

--NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a problem involving editing of The Dark Knight (which I have not edited since and would not touch with a ten-foot pole), I posted a kind message to Sarah. I will look for the "diffs." to it and post the link here in a moment. I was actually shocked to see Sarah's first and subsquent comments here. I posted the kind message to Sarah while Ecoleetage was my adopter, having learned from him the value of compassion and small acts of kindness. (Be back in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take a while longer for me to find the comments via editing history or an archive at Sarah's talk page. I will also post the "diffs." link to the item in OrderinChaos's first post here. Please bear with me. [I corrected the above link to the article on the film so it doesn't go to the disambig. page.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Diffs. from the editing history of July 16, 2008, containing my thank you post to Sarah; I learned how to use that "smile" template from my early interaction with Ecoleetage. I posted smiles to him around that time for his guidance at the time, but posting the smile to Sarah was my own idea and not discussed with him in any way at all. I was applying what I was learning from reading his talk page and seeing how he interacted then (July 2008) with other Wikipedians. I admired and tried to emulate his example of civility and kindness. I am only familiar with him from that point in summer 2008 until now, as documented in my talk page archives 21 and 22 and current talk page, not yet archived by the bot (which I hope is working okay again now). Sarah placed my post to her and her reply to me in her archive 17, which can be found via her current talk page and which also contains earlier archived exchanges from before my adoption by Ecoleetage.

Note: At the time I posted that, I expected to be away from Wikipedia for an extended period of time; but that was the period of time coincidentally that the film The Dark Knight was released and, as a "major contributor," I continued to edit Heath Ledger in order to update it and keep it up to date; one link would lead to another in Wikipedia as I added sources, and I would find myself making corrections and adding sources to other articles; around that time I was interacting with my then new adopter and attempting to follow his example in my editing. In the past month, I have not been "adopted"; after Ecoleetage suggested that I take a look at a few articles, I got involved in editing them and creating a couple of related articles. I will probably take a break now, due to exhaustion from the process of editing those articles and the upset caused by this "incident" notice. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sarah, OrderinChaos, Wikidemo and others were involved in the previous incident, but this situation is not that situation, and if they are going to ask for a block of me or a ban of me, they are required to post "diffs." in an official action of some kind. In my view, on the basis of my editing of Wikipedia since my adoption, any such action would fail. They seem to be engaging here in instigating a punitive block (not in keeping with block policy) or ban, but, again, I do not see how any such thing is warranted. As I stated way above and as Ecoleetage and Keeper have also stated, OrderinChaos's initial post and subsequent ones by others are entirely unwarranted and this whole thing should be dropped and expunged. It is not I nor Ecoleetage nor Keeper who looks bad here, but other administrators (Keeper is an admin.) who are not even able to follow the instructions given at the top of this page (just quoted). I may be wordy, but being wordy is not a punishable act in Wikipedia; my intention is not "disruption"; my intention when I comment is the opposite: clarification to the benefit of Wikipedia and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers. --NYScholar (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the poster below as another one of my main detractors from the past already-resolved incident (which again is not this "incident" that is being listed by OrderinChaos, without "diffs.", which I have been unable to locate that refer to what he is talking about); the one posting below (ThuranX) also has done so frequently in the past incident without posting actual "Diffs." and constantly makes repeated accusations without backing them up with "Diffs."; that is not what this project noticeboard is for; and it is also not for dredging up past documented situations as if they still are happening. They aren't.

Big LIE (another) [by ThuranX] below in another subsection just added; I added the subheading: I did not "reluctantly" accept mentoring; I wholeheartedly and completely accepted it, even turning down an offer from User:John Carter to allow an informal adoption and no template of adoption; I accepted a formal adoption offer and the formal adoption template was posted. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link (made linkable for purposes of linking here) from the automatic-bot archived sec of my archive page 21: [21] Hope it works. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the [automatic-bot-]archived section (mostly about the archivingbot that I am voluntarily using (not a requirement); the adopttion is discussed in section above it): Response to John Carter; we were working together to try to develop the best archiving bot for the situation. Frequently, it archives things out of chronological order, and it hasn't been doing anything lately, so I've had to doing some archiving after material has been there 2 days myself at times, or straighten out the chronological order of archived things.]. I'll see if [Diffs.] are accessible from my current talk page editing history, though I don't think it's necessary for me to post them. It is, however, necessary, for the initiating user (OrderinChaos) to post them so people know what he's referring to and can follow the previous and next edits. The bot was doing the archiving after mid-July 2008, not me, except for recent problems w/ its functioning. I've asked for help w/ it but none has arrived yet. --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[Note: Adding another arbitrary break below. See Sarah's suggestion re: SHORT; mine is only "SHORT(er)"; due to the additional comments added by ThuranX; it became longer; I don't know what "Tl;dr" means. Perhaps someone will translate it into English for me. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

tl;dr - too long; didn't read •Florrie•leave a note• 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tl;dr. Didn't have to, NYScholar is back to NYScholar's old tricks. NYScholar again with the proclamation that NYScholar never does wrong, everyone else just doesn't understand what they themselves say, and so we should all listen to NYScholar . I note that NYScholar began by interrupting others comments, a behavior that has come up before as inappropriate. NYScholar then decided to fill two screens with a lengthy, platitude and vapid nothings filled response playing the innocent (to the specific nature of the restrictions previously instituted), and victim to a group who just want to get NYScholar. It goes downhill from there. When confronted with 'Mentorship or community ban', NYScholar reluctantly accepted mentorship, only to be rapidly released from it to engage in more behavior of at best dubious ethical style. Again NYScholar protests, feigns cluelessness, which can't have happened, given how many policies were thrown in NYScholar's direction during previous troubles. By now, NYScholar should be aware that NYScholar should be editing and acting in a cautious nature when unsure, and should follow up with questions when unsure, instead of more bold editing, which so often gets NYScholar in trouble. It seems clear that the troubles NYScholar regularly stirs up are of greater weight than the edits done, which so often go undiscussed and cause trouble. I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above poster is distorting documented facts; see my comment above this section (posted while I was still writing it) and notice the lack of "diffs.". This is terrible. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah blah 'diffs'. This is nice, and would this be some infantile payback for the 'diffs' problem last time around? face up to things. You have a problem interacting with others. You're unwilling to listen to others about this problem. You have an arrogance problem. You don't believe you need to listen to others about this problem. You don't think you're wrong, and know you don't need to listen to others about this problem. As such, I stand by my assertion. As for diffs, the above, and previously linked archives support my contentions just fine, I see no value in reposting all those links again. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ThuranX: But if you would actually read the archived section with the exchanges between User:John Carter and me and between User:Ecoleetage (my adopter from mid-July to first week of August--about 3 weeks), you would see that they already contain the "diffs." and everything is archived. This procedure (AN/I) requires posting of "diffs." to back up any accusations against another Wikipedia user/editor; you are not doing that now, and you did not do that before. I am not "arrogant"; I am fair, serious-minded, a good-faith editor, and I contribute important and well-documented content to Wikipedia. Your opinion of me is your opinion. Apparently, you were not able to "get over" the AN/I that I initiated about another user to whom you refer as "Stu"; Stu apologized to me, and I accepted his apology; he offered to be "sanctioned" himself, but you and others supported no one sanctioning him. It's all discussed in the archived discussion in my archive page 21, linked to above. Please do not use uncivil and offensive language in your editing summaries; and please explain what your abbreviations at the beginning of your post above mean. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for agreeing that it's all already linked. that means I don't have to link it all again. There's your interpretation of previous events, which you harangue about here, and there's the interpretation of your behavior which I, Sarah, steve, erik, and numerous others saw. Its' really that simple. I've said my piece here about your constant wikilawyering, arrogance, and general inability to socialize here in a way conducive to editing. I leave it to others to either agree, and put an end to your tenure here, or to find some OTHER other other way of getting your to behave. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:BB: I do not follow that at all. I do not really accept "bold editing" as worthwhile. I follow WP:POL not qualified by WP:BB. I have never said to anyone "be bold" and I have never tried to "be bold" myself; I have tried to follow WP:MOS when I can (though it is often difficult to understand and inconsistent): see discussion re: that between me and Keeper in Talk:Heath Ledger, now probably archived. It can be found in the editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember how to code Keeper's user name; I'll try to fix it later. Scroll up to Keeper's comments (way up) in the meantime. I'll add the section later if that helps. --NYScholar (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the archived page 9 of Talk:Heath Ledger Please correct typographical error]: It was a request while the article was fully protected from editing due to repeated acts of vandalism throughout its history; it has been either fully protected or partly protected since January 22, 2008, the day Ledger died, and it was frequently protected at various times before that (if I recall). I have edited it between Jan. 2008 and now. It is an article that I have contributed a lot of time and energy to keeping well-documented. It was the biographical article on Ledger that first led me to the article The Dark Knight, which I began working on and encountered a group of editors who specialize in film editing (it seems to me) who know one another and who did not appreciate my working on the article and drove me away from editing it, via the AN/I that is being referred to throughout this current AN/I discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not "released" from mentorship; Ecoleetage canceled it, as was his prerogative. The only reason that I am commenting here is because of the outrageousness of Orderinchaos's claims in the top posts. All the rest of this stuff relates to a resolved matter. Where are the "diffs." to current matters. My comments in response here to others' false statements are not cause for "sanctioning" me; those who make false statements and statements without "diffs." need "sanctioning"; see WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:AN/I (this page at top). Please don't just jump on a bandwagon; read the top of the section and from then on first. I responded and no one is reading what I said earlier. Read Ecoleetage's replies and Keeper's replies. This is not a matter of "supporters"; they are simply replying to the outrageous comments of previous posters here. --NYScholar (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• For what Orderinchaos has initially claimed (and been refuted) see top of this AN/I. It was filed by Orderinchaos who did not discuss anything relating to it with me on my talk page before doing so and did not notify me of this AN/I involving me after doing so. I found it, as I say above, by accident. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper posted comments about this current AN/I a couple of days ago, saying that it appears to be a "travesty" and suggesting that it be dropped, as has Ecoleetage, who also sets the record straight re: the adoption. (Apparently, John Carter had not required Ecoleetage to consult with him when Ecoleetage thought it time to "cancel" the adoption, in part based on my then current editing and engaging with other Wikipedians and Keeper's praise of it; Ecoleetage simply informed me that he was canceling it, and I thought that meant that he was canceling it via John Carter; apparently, it was not a condition of my adoption that there be a time period or that the adopter inform the blocking administrator of the time when it was canceled. I was adopted by Ecoleetage from mid-July to the first week of August, about 3 weeks (which I refer to as "briefly"); actually 3 weeks is fairly standard for some adoptions, I learned when looking at adoption information in Wikipedia. Their time frame varies. Please scroll up to their comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I have already communicated, the only thing about Ecoleetage's initial telling me that he was nominated in an RfA that I was concerned about, as I express in my "support" of it, was that he couldn't perhaps serve after the end of the adoption to advise me about Wikipedia matters anymore, because he might become too busy as an administrator, and that he wouldn't have time to contribute to content of articles. The charge by Orderinchaos was of "collusion"; both Ecoleetage and I and Keeper have most emphatically said that charge to be false. Everything was entirely above board, and everything in my talk page exchanges with Ecoleetage is either still current or archived. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[NOTE: I have to go offline for personal reasons and can no longer comment in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

To me this seems like beating up NYscholar to take out enmity against Ecoleetage. NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects. So what if the mentorship was terminated without consensus? Did any evil come of it? Provide a link to one bad thing that is a direct effect of the termination of the mentorship. Having trouble? That's because there isn't one. Come on, ANI is for serious things that require the attention of admins, not silly squabbles over non-issues like this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I have never had anything to do with Ecoleetage, never participated in his RfA and don't know enough about him to have an opinion about him either way and I don't the other admins and editors have had anything to do with Ecoleetage either so your claim is a rather poor show of ABF, IMO. I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else. Sarah 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. I had never even heard of Ecoleetage until two days ago. The reason I did not take my "grievance" up with NYScholar is that it was not a grievance against that party's behaviour, but a community decision which had been undermined to which the community's attention needed to be drawn. Orderinchaos 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion: I remember the last AN/I report involving NYScholar very clearly. Sara and ThuranX have accurately characterized the problems with NYS here. NYScholar accuses others of bad faith motives while simultaneously demanding good faith in return in page after page of prose. He or she gets angry if an editor innocently refers to her or him with any particular pronoun that may portray one sex or the other. The editor edits profusely contributing pages, mostly to talkpages, while at the same time disingenuously claims to be "too busy" in real life to edit here at all, especially when others request his or her attention. These issues were brought forth on the last report. These issues still exist. There was no justification that I can see for NYS to be released from mentorship, and I would hope if NYS continues to edit here, that one of his or her supporters would consider continuing the mentorship. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be relying on your or anyone else's "memory" in this proceeding; scroll up to the instructions; if you have a specific and current complaint: please file links to "Diffs." as the instructions say and as other admininistrators have asked everyone complaining to do. Thank you. (I do not feel well and will be offline.)--NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A "diff" you say? Well, you don't exactly make it easy. Here, in the last paragraph of your edit, you told us you would no longer respond to this page. That is disingenuous. Below, you show bad faith of Sarah, accusing her of "baiting" you and vindictiveness, lack of compassion while also complaining of the editorial environment here. Then you accuse her of personal attacks without proof while simultaneously demanding diffs from her and me. Now that is chutzpah. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PRESENT AN/I not past; read what comes above. And see last post. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say you are going offline when you don't? In fact, I knew you would respond immediately, because that's what you've done in the past and that's what you are doing now. You haven't changed since the last AN/I at all. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah's comments: As in the past, she makes statements, does not provide "diffs." to support them, baits me into responding, and then complains that I respond or how I respond or at what length I respond. Everyone can examine my own talk page archive to see at what length she has posted comments to me. She has been now and in the past one of the reasons why I do not feel well; the continuing attacks, the unfairness of them, the lack of humane compassion, and the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page and against me is beyond chutzpah. It is hardly a way to improve the environment in Wikipedia. At this point, I wonder if those continuing to engage in such machinations should themselves be under review. Please desist. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me. It is most unfortunate that you continue making such unfounded personal attacks and accusations. I have made five edits in total to this discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I really have no clue at all how, in good faith, you can characterise my posts here as "continuing attacks", "unfair", "vindictive", "lacking humane compassion", "baiting", and "the reason why [you] do not feel well". Yes, I have asked you to try to be concise instead of flooding ANI with long slabs of text, but this is because I understand how ANI works and I know that the more you overwhelm it with these long rants and screens full of text, the less likely it is that any sane uninvolved admin will want to review this issue properly and comment. For example, this single post of yours was 2016 words long, later stretched to 2157. This is a problem, it's why I asked you to be concise here. As the ANi intro says, posting these long slabs of text deters people from reviewing and it's exactly what happened last time and it illustrates precisely why you need to be under some form of restrictions. My request that you try to be concise is entirely consistent with the ANI introduction at the top of the page which states, "please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I have always found your false accusations offensive but this has gone beyond that and is just really very sad. I have deliberately tried to say little here and have only commented when I have seen others have held mistaken beliefs of have misunderstood. As for diffs, I haven't provided any diffs because I haven't needed to. The previous discussion is linked to in Orderinchaos's opening post and there's no need for me to repost the diffs he has already posted. The only other comment that could conceivably need diffs is my reference to your flood of posts to this ANI report but they're all right here for everyone to see so I see no need to present diffs for them. Sarah 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in the midst of your accusations about me, you state: "the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page...is beyond chutzpah." (italics on "were" in your original) Yes, it really is "beyond chutzpah" and I must insist that you present diffs showing that I, Orderinchaos, ThuranX and Wikidemon participated in Ecoleetage's RfA (at all, let alone before you went there). I cannot speak for what others were doing, but I know that I was not even editing Wikipedia during the three week period that included the week of Ecoleetage's RfA, so there is no way that I participated in it. I look forward to seeing some evidence from you regarding the others you accuse because, while I'm sadly becoming rather used to being the target of your personal attacks and bogus accusations, it really is an unfair personal attack to make such vicious accusations if said accusations are blatantly untrue. Sarah 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

More of the same from Sarah above.

If anyone is a "target" here, it is not Sarah, but I (see the heading in the filing of this notice).

In an earlier comment above (scroll way up), in response to my saying that I wanted to end commenting here and go offline, Sarah demands that I reply. I have said that I would prefer not to be here.

I am the one being "accused" here, not Sarah. This filing is not about her. It is about me. Her entering the debate and dredging up a previous resolved incident (in which the "indefinite block" of me ended after about a day) made it about herself. I readily accepted adoption by Ecoleetage (see his accounts and my links to archive page 21 of my talk page earlier).

I would like to see the posting of "diffs." to something that I have written in Wikipedia (outside of my admittedly-too-lengthy responses to this convoluted noticeboard filing) to indicate that I deserve any kind of "sanctions" at all for my so-called behavior. My behavior in Wikipedia has been entirely civil and entirely done in good faith.

My comments here have been entirely within the requirements of Etiquette. I have intended not to comment here after my initial comments, but the continuing attacks on me and unsubstantiated false accusations against me regarding my work in Wikipedia (in both articles and talk pages re: images) required responses; in one comment above, Sarah demands that I respond in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you are unable to present diffs supporting those accusations because once again your accusations are utterly untrue. The fact is none of us participated in Ecoleetage's RfA or did any of the other things you accused us of doing. Really, enough is enough. How much longer must we tolerate your bogus accusations and self-indulgent essay length posts that side track and bog down discussions? And no, your accusations are most certainly not "entirely within the requirements of Etiquette"; they are offensive, disruptive and destructive. They are blatant personal attacks and WP:CIVIL violations which you ought to retract post haste. Sarah 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is demanding you respond immediately. You can't shut people up by claiming to go offline. Sorry. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is quite confused; it is up to the users posting their onslaught of comments against me here to post their own "diffs." (see the instructions). It is not up to me to do so for them. I have already posted "diffs." about the past incident, as archived in my archive page 21; I initiated that AN/I about another user named Stuthomas in relation to what I felt were breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and Wikipedia:Etiquette directed at me by him; Sarah entered that discussion and proceeded to make it about me, changed the heading to include my name and others, dredged up another then-past series of events (which had been resolved earlier), and it went on and on and on. Any "diffs." relating to that did not occur between the period of time that OrderinChaos filed this "incident" about: July 15 to Sept. 5, 2008. I am not responsible for posting "diffs." for the complaints against me. Those making such complaints are responsible for doing so. And if they are going to comment and characterize what I write, they have to read what I write, and stop claiming that because it's too long, they are not going to read it (e.g., ThuranX and at times Sarah, and others). If you are going to participate, you must read what other users respond to you; I read what you wrote, you need to read what I wrote. Otherwise, this is just wasting your and my time even more. And don't tell me that I have to "respond" to you when you won't read my response. I don't, and if I don't want to respond anymore, I won't. Why would someone continue responding when the people he or she is responding to refuse to read the responses? Just in that itself, you violate Wikipedia:Etiquette. There is no requirement that I respond at all. But I responded due to the nature of the statements made without "diffs." given that do not follow the instructions given above, which I have already quoted. But maybe you all didn't read that either. From this procedure, it becomes more and more obvious that those who do not treat me with respect do not in turn deserve mine. --NYScholar (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it's up to the accuser to post diffs, so please post diffs supporting your various accusations including the allegation that we are vindictively pursuing Ecoleetage and your insistence that we participated in his RFA. If you are unable to find diffs of us editing Ecoleetage's RfA page then I would suggest you retract your accusations post haste because you are in jeopardy of CIVIL and NPA. Sarah 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for review of what is going on here in Requests for Arbitration. I do not feel well (have a terrible headache from all this), and have asked for relief. I have too much of a headache now to find the link to the Arbitration request. It's currently at the bottom of the pile. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called "the first step" in such a process at Wikietiquette Alerts: [22]. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw no such action on the RFArb page. please link to your already filed complaint there. ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for closure

People, I am trying to take a Wikibreak, okay? I don't want to keep coming back here to ride this carousel. Let me repeat what I already said (which didn't seem to get noticed the first go-round).

1. My adoption of NYScholar did not come with any set parameters on length or depth. In fact, I received no instructions whatsoever except to "adopt" the editor because that was the sole requirement for unblocking on a matter that was resolved and closed two months ago.

2. The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely mine to make, as the adoptive editor. NYScholar had no say in the matter. At the time, I felt my judgment was justified based on the editor's renewed contributions to the project and on positive feedback from the admin Keeper76, who awarded NYScholar a barnstar for excellent work.

3. There is no policy requiring community approval on the concluding of Wiki-adoptions.

4. The adoption ended a month ago.

Dead horses are to be buried, not beaten. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, is there any sort of bad thing that came out of the severing of the adoption? No. There is no point to this thread. Maybe we should block Eco, on a long Wikibreak, for 24 hours? Or maybe we should block NYScholar for doing something wrong that everyone remembers but no one has proof of? No. I don't get what users want to get out of this thread other than drama. Any block would clearly be vindictive and punitive, not preventive as blocks are supposed to be. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just the last 2 hours reading through all of this and the linked discussion the problem is that the when the unblocking occurred there was a failure in Ecoleetage recieving the intent of the adoption and what was meant to be achieved. Also as part ot the unblocking there was a requirement for NYS to change the way in which his/her talk page is archived that being that all discussion get bot archived 48 hours after the last posting to it NYS talk page has a notice saying I archive them when I feel discussions are over and/or when I have no further time to participate in them a clear challenge to and total disregard to conditions of unblocking. There where also ettiquette and incivility issues raised though no clear sanction was proposed, one can only presume that an assumption was made that such problems would during the course of being mentored/adopted be addressed. IMHO there is reason to re-instate the block, before doing so I like to give NYS the opportunity to relist as requesting adoption and to remove the User_talk:NYScholar#N.B. section from his talk page. Gnangarra 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one wants to block Ecoleetage or sanction him in anyway at all so talking about blocking him seems rather silly. I really wonder if you're actually reading this section (and with one single post to it being more than two thousand words long, I honestly don't blame you if you haven't read it) but your comments really aren't helpful. This is a long term behavioural issue that really needs to be resolved once at for all. I don't agree with the way Ecoleetage conducted his mentorship of NYScholar, especially given that it came about as a result of an indefinite block and a near community ban (again, the last ANI that resulted in the mentorship is linked in the opening post) and the behavioural problems that needed working on were very clearly discussed in that discussion, but Ecoleetage was acting in good faith and obviously hasn't done anything to warrant blocking. So it's silly to even be talking about such a thing. The idea that this is all just about the terminated mentorship and that there must be a demonstration of "something bad" happening as a direct result of the mentorship being terminated is incorrect. I kind of expected that the thousands and thousands of words NYScholar's posted to this section with utterly untrue, unfounded and hysterical accusations against numerous editors and administrators would speak for itself, especially in light of previous ANIs. I feel like you've just read the first post and then the last post by NYScholar proclaiming that we're all vindictively pursuing him and Ecoleetage and nothing in between. Sarah 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Sarah, I'm disappointed in how Ecoleetage's mentorship worked out, but like her, I don't place 'blame' on Eco. However, the immediate reversion of NYScholar to his/her/its/their/NYScholar's old behavior shows that NYScholar continues to be unable to work with others. Consider below that NYSCholar has restated, with incredible fluffing up, all prior arguemnts taht it's everyone else. Community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above people - there would be absolutely no point or value whatsoever in blocking Ecoleetage, and it would be a breach of our blocking policy. This is a case of taking on a responsibility and then not fulfilling it, likely through a lack of understanding of what the responsibility entailed, which probably comes back to a communication issue (i.e. Eco was not informed precisely of the conditions). One would not block a mediator for declaring a situation resolved when it isn't, which is probably the closest equivalent. There's no blame to be assigned. Orderinchaos 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second of Ecoleetage's call for closure and related statement

[An "editing conflict" intervened and Sarah posted her message while I was trying to save this one; I haven't read what she wrote on 7 Sept. yet]

I was taking a "Wikibreak" too after filing a request for help from Wikiquette alerts. I also do not want to have to return here.

As I state clearly on my talk page: Please do not copy and paste my words and take them out of context; it is possible to provide a link so that people can read them in context.

Corrections of the above statement by garra:

1. There is a bot on my talk page that archives it automatically: the bot was not a requirement of the past situation brought up by others over and over above.
2. There has been no (I repeat: no) incivility or breaches of Etiquette on my part. Others have vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked for their acts of vandalism. I had not seen that vandalism prior to those blocks being instituted by administrators. (See the editing history in my user talk page and my current talk page.)
3. Here is the context for the out-of-context quotation by garra: N.B.. [had to fix link here. --NYScholar (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]
4. Notice the reference to the archive bot.
5. I added the parenthetical ref. to it in July 2008. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that it is there; see top template re: the bot.
6. As per the Wikipedia policies and guidelines referenced by links in "N.B." and at the top of my talk page, and entirely properly, I have and take my prerogatives re: maintenance of my "User" space (user page and user talk page) in Wikipedia.
7. I remove what I find to be personally-offensive, harassing, and/or uncivil remarks; I remove unsigned comments; I remove uncivil comments made by anon. IP users (some of whom have recently vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked by administrators). As per Wikipedia user talk page guidelines, I delete common template notices not involving "sanctions" after I have read them (common practice).
8. A few times since the bot began operation and there appeared to be glitches in its operation. I have manually had to archive a few exchanges after 2 days/48 hrs. and after clear evidence that the exchanges were finished (as the bot was doing does when there were no bot glitches). Currently, there seems to be a problem w/ its functioning, as it hasn't archived anything properly recently, and I've asked for administrative assistance w/ it), beginning last week. Therfore, if it failed to archive finished exchanges after 2 days and 48 hrs., and after more than 2 date/time-stamped replies, I have occasionally had to do that manually.
9. There is no reason to re-instate this block or to have any other "sanction"; to do so would be punitive retribution based on false accusations.

Related points

1. The previous "indefinite block" lasted for about a day; as per its condition, I accepted the offer of an adopter immediately upon its being made.
2. The adoption lasted from July 15, 2008 to August 5, 2008 [about 3 weeks; double-checked archive page 21 and 22 and corrected dates]. It was canceled by the adopter, who stated that he believes that it is no longer necessary.
3. If adoption is still warranted (which I do not believe it is), I would be happy to be adopted by anyone who is reasonable and pleasant to work with and who observes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, including my past adopterUser:Ecoleetage, whom I feel I learned a lot from (even how to be concise). I do not feel that he "failed" his role as an adopter.
4. Ecoleetage did what he was directed to do, and, prior to the beginning of the formal acceptance of his offer, I summarized the past difficulties that I had been told I had in Wikipedia for him.
5. See archive page 21 of my archive: I've already linked to it above.
6. My academic propensity for wordiness and thoroughness of expression is not his responsiblity, it is mine. I am aware that online communications can be unclear, and I strive for clarity. That takes use of words. I am an academic in the humanities; this is how I communicate. I am a writer, an editor, a teacher, and a consultant in the humanities.
7. Anyone who volunteers to adopt me needs to be aware that I am very busy for extended periods of time doing other non-Wikipedia-related work and that I may not be working on Wikipedia at all at times. The template notices on my talk page alert people to that. My work schedule is not always predictable, and, now that we are in the fall of 2008, I will be more and more busy with other things. I was working very hard on real-life projects that had to get to press by early August, and in and out of Wikipedia from mid-July through early August. For the past 3 weeks I have worked on articles that were pointed out to me by Ecoleetage and got heavily involved in striving to improve them; that coincided with the image problems that I pointed out relating to them and with Ecoleetage's RfA (which he notified me of last week).
8. When unfair actions and breaches of basic human rights occur against me and others, I speak up. That is my prerogative as a citizen of the United States and as a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be adding that user box to my user boxes so that people understand my longstanding adherence to it. Wikipedia should not be a "place" where people's rights to express themselves and to maintain their dignity are abused.
9. I see no necessity for any "sanction" ("block" or "ban") of me or anyone else at this time.
10. The filing of this notice in this noticeboard and continuing comments about it were and are in my view and in the view of others who have commented above inappropriate and misguided and a total waste of everyone's time and peace of mind.
11. I second the call for "closure". --NYScholar (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure would mean reinstating the indefinite block - if that's what NYScholar wants so be it. I don't see that the community has changed its mind that NYScholar must accept mentorship / adoption in order to continue editing. If a qualified willing volunteer can be found then we should continue as before but with a clear notice to NYScholar and the volunteer that the editing restrictions will remain in place: until the community lifts the ban NYScholar may only edit as long as a suitable adoption arrangement is in place. If Ecoleetage or anyone else wants to volunterr that should be approved first. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean by "closure"; "closure" means ending this absurd discussion. I already placed an adoptauser template on my talk page. It's up to someone to respond and offer to adopt me. If the person wants to do it via User:John Carter, who both initiated and removed the previous "indefinite block" (which lasted about a day), fine. But please Wikedemon, cut it out. I posted my "Update" below before you even posted this one above: look at the time/date stamps. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Wikidemon is not an administrator. --NYScholar (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close is either with NYScholar blocked or under ongoing mentorship, per the terms of the last closure.Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have placed an adoptauser template on my current talk page, signaling that I am looking for someone to adopt me. If User:Ecoleetage wants to renew his adoption of me, as he is now familiar with all of the complaints made above by others and all of the responses by himself and others to them, perhaps he will volunteer again. There never was any so-called "collusion" between him and me (as we have proved), and there is no reason why he could not resume his task as adopter (if he is so willing); if not, perhaps someone else, I hope as kind and considerate and humane as he is, will step up to the plate and volunteer. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not available as an adopter, sorry. After slogging through this thread, I am going offline to read something a lot lighter and fluffier -- Tolstoy's "War and Peace"! :-) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all right, Ecoleetage. I understand. All offers of adoption need to be posted on my talk page, not here. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have contacted another potential adopter currently listed in the adopt-a-user project and requested consideration of adoption. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney, an administrator, has offered to adopt me. I have thanked her and accepted her offer. I don't know if she has seen my reply yet; but it seems as though this adoption is now in progress. I have asked her to stop by here to post the relevant information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right after I posted this, Shell updated the adopt-a-user template to indicate that she has adopted me. I look forward to learning from her. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close this matter is to state "closed with no action taken" and to archive this discussion. I've already posted the adoptauser on my talk page.

This matter needs to be ended (closed and closed with no action) and archived. That's that.

For the record: The number of words that I have written in this procedure has been instigated by the nature of the procedure and the number of posts made by others. When so many people have made (in my view and that of some others) outrageous claims, with no "diffs." to back them up pertaining to my actual contributions to Wikipedia between July 15, 2008 and September 5, 2008 (Scroll up to top post by Orderinchaos), their statements have required responses from me and others to set the record straight. --NYScholar (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC) [Had to move this subsection down so as to avoid confusion; posted after previous subsection. Had added the subsection heading after writing it and was in section mode and couldn't see where it posted. --NYScholar (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

I oppose this entirely. NYScholar's proposal is effectively to accept that everything in this and prior proceedings is bullshit and we should leave NYScholar alone, despite the fully substantiated behavioral issues as raised last time, and the nature of this new thread. NYScholar never demonstrated real acceptance of the reasons for the enforcement of ban or mentor, and went with mentor for obvious reasons (it let NYScholar keep editing.) As seen here, and opined by multiple editors, the pattern of behavior has reemerged, and again, NYScholar deflects all criticisms with wikilawyering and counter-accusations. Until we get clear acknowledgment from NYScholar about the nature of the problem, recognition of if within NYScholar's self, and clear intent to actually change, then nothing can move forward, and certainly we cannot dismiss the section. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Post the "Diffs." that relate to the period from July 15 to August 5, 2008, and please cut this out. Thanks. My archive 21 and archive 22 pages document all my discussions in my talk pages during that period. ThuranX just won't give up on this witch hunt, which is still what it appears to me and others who have already comment on this "travesty" to be. Please watch your language and treat other users with respect. These are Wikipedia guidelines for behavior, not mine: WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to do three things: quit assuming bad faith while demanding others show you good faith, quit attacking others while demanding civility from others, and quit saying you are signing off when you don't. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User has been adopted

• NYScholar requested I act as a mentor and it appears that we're both in agreement on how to handle things (User_talk:NYScholar#Adoption_Request). I've looked over the concerns here, but if there are any other incidents that might help me make sure NYScholar is getting the best advice possible, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page, or shoot me an email. I'll do my best to keep an eye on how everything is going, but I'd like to ask that if any incidents come up that NYScholar is involved in, please try bringing the concern to one of our talk pages first so we can try to work things out. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given Shell's previous comments at the last ANI discussion, I believe that she understands the interpersonal and behavioural issues and I am happy to give her the chance to pursue mentorship with NYScholar. However, I will make it known now that I consider this a last chance and while I've previously been opposed to blocks and bans because of NYScholar's productive mainspace contributions, if we're back here again without improvement and with the exact same issues unresolved, I will be withdrawing my opposition to a community ban. Sarah 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter from Chris Selwood to the community

With respect toward all, I ask that we keep an open mind and refrain from speculation at the present time. Being bold and collapsing for now. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--Tznkai (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the archiving of the whole thread, though if someone wants to re-archive the letter, please feel free. This is a very serious issue (especially the checkuser aspect) and it needs to be aired. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have received this letter from Chris Selwood, the boyfriend of the women shown across Wikiprojects as "Taxwoman": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chrisselwood I've been asked to share it here, and reprint it in full:

Two years ago, I was informed that pictures of my girlfriend were on Wikipedia on a profile of a person calling them self “taxwoman”. I did not really understand what Wikipedia was about at the time. I looked at the site and yes found pictures of my girlfriend and the profile they were on was called taxwoman. The worst thing for my girlfriend and I was the fact that the majority of articles taxwoman had contributed to were of a sexual nature and mostly to do with the subject and paraphernalia relating to BDSM and bondage. Several articles had a line saying “with picture of myself” obviously the picture was of my girlfriend and not the person writing the article. As previously stated I did not understand what Wikipedia was about or how the site worked, so I started to delete the pictures of my girlfriend. I soon received messages within the site about vandalism etc. I replied to these messages explaining that taxwoman was using pictures of my girlfriend and how could I put a stop to this. At first I was met with the question from the administrator about how could he know that I was telling the truth? I replied that we would take a picture of my girlfriend holding a card stating the she was not taxwoman. During this time I e-mailed taxwoman through Wikipedia and in short said “take the pictures of my girlfriend of the profile.” The pictures were removed; I also received a reply to my e-mail from an e-mail address gaggedbound@...............com telling me that they had been removed; this e-mail also had a name Vicky, like a signature at the bottom. I also had correspondence from the administrator that in investigating taxwoman it had to come to light that several other profiles “poetlister” “londoneye” and others I do not remember were all sock puppets, this term meant nothing to me, but in short taxwoman and other profiles were blocked from using Wikipedia and the pictures were removed.

Move on two years, taxwoman is back using Wikipedia and with pictures of my girlfriend again and also on adult related sites, one in particular has a picture of my girlfriend taken in a fancy dress costume, which is a black corset. On this profile is a text line “as you might have guessed I’m an accountant. I’m one of the administrators here. Please feel free to e-mail me or leave me a message” On this profile page there is also a list of things this person likes, they range from butt plugs to rope bondage and many other things again relating to BDSM. So in short you see a picture of my girlfriend, a list of kinky likes, and an invitation to e-mail who people will assume is the girl in the picture. The big problem with this is that my girlfriend works in the service industry, she weekly meets with hundreds of members of the public, she also works within a company of approximately 14,000 employees, due to the nature of her job she works with different people every week. If any body were to come across the taxwoman profile and put two and two together and come up with five it could be at the very least embarrassing to my girlfriend.

I guess many of you reading this will have had correspondence with taxwoman. Well I know taxwoman is not the girl in the picture, I am pretty sure that the person doing this is a guy, a guy who dresses as a woman, he is an ugly man and an even more ugly woman, I have what I believe to be a picture of him dressed as a woman.

I still am unsure as to exactly what Wikipedia is about; if I am right it is a community of online people who contribute to an online encyclopaedia. I do not understand why then contributors would have profile pictures, it is not a dating site. If in contributing to an article, for example about black corsets, if to help in your article you want to show a picture of a girl wearing a black corset, and somehow you get a picture of my girlfriend which is not copy written and you head this picture as a woman wearing a black corset, then I have no problem. Because of what this person has done, which is to use someone else’s picture and pretend to be that person, then I have absolutely no confidence that any information within the Wikipedia website to be truthful or reliable.

I would like to finish this letter asking that taxwoman reply to this so that I and other people will be able to see what this man has to say for himself. From reading some of the articles he has contributed to he seems like an educated intelligent man. I guess he is just also a sick, probably lonely sad pervert.

Chris.

Proabivouac (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He should probably contact Wikipedia:OTRS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Owch! This is serious. I notice some diffs[23][24] from over two years back from Chris Selwood which seem to confirm this. Suggest contacting ArbCom on this one, too. Not sure if there's much we admins can do here - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

in about 15 minutes I'm going to blank this. We should be taking this to the User's talk page until we've figured out the right course of action, but this is definitely not the right place for it. Objections?--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hold on a second. Can we determine if there are any of these images left on this site, or on Commons? If this is any ways true, they're both unlicensed and misused and should be removed - Alison ^❤ 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See these uploads to Commons by Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) -- Jheald (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo! Not the roads! --NE2 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's evidently quite a lot of history here [25]. Jheald (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes. I still think this is outside of our league as Admins.--Tznkai (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger roger, but this is definately not the best place of this, and I'd like for us to take the discussion somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm on OTRS and I work in London. I will happily arrange to meet the purported parties in the City or Canary Wharf at some convenient moment. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have been duped by this impersonator. The community deserves to see the truth.Proabivouac (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully asked the original poster to perhaps link to it from his userspace as I don't think this is the correct place to bring it. As said above, bring it to OTRS, not here where administrators can do nothing :-) Utan Vax (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better in my view to leave this thread open for a while so all of us know about it. We'll be better able to make any necessary changes to process if we're informed about it, and someone may see it and realize they know something relevant. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re JzG's suggestion above, I've already arranged a meeting with the victim and her boyfriend. That said, Mr. Selwood's claims have already been verified beyond a shred of doubt.Proabivouac (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else may happen, we probably need the subject of the images to contact OTRS themself, for obvious reasons. Can you let Chris know, Proabivouac? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little late in the day GMT, but I'll no doubt speak to him tomorrow.Proabivouac (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it is, I guess, is that we have two people claiming that the pictures are of them and obviously, one of them is not telling the truth. I think I can guess which is which, and I believe Proabivouac has the correct version here. However, I think the subject/victim here need to contact OTRS to verify the authenticity of their claims - that should be pretty easy. Once that's established, we can take things from there, and in that case, it's a very serious matter indeed. Chris has started the ball rolling here now via his letter, so let OTRS find out first-hand from the complainant - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let us proceed with dignity. I don't think this board is the best venue to manage this allegation. Endorsing the recommendation to proceed via OTRS, and requesting we assume good faith of all concerned until all accusations are thoroughly vetted. As someone whose reputation was stained on the Internet somewhat more than was deserved, I wouldn't wish a similar dilemma upon anybody else. If consensus on Commons decides that the images should be deleted I would gladly implement the deletions, although (due to past involvement a year ago) I recuse myself from any other action related to this matter. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images have now been deleted from Commons as 'out of scope' - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One local image seems to have survived the last image cleanup: Image:Newport.jpg. It is orphaned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it under I11 as there is a significant cloud of doubt over these images. If they can verify who they are, they can be restored. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that User:Taxwoman was blocked in 2007 as a sock of User:Runcorn? Where are these new appearances of the photos? Whoever is posting them could potentially be Runcorn, a banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of discussion on the issue over at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205 from users, admins and others - There's some pretty serious evidence and discussion going on. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what? Corvus cornix_talk 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for/against the allegations? I'm not sure. I'm curious, though, whether these photos have appeared via a registered account (indef block) or an IP (more complicated). Also, did the photos appear on wikipedia, or just on commons? That could affect who would need to make an action in this situation- Wikipedia admins can't do anything about it unless they are also commons admins. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot. It's positively Machiavellian. Has an arbitrator clerk, bureaucrat, admins and more user socks. Wikipedia has been had deeply. It's like the man set out deliberately on an egotistical game to see how much control he could get. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for these allegations? This cannot turn into a McCarthian witch hunt, and you cannot be the one to hold up the folded paper with the communists in the State Department. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the pages. There's way too much to go into and anyway I am not directly involved to explain it as well as others have. There's a press release being written up by Proabivouac at the moment from what I understand, and while I do realise that it's the thread is a lot read, until then that's what you need to do if you want to know, read all the pages. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 7 pages; if you just point to one of them with "evidence" that would help ;-) Seriously, I've read right through (I started several hours ago when this first "broke" here) and I saw no "evidence", just a great deal of OMG! Wikidrama! Evidence is being prepared and will be released to an eager public in a day! In a day or so! In a day or two!

Me thinks you're being just a teensy bit salacious.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Oh yeah, at the risk of getting off topic, what color is the flag now? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Black, though possibly with a hint of red around May 1st...!

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad this is finally coming out, and I extend my thanks to Proabivouac for posting here about it, and for getting to the bottom of it. This individual — who was very obviously not a woman never mind five of them — has taken Wikipedia for a ride for several years. He outed me, and I don't mean he simply put stuff together about me from Google, but he actually tried to "investigate" me in the real world back in 2006, then passed whatever he found to Daniel Brandt. He earlier admitted this on WR, and Brandt has just confirmed it.

He sockpuppeted on WP not only with regular accounts, but with an admin account (Runcorn). Using Poetlister, RachelBrown, Taxwoman, Londoneye, and Newport, as well as Runcorn, he subverted several RfA and deletion discussions. Using Guy and Poetlister (and apparently several others that I don't know about), he attacked Wikipedians on WR, helped to out people, and enthusiastically supported the neo-Nazis who ran the original site.

It was obvious these accounts were run by the same person. They edited from the same IP address, and they e-mailed from the same one too — that was before they realized Hotmail accounts expose the IP. It was also fairly obvious it was a man judging by how thick he had to lay it on that he was female.

Despite knowing all this, arbitrator FloNight not only arranged for him to be unblocked from WP, but also supported him becoming a bureaucrat on Wikiquote, after he abused his position there to harass Chip Berlet. I hope FloNight will consider her position. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit, Slim. Nobody is buying your drama-mongering. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn a little bit of the history before jumping on Slim's case. Just a tip. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm sorry, but I have to put aside my self-imposed non-vandalism edit restriction to agree with Dragon. Slim, stop using every moment you can get to make a campaign against the people who don't like you or go against what you say. Yes I'm being a hypocrite here but at least I can admit that. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, um, support for a community ban of Quillercouch (talk · contribs) (nee Poetlister)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this letter is from a banned sockpuppet, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet of someone I've never heard of, covering up the truth, and being Jimbo. This thing is spiraling far out of control. Does anyone here have SPECIFIC complaints about SPECIFIC violations of WIKIPEDIA policy? If not, can we please, for the love of all things holy have the appropriate parties write up a complaint for ArbCom?

Don't worry, I'll recuse myself from clerking too.--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |}

Potential leak of private data

Title change since "hugeness" of leak now confirmed not an issue by original poster, see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above, I'm most concerned that Poetlister/Taxwoman/Cato, in their position as a CheckUser on the English Wikiquote, may have had full access to the global CheckUser logs; until a few months ago, a CheckUser on any project was afforded access to view the combined CheckUser logs (including here on the English Wikipedia), and could have viewed them at any time to glean information about who is being checked and when, as well the checkee's IP addresses as in many cases. (I suspect this could have contributed to their ability to evade detection.) In a similar vein, they also had access to the CheckUser mailing list (with its full archives) and IRC channel. I'm a bit worried that they could have used this massive cache of data for malicious purposes and even leaked it to others. krimpet✽ 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: after some digging, I found that the global CU log was disabled in r29527, on 2008-01-10, about two months before "Cato" was given CheckUser rights, thus they only had access to the local logs after all, thankfully. However, they still did have access to the full archives of the CheckUser mailing list. krimpet✽ 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait.. en.wikiquote didn't require proof of real-world identity before granting checkuser? Am I reading this right? SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he was identified to the foundation, (don't know whose ID he used for this) so what Krimpet just mentioned above is true, he may have records of all the logs and can most definitely be a problem..--Cometstyles 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea he had access to checkuser too. If he did have access to the global logs, we can assume that it has all been compromised. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a confirmation from someone knowledgeable if Poetguy had access to these global CU logs? A *lot* of us are exposed, if so. rootology (C)(T) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The global log was disabled in January 2008, Cato was elected in March, so he only ever had access to the Wikiquote logs. Thatcher 05:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the mail list archives? Do you guys store IPs and sensitive data in there? rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sensitive material is discussed on the checkuser mailing list, and someone has said that Poetlister did indeed have access via Wikiquote. I was cc-ed on some mailing list posts a while back when Anthere, then Foundation chair, raised an issue I had raised with her; I was cc-ed because I was connected to the issue. Based on what I saw, if Poetlister had access to that kind of material, it would be very damaging. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Global checkuser logs were disabled in January 2008, before Cato was appointed to the position. Risker (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mail around IPs, work information for editors, real names and all in plain text email? How much would he have had there? rootology (C)(T) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes IP information is posted, usually to coordinate action against vandals who appear on multiple wikis. Sockpuppet investigtions on single wikis are usually not brought to the list since it is a global list and the majority of readers would not be involved in investigations specific to a single wiki. Thatcher 06:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't hat or hide or whatever

On this, please. At a dead minimum I see someone has proposed community sanctions above which need to be discussed and we need public confirmation from the WMF if this guy has all our checkuser data now. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this discussion needs to take place and it shouldn't be hidden behind a header. There's a lot to consider here, and the community needs to take part in that. Everyking (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He only had access to checkuser data on wikiquote. If you are concerned that you were checked on wikiquote, you can ask another wikiquote checkuser to look in the log. If you want to know if you have ever been discussed on the CU mailing list, email me and I will check (however, it will not be a speedy check, especially if there are a lot, and I am going to bed now. Expect requests to be handled in a day or two.) Thatcher 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why Durova collapsed the section, even though I believe an "official" statement is coming shortly as to the links between the accounts, there's still a lot of possibly sensitive information here. It's not hiding it, it's keeping it out from casual view until such time as the information is confirmed and we treat everyone as they are due. It wasn't done from malice, but with a good faith idea to treat sensitive materials in such manner. SirFozzie (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed community sanctions, I'm inclined to agree on reflection that my proposal was probably a few hours premature. I have no objections to it being collapsed for the time being. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people please stop trying to censor this discussion? These are serious matters that need to be thrashed through, because it now seems that any editor discussed on the checkuser mailing list has been exposed. People have a right to know what's going on. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop trying to be a dramaqueen? The world does not revolve around you, your conspiracies can wait for another day. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor does it revolve around you, Dragon695. There are real victims here, and yes, our checkuser data has been leaking like a sieve. As Slim says, people have a right to know what's going on. What's your angle, that they don't?Proabivouac (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, your repeated attacks are not helpful. Please stop, now. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to censor the discussion. Yes, these are serious matters. And as a community we have a track record of jumping the gun--people sniping at each other and wasting space on speculation that obscures the real facts when they come out. All I asked is that people wait a little while and consider the potential real-world ramifications of these things being alleged. It's easier to have a serious discussion once the full picture is available. Durova^Charge! 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of Poetlister and Cato

I have posted an initial summary at Meta: Meta:Babel/Poetlister and Cato.

There is still work to do. It may take a few more days for everything to get caught up and all the followup that's essential, to be done. Some but not all socks are blocked at this time. Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now at m:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato. Giggy (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:SlimVirgin is attempting to hijack the discussion in attempt to create maximum drama there. I suggest she be blocked from meta pending the completion of this investigation. Her hysterical rants are really not helping anything. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

strong opposeProabivouac (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

not a voteDragon695 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was merely pointing out that diverging into discussions about possible neo-nazi connections is not helpful. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this Dragon695 but Slim is behaving more constructively in this discussion than you are. Granted I do not know whom she is referring to as "neo-nazis" as I am unfamiliar with the early development of WR. I'm sure she will explain this epithet if you ask her nicely, but that's beside the point. If even half of the claims being circulated are true this is a very serious issue, and getting to the bottom of it trumps everything including but not limited to Godwin's law. Please put aside any extant personal differences and cut people a little slack. — CharlotteWebb 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem, Dragon695, besides some sort of personal dislike of SV? Corvus cornix_talk 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt...Dragon695 is not being helpful here.--MONGO 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC) My correction...since I forgot to log in--MONGO 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them are being helpful, and both are cluttering up what is an otherwise useful discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I worked this Poetlister, etc situation long ago and was then convinced that none of these editors where who they claimed to be...at that time they appeared to be either all the same editor, or a series of editors using hijacked images off the web (or elsewhere) and claiming they were them...maybe newer editors aren't aware of the controversies about these accounts that date back some time.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to know the score. I'm sure others can dredge it up themselves if they feel the need to. What FT2 has written is more than adequate (and very sensitively done), screed from anyone on the talk page won't help anyone. It's pure attention-seeking from both of them. Brilliantine (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be a bit more generous, please. The person who ran this sockfarm exploited a whole lot of people, some more than others. Although I don't endorse all of SV's reaction, it's a human reaction. This sockmaster went out of his way to damage the reputations of the people who were catching onto him. SV got that worse than most. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind her posting about it - and would certainly cut her a bit of slack on this issue - if she laid off the personal attacks. And there are least two people that I am aware of (not including SV) who may have cause to bring libel proceedings against this man. In any case, I'll shut up about this for now. Brilliantine (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Socking amongst the earliest accounts dates back to 2005. This is but one odd page that several socks showed up.--MONGO 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I assisted in this investigation and I have posted my comment at the meta link. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[26]

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[27] and one of the main articles[28][29] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Wikipedia, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Wikipedia" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Wikipedia to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Wikipedia with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Wikipedia, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Wikipedia in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Wikipedia completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Wikipedia leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Wikipedia puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Wikipedia editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Wikipedia" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly an unacceptable thing to say of course. Puttyschool should stop immediately and refrain from using such remarks or he would get blocked. But believe me, not all people would call it "anti-semitism." Other people of different confessions may get offended if someone would use something like "hindupedia", "islamopedia", "hamaspedia", etc. That happens here and we just call that "incivility." It has been discussed several times here and unfortunately there has never been someting clear. I hope people would get to a resolution. My point is that we should be firm in dealing with all this BS (with no double standards of course). All we want is a better atmosphere. That is my point and that is why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

On the other hand, I'd like you try to wp:assume good faith. If I had to block your second account it is because leaving an account previously blocked and starting a new one can be seen as avoiding scrutiny. If everybody does so then it would be impossible to manage Wikipedia. And of course, you were not the only person I check-usered. In parallel, I'm finished here, since "faysal" blocked me is sad because first, we don't want people to leave just for the sake of leaving and second, because I never blocked you. I blocked your second account. You were pissed off and that I understand (and I didn't consider any of what you said as legal threat - it happens) but that doesn't mean you are correct and right (saying thanks you and fuck you). Really Einsteindonut, we try to avoid the words enemy and evil. pathetic. I had offered you my help but you chose to not assume good faith. You'd have already been blocked because of all that but admins have used their cool sense. I hope this is clear.

Again, I suggest that you better think about the message I left for you on your talk page. That has been sincere and I am not interested in wasting neither my time nor the time of others. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it very sad that I am the one getting reprimanded and told what I can and cannot say in this case. I would hope that you and others can pay attention to the CATALYST of all of this in which you have spent critiquing me upon and spend more time with regard to that problem as opposed to focusing the attention and onus of the responsibility on the person who complained about it. I hardly feel I'm wasting anyone's time here, especially when people continue to blame me for the response to the original problem, rather than the original problem itself. Everyone here seems very keen on focusing on the complainer and not the complaint. I find that to be extremely troublesome. Thanks for all the "advice" "Fayssal" - go ahead and block me if you wish. I don't really want to be a part of something in which people can get away with making anti-semitic comments and then people who react to them are the ones who get reprimanded and inconvenienced as a result. Thanks for your offer to "help" Fayssal, but I'll seek it elsewhere. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about other editors« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(end of restored comment)

Puttyschool. Please refrain from doing that again. It could be that it is not considered as an anti-semitic remark but we all agree that it is totally unacceptable. Just don't do it again. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, I never imagined that you will remove my comments and others from this admin board, how dare you Please check Why Einsteindonut removed my two comments« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a pure accident. After you brought it to my attention I tried to re-add it, but then the page was updated and I got confused and couldn't. I'm happy to discuss whatever it is you were trying to say. In fact, I went back to try to find it and couldn't! I'm having some difficult times editing on these admin boards. I'm fine with whatever people want to say here though. There's no good reason for me to delete anyone's comment. I looked at that edit and i was trying to make a minor edit of my own stuff and I think I accidentally deleted yours. My apologies. I'm being 100% honest here. I'm ready to respond to whatever it was you said. I think you claimed that the JPedia comment was not anti-semitic. I'd be inclined to believe that it wasn't, but combined with the fact that you also claimed that the JPost was "just for Jews," that is what sealed the deal for me. If "Jpost" is "just for Jews" then certainly "JPedia" (in your mind" would be too, right? I mean, that's what you were trying to say, right? That Wikipedia is not "Just for Jews?" Yes, that is true, but that point had nothing to do with my edit, other than the fact that we were working on an article about a Jewish organization, and that I am Jewish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about me or other editors. you can focus only on my 3 words, dropping all other stories you have, like the GFDL license story. I think one of our arguments while reverting our edits was about your cutting and pasting from the JPOST article, then why you insist J mean Jewish, by the way is every “J” anti-semitic from your point of view or you select according to the circumstances, you can share your friends about your thoughts and ideas, but I’m not obligated to share your thoughts and ideas. About removing my comment, you removed two comments from two different places, is this "a pure accident", Wow, what a strange accident, which can’t happen in Wikipedia.« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only"[30], therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Wikipedia is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Wikipedia is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion"[31] along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you.[32] Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Wikipedia, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Wikipedia is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly why you are talking about, you method makes me looses concentration, your statement about Egypt is completely wrong, I never heard it before, but I know most of your statements are based uponWP:OR .
I was reverting your edits as I documented in talk page for two reasons, i) unlicensed image with a very long unreasonable funny story ii)you added un-encyclopedic words as they appeared between quotes in the JPOST article, and what appear between quotes means that the words are not the JPOST point of view, about my assumption that JPOST is for Jews only, I’m not a reader for the JPOST newspaper, so my assumption was based on a few articles I read from the JPOST and this can be wrong, but this does not mean that JpediA is anti-semantic, especially my comment was not a general one as yours but was specific to you and your edit to the article. I don’t know too much about the history of the “J” but I took it from the” J”POST, and I was telling you that Wikipedia can’t use the same words as JPOST. Another point; please revise your contributions and tell me where is your NPOV from your first account till this one, and the next.....
So In order not to lose my main point I want to remind everyone I’m requesting blocking your account as you removed two subsequent comments I added in two different edits, and I want the history of this page to be checked I’m AGF but also it is one of my rights to know haw this was a mistake.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The images licenses changed, as I mentioned. Also, apparently in your mind the "un-encylopedic" words are as follows:

"The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." from: Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion"[[33] upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Wikipedia pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Wikipedia. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

aharon42, "Jpedia" may be rude according to some editors POV, but sure it is not anti-semitic« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it from an Egyptian who knows. What is this, Egyptpedia? I assume I can get away with this, since no one wants to get on Putty's case for his remarks and since he is unwilling to even recognize what he did was wrong---thanks in large part to everyone focusing on ME rather than the catalyst to the problem. In any event, what can I really expect from people who are not Jewish? Do you see now why there are organization like the JIDF and ADL, etc? People don't even have a clue as to what anti-semitism is, and when it is there, no one even wants to do anything about it except "blame the Jew" for complaining about it. Thank you Wikipedia for proving something I already knew. Never mind. Case closed.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, is this another kind of drama? Can I say that your word is Anti-Egyptians, or you are also referring to Jews from Egypt and your word is Anti-Egyptians/Anti-Semantic as well? I don’t know how much time you need in order to learn, it is easy “judge the contents not the contributors”« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of you could do with a healthy dose of WP:AGF. Certainly the remark could be considered rude, but there's no need for this ridiculous argument -- just be the bigger person and step back a notch. If this sort of destructive bickering continues, there's a pretty good chance one or both of you will wind up banned from the article. Calm down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [34] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...

Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[35]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nagle is right on the money, actually. It's become clear that one or more editors at the article is a prominent member of the JIDF. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers [36] published on their Facebook page.[37]. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comments from admin noticeboard, he removed two comments from two different places, it is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:48, 7 September 2008 (

It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sir/Madam, I'm requesting to block the account for ever for the above reason« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I accidentally deleted one comment that I know of. If i deleted another one on this board, than that was an accident too. I'm happy to debate/discuss with you or anyone here, there, or anywhere. There is no good reason (other than a pure accident) that I would delete any of your comments in talk areas. Feel free to bring this onto my talk page if you wish, or re-submit them here. I really have had a difficult time editing on these boards and it is not my intention to delete anyone's remarks. My apologies if it appears that way, but it is true. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. Your edit has apparently caused a huge problem by messing up a page that now requires several people's work to fix. See below, the section, 'Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help?' If it was an edit conflict consequence, you are not wholly responsible for that mess, provided you did not know what to do when there is an edit conflict. The least you should do if lower your sights, and start learning how to edit, without damaging this project.Nishidani

It was an accident which is easily caused by editors following the instructions given at edit conflicts. These instructions have now been changed in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of this problem. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an accident and it has been addressed in other areas and I have apologized for it. Again, none of this has to do with the original complaint. Very interesting how all of this because about ME, and not the fact that someone made a very discriminatory remark with regard to religion on Wikipedia. Call it what you want here, in my hood, it's called ANTISEMITISM and I feel it's very important to call it for what it is, and I will continue to do so, when I spot it here, or anywhere for that matter, ESPECIALLY when nothing is done about it, but to reprimand ME for complaining about it.

Putty needs to know what he did was 100% wrong and why. He also needs to apologize as that remark is completely unacceptable, or else I should be fine making comments after each of his edits saying "what is this, Egyptpedia?" Or something to that effect and not face any sanctions whatsoever for doing so. THEN maybe people will get onto Putty's case (as they are doing here with me for some reason.) LAME LAME LAME. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice - having "Wikipedia = worse than Goebbels" on your userpage may make some editors less likely to listen to any genuine complaints you may have. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing is bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be dandy if the both of you two would just calm down and have some tea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, You know the only good point you bring is that one Egyptian, makes the Great WikipediA an EgyptpediA, wow how much Egyptians are great from 7500 year till now. Other points are not related to this section which is blocking your account.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I know all about ancient Egypt. There was a reason I left. I hope you remember who built your pyramids and I'm sure you remember 1967, hence your disdain for me, the article in question, the JPOST, etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a claims, or some thing to remember, it is WP:RS, As documented in ancient Egyptian articles, Egyptian built the pyramids and the culture was before Jews, at the same time, the concept of building the pyramids is against (Jews/Christians/Muslims) religions. Every one wish to have this owner, we don’t mind, but our culture was a documented culture and we have all old documents. About 1967 and 1973 which you missed this is completely out of line and we forgot all about the two years, but we did not forget that Jews are our cousins.
Please report this Luna, he did not accept the tea« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Report what? That you're still egging him on? That he's still taking the bait? This isn't going to stop while you're both trying to get each other blocked or banned. There's more to civility than acting nice for ten minutes to get a leg up on somebody -- politeness isn't a one-shot thing. Both of you should really stop trying to take the high road, because you're both just coming across as squabbling children. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or banned. I want some serious understanding from Wikipedia editors (rather than "you're being ridiculous!" and throwing the rule book at me, blocking me, checking me for socks, etc.) and I want them to help me to fully get through to Putty that what he said was not just wrong, but a serious personal attack based upon someone's religion. Unfortunately, no one sees it that way for some reason, which I find concerning. And finally, I want an apology for him after he fully comprehends what he did. The fact that none of that has even begun to happen is what "eggs me on." I pretty much tune out much of whatever it is he is trying to say since that comment and some of his other questionable remarks and reverts. In order to move forward, I need more affirmation that I make good points. He's actually egging me on far less than everyone else basically telling me that I'm crazy for having a problem with this. Civility should include something to the effect of, here you have an editor who tried to talk his points through and made a good faith edit. Another editor comes along and pretty much says "this ain't for Jews" w/out given a good reason for making the revert. It was very clearly anti-semitic. I'm just a bit shocked that others don't see it. That is all. Not calling for his banning or his blocking, but for more understanding from fellow editors, and helping me fully get through to him why it was wrong and why it was offensive, and a sincere apology. Since none of that looks like it's ever going to happen, I remain flustered. Trust me, it's more about everyone else response (or lack thereof) which is more frustrating at this point than anything else. It was beyond "rude" it was a fully personal attack on me and all Jewish editors on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the threats of blocking and bannings have apparently scared them so much that they are afraid to even come to my defense. I could care less if I am blocked and/or banned. It would say more about the problems with Wikipedia than it does about my activities here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page, there are a lot of editors here who don't get it. Standing here and holding your breath until you get an apology won't enlighten them. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not "very clearly" anti-semitic. A statement like "Wikipedia is not for Jews" could be interpreted in different ways; it could be taken to mean "Jews are not welcome here" (which seems to be your take on it, and would indeed be a troublesome sentiment), or it could be taken to mean "Wikipedia is not only for Jews" (an interpretation which assumes good faith and allows the editing process to move forward, and in fact a true statement besides). Given Putty doesn't seem to have a fluent grasp of English, it's difficult to make authoritative assertions about their intended meaning. If you want others to share your highly negative interpretation of the original statement, you'd do well to stop flapping your arms about our willful stupidity and start demonstrating a history of problems from this editor. Evidence is a must when making such extreme claims. I will take no pains to defend Putty's rather silly reaction to all of this -- really, an apology and/or explanation would have done more to calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it behind you?

Einsteindonut, despite Puttyschool's offensive comment, I think it's clear that you're not going to get what you want: an apology or any sort of disciplinary action against Puttyschool. Despite what you've endured over the past 24 hours, please try to calm down. If you can, try to put this incident behind you — because it doesn't seem like anything is going to happen here — and get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia. Lord knows it needs improving. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Malik, about my comment, I apologize as it can be a misunderstanding comment, but I did not mean by JpediA the JewishPedia as he was trying to prove, and JPediA is not an anti-semantic word, and as you can remember I was calling you and other Jews editor to solve conflict issues, and I was working with you and Oblear and all editors without any barriers. But also check his comments, how may offensive comments me and other editors received from him from the day this article is created in WikiPediA, only as he don’t like what we did, so we must put a limit, what he don’t like we also don’t like, especially most of us don’t have COI« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this discussion any further. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very calm actually. However, if no apology? Then I'm not putting it behind me. I am improving Wikipedia (in my own mind at least.) Who am I bothering here? No one is forced to read any of this. I want it to be known that I make a big deal out anti-semitic comments combined with efforts by people to revert my editing decisions I made after fully discussing them in "talk" without their collaboration or input with regard to anything I discussed as to why I was making the change to the article. This isn't just about the comment. It is the entire context (from Putty's first comments when the article was first nominated for deletion) - to his constant trying to take out important and accurate, well-thought out and discussed edits because of his own cultural conflict of interest and his own personal problem with the organization.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished my tea, seems you don't like tea, all of us are improving WikipediA, can anyone comment on this« PuTTY^SchOOL 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a coffee person (who's waiting for an apology.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Einsteindonut and Puttyschool really need to take a break from Wiki. At this point, both have made extremely offensive comments to each other, and which are therefore offensive to other Jews and Egyptians. Personally, I think the JPedia comment is anti-semitic, but I see no history of Putty posting anti-semitic POV elsewhere on Wiki. I have a hard time taking the AGF road though given his defense of stating it is not anti-semitic, which is no defense at all. I honestly do not think Putty understands why it is anti-semitic (he is not alone), but it is. He has given a sort of half-hearted apology, and I wish both you guys would leave it at that. Sposer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions?

I've personally given up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article as it's too much of a battleground with baiting and conjecture well after everyone has been cautioned about such issues. The article is under Arbcom restriction yet the personalizing seems to not let up. I'm also uncomfortable with the original research to out anyone associated with the group - digging through Facebook and posting on wikipedia seems like a terrible idea when these people have death threats against them - to me that's a WP:BLP issue.

I would support full protection on the article - it's largely stable despite the ongoing quibbling - and possibly semi on the talk if trolling is also an issue. Banjeboi 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues when (a) all the people involved use pseudonyms and (b) they've published the "names" themselves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they are all pseudonyms - and just why are we diving into that original research on wikipedia anyway? - and, though I've not spent much time on Facebook, unsure they have really "published" this list. Two references were used to name David Appletree, do we have a RS that that is a pseudonym? If so we should state it, if not I wonder, given the death threats, if we should remove it. Banjeboi 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can preventing a person from editing (me) can be considered a good action. I am not against someone editing the articles by providing sources. But what if he removes my edit completely. I had edited the articles by providing valid sources. Someone (By78) blanks those edits the Admin (Jauerback) comes and supports it. Is that not a violation of Wiki basic right or edition of the article by every person by providing valid sources. How can Wiki admins allow blanking of those good edits. No reason is given expect that he disagrees with me. On what? No one knows. Just disagree. No source provided to prove his point. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I had provided detailed explanation. Admins says he is least bothered about the content. Then why is he the Admin. Revoke his Admin rights.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them why they ar reverting you?Geni 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, as I've tried explaining to you on your talk page and on the talk page of the article, I have no position on what the content of the article is other than it remain neutral and properly sourced. In the past, you have attempted to add content from unreliable sources that are outdated from which you tend to pull out your own opinion from. Your "attempts" to discuss the changes on the talk page have been solely to accuse others of vandalizing your work and to repeat the same poor reasoning on why your content should be included. Then, without ANY consensus, you make the changes to the article. Before you add any content to that article, you need to gain consensus to do so, because you obviously can't seem to do so without pushing your own POV into every sentence that you write. So, let's summarize what you need to do: 1. Discuss on the talk page without making vandalism accusations. 2. Gain consensus on the content, wording, and sources. 3. Add to article. 4. Rinse, repeat. Fairly simple, huh? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to see WP:COOL? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block for civility violations or repeated NPOV violations is not a cool-down block. But I see no mention of blocking here. Am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you still is not acting as a responsible administrator. Absolutely agree that the article must be nuetral and the Admin must make sure that it is neutral. What you are doing is just the opposite. You are supporting someone who reverses my edits. Those edits I made was by providing valid sources and remember that this time I had not even removed any links or sources added by By78. I had tried to include the real issues with valid sources and explained the same in the talk page as well. Now why are you reverting my good edits.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out a single recent edit done by anyone that I had removed or blanked like By78 is doing. What I had done is provided more information and links. What I am complaining is that these edits with links are being blanked by By78. The reason in plain explanation is hatred. Jauerback, If you can provide proof of me doing anything against Wiki rules, I will quit editing the Arjun MBT pages, If you cannot prove it I suggest you quit being an Administrator. Are you ready to take the challenge. This challenge is not just to Jauerback, anyone who thinks that I am wrong in this issue can take up this challenge.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of time to list the occasions where Chanakyathegreat pushed his POV by reverting other people's edits because he has demonstrated an amazing capacity to ignore reason and facts. I don't try to use reason with my cat because she cannot reason as humans do. In Chanakyathegreat's case, I am convinced by now that when it comes rational thought, he distinctly lacks it. When faced with overwhelming evidence supporting a position he does not like, Chanakyathegreat will simply resort to making groundless accusations against other editors' integrity as opposed to focusing on debating the points in contention. The edit history for Arjun is for all to see. Chanakyathegreat doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, Chanakyathegreat has exhibited a pattern of POV pushing. For those who are interested, simply check out the discussions for "Great Power" and Chanakyathegreat's own talk page regarding this topic to see how he tried in vain to get India listed as a great power, only to be repeatedly rebuked by fellow editors for POV pushing. As for the Arjun article, also see its discussion page to see the extent of Chanakyathegreat's blatant POV pushing and lack of rational thinking capacity. The consensus on most of Arjun article's content was reached a while back, yet Chanakyathegreat stood alone in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts, despite his repeated claims of strictly adhering to truths. Chanakyathegreat, simply claiming to side with truths/facts does not make you stand on the side of truths/facts. You have to earn such accolades by action, and action is where you consistently failed to live up to your self-proclaimed reputation for factual integrity. It just goes on to prove how irrational you truly are that you have resorted to challenging people to "prove" the accusations of your POV pushing, seeing that the discussion pages and edit history for "Arjun" and "great power" are littered with the dirty laundries of your POV pushing. This is really sad, bro, really sad. By78 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to win over by accusing other rather than stick to the topic of why are you blanking good edits and why you should not be blocked for such an action. Now don't come up with more accusations against me. Answer this. Your point that it was the summer trial that the tank has problem has been debunked. Hopes you accept it and changes the article back to the version that I edited. Now please don't reply with more accusations against me you are like that, you are like this you.. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tip number one: No labeling anything as "hatred." That, in itself, is "hatred."

Tip number two: If this is the only reason for which you want to revoke Jauerback's admin rights, you still need a little more to go on.

Tip number three: If you would like to present your argument, I suggest you do it after some time off, perhaps after a nice walk in the park or a hot cup of tea. Then, come back.

Trust me, the way your argument stands, even if you are right, it is hard to believe if it comes from someone who might be so full of anger that his judgment is clouded. I am not saying that you do have clouded judgment; I am only suggesting that that is the perception you are giving to others, judging from the tone of your writing.

Rest, meditate, vacation... Just take your mind off it a moment then come back. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

La Pianista, I can prove you wrong. By78 reverts and accuses the other contributer, just have a look at his contribution list.[38] His recent contributions are attempt to put the negative versions about the Arjun MBT and also made an attempt to deliberately hide certain facts while editing the the Economy of India page. I agree that one is free to edit any page in Wiki but Why should one hide facts and try to put only the sad affairs. It is deliberate attempt believing that it is the right way to tarnish the image of one nation. Now can you disapprove the above and say that these things are not done because of hatred. If not then what else is it?

Regarding anger, I don't have it guys. I want the rules of Wiki to be upholded and the person given freedom to edit the pages by providing valid sources so that truth remain in Wiki pages. Also I request that the Vandalization like blanking pages need to be stopped immediately and the spreading of hatred, unnecessary accusations against a person is also stopped in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had provided proof for the summer trial being successful and the problem with the winter trials. I hope By78 will understand and change his opinion of the issues being from the summer trials. Hope that he revert the page back to the version that I had edited.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT talk page as well. In the comparison chart the Arjun status is put as doubtful by him. The tank is in service with the Indian army 43rd armoured division. It's already inducted and the status must be active. I had even provided the source. He knows it well, but still has reverted the talk page. These are the reasons I say that By78 is doing these kinds of things deliberately and he need to persuaded by Admins from such kind of anti-Wiki actions so that his contributions are for the good of Wikipedia rather than such vandalization. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Thewikiqediarollbacker

I just blocked Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because his initial edits were copies of FirefoxMan's user page and Alison's talk page into his own user and talk pages, respectively. He copied Alison's talk page twice and then copied my user page. After I left him a note, he threatened to take me to ArbCom and then copied the Main page and Main talk page into his user and talk pages. The account name didn't exactly sit with me very well either. Probably somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the inevitable unblock request proclaiming innocence just appeared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as though he's up to no good and knows how to do it. Support block. Ty 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for new editors to copy existing pages to theirs for experimentation purposes, to see what the markup does etc. This could just be innocent behavior, though an immediate threat to take someone to arbcom sounds non-new-userish. Let me take a closer look here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The behavior seems sort of suspicious, but ... I can't for the life of me see what policy you blocked him/her under. I don't know of any policy saying that you can't copy content out of another's talk page. Even though the arbcom reference seems unlike a new user, this seems pretty bitey.

Can you please explain your blocking rationale in more detail? The page only existed for a couple of minutes before you deleted, it appears to be BITE and failure to AGF on your part. Plus no warnings. If there's a sequence of other behavior that this might be a sock of, that's one thing, but standing by itself this needs much more clarification...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a lack of AGF at all, since it is obvious that this editor was not a new editor to Wikipedia. You have a user name that references a feature that a new editor is not likely to know about. The first edit of a full copy of one administrator's user page followed by a full copy of another administrator's talk page, it is rather suspicious. Then following up with references to ArbCom and a copy of my own user page, this shows me that this is not a newbie at all. The unblock of making only three edits is totally bogus since the first edit references the deleted edits. If anything, I feel that I gave him too much AGF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying material from another user's User or Talk pages is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornix_talk 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a username violation regardless. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes on both GFDL and name violation - however, temporary copies to study the content and layout are (again) not unusual here. The usual response to name violations is a polite "you need to change your name" message, and to really abusive name violations a username block, but that's not the reasons given here.

Agreed that it's probably a sock of an existing user of some sort - but we only indef socks which are abusive, and the actions here only rise to technical violations of policy rather than gross violations. For technical violations, we warn and allow for correction. For apparent socks without evident real abuse, we warn and perhaps CU, but don't indef. This could turn out to be any number of abusive users, but the evidence is poor so far. Hammer too big. Try something smaller. AGF and checkuser to verify? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a new editor temporarily studying the content and layout of user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We AGF in the lack of evidence to the contrary. This person knows their way around wiki and knows exactly what they're doing by creating a false user page claiming to be an admin. They then post a cleverly false unblock rationale: "I'm not quite sure what I have been blocked for? Just check my contribs. I've made 3. Two of them have been to Gogo's talk page, and 1 to my own." They made 9 edits, but of course the deleted ones don't show up in contributions. That is not the conduct of someone genuine but misunderstood. Can we not waste any more time over this: that's exactly what it's designed to do. Ty 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius' assessment. The "3 contribs error" implies that this is a bad faith user who's ignorant of admin tools. A new editor could be expected to remember those 6 extra edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block reviews on administrator Kaihsu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A little while ago, User:Da monster under your bed became concerned about several long-duration IP address blocks issued by administrator User:Kaihsu. Monster mentioned this to User:Gogo Dodo and apparently administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 noticed on his own.

I just flipped around and reviewed the last several IP address blocks, and I found them extremely suspicious - 1-year blocks after 4 questionable but not horridly abusive edits, with no warnings; an IP address indef blocked; multiple IP address blocks with no block message left on the IP talk page.

More administrator eyes on this needed. I'm going to ask him for clarification, but more review further back is probably a good idea. These may be sufficiently out of policy to overturn. I'm not going to do more than ask about it, as I'm going to bed soon, but more eyes on it seems like a really good idea. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These blocks are extremely problematic. I am very keen to see the explanation from Kaihsu. If there is no response by morning my time, I intend to unblock the IPs. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even see the vandalism for the last two, though the third and fourth (especially!) certainly are. I also think the tariffs generally are far too severe. I note that Kaihsu is another "older style" sysop enabled account, and might not be as up to speed on current practice as most. The only saving grace is that these actions are infrequent (although that would be no comfort to a potential editor with that addy). A response would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have check all my blocks and think that they have been unblocked by fellow administrators. I will keep away from blocking until I am sure that I have a better understanding of the policy. Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, User page list, strange editing.

Not sure if this counts as sockpuppetry, but I think so. An IP, 79.65.160.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits like this, which 'cite' User:JokerFan2.0#Top_100_Greatest_TV_and_Film_Villains, a user's personal list. The IP has made numerous edits to the userpage, including creating the list diff of six edits, and has edited right after JokerFan2.0 at times. I started to roll these back, but think a more serious investigation might be needed. It seems odd though. Either he's logging out to make what he must know will seem like bad edits, for plausible deniabiility, or an IP is spoofing the socking to get him in trouble. Those are the two obvious explanations I can come up with.ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that JokerFan2 does not revert the ip's edits to his/her page, so I would assume that they are the same or known to each other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Using both the IP and account to add this nonsense is bad, but it's also strange, so I brought it here. So now what? ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing evasion of block by Wikitestor

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours on August 29, 2008, for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block.

Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. As a result, his block was extended to one week on August 29, 2008.

Because he continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period (see 81.184.38.52, 67.161.4.108, 62.57.197.139, 62.57.196.206, 81.184.38.42, and 62.57.197.82), his block was extended to one month on September 3, 2008.

Despite the one month block, he is continuing to edit with anonymous IP accounts. See 62.57.197.114, 62.57.213.3, 62.57.196.206, and 62.57.9.202. Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184 and his expression of pride in evading the blocks. If administrators are unwilling to make IP range blocks, then I request that all the articles he has edited be semi-protected. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 62.57.0.0/16 for 48 hours - It's the same cable modem ISP in Spain for the whole block, and he's using wide swaths of it, as far as I can tell.

I am also leaving a message on User talk:Wikitestor about this. Hopefully he'll knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he also is now using the 81.184 IP range. See 81.184.38.28, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Wikitestor. Tennis expert (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

81.184.0.0/16 has been blocked for 48 hours as well, and another message left on Wikitestor's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Aryan activist

A person posting from a variety of IP addresses, including:

• 24.39.124.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.128.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been blocked under at least four addresses, in some cases twice, for the same small set of violations, despite warning after warning, despite block after block, despite semiprotection having been placed on both Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page (twice, in the case of the latter) on account of him.

He repeatedly deleted paragraphs he found offensive in Ten Lost Tribes, then kept posting the same off-topic diatribe over and over at the very top of Talk:Ten Lost Tribes, above the templates. He has repeatedly replaced Dardic with Aryan at the top of the Kashmiri people article, after having already been told that that's incorrect. He's made related changes in at least a couple of other articles. He has never once responded to anything I've written to him or seen anyone else write to him. His whole purpose in contributing is to push his POV.

He has been extremely active in Ten Lost Tribes since August 26. Having just taken a deeper look I see now that he has been making frequent improper revisions, deleting paragraphs, and inserting rants and statements of opinion into the Kashmiri people article under other 24.185.*.* and 24.*.*.* addresses, ever since at least April:

• 24.185.131.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.136.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.191.12.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He never provides citations to support his views over the ones he's replacing.

Meanwhile, ever after I've written warnings and AIV requests explaining his persistence and his refusal to knuckle under after all of the blocks that have been placed on him and the protections put up because of him, admins keep giving him 12-hour blocks and 31-hour blocks. This is not a first-time offender. He's a die-hard, calling for industrial-strength action.

What can be done with this character? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be needing a CU who can check the range to see what collateral damage may be caused by a rangeblock. As for the short blocks, if the vandal is using different ip's then blocking any one for a long length is pointless - they will just move onto the next. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider semi-protection of Kashmiri people for at least a month, and ask a checkuser about the wisdom of a rangeblock on 65.88.88.128/25 for a month. Though the abuse has continued for a long time, some of the IPs you have listed are not recently active, and many of the affected articles have enough normal activity to easily dilute any bad-faith IP editing. The recent semi-protection on Ten Lost Tribes was well-deserved. (That is one of his favorites). EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: according to a notice at their talk pages at least to of the 65.88.88.XXX IPs belong to the New York Public Library. Funny thing is, almost all the edits from those IPs seem to be related to India and South Asia, which you wouldn't really expect from a casual library user. In any event, wouldn't a rangeblock affect all library users? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've decided not to do the rangeblock, after searching contributions from that range manually. (There are some good faith IP edits from other parts of the range). Due to long-term consistency over a multi-month period, I think the four 65.88.88.* IPs already listed above are the ones which are definitely our guy. Good enough consistency for a long block, so I've blocked three of them for two months each (anon only). The fourth already has a long block. Please comment if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive, COI & Sock Puppet Edits by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195

I would like an admin and intervene to check the edits made by BronsonPunchout & 68.175.98.195. I believe these are sock puppets of the same user and has been created simply to edit the page for the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. A quick look at the edits on the page shows [39] edits being made within minutes and seconds of each other by these two users often on the same exact topic/subject[40]. A deeper look into the edits of 68.175.98.195 shows that they have clearly attempted to game Wikipedia by linking the fairly generic topic of bits to Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre: diff here[41]. Additionally, the user in question has been harassing me and borderlining on revert war edits when I have attempted to add citation and reference tags or removed empty topics or trivial sections. Additionally he's harassing me [42] and claiming I have a connection to the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre because I have dared to enforce Wiki style. I will admit I have gone to shows at the UCB theater in NYC, but I have barely contributed anything to the UCB article to endure these claims of "ownership". Heck, BronsonPunchout claims my attempts to get the article in "Wiki shape" oppresses the growth of the article and "perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years." Ridiculous claim and my history of edits proves otherwise. Can an admin please step in and look over this mess. Perhaps someone who is an admin familiar with theater and improv egos and how they react to Wiki edits? --SpyMagician (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i too would like an admin to check the edits made by SpyMagician, under the ownership clauses, agressivley removing others contributions and using hostile citation. They have made edits without actually reading the edits, undoing others contributions and used contradictory explanations, such as removing citations added to sections, then removing the sections claiming lack of citation. When they claimed i was a sock puppet and connected, i had reason to believe the same about them and added that tag as well. I did not remove the tag against me cause that seemed bad faith, but they kept undoing the tag relating to themsevles. I believe this person has a grudge or something and has removed others contributions, leaving the article in poor shape and lacking large amounts of info. It is possible i have made errors in my lack of understanding, and i apologize. Even so, it seems there are many opportunties to leave up a citation needed tag, or a section stub tag as opposed to immediately undoing all contributions by other edits. THis is not an improv ego thing. I added basic history data and cited it all, but SpyMagician is agressively undoing. Perhaps they are a sock puppet, perhaps they are just terrtorial, perhaps i am in the wrong. Either way, please help. BronsonPunchout (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that any admin should simply look at my history of edits in contrast to the edits of this user and potential sock puppetry. You can make claims all you want, but the logs tell the tale show and the trail of edits. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: is it the "Upright citizens brigade theater school", or the "Upright citizens brigade theater training center"? This is obviously a question on which the future of the world depends. (If you're having trouble figuring it out, I'm sarcastically saying that this dispute is totally incomprehensible to outsiders.) Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496, that is is ridiculous, but i don't know what else to do. Go ahead and check ips, please. I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies, but i don't know how else to deal with the disruptive editing via hostile cite tagging SpyMagician is engaging in. SpyMagician is demonstrating a clear sense of ownership and impeding other contributors thru gaming/disruptive editing. BronsonPunchout (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I can make it simpler. Please check the edits made by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195. These are clearly the same person and evidence of sock puppetry despite the fact that BronsonPunchout denies the connection. And despite the fact these two users have only editted UCB articles in the past month; they contribute in no other way to Wikipedia.. Also, the claims of "hostile cite tagging" are baseless; the most amount of edits I have made to this piece are today. Why can't I tag uncited sections to an article? And how is it hostile to do so or should one assume that everyone in the world knows who/what the UCB is and is beyond reproach. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in general I'm going to say something that will make most actors and theater geeks faint: Most people don't know or don't care about theater details or history. Citations ARE needed for many of the claims being made on behalf of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. This is not unreasonable. What is bizarre is why I'm being harassed for daring to claim citations are needed. If a theater is closed due to fire code violations, provide the information. It's not hard to understand. And in between now and the time this nonsense started I have edited other articles without issue. If there is an admin with experience dealing with improv and theater articles, I welcome their input. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and places like Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre shouldn't be magically excluded from the rules that have helped make other articles great. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?

Are we no longer a wiki? All typo fixes must be supported by forms completed, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, subjected to public inquiry, lost, found, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as fire-lighters? People, BLP is not a carte blanche for imposing any restriction you like! We put full-protection in place only to protect from vandalism and edit-warring. Look at the history. See any problems? I don't.

People, can we please keep our fingers off the triggers? — Werdna • talk 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could trust our admins to not go and make content changes and wheel war on an article as prominent as that, I'd agree with you, but the current arbcom case indicates that we can not. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, admins should still be allowed to make non-content changes (such as spacing etc. fixes) w/o being potentially in violation of ArbCom. ffm 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree - most would, but there are some people around there that unfortunately, are too stuck on policies and are preventing things from being done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You edit as an editor not an admin. If you want a change made you request it like anyone else. Keeps admins from going protect happy.Geni 12:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems in the recent history because its been full protected for awhile. What strikes me about the history is there are way, way more edits than there ought to be for a fully protected article. Avruch ^T 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell are fighting over Sarah Palin now in their own deathmatch version of the Wheel. aharon42 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

**Shrug** Even as a non-Admin, I could find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, accepted at Warp Speed compared to other ArbComs I've seen. And even as a non-Admin, isn't that the location for comments like this to be currently lodged? Or have I missed something fundamental about Wikipedia? Not trying to start a flame war, just can't understand why this comment is here and not there, in some form. Me, were I an Admin, I'd let ArbCom (or Jimmy, whatever) sort it out, or get involved there. But that's just me, an editor. Apologies if this comment violates something-or-other, or if there's something about AN/I I don't understand yet. LaughingVulcan 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected Wikipedia:Requested moves

• I regrettably felt forced to semiprotect Wikipedia:Requested moves, after a bout of 15 IPA anonymous users (or the same person 15 times) replacing its contents with indecent ascii art in less than an hour. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That should take care of them. Well, frankly speaking, it is what my father calls "a bunch of lunatics", doing nothing than complete nonsense and indecent humor... Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about four hours now, so I'm unprotecting it (hopefully it'll be alright). If they go at it again and the page is protected again, though, could someone make a place for new and unregistered users to actually request a move? The sprot template directs them to the talk page, and the talk page directs them back to the project page. WODUP 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was 4chan's /b/, again. I browse it from time to time and noticed that some idiot was spamming all the threads with automated edit url's to do this action. It's probably safe to consider it over now. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to have calmed down. Short-term semi is usually enough to deal with these problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move alongTznkai (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just now a little flap over at the talk page of the NPOV policy. Things were going fine, till Shoemaker's Holiday came in and poisoned the well against me. He didn't even get it right. I removed it, but he put it back. This is not the first time he has tried to get me. I would like someone here to issue him some sort of warning that this kind of pursuit of me is inappropriate. Now, everyone here knows what his other username was. Everyone knows (as he revealed it in his request for adminship recently) that he was desysoped partly for a block of me, and also that I played a major role in his RfC, which the ArbCom no doubt took into account when they desysoped him. I am sick and tired of his following me around and trying to "get" me. I have refrained from bring up his past, which of course is even more relevant than mine, in discussions. He has not accorded me the same courtesy. Here are only the recent diffs. I can, of course, dig up the other diffs of his trying to get me, on several occasions which I remember. But I am not here to try and get him sanctioned. All I want is a warning to him that this vengeful behavior should not go on any more.

I remove it here Here is the section where it's put back and discussed. He continues to compound it. FYI, I'm under sanction only for disruption, and POV pushing is one of the things which people spectacularly failed to prove against me. I even requested the ArbCom tell me if they thought that such was the case.

If the people here would like to go over and raise the tone of the general discussion it would be of great help. I personally don't think edits undertaken with such care over such a long time should be met with such surprise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Martinphi's description of my arbcom case; however, it is also merely a distraction from the matter at hand, as I can prove my description was correct:

From the Arbcom decision:

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([5]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([6], [7]), threatening disruption of the project ([8]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([9], [10]).

Then later:

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

He is cited for soapboxing, and this is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." I'm sorry, but the arbcom clearly intended disruptive editing to include POV-pushing.

Here are the diffs to the NPOV policy:

Long-standing version	New version
None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.	In order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible, in a neutral manner, to the reader, no single view, even the most popular, should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth".
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.	Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	[Deleted]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the related thread at WP:AE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing: Shoemaker hasn't read the edited version. The paragraph he says was deleted was revised to:

Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates. Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

Further, I think he may not even presenting the actual original, that is a recently edited version.

But let's say he's right. Poisoning the well and saying I'm in the soup for POV pushing when I'm not, and insisting on keeping up the attack- wow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that's two other paragraphs in the original, that's not the deleted paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to be dealing with both User Shoemaker and Martinphi over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a bit of it therre, but not much, and it's rather changed in foxcus. More accvurately::

Original	Changed
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.	Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates.
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. N.B. This section comes later: Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.	This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

It is, at the least, a major shift in focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. Martinphi is the canonical example of the civil POV-pusher, as far as I can tell his main focus within Wikipedia is to legitimise fringe and pseudoscience topics. This behaviour is completely repeatable, and to find him trying to change the policy under which he has been repeatedly knocked back in his attempts to lend legitimacy to the fringe views he supports is definitely disruptive - not only does it violate the ArbCom restriction, it also violates the policies he appears to be trying to change! Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JzG, but when you said "this behaviour is completely repeatable" I presume you meant something else like "irrepressible," "repugnant," or something similar? If that is the case, I agree completely. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that it is repeated wherever he is active. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really OK?

Um... anyone think it's something less than a good idea for an admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be hovering over the contributions of an editor he's recently been in conflict with,([43],[44], [45] (DunstandandRann),[46], etc) not because the editor (me) has done anything wrong, but because the editor doesn't subscribe to the admin's ideas about policy?

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. ([47] Emphasis added.)

Since when has it become suspicious behavior to disagree with an admin about whether an image upload is policy-compliant or not? This really doesn't seem right. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If an admin suspects that someone may violate policy it makes sense for that admin to monitor the person. I don't know who's right about the policy (I haven't looked into the dispute), but keeping an eye on someone is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. --Tango (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else, my contribs are out in the open, available for inspection, all 22,000 of them, and if FPS or another admin came across instances of bad actions and decided to keep an eye on me, that would be one thing. I've done that same for a number of vandals -- they do some vandalizing, you check their contributions to see if there's more, when you find it you undo it and post warnings, and if you're an admin perhaps you eventually decide to block. But that's not what FPS admits to doing. He admits that he's keeping an eye on me because I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Doesn't that strike anyone as a dangerous thing that can lead to no disagreements about policy, because there's no discussion, because the herd has been culled and anyone who disagrees has been hounded off the project?

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing FPS of that, not in any way shape and form, nor am I suggesting that such behavior is going on, or prophesying that it will happen. I simply think that using a difference of opinion as a basis for following someone around and checking their edits is kind of a real bad idea. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed's antics about non-free images included edit-warring to keep an obviously replaceable map graphics, and another [48] that he aggressively defended with the bizarre argument that while it was being used just as a "substitute" for a possible free image, it was nevertheless not "replaceable" by the latter (here). This is enough to give me reasonable grounds for expecting some more of his image work probably requires cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can review all our past arguments again if you'd like, but I doubt anyone would be terribly interested, and the point here is that all these things are cases where I did nothing wrong, I simply disagreed with you, and in most of those instances, other people disagreed with you as well. Are you so entirely and positively certain that your interpretation, your views, your opinions, your analysis, your take on image policy is so completely, totally, absolutely 100% percent correct that whenever you declare an image to be non-compliant, even to disagree with your declaration is tantamount to misbehaving? Can you not see why someone might find such a view to be disquieting, to say the least? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, RFCs aren't supposed to be a way of forcing an editor away from an area they have been working at and in this case the doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus against FPAS. The correct forum to discuss this is the RFC. Sorry to say this Ed but your conduct here just makes you look like a petty wikilawyer and I really thought more of you then that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? How do you figure that? I came here because this is the place where you come for administrative action. I thought that if my view of FPS's behavior was shared by uninvolved admins, someone could advise him to, you know, not go out of his way to shadow me. But, in any case, as I remarked elsewhere, if FPS sees something wrong with an image I upload, how difficult would it be for him to run it by another editor, who could then contact me if they agreed? In what respect is that trying to "force [him] away" from image work?

You know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the community's consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable behavior. If that's the case... I don't know. ... I guess I'd have to seriously reconsider my committment to the project, because that's something I would find it quite difficult to live with, I think. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble with the "wikilawyering" thing. The man posts on my talk page, at first I laugh his Big Brother act off, but then it starts to bother me, and then it starts to bother me a lot, so I come here to see if something might be done about it, and I'm accused of "wikilawyering"? Wow. Just... wow. I'm not coming here in an hysterical state, screaming and carrying on and calling for people to be desysoped, as so often happens when there's conflict between an editor and an admin, and a charge of "wikilawyering" is laid on me? Huh.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for referring to petty wikilawyering. Perhaps forum shopping would fit better? You have an RFC but you want to extend the drama to an admin noticeboard as well. So I think petty forum shopping is a better discription. My apologise for mischaracterising your behaviour but you really need to settled for a single location for your crusade against Fut perf. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment, and assume that I'm telling the truth, that FPS's post on my talk page actually concerned me. Now, if I wanted some administrative relief, how would posting about his actions on the RfCU help me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? We aren't going to block FPAS for leaving messages on your talk page so there isn't any admin action that is going to follow from a message here & and do you honestly think it would help having someone tell him to lay off? If you raise it in the RFC and there is extensive support that FPAS shouldn't be reviewing your contribs then there will be a significant level of moral pressure on him not to. The trouble is that an RFC inevitally raises the entire temperature on any dispute and this kind of thing, is, I'm afraid, what happens. Perhaps I should have been nicer in my comments but honestly, I wonder what people expect sometimes when they get embroiled in personal disputes like this. It not like we haven't seen it before and its high time that we stopped chasing out defenders of the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ask for a block? Am I being in some way unclear about what I hoped would happen here? Geez, talk about "raising the temperature"!Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Admins don't have any special powers except blocking, deleting and protecting. Aside from that being an admin adds no extra cachet to any discussion. So, if you don't want a block, would you like us to delete or protect FPAS? Otherwise this isn't something that requires admin action. If its having a word then anyone can do that. If its to guague community consensus on his actions you already have a RFC to play on. So, seriously, what did you expect us to do about this that requires the use of admin tools?. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, they have the power of the bully pulpit!

Indulge me and, once again, assume that I'm telling the truth, and further assume that some folks here saw my post and agreed with my concerns, at least to the point where they thought it was worthwhile to talk to FPS. So, if those admins were to go to FPS and suggest that it would be preferable, for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, for FPS to channel any concerns about my image-related behavior through another uninvolved admin, don't you think that might carry a little more weight than if I made that suggestion? You see, that's administrative relief.

And there's a larger point - I really think it's a pretty crummy precedent to set, and if that kind of behavior becomes broadly tolerated or acceptable, Wikipedia would be a decidely less pleasant place to be, so, besides my specific concern about FPS, I wanted to raise, for administrators, in a place that administrators frequent, this issue for their consideration, something which, again, can't be done at FPS's RfCU.

I'm not asking for special dispensation from the pope to misbehave, or to not have my edits scrutinized by FPS or anyone else, I'm simply suggesting that FPS and I are, in the Wikipedian sense, involved, with all the problems that brings with it, and that his following me around on the basis of our disagreement over policy is a really bad idea. I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial concept.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Anyone who edit warred in the last few days to keep this image obviously does not understand our policies on non-free content, and so reviewing their uploads is perfectly acceptable. FPAS has done nothing wrong here. Honestly, what do you want us to do? Jump at FPAS and say he shouldn't be reviewing your edits, as they're obviously all sound? Well, they're not. Would you be happy if I was reviewing your edits instead? It makes no difference, we're both admins experienced in the same area. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you would do that, I'd be grateful. There seemed to be a couple, the next few down his upload log, that were movie screenshots of actors in some movie role, used (as far as I could tell at a first brief glance) without any substantial commentary and with captions that implied they were used only to show what the actor looked like. Those would have been the next batch that would need a bit of looking into. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't actually see the image, or the image page to check out the fair use rationale put forward. No link provided to the deletion review so err how do we judge? Since edit warring was mentioned, how about the removal of images from articles, to declare them orphaned so they can be speedily deleted and then edit warring to keep them orphaned. Justin talk 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is badgering ok?

There is no reason for FPAS to follow Ed around as Ed is an editor in good standing. Just because you have lost a number of fights with him does not make him a bad editor. If this were any other person doing it, they would be rightly called for wikistalking. Given that the two have been in a number of disputes, I believe that FPAS should cease his antagonistic behavior and find something else to do. Yes, Virginia, the project will survive even if FPAS isn't following Ed around. That and the fact that it is FPAS, not Ed, who currently has a behavioral RFC open against him. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Valid point. Fut Perf, your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Those are not valid concerns. Ed has little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg. I see no issue with tracking the edits of a problematic user in this field, with someone who openly disregards our policies and guidelines towards copyright. seicer | talk | contribs 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seicer, I personally have a grasp on the subject matter and disagree sometimes with FutPerf. So what? Just because I don't agree with one person's interpretation of some vague rules doesn't mean every action I take should be scrutinized. Talk pages are there for discussion and reasonable people can disagree about things. As for these the "little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg" I'll assume you meant something else because there is no evidence contained on that page whatsoever and the image in question seems appropriate under its fair use rationale. Am I missing something here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seicer, just because Ed's knowledge of Fair-Use and NFCC (which is correct I might add, but that is neither here nor there) differs from yours, it is no reason for an admin (Fur. Perf.) to follow (read: stalk) Ed around Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the somewhat interesting fact that even though pretty much everybody in the discussion about that logo agreed that its appearance on 120 pages was not a policy problem per se, Seicer posted this on FPS's RfCU (which I presume he was aiming my way, but maybe not):

If one user cannot see why the usage of one non-free logo on 120 articles, they should be sanctioned as such, especially when such unconstructive behavior spreads across four noticeboards and several talk pages.

So according to Seicer I'm so dumb and irresponsible, and know so little about fair-use and Wikipedia image policy, that I thought it was hunky-dorey to use an image on a large number of pages: Q.E.D.!! What a maroon!!! Except that in the discussion right here on WP:AN/I, both sides ended up agreeing that the number of pages it appeared on wasn't an issue.

So, who is it who knows nothing about fair-use and image policy? (And who, incidentally, felt it necessary to insult me personally in that thread?)

*sigh* You know, I wouldn't presume to know how much Seicer knows about fair-use, or Wikipedia image policy, or the cost of ponies in Peoria. "Seicer" is just a name connected to some text to me. And I've never, to my recollection, said that FPS doesn't know a lot about those subjects (fair-use and image policy, not necessarily about the ponies) - in fact, I presume he knows more than I do. But those have never been the issues in this conflict. The issues have been about the way policy is being enforced, and, specifically, the conduct of FPS in enforcing it, and I certainly know more than enough about those subjects. (And I supposed I will learn even more about it in the future, since it seems to be of little interest to folks here that an admin is dogging the steps of an editor based not on the editor's actions but on the editor's opinions.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial Solution

If there is some reason for which a deletion is contested (even a speedy deletion), perhaps it should simply be put through the regular deletion process. Plenty of new users want to contribute and simply make a mistake (yours truly is included in this bunch). By simply giving it a few days to work itself out, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. This would avoid the appearance of the person who nominates an image for speedy deletion, keeps it an orphan through edit warring, and then ultimately deletes it as something that simply cannot be done. No matter the correctness/incorrectness of such an outcome, there will always be the thought that such an individual was judge, jury, and executioner. By taking this route, it would avoid the appearance of impropriety. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation of TTN's Restriction?

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [49] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation (if this is not the proper place to discuss this then please let me know).75.93.9.235 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically belongs at Arbitration Enforcement, but whatever. I'm currently too tired to look into it just now, but I'm sure someone will be by soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, he hasn't deleted anything - the characters that look like they've been removed are mentioned in other paragraphs, and don't look to be important enough to warrant that huge slab of plot summary that existed there before. This looks fine to me. Black Kite 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN trimmed some minor characters out of a list, and reduced the article size by approximately 20%. Doesn't even approach a violation of his arbcom restrictions, so it doesn't belong there, either.Kww (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kww, the only reason I bring this up is because the situation looks very similar to these [50] [51], which resulted in a ban. I'll move the discussion to enforcement though, since that's where it belongs (does that mean I should delete this section?). 75.93.9.235 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that you should stop shopping this item from place to place until you find someone that overreacts.Kww (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to shop it around, in regards to this article I just want to know if the precedent is to remove material that was mistakingly posted. 75.93.9.235 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive content about a user on another user's userpage

Description: User:Evenin'_scrot! has posted the following message:

"I enjoy practicing law without a license, fishing, and collecting parking tickets from all over the U.S. I also enjoy cleaning up/correcting the numerous mistakes made by other Wikipedia editors, the majority of which are made by Non Curat Lex."

I find this inaccurate (I have made less than 500 edits, I cannot possibly be responsible for the majority of wikipedia's mistakes), offensive to me personally, and advocacy of unlawful activity (e.g. practicing law without a license) should not be condoned, even on a user page.

In aggravation, it should also be pointed out that the user is a sock of user:snookerhorn; between the two socks (and a third I cannot locate), there is a history of discipline for abusive and disruptive edits.

Administrative intervention is requested. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Buspar has removed the reference to you with the summary WP:NPA. If he restores it, feel free to leave him a civil comment about it.

About your suspicion of sockpuppetry, the place to comment is WP:SSP.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat reassured by the fact that Wikipedia currently has only a maximum of 950+/- mistakes... if the figures given above are correct. On a serious note, does anyone else have any problem with the editors (no, not the latin derived one!) username? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soft blocked for username. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

(Realized I posted this to the wrong noticeboard, so here's a copy paste from WP:AN.)

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [52]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [53] ("incredible narcissism") and [54] [55] [56] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [57]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours - please feel free to undo if you feel it was inappropriate, it's almost 5AM and I'm a bit irritable from lack of sleep and a late-night duty call. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - And yes, I have no business being online at this hour, I know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a school ip, see the whois report. --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

correction it is a University Ip address. I know the admins at the university and will ask them to look into it. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of sock puppetry: It sure seems that Buspar is in fact Xuanwu. They both edit the same articles in the same ways. Buspar's user page even says "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003!" Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Onethirtyeightdot"... gee, I wonder who it could be. JuJube (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not too hard at all to figure out who it is. Xuanwu says he "Started this Okashina Okashi page and have fleshed it out with time, making it a very comprehensive source page. Unfortunately, it was deleted." Buspar made his first edit ever to remake that article. Xuanwu and Buspar both have spent their time editing Hess Educational Organization and Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. So it's not hard at all to figure out that they are blatant sockpuppets, writing self-promotional wikipedia articles about themselves. The only question is what you're going to do about it. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gogandmagog2: sockpuppet vandal of User:Bjrothschild7

- - Similar name and disruptive editing as User:MagogAndGog.--Gregalton (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

-

Indef blocked and templated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help? Obviously not it seems.

This diff [[58]] seems to have affected several sections, altering or removing some text. Can't get my head around what happened, and can't undo because of intervening edits. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely, it looks like there was an edit conflict when Einsteindonut was removing a comment from another editor editing. I have had similar problems with using the "copy & paste" method of dealing with edit conflicts - anything posted between the initial conflict and the eventual successful save gets lost on the way. Don't know how to fix it though. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost only way I can think of to resolve easily at this point is to C/P the accidentally removed sections back into the board. (Though I could be wrong about that.) LaughingVulcan 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, god, I don't fancy doing that. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do it if anyone wants. Doesnt bother me I do it all the time at work. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very decent of you - thanks! I have just asked at VP/T if anyone there knows a way to fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

where the hell do I start there have been over 50 posts since it went wrong. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe best to wait for someone with special powers (that's if any admins actually notice that parts of the board have been lost). DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only like 5 sections that were obliterated to C/P. I think I know a way that (hopefully) won't make things worse. Let me have a go at it. LaughingVulcan 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best me thinks. Otherwise I can revert something that has been resolved so that admins think that it hasnt. I will leave it to the professionsals. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On cursory review, I'm finding all the deleted sections still present on the page so far (3 for 5,) from that diff. Maybe somebody already resolved it??? Still looking. LaughingVulcan 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely still comments missing within some sections. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There definitely are, and the user is still editing the page and apparently changing text at will. I'm posting a request to his Talk page to cease editing this board temporarily. This isn't "vandalism" but it is certainly disruptive... ;) LaughingVulcan 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned, I have done a similar thing before. The problem arises with the way Wikipedia tells people to cope with edit-conflicts (i.e. copy-paste). On a busy page like this it is very easy to accidentally blank comments made in the time between one's original attempt to post, and one's eventual successful save. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. And I believe you're right - it's very hard to sort out what's been cut out. I had hoped to address the original diff provided and just c/p what's been pulled. (Think you looked at doing the same.) But I think you're right; this is something I can't tackle, either. So we still need some help here. LaughingVulcan 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I have now restored the lost material - but of course if anyone spots anything I have missed it would be wonderful if they could either fix it or let me know. I'll just add that I am sure that it was accidental, and a result of the unfortunate instructions given on the edit-conflict screen. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For the record, a reasonably good way to fix such breakage is to use the undo feature and manually reinstate the intended edit (e.g. by selectively cut-and-pasting from the diff view). Of course, this assumes that MediaWiki will still let you undo the edit in the first place. I do could it might be a good idea to clarify the instructions at MediaWiki:Explainconflict for thread mode pages, where the currently suggested method is often difficult and error-prone. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked "undo", it told me that the edit could not be undone. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned the problem at the talk page for the edit-conflict message, I am unable to actually edit the message. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the message that should hopefully help a bit. Any further improvements are welcome. (If you're not an admin yourself and have some changes you'd like to make, leave me a note or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happened again :( Stifle (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So fixit. The header also needs to be edited to say something on the lines of "Owing to the Wiki software being unable to cope with the volume of edits on this page, the threads on this page cannot be taken as an accurate record of the actual posts. Posts may be lost or corrupted as a result of edit conflicts, and DuncanHill will not always be available or willing to spend the time fixing them". DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The page needs to be protected, and an admin then to copy and paste back in the lost parts. I had tried to start doing it, but getting too many edit conflicts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to restore the only bit that Satori Son hasn't restored. Deor (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was getting very frustrated. There was one more bit, which I just got. I still think the page needs a warning that threads may be misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck of an AfD

It isn't time to close it yet, unfortunately, but can some other admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir? It seems every day I'm getting another request on my talk page to block some obvious set of sockpuppets, and the discussion has rather fallen apart a bit. Keep an eye out for some of the less obvious sockpuppets I haven't taken care of yet, and if necessary please close this mess early. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is some trainwreck of an AfD and it certainly is a mess. Wow, its good im not an admin and i feel for whoever has to close that one. Good luck! Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for resolution of a dispute with a moderator

Hi

I have been threatened with a ban by OhanaUnited for what he considers to be inappropriate editing. As he is currently busy with a new job he doesn't have time to conclude our discussion on the matter. I have no problems with real life taking him away from Wiki, however this leaves me in limbo and I don't like having things like this hanging with no idea when its going to get resolved. So I was wondering if someone could pick up where he left off and help conclude the situation. My disputed editing can be found here[[59]].I just want to get things resolved so that I can get back to editing.

Thanks

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of "don't delete talk page discussions" do you not understand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was archiving not deleting.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism at Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – High-visibility template reverted and protected Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that that is template vandalism. Celestra (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's affecting Singapore as well. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:Bar percent. Reverted by Jredmond. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've protected it as a HRT. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fila3466757 alias Tharnton345 IP sock

As reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (3rd) the persistent sockpuppeter Fila3466757 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) has followed a block as Tharnton345 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) by continuing the same low level disruptive behaviour as 89.242.19.188 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) Rather than block an IP in these circumstances I reported it, but since 89.242.19.188 has continued with the pattern of disruption and harassment,[60] I've indefinitely blocked the IP and placed an anonblock notice on the user's talk page as an interim measure. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Y2J RKO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – blocked 72 hours --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A user with a final warning for vandalism from July let loose with this personal attack today. I think it's time for a tap with a block-stick myself, but YMMV.Kww (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting GAN fails

I wondered if someone uninvolved could take a look at this. Goodone121 (talk · contribs) is continuing to renominate Huntington's disease at WP:GAN after Jfdwolff and I each failed it once since yesterday. S/he reverted Jfdwolff today and then after I failed the article removed the link to the second GA review and removed the evidence of it from the article history template. Goodone121 has not been a major contributor to the article and has been asked by the article's main contributor not to renom it until the concerns from the second review have been dealt with. I asked them to stop reverting at User talk:Goodone121#Huntington's disease, because I feel it's becoming disruptive. I hope I'm not acting prematurely by bringing this here, but I'd like to step back and have someone else get involved, any advice would be most welcome. delldot ∇. 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll remove it and make a note in the ongoing discussion on his talk page. For something failed that recently, the place to go is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, not back to GAN. I don't really want the article there either (because the problems can just be fixed by editors and the article renominated), but if s/he wants to run it up the flagpole, that is the place. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I reverted edits I felt were good-faith, but against process. I will promply bring the matter to GAR.BTW, I'm a male.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has just suggested that GAR may not be the best place. How about actually implementing earlier recommendations by Delldot and myself so we can then rapidly promote it to GA? JFW | T@lk 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• That someone was me. I don't think it should go to GAR, but if it between it going there and us blocking this editor (or others) due to edit warring on GAN, I would much rather it just go to GAR and be disposed of there. However, it appears as though the editor in question isn't planning on renominating it without consensus, so this may be solved...insofar as AN/I is concerned. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I was trying to explain that it might not be the wisest move to blatantly disregard advice given only 42 minutes (and 1 edit) earlier.

I think Goodone121's reponses to Delldot and myself on his talkpage are worth reviewing. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Understood. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pakhtun Tanoli

Here's a list of edits on my user talk: [61], [62], [63] and corresponding admin action, [64] and [65].

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, and a heap of suspected IP socks but his original account itself seems to be open. So Tznkai suggested I report this here. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A little background. De728631 reported[66] this incident on WP:AIV and I declined[67] it at the time. Following a conversation on my talk page I've reviewed the differences determined the following:

• Pakhtun Tanoli and the reported IPs are almost definitely the same user.
• This user probably doesn't understand the appropriate place for the contributions.
• This user is not evading a block via sockpuppeting, because I can't find any recent blocks to evade.
• This is not vandalism as such, but it is problematic.
• This user does not stick with any one IP for any significant duration.

This leaves us with something of a sticky widget, because I'm not going to range block all of 88.*.*.*--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh g'wan. Do it. It'll be funny. HalfShadow 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if we've determined its abusive sockpuppetry, we could start by blocking the main account and all the registered socks, and worry about the IP's later. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biggest CIDR range we can block is a /16, so that one would take rather a long time ;) Stifle (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another Sarah Palin thing

Could I respectfully request a neutral admin to look at the contribution~s of Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs), specifically at Political positions of Sarah Palin? Personally I think this is POV-pushing, especially on such a high-profile topic, but I really don't want to do the edit-warring thing. Kelly ^hi! 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a very quick look, but the edits look pretty well-sourced at first glance. Who defines what is NPOV in situations like this? Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked 20 hours and counseled by User:Tznkai, an admin apparently recently back from 30 months off. GRBerry 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers

He's keeping being very uncivil and even did a personal attack.

Called another editor "bad faith editor"[68], and "retarded" or "retard"[69] [70].

Kept Calling an editor who's not banned a "banned user" and an "abusive sock"[71] [72] [73] [74] [75].

Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[76].

He kept uncivil even after being warned[77].

Called an editor "banned user" again and reverted the edit again. He keeps saying that it is an original research although it is cited.[78].

Said "i laugh at your ridiculous and Bad faith forking"[79].

Called another editor's comment "funny" and say "are you kidding?"[80]

He doesn't feel any regret for what he has done even when he was warned again.[81]

He is so self-righteous and shows no manners. I don't think he is a suitable wikipedian. I suggest that he be blocked for a bit long time.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[82]"

your content forking, distorted edit, wrong reference, unconsensus page move, and malforemd 3rr report(intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file) [83][84][85][86] is a cleary bad faith.

however, i did not use "retarded" word. possibly i used "ret*****". but i did not used "ratarded".

even some user(Sennen goroshi) said uncivil word to me, "Your source is crap and biased",[87] however, i did not report it.

sorry, but anyone can revert banned user edit. it was firt inserted by abusive sock account of Pabopa(Webcamera)[88], and after sock account is deadWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa, newbie account is appeard[89][90], and it revert again.[91] Pabopa was a only one person who stick to injo kowtow. "possibly" these newbie accounts(Bentecbye, Mabemabe) are resurrection accounts of abusive sock. also he confirmed as a "likely" sock. it is not baseless at all.

you says, Called an editor "banned user" again. [92] but, i just revert banned user version edit. it is not mean you are banned user.(but who know? you are sock or not)

You say to me as a "rudness" is also uncivil manner. [93]

i said, "it is a your ridiculous interpret", because you intentionally omitted from source, and you distoring source, it is a ridiculous to me. i think it is not a personal attack. [94]

"funny" is not a uncvil word. i never heard it.

sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.

1. you redirected article title without any user consensus.[95]

2. He(Michael Friedrich) was not intention of avoiding edit war.[96][97] many user opposed his edit.[98][99][100][101] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.

3. Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[102]

i think you are not a suitlabe editor of wikipedia. Manacpowers (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers is habitual offender of edit war.example,7th revert,6th revert.He does not have proper reason.He revert in many places.He is too bad.--Bentecbye (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich and me already blocked for 24 hrs by 3rr reports. it is already done. also it is not violated 3rr rule, it is not within 24 hrs.

and Bentecbye your engaged reverting edit war. you are also keep reverted again.

Bentecbye is a confirmed as a "likey" sock of Pabopa who abusive sock puppetry and indefinite banned user. after Pabopa account is dead, this "new" account Bentecbye appeard. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa Manacpowers (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bentecbye make a memo list. i think this is his stalking list.[103] he trace my edit history. Manacpowers (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a place to fight with you, but I comment on your points.

First, I am not talking about 3rr now. Don't change the subject.

Second, "ret***ed" clearly means "retarded". Using *** means nothing. This is nothing but a personal attack. Your comment above proves that you don't feel any regret for what you have done. You don't seem to understand that you're being uncivil and what is uncivility either.

Third, Sennen goroshi does not have anything to do with this. Don't change the subject. If you think his deed is a personal attack, don't mention it here and make another section, please.

Fourth, whether Bentecbye is a sock puppet is not decided yet. You kept removing information only because it is first added by Bentecbye although it is cited and some, including me, oppose you.[104]

Fifth, calling your deed rude is not a uncivil manner or a personal attack. I was only warning you. If the word "rudeness" were a personal attack, "uncivility" would also be a personal attack. I used the word "rudeness" because it appears in Wikipedia's guidelineWikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.

Sixth, using the word "ridiculous" is uncivil. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages. It says "Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively." Even "poorly written" is against etiquette. So are "rediculous" and "funny", not to mention "i laugh" and "are you kidding?". Read [[Wikipedia:Civility#]Situations that may foster incivility]] too.

Seventh, as for my redirect, I thought it was OK to move the article to a proper name (the name I used is a direct translation from the original word, 朝鮮史編修會) because there was another editor who had moved the article to another name before me[105]. And you moved the article too, without any consensus[106] and the name you used is your POV (Read Club for Editing of Korean History#Michael Friedrich's moves).

Eighth, as for edit war, it is a content dispute. Not a personal attack or uncivility. Besides, I am the one who started the discussion at Kumdo[107], Korean History Compilation Committee[108], Dojang[109]. You kept ignoring me and reverting edits without saying anything until recently although I tried to talk to you many times (see User talk:Manacpowers#No reference?!). You kept reverting my edits without discussion even after I tried to talk to you (see [edit on Korean influence on Japanese Culture]and my comment to Mancpower User talk:Manacpowers#Sogano Umako. Manacpowers ignored me and kept reverting the page). I don't want you to say I have no intention to avoid edit war althogh you kept ignoring me although I tried to talk to you many times. You have no intention of avoiding edit wars either.

As for sock puppet, I have sereral pieces of evidence (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100). This is different from what you did and I was told to ask him about it. So I did so. What's wrong about it?

Conclusion. What you said above is irrelavent here. Please do not change the subject.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kumdo dispute

Sorry for bothering you, but there is a long dispute which seems not to be solved. I think [edit] is properly sourced. But there're a few who say this is an original reseach and POV-pushing. It seems this dispute cannot be solved without a third party. If possible, I'd like someone neutral to judge whether it is properly sourced or not.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you wrong interpret, contents forking, and heavy POV is problem, and it is still going on discussion page of Kumdo. you are first, and only one person who make disruptive edit war of kumdo article. many user opposed it. Manacpowers (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many users? It seems there are only you and Objectiveye. And there's one who's on my side, Bentecbye. This is not a place to dispute. I am asking for a third party's judgement in order to know if my edit could be called POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Spoken Wikipedia template

Could someone introduce Keeper of the matrix (talk · contribs) to a block of some sort. They appear to have uploaded Image:Vote McCain.jpg for the specific purpose of vandalizing Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Spoken Wikipedia. Also, considering how widespread the usage of Spoken Wikipedia is across Wikipedia, is there a reason why it doesn't have full protection turned on? Looks like the senator infobox has already been protected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My ability to assume good faith only stretchs so far. I blocked the account for 99 hours and deleted the image in question as it was only being used for vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest an indefinite block? Corvus cornix_talk 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Perhaps the block should be until Nov 4 2008 (election day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jctw769 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May be ban-evading Bsrboy

Based on a look at his editing habits (mostly to Plymouth, and up until today, pretty exemplary) I think that User:Keeper of the matrix is probably a sock of banned User:Bsrboy. I also noted that this account was created just three minutes after one named Bsrboy376. However, if it is the same person, he's evidently changed ISP, because the rangeblocks (86.29.128.0/21 and 86.29.136.0/21) that were implemented for him are still in place. Bsrboy was known for vandalising while logged out, so a CU may reveal more.  —SMALLJIM  21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of fair use image removal at List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day

Over the past three days, a slow revert war has been happening over the removal of fair use images from that article per WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. See article history. A very similar dispute happened at Supporting Harry Potter characters recently. Please see this from the AN/I archive and Talk:Supporting_Harry_Potter_characters#Overuse_of_fair_use_images. The result of that edit war was article protection, and ultimately reduction of fair use images down to two (which is appropriate per the guideline).

Currently, I have been removing the images and attempting to communicate [110] to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the policy and guidelines under which this was done. User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has used his rollback privileges inappropriately, and continues to treat the removals and tagging of the article for other issues by User:Pd THOR as vandalism, for example "Removing the images and plastering with unnecessary tags is vandalism." [111].

I'd appreciate it if an administrator would please step in and advise User:Blofeld of SPECTRE to halt his actions, as they are in violation of policy and further to caution him in calling legitimate edits vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've informed Blofeld about this notice, and commented. I see the article has now been sent to AFD. Black Kite 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:E-FlyBoy-M

E-FlyBoy-M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wish AIV could handle slightly more complex cases ... I hate bringing these things to ANI. Anyway, this account diddled around on his user page for months, apparently just to become autoconfirmed and able to be used to vandalize semi-protected pages. Hit Miley Cyrus today, blanking it. No valid edits outside of his bizarre userpage.Kww (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably related to TylerTown101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who pulled the same stunt.Kww (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerTown101 filed as well.Kww (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow what waste of their time if this turns out to be the case. Months of checking the account only to have the one vandal edit reverted by a bot almost immediatly. let's see what the checkuser comes up with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that it was worth the effort for whatever kind of silly internal reward vandals receive. TylerTown101's edits look related to the whole 4chan attack we had on Miley Cyrus Friday night. The edit patterns of the two accounts are identical, and the timing of their edits is within a 10 minute timespan. TylerTown101 makes two edits, gets reverted in 3 minutes, and E-Flyboy-M blanks the page 7 minutes later.Kww (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics

I have stumbled into a mess regarding the Austrian School of economics. Apparently, there are WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE issues in that most mainstream economists view the philosophy as heterodoxy (at least that's my layman's take on the situation). Proponents of the philosophy, however, want very much for it to be reflected favorably, and frequently, in Wikipedia articles. This disagreement has spilled into numerous articles, including Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Credit crunch, Credit cycle, Fractional-reserve banking, Full-reserve banking, Inflation, Monetary inflation, Monetary reform, etc., etc.

My first involvement here was dealing with the blatant sockpuppetry of Karmaisking (block log). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. I also recently blocked a new SPA for 3RR at WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked). Some time ago, Gregalton asked for my advice, to which I basically replied “Don’t worry about it.” (See User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8#Why.) I can see now that my casualness was a mistake. The POV-pushing, sockpuppetry, harassment, and edit-warring have become extremely disruptive. And now Gregalton, one of the few editors working to keep the various articles NPOV and properly verified by reliable sources, in my personal opinion, has been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. See WP:AN3#Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours).

Quite frankly, I am in over my head and this report is rapidly become WP:TLDR. In short, I am proposing the following:

1. A community ban of Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking.
2. An unblock of Gregalton (talk · contribs · count · block log), whose edits were not an actual 3RR violation, and not disruptive under the circumstances. He has so requested.[112]
3. A possible topic ban for SPA Misessus (talk · contribs). Does that typically require an RFC?

Most importantly, I am also requesting watchlisting of these articles by experienced editors, preferably those with an economics background. As such, I will post notices of this discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a big problem. I don't think the mainstream view is so much that the Austrian school is heterodox, but rather that it was a stream of thought more or less within the mainstream that ran out some time ago, and that most of what was valuable in it has now been absorbed. What's left is a bunch of people more interested in talking about the greatness of the Austrian school (for example, here on Wikipedia) than in doing economics.JQ (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't been so much absorbed as debunked and superceded. That said, there are certain concerns related to the use of mathematics in economics that cannot be written off as fringe but much of it can including what is being debated here. Note that there has been a campaign among so-called civil POV pushers for years to push these heterodox theories on Wikipedia - and not just Austrian economics. Anyone who dares confront these people are met by armies of sock puppets and/or meat puppets. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry are clearly worries with this article. However, ANI is not a topic forum: This is neither the place to discuss opinions on the topic, nor the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with that. But occasionally it is necessary "to discuss opinions on the topic" to insure that edits comply with the official policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. If the edits do not, and a pattern of blatantly disregarding those polices is shown, then admin action is entirely appropriate. I renew my call for a community site ban for Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log) and consideration of a topic ban for Misessus (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Gregalton

I have asked Stifle to consider unblocking Gregalton. Obviously, that was not my primary reason for posting here. — Satori Son 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am about to head off for the night — anyone can feel free to unblock if you feel it's justified. Just to note that he has violated 3RR 1 2 3 4, and none of the reverts were simple and obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits one and two show only one revert since there was no "previous version reverted to" (see this comment by uninvolved Coppertwig). The third edit seems entirely unrelated, and the fourth edit is clearly a simple vandalism revert. Perhaps these are not the correct diffs, but based on them, and since Stifle has retired for the evening, I have unblocked Gregalton. I am soon to retire myself, but further discussion is encouraged. — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about image

Hi, I recently rm'ed links to Image:Penis_van_een_Puber.jpg in a couple articles where it was really adding nothing. I suspect the licensing info may qualify it for speedy by CSD-I4, but I don't feel like merely tagging it with "no licence" before prodding. I'm thinking that there's another CSD for putative images of teenagers' erections that an admin here might want to employ. Pete.Hurd (talk)

It's on Commons, you'll have to get it removed from there. But I imagine 16 years old is legal in the Netherlands. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford (talk · contribs) blocked

The above user was recently blocked by Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) for off wiki harassment (link in the block log). This was under instruction from Sceptre (talk · contribs) on IRC. Since I do not believe the decision is correct, I bring it to the scrutiny of the community. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears resolved per User talk:Bedford. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The block log shows that Stwalkerster undid his block 23 minutes after making it. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey real-life stalking/harassment

After last year's Arbcom decision, I swore I'd stay out of all things related to Merkey. I'd still be doing that if he hadn't decided to harass me in the real world.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see [113], [114], [115], and [116]. Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey [117], and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Wikipedia and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice [118] for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

• 166.70.238.44 and 166.70.238.45 where a tracert ends at a host that includes 'jmerkey' in the name
• 69.2.248.210, which resolves to Calculated Research & Technology, which lists a company named Omega8 as a partner, which is the exclusive distributor of Merkey's "Forensic Filesystem" according to materials on a site that Merkey controls.

I wouldn't bring any of this up if Merkey hadn't escalated things dramatically in the real world. When he began editing from 69.2.248.210, I was certain it was him based on the topics chosen and the fact that the IP address could be easily linked to him. Did I say a damn thing? NO. I let other people notice it and handle it, and this was the proper thing to do. I monitored the situation closely, but made no comments at all. The last thing I want is to have any dealings at all with Merkey, not on Wikipedia and certainly not in the real world. I also don't want certain people to start jumping on me and claiming that I'm an SPA against Merkey.

But this is really serious when you make phone calls and trying to mess with peoples' lives. What's he going to do next, show up at my house?

On 25 June 2008, Merkey called my employer and tried to get me fired. He asked to speak to HR, and told them who he was (including providing a phone number), and "you've got a problem employee on your hands." He then claimed to have checkuser results from Wikipedia indicating that some large percentage of my edits to Wikipedia were done from an IP address that resolved to my employer. He never asked directly to have me fired, but his choice of words made it clear he expected I would get fired as a result of his call.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey accused me of stalking him, but then almost a year later, he called my employer and tried to get me fired. Now I'll say this: if he had called them at the time that I was allegedly stalking him from my work, that's legitimate ("one of your employees used your computer systems yesterday to harass me in an internet forum"), but a year later? After I've left him alone completely in real life? That's way over the line. I want nothing to do with him, and almost one year after my last interaction with him on Wikipedia, he decides to move his battle from Wikipedia to the real world.

There's not a whole lot Wikipedia can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat [119] and a veiled threat [120]) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Wikipedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true. Obviously, he doesn't have access, but I wondered if he had managed to get someone else to divulge information to him. After some delay, the ombudsman replied that there is no information in the checkuser tool indicating that my IP addresses were accessed or disclosed. That seems like a good clarification to add, that checkuser was not actually involved. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned [121], this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the facts are what you say they are, I would support extending the ban on Merkey to indefinite and irrevocable. I suggest you email the arbitration committee (see the email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM). Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sail too close to the WP:NLT wind, surely that telephone call would be slanderous? Brilliantine (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's that simple. Merkey is a bit of an oddball but it's undeniably the case that he has also been royally trolled on and off Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No matter how badly other people have trolled him in the last year, there's no justification for messing with me in real life. Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP. From my limited understand of the situation, messing with people in the real world is part of what got Daniel Brandt indef'ed. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you've been in contact with Merkey before. Can you get his version of events here? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - while this could be a serious situation, proceeding down the road with anything related to this based on one side's claims is a procedural and ethical mistake. Merkey's side of the story should be asked for and heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. Harassment is unacceptable, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion on Latino (demonym)

I reverted edits by 888aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Upon checking the page history at Latino (demonym) it became obvious that this is a sockpuppet of 999aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked indefinitely. Please block 888aaa and check if there is any more problems. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked. Feel free to revert any problematic edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Delancey

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long time nuisance talk-page contributor whom I'm sure has been discussed here before. See web page maintained by victims!. It seems to me to call for long term deprivation of editing privileges. I mentioned this on vandalism page, but since he has only made two edits to real articles, they sent me here. The problem is trying to discuss something with this guy (over several days) only to find out after wading through his junk that it is pretty much total nonsense. I thought I was holding a discussion with a non-native and was trying to be extra careful. Eccentrics can be fun, I suppose, but do we really need him? 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The site you linked to is an artists' site. It's on DGD's work. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooey Parks vandal

69.112.43.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - If some users could keep an eye on contributions from this account, it would be very much appreciated. In between good edits, the editor attempts to sneak subtle factual errors across various articles, and occasionally creates hoax pages for fictitious films in talk pages for non-existent articles, with "Wooey Parks" listed in the cast. Dancter (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There is some template vandalism at the bottom of the Canada article, and I'm having trouble locating the exact template involved. Any help would be appreciated. AlexiusHoratius 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Must have been fixed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Jeff3000 (talk · contribs) - thanks. I blocked 190.139.108.170 (talk · contribs) for a week, as it's not the first template vandalism they've done, and it's a nuisance to find. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone for me too, it must have been a cache issue with me; I had seen the revert on the template's history, but the vandalism was still showing up. Thanks AlexiusHoratius 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:C

I am not sure if this is a copyright, but the pages read the same:

Fuel hedging and http://www.hometravelagency.com/dictionary/fuel-hedging.html Brusegadi (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good find. That page is older than our article. --Carnildo (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)