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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Wikipedia. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in^[talk] 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in^[talk] 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP case filed. --vi5in^[talk] 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

User:Vivin had earlier issues with User:Avinesh , bcoz of the latter's objection of POV pushing for the former's caste. This was indeed objected by many users like this , this and many other examples. Vivin himself was alledgely using socks ( See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet and User_talk:Vivin#Your_sock_puppet_case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#User:Avinesh ) . With Avinesh leading "his accusers" , it was important for Vivin to get the 'head of Avinesh' to roll down. Avinesh was earlier involved with taking many caste based articles to AFDs. Even I have crossed horns with Avinesh very long back ( Both of us have 'complained' each other at the ANI). User:Avinesh is a good contributor , his contribs can be viewed from the user page.

In his new form as User:Googlean , he was 'fighting ' aganist the Pro-Hindutva and Anti-Christian cabal lead by ,
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Tripping_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) etc .,
While I dont really agree to the justification of Avinesh's use of mutiple ids to work on controversal subjects, I guess his explaination was the policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area . I interacted with User:Googlean on wiki noticing his NPOV fighting . I didnt know Googlean was actually Avinesh , whom I earlier had issues with , until when Vivin tagged him as a sock of Avinesh and Harjk.It may be interesting to know how Vivian identified Avinesh as Googlean without even a check user!

Googlean was associated with the following articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism by an anti-Christian cabal .

• Anti-Christian violence in India
• Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka
• Religious violence in Orissa
• September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore

See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier,
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ,
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pectore
and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer. These pages is still trolled daily by scores of IP socks of Jobxavier. User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Googlean was intially blocked by User:YellowMonkey , who unblocked Jobxavier , when Jobxavier was blocked by another admin. YellowMonkey is a trusted admin , whom I have a gr8 respect and on wiki friendship , but this action didnt seemed acceptable from him and I have already conveyed this to him. Googlean and many other users wanted to add Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad are declared militant parties. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Bajrang_Dal.2C_Shiv_Sena.2C_VHP_-_militant_parties.3F . While Googlean strongly decided to keep adding the parties as militant / extremist , YM blocked him on a apparently pseudo consensus. Googlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by YM for "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB." I guess here he was reverting a reliable source (?) part which was removed by a possibly a SPA editor named Blondlottswires ( contribs ) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin .

The next time Googlean was blocked when an admin User:Wknight94 misinterpreted the CU results by User:Nishkid64. Nishkid unblocked Googlean and Both Nish and Wknight apologised to Googlean ( see User_talk:Googlean#re:.

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO last week. He is currently under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case and is close to another editing restriction or a permanent ban. With Pectore the only person defending Bharatveer, it was important for him to get Googlean 'chained' and his accusitions here was in a very bad distaste and bad faith.

Now this being the behind the curtains story , tell me who is disruptive and socker. Avinesh may have used another legitimate account to keep off from the controversal subjects to protect his privacy and defend his personal and family security. You may not never know, he may be even otherwise be attacked in real world if his real identity was to be revealed as Avinesh . The question is whether he wanted to risk that in India , where there are lots of religious attacks recently ? The last time I warned an IP sock of Jobxavier, this was what I was threatened " The home ministry has your details ( and they will get you  ? ) ". What is next ? " Tinucherian, you are threatened to be burned or murdered? " The question is whether I should risk my personal and family security or should I also use a pseudo username to keep WP as NPOV as possible and also protect my life and security ? This being the case , I request the admins to reconsider the indefinite block of Avinesh and Googlean ! -- Tinu Cherian - 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See facts and evidences before taking a prejudiced view . Also it is important to identify and to Call a spade a spade ! Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way, I am under no circumstances going to unblock someone based on the rational "they were fighting a cabal." This is non negotiable, so if you want my help, you're going to have to do better, or you can find another admin.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Think of the bigger picture ! See the contribs of others and Googlean/Avinesh , Was he disruptive or edit warring ? Was he keeping WP reliable and NPOV from huge number of disruptive socks and meat puppets? Was he potentially protecting his privacy and personal/ family security to uphold the best interests of Wikipedia by using a pseudo/ legitimate sock ? Did Avinesh and Googlean kept editing the same page as two different users ? With vivian's confession , Avinesh had declared he was indeed Googlean when needed. Did he kept denying his identity as Googlean ? . Concuring -Relata refero's statement above, kindly read WP:GHBH , was he operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy ? Was he operating a "bad hand" account for the admin / admin candidate for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles ? Look at the other side of the table ? Lots of disruptive sock on rampage ! Admins and lots of other users keep reverting the sock POVs daily ( check the page histories of the articles above) and had to protect the pages. In the light of the above evidences and facts, I request to unblock User:Avinesh in Good faith. Due to pressure of lots of traumatizing POV pushers like these, many good users ( like User:P.K.Niyogi User:Ragib ( see reasons ) etc) have left / is leaving WP, which is not good for Wikipedia ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just finished my cup of hot chocolate (mmm hot chocolate) or my keyboard and screen would be quite chocolaty now (mmm chocolaty...). Tinucherian, thank you for confirming what Avinesh has consistently denied: Harjk and Crazyguy2050 being his sockpuppets. If you'll look at Harjk's contributions and Crazyguy2050's contributions, you'll see that he consistently reverted the article without discussion claiming that he was reverting "POV fork terrorism"/"monkeysm" (I still have no idea what that means). What's interesting is that Avinesh never really edited the article in question. So I guess Tinucherian, you're confirming something that Avinesh has denied - that Harjk and Crazyguy2050 are his socks. So there's the first point. Avinesh has lied through and through - hardly the mark of a "good editor".

Now Tinu also brought up Relata reverting the changes. Relata did revert the changes, but he and I reached a very amicable consensus on the article. So Tinu's second point is completely moot as well.

The third point is me having sockpuppets. Avinesh (and his socks) seem to accuse people that they do no agree with, of being sockpuppets. In fact, I believe he launched (as Googlean) a frivolous case against Pectore. The SSP was completely inconclusive, which means that I don't have any sockpuppets. I never have. Contrast this with three confirmed sockpuppet cases against Avinesh. I'm not sure what you mean about Avinesh "leading his accusers". I've only had one accuser and that's Avinesh (in addition to one Khalistan-nut-troll). And really, I have no interest in seeing "the head of Avinesh roll". I've stated many times that I value his contributions. However, he's always had WP:OWN and WP:COI issues with people correcting or cleaning up his articles. I mean, take a look at this revert war that he got into regarding his incorrect English grammar, which I was trying to correct, or these other articles, where I was trying to do the same. In fact, he launched that SSP case against me without following proper procedure (didn't bother to inform me), and simply because I tagged his article saying that it needed cleanup (which I later did).

Regarding my tagging Avinesh as a sock, it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh". I've pointed this out many times in the WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:SSP cases against him. Perhaps Tinucherian should have been as diligent in reasearching that as he has been in his defence of Avinesh. About all of this drama about ZOMG I R GOING TO BE KILLED!!! Really, now. Avinesh's intent is very clear - to engage in disruptive editing and POV pushing (and this has been confirmed by his previous blocks) in a set of battleground articles. So please don't try to bring up stuff about people being afraid for their lives.

Anyways, that's all I have to say. --vi5in^[talk] 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Avinesh were kind of edit warring on some articles which I had brought it myself to the notice of ANI long back ( Need to really dig the archives to find it ). Seeing these initial edits of Googlean, he declares himself as a legitimate sock user , which clearly shows his intentions of having other accounts and only using pseudo names while working on controversial subjects , due to privacy and security reasons. Regarding it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh" , shows that he had no wrong intentions. He must have intented to keep his privacy only with the general public but bold enough to disclose it to admins . Hence I dont believe it is a good hand / bad hand case. I didnt know Avinesh and Googlean are related until User:YellowMonkey added this. When did I confirm Harjk and crazyguy are socks of Avinesh? Regarding User:Harjk , I lean to give the benefit of doubt because of shared network issues. It does scares me to think how many vandals probably writes from the my same company corporate network and my home broadband ISP network. This could happen to you also. The fact being you saying " he launched that SSP case against me for asking for cleanup of your article " is a hilarious attempt of blinding us of the real facts. Avinesh SSP by you ( dated 7 May 2008 ) is much earlier than Vivin SSP by Avinesh ( dated 14 August 2008 ) . During the time earlier when both of you were having issues each other, With your suspected sock Uzhuthiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) , ONLY concentrating and attacking on Avinesh created articles is a clear case of sock or meat puppet , with or without proven evidence ! Also to be noted that Harjk (talk · contribs) wasnot attacking your articles . Vivin Avinesh links show how better Wikipedian is avinesh , Mr Wikiwarrior! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, all your other rather unsubstantiated points aside (which I've refuted above), you do realize that the livemint article is a compliment, right? Thanks for the plug, once again. \o/ --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, timeline clarification. There is no "hilarious blinding of facts". The first SSP case against Avinesh was because of a confirmed RFCU against him. I had no idea that Avinesh was Harjk/Crazyguy. I initiated an RFCU against Crazyguy being a sock of Harjk. The RFCU then established that Avinesh was the puppetmaster, which is obvious grounds for an SSP case. Avinesh's frivolous SSP case against me was launched as soon as I started tagging his articles AND cleaning them up. It wasn't just a 'drive-by-tagging'. Avinesh created some pretty good articles; they just needed to be cleaned up. Finally, creating a large number of articles doesn't mean you're better than everyone else. It's quality vs. quantity. So yeah, your argument fails again. Anyways, I'm not going to be taking part in this discussion any more. --vi5in^[talk] 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

can you provide us the links of the RFCU which you say 'caught' Avinesh  ? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding this RFCU , I assume that the orginal disruptive editor was Harjk and Avinesh was only just found using the same network. So now your redirected your anger to Avinesh , thinking that he is the master , right? With Avinesh , as coincidence , also taking several caste based article to AFD and YOU with strong Nair POV , you saw Avinesh as your primary enemy. As with Harjk, I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt here due to shared IPs in office and home networks . Harjk case is old issue in which the case was closed & harjk indefintely blocked. Please do not bring any closed issue into this discussion and we are primarly discussing here about Googlean / Avinesh. As with Googlean / Avinesh, they were not disruptive and I strongly appeal to the neutral admins to comment on the block and intentions of those who want to see Googlean / Avinesh away from Wikipedia, based on the evidences above -- Tinu Cherian - 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last entry I made which you deleted concerning the Moorer Report was this one:

===Independent American Investigations===

Findings of the Moorer Commission of 2003

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Marine General Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)...". The Moorer Report continues: "in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States".

1. There are descriptions and titles supplied of the primary authors. It is difficult to imagine how any real American Citizen loyal to the Unites States could consider an Ambassador, a Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine General, and a Rear Admiral are behind a Fringe Theory.
2. The Entry contains the quote "there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from...". This quote is lifted directly from the report. What follows, are the names of presumably reputable persons who are in agreement with that statement.
3. Each of these persons are identified, and each of thier statements have the stated third party reference as part of the entry. The assertion that "Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided" is 100% incorrect. Each of the 5 persons listed has a secondary source identifying that each of these five have said what is implied in the quoted Sentence.
4. Since statements by each of the 5 above are reproduced in the articles listed, there is no violation of WP:OR. There is no original research involved. The articles are published, and readily available, via link, directly from the entry.
5. WP:SYN is also not violated here. Each of the sources speaks of ONLY that person speaking - effectively making the point that is stated in the Moorer Report quote which I reproduced.

It is interesting that you played the 'anti-semitic' card. I suppose I am supposed to cringe at this thought and somehow defend my actions. I think not. I am merely trying to get portions of an Independent Report from the 4 reputable persons listed on the USS Liberty incident Page. There is nothing anti-semitic about the truth.

The comment you made when you last removed the entry above is: 20:50, 14 November 2008 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (76,838 bytes) (rv no talk page consensus for this edit. Relevant policies WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit) (undo)

I would now like to address each of these objections, and others which have been voiced, individually:

"Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Wikipedia policy whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:CONSENSUS is impossible with your methods, primarily since you violate the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS yourself. Specifically, the policy calls for changes to entries if one feels that entries are incorrect. You have chosen to delete the entry every single time you see it. There is simply no way to reach consensus if you delete the entry, and every other variation of the entry you see. WP:CONSENSUS is impossible to reach if the only act you perform is to delete the entry. You have never even attempted to edit the entry to rid it of your objections. That is both a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and the first reason for why I make the charge that you are trying to censor any mention of the report on the USS Liberty incident page.

WP:UNDUE claims: WP:UNDUE says, in part: "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.". There is little mention of the Moorer Report on the USS Liberty incident page. Without it, WP:UNDUE is valid for the list of reports, since it gives undue weight to those reports mentioned, and none to the Moorer Report, entries to which you invariably delete. Amazingly enough, the only report which is not quoted explicitly in the USS Liberty incident page is the Moorer Report. Since it is niether an American nor Israeli government report, it was explicitly listed as an Independent American Investigation. It is you who are in violation of WP:UNDUE, buy allowing mention and quotes of the other reports, but consistently deleting any contents mentioned from the Moorer Report.

WP:NPOV claims: Another interesting one. The Moorer report makes several numbered statements, the collection of which is it's conclusion available here. That is it's purpose. To have investigated the USS Liberty incident and come to a conclusion. That you do not like the conclusion of the report is not my problem. One of the numbered conclusions of the report is that "there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew". This point is not made anywhere on the USS Liberty incident but is available in the Moorer Report. Inclusion of the Moorer Report actually completes the NPOV of the USS Liberty Page. After all, there can be no way that the USS Liberty incident can be considered Neutral if it explicitly does NOT provide at least some conclusion of the Moorer Report. So we have again you making an accusation, when it is in fact you who are guilty of the accusation.

There is a link to the Findings of the Moorer Report at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page. Your charges of WP:FRINGE on the entry I made has never actually caused you to remove the link at the bottom of the page to the Moorer report. Are we to understand that the Moorer Report is an acceptable link when a link to it in "Sources claiming attack was deliberate -> Other Sources" is available, but is a Fringe Theory if any mention is made on the USS Liberty incident of the contents of the report? Your inconsistent treatment of this entry speaks volumes about your intentions. You only delete any quotes or entries made on the Moorer Report, but you do not appear to object to a link to the report. Is my belief that you are trying to censor the report really that far fetched, in this respect?

You have argued that there is no secondary sources for the Moorer Report Findings for some time. I am astounded that the following reports, also listed on the "USS Liberty incident" page do not have a single secondary reference listed. The reports listed which do not have a secondary source are:

1. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
2. Joint Chief of Staff's Report
3. CIA Intelligence Memorandums
4. Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Investigation
5. House Armed Services Committee Investigation
6. The NSA History Report

Why does the Moorer Report require a secondary source, when not a single one of the other reports listed have a reference?

Lastly, a checkuser (whatever that is) is welcome, as would be any other WP investigation you choose. I do not worry about my actions.WorldFacts (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Gee Narson if I somehow took his comments out of context then I do sincerely apologize however it is far from obvious who he was referring to. Loosely, freely and carelessly throwing the words "anti-semetic" around any conversation, especially into a serious conversation that undeniably shows the actions of the Israeli military and government, and the actions of the American government, in a less than reputable and upright station, is a far too common and ordinary tactic. Just say it or someone's "anti-Semetic" and hope they'll run away. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute how 'serious' a conversation is when one side screams 'CENSORSHIP' and 'Look at our dead Americans!' followed by more 'CENSORSHIP!' and then legal threats. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR^talk 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: [[::User:Henrywinklestein|Henrywinklestein]] ([[::User talk:Henrywinklestein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Henrywinklestein|contribs]]), [[::User:15thSt|15thSt]] ([[::User talk:15thSt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/15thSt|contribs]]) and [[::User:Yellabina|Yellabina]] ([[::User talk:Yellabina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Yellabina|contribs]]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Wikipedia policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional.

Having said that, the problem that looms over all others is the libellous smearing of editors as we're seeing yet again in this case. Along with the jeering at attempts to build collegiate relationships, one would really think admins knew better than to behave in this way. PR^talk 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit war and noting by reference Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid legalistic terms like libellous - it is not good enough to label other editors as antisemitic (or as Holocaust Deniers in one case) and then try and laugh it off. Particularly not when the great majority of those cases are totally without foundation. There is a problem on these pages, but it's not antisemitism (that I've noticed, anyway) - it's racism. I've just drawn everyone's attention to it in as non-accusatory a fashion as possible, leaving it to the discretion of admins what to do with an editor who refers to "crack-head Arabs" (along with unpleasantness aimed at the French and dozens of ethno-specific snide comments).

Editors might be amused to check that well known reference, the Wikipedia, where they will find: "Jcom Radio was forced to cease broadcasting on Aug 12, 2008 when it lost a High Court libel case brought by George Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.[1] The case concerned a broadcast in Nov 2007, in which a character playing "Georgie Galloway", the station's "Middle East correspondent" cried out "Kill the Jews, Kill the Jews". Despite sacking the presenter, issuing an apology and offering Mr Galloway the opportunity to appear on the station, Mr Galloway was awarded £15,000 and c. £5,000 in costs. He said that the station's apology "fell short of the categorical retraction of the imputation of anti-Semitism that I insisted upon"." PR^talk 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. But I thought y'all might be amused to know that times move on and that, in at least some jurisdictions, accusations of antisemitism have apparently become actionable. Even an apology may not be good enough, as in the example I've drawn your attention to. There are of course, simple means to avoid putting yourself in jeopardy. PR^talk 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As someone has pointed out on my Talk Page, there is an implicit legal threat above against me. I would be grateful for an admin to comment please. Justin talk 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: [1] and [2] and [3] and
• See these diffs: [4] and this edit summary and [5]

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion?[6] I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example [7] What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This [8] is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there [9] if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, [10]. He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But [11], [12], [13] seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.

The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.

Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.

By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)

It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia.

Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Wikipedia instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.

Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.

The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.

As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.

And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally some diffs

I recommend everyone who is interested in resolving this and genuinely getting to the bottom of it go and read the diffs provided at: [15]. Per my request the IP stepped back and provided some genuine diffs from the beginning of this dispute. As expected they are a little one sided, however it does let you view pages at the proper time context so you can also read what was said by both parties. There is a lot to read, I'm not going to kid you. However, the more I read the more questionable behaviour I see on the part of arcayne. Frankly its going to take a day or two to digest it, but so far I've seen more than one sock puppet claim being leveled by him but checking the various user pages, I don't see that anyone has been ever tagged a sock puppet. I'm still not taking any particular side at this point, but after seeing some of the diffs here, I think a more thorough investigation is required both to resolve this situation and to make sure its resolved properly. I said it earlier and I will say it again, I believe this is far more complicated than being heavy handed against an IP and calling it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The troll's diffs, unsurprisingly, omit all the relevant stuff, namely how he kept following Arcayne around all these months. The original dispute in early April is hardly of interest at this point, except as an explanation of where the various harassment memes (such as the "Oxford" issue) originated. I'm trying to condense a few diffs myself, seeing as some people still fail to see the obvious, but as it's across so many pages and IPs it takes a bit of time. – As far as I'm concerned, Arcayne himself is still not the issue here. He was involved in what was originally a legitimate though heated content dispute back at the time; since then, he's simply been the stalking victim. (And I'm not saying this as somebody who particularly likes Arcayne; I know it can be exasperating to deal with him at times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't an issue with arcayne here. Which is why I've asked for more detail so we can try and read this dispute from the beginning without bias. I'd like to see diffs of every time they've interacted since April as well as each time one of them started a topic about it on AN/I. We have admittance that you think he can be exasperating and down below Jayron admits that Arcayne could be just as much to blame for the original dispute as the IP. I don't think its a stretch to imagine he might have helped this along (as evidenced by the poking of the IP in august by edit warring over his comment placement)--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the IPs' talk page and still see a pile of difs from April 2008. That dipute seems long over at this point. The IP-user in question has STILL not answered for his behavior in every month since then; one could claim that Arcayne was as to blame for the April 2008 dispute as anyone, HOWEVER, that does not justify the incessant harrassment of him SINCE then. That was 6 months ago, and there has been no defense for the rude edit summaries and the frivolous ANIs and the talk page rudeness that has been cited above, and which dates for every month SINCE then. Seriously, if there is no more recent evidence of provocation by Arcayne, then I fail to see how some diffs from April can be used to justify this behavior... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually addressed them in a subpage, asCrossmr had asked me in the anon's usertalk page to stay away from the anon's edits. I've posted the link, rather than take up any more space here (yes, I am a bit long-winded). I guess its a moot point now, but I thought maybe folk might want something with a bit less varnish on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution

With a consensus leaning towards an interaction ban and not an all out ban, guidelines for the IPs behaviour have been outlined at User_talk:75.49.223.52#Response and the IP has agreed to them, key points:

• The IP has to avoid, with all reason, editing any article that Arcayne edits. He's self-imposed on himself all types of articles Arcayne usually edits.
• He is to refrain from talking about arcayne on wiki except in the case where Arcayne edits an article the IP has edited or revets an edit the IP has done. At that point he's not to engage Arcayne and instead leave me a diff and I'll have a look at it.

This solution should allow us to move forward past this particular situation and avoid anymore drama.--Crossmr (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As recently as four days ago, at the top of his current talk page, the anon was repeating his bogus accusation against Arcayne of "false credentials". Mind you, he was not just criticising Arcayne for using his credentials without giving proof of them, he was presenting it as an outright fact that they were in fact false and that Arcayne was lying. I'm uncomfortable about the message we are sending out by allowing someone back that easily with this serious libellous allegation still hanging around. At the very least, I would expect (as a last word before shutting up forever about the topic) that the anon should fully and unconditionally apologise and retract. The whole topic of casting doubts on Arcayne's credentials was an arbitrary fabrication on the anon's part, thought up for no other reason than to harass him and based on no factual evidence or likelihood whatsoever, and I would want to see the anon acknowledge this.

The second thing is, some of the things that have been said on the anon's talk page still sound as if there should be a reciprocal expectation on Arcayne to avoid the anon. I want to see it made clear that there is none. I'd sure wish he would see no further need of talking about the case much, but it should be made quite clear that Arcayne is under no obligation to restrict his choices of article editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate. Otherwise we're creating a situation where one person can poke the other with impunity and the moment the person being poked says anything they can run to AN/I and demand they be blocked. I never told Arcayne he had to leave the IP alone but asked and recommended to him politely that he do so. Unless arcayne is out to start trouble he should have no problem agreeing to that. The IP has pointed out that they generally edit different areas and it was just a coincidence they ended up together on this article. As to an apology and retraction regarding the comments made about arcayne, I'm afraid I don't really see it the way you do. As far as I'm concerned Arcayne still used the language "degrees"[16],[17] when in fact he has only a single degree from oxford and instead the degree is comprised of the various classes he took and he has even stretched it so far to defend his comment of various degrees by claiming larger sections had smaller sections in it. If I take a class of german as an elective I don't think anyone is going to sit here and let me claim I have a degree in german.[18] Its a bit of a hop skip and jump to go from "degrees in X" to "I had some classes that had some of that in it". Those are all his words, his usage of degrees more than once and then his admittance to having a mixed degree. I'm willing to extend him good faith that he didn't try to misrepresent himself, but was he being truthful? The anon provided evidence. Oxford doesn't have those degrees and Arcayne later confirmed that indeed it is a single degree, not multiple degrees. I think they can both learn a lesson here. I've also pointed out that as far as I'm concerned Arcayne is guilty of edit warring in August (that he instigated not the IP) over the moving of his comment on a talk page.[19], [20], [21], [22] It does take two to edit war, but the IP certianly didn't make the first move there, and I have no idea why it was so important to arcayne that he insert his comment on top. With that in mind I don't think its untoward to ask him to avoid the person he seems to loathe so much.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we "can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate", then I insist on the outright ban, full stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority is clearly in favour of an interaction ban not a site ban. Last I checked I wasn't under some kind of restriction from making a request of another user. Its up to arcayne whether or not he wants to fulfill that request. I didn't outline any penalty if he chose not to act on the request and instead chooses to edit articles the IP edits. I made the request in the interest of keeping peace, but it is in no part a requirement of the IPs interaction ban. If arcayne follows the ip around and calls his mother dirty names I'd still consider it a violation of the interaction ban if the IP said anything to him or about him (other than to link me the diffs on my talk page). You do understand the difference between asking another user something and telling them they either do it or there are repercussions right? I did actually mean ask in the traditional sense of the word and not like when the police show up at a club and "ask" someone to leave.--Crossmr (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Crossmr's solution to the problem is quite reasonable, and I endorse it as within the spirit of why I started this thread, which was to find a solution to the problem at hand. If 75.X.X.X stops his harassment of Arcayne through the mediation of Crossmr, then the problem has been solved, to my satisfaction. It would be nice also if Arcayne agreed to reciprocal self-restriction of his editing, but not required. I would, however, take it as a complete dick-move should Arcayne take the opportunity to "poke" or "prod" 75.X.X.X given his inability to respond; however I have faith that Arcayne has no desire to do that. I pray he does not make a fool of me for thinking that, because it could turn badly for either party in this dispute should hostilities resume. I think we have reached a good solution, and I thank Crossmr for taking the lead in mediating this. Once again, I endorse this solution, and consider for myself the matter closed, so long as neither party starts it up again. If either side in this dispute DOES start up again, they can expect blocks coming their way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

98.18.130.129 et al

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing: [23], [24]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Meanwhile 98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.131.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both involved in the same abusive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 162.39.211.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

162.39.211.92 now posting abusive comments on my blog. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman ^Talk 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique[talk] 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: within a few hours after the block of DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs), a new user account, Howdypardner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and began editing only the JIDF article. Something to watch; no action requested at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy's "Glad I could help" on the talk page acknowledges that this is the same person as POVPUSHER. Obviously not sockpuppetry, as it's overt, and not block evasion as they were given explicit permission to come back in a new guise. (The above is in relation to POVPUSHER, obviously the prior CU suggestion is different.) There are potential 3RR issues but it depends how new we regard this user as.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Howdy has no user page or talk page, and I hadn't noticed that note on the article's talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DontbeaPOVPUSHER was blocked indef for username, but this doesn't rule out his return as Howdypardner. The latter has been cautioned against edit-warring on his Talk, and has not reverted since 18:18 UTC on 17 November. Between the two of them they are over 3RR but is unlikely that action will be taken if the reverting has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has now made several more reverts. since Ed's post above. Also the "resolved" tag strikes me as no longer appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits of DontbeaPOVPUSHER, when combined with those of Howdypardner, may have gone over 3RR on Jewish Internet Defense Force. I've left a note for Spartaz to consider undoing his 'Resolved' banner. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cohen that this can no longer be considered "resolved". But it's not a big deal. I look at this as a WP:TROLL situation. It's not a content problem. The problem isn't what Wikipedia has to say about the JIDF; it's that there are people who want the JIDF to get more attention. Usual troll management applies; revert slowly, ignore minor annoyances, and block if overly disruptive. --John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the resolved tag. Does this need further discussion? Does anyone else have views on the need for a CU? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sauve.sean returns to edit war

Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) has returned from a block for edit warring as IP 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs) (note his comments on the Suave.sean talk page to establish his identity). He is now edit warring at Same-sex marriage as seen here [25] [26] [27]. He has also promised to continue his edit war, referring to it as "war" [28] [29]. Would an admin please step in and handle this returning POV warrior? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same person. Sauve.sean and his IP blocked for a week. Spellcast (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User switched to a different IP in same range; that IP was blocked, page protected for three days. Good night. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one: [30]- blocked 24 hours for puppetry and block evasion. L'Aquatique[talk] 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one at IP 75.168.214.145 (talk · contribs). Denies being a sock of Sauve.sean, but admits to being the same IP user that was blocked for disruption last night. [31] Edits are still anti-wikipedia, NPOV rants [32]. Is semi-protection a better path than blocking the IPs? Dayewalker (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean POV rants.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doink. Yep, you're right. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]I'm reopening this. User is now socking with multiple IP's, I've blocked the ones that show up but it's sort of like playing whack-a-mole. I'm thinking a rangeblock might be in order here but the idea of placing one myself is the stuff of nightmares. I absolutely know I'll block the entire country of Singapore or something like that. Anyone else feel up to it? Looks like the range is 75.168.2**.***- how many addys would that be? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

255 * (255-all the 2xx) = 39525 -t BMW c- 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack! L'Aquatique[talk] 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to wrap it up, the editor's name is Sauve.sean, not Suave. I misspoke, and he is anything but suave in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back. He's slipped through the cracks at 75.168.209.210 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Still active, and stepping up his POV attacks at DYK, this time [33]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the range is too big to do a rangeblock. We're just going to have to keep blocking on sight and wait for him to lose interest... L'Aquatique[talk] 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Well, I believe it is pretty obvious now this user does not care in the least about policy, nor does it look like he's going to start following it any time soon. My point? There is no need to block the user for only a week here. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, but obviously, a week block here is not going to help anything, as the user in question will just return to push his POV after the block has expired. That much is clear.

So per the above, why can't the admins just indefinitely block this user? He's shown no desire to change or stop. As to his IPs, well, he'll either grow tired, or run out of them eventually. If not, well, the range might just become apparent enough to issue a rangeblock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with an indefblock, or at the very least a broadly-interpreted topic ban on all articles related to same-sex marriage. Based on this user's contrib history, the latter will likely have the effect of a ban. Blueboy96 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Many vandals can be rehabilitated. This one, clearly cannot. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Complete refusal to even pretend to abide by Wikipedia policies, constant attacks and IP socking, hasn't contributed anything actually useful in his entire wikipedia career. Block, revert, seal the vault. Yet another angry POV warrior for my sockfile. Dayewalker (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back again at 75.168.213.117‎ (talk · contribs). If there are no objections, since he's well on his way to being community banned and is socking in defiance of a block, I will roll back his edits as per WP:RBI. I'm going to leave the comments on L'Aquatique's page, since they're a red flag to an admin and a good example of how misguided this editor is. If there are any disagreements to WP:RBI, please let me know. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. Checkuser results came back, they said it was not conclusive but apparently these IPs may not be Sauve.sean after all? I think it's pretty obvious that the IP's are him, but without definitive checkuser results I'm really not sure what to make of this... L'Aquatique[talk] 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Not sure. The IP is definitely block-worthy, whether or not he's Sauve.sean, they share the same viewpoints. The IP's first appearance as far as I can tell is at 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs), where he made attacks on other wikipedia editors on Sauve.sean's page here [34]. He had made agressive edits to the talk page of Marriage, declaring "war" [35]. From there, I removed their edits as being WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks, they reverted and then seven minutes later found their way to Sauve.sean's talk page, which no one else had edited for over a week. The IP led us to Sauve.sean's page himself, so that's where the assumption came from. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Sauve.sean because checkuser results show the IPs are from a different ISP. There is no doubt the IP edits merit a block, but without any evidence of disruption or socking from the account since the first block, a block is not warranted at this stage. Spellcast (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara

Administrator Ricky81682 keeps removing good portion of this article claiming lack of reliable resources. See [36]. The resources are given - the only problem is - Ricky does not read the reference given there - see [37].--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected by SoWhy (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource, put the sources on the page and if you are really using those sources, why revert to a version with different lyrics (slightly, not a big deal) than what you are posting? Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise. We had a third-opinion, nobody else commented (beyond their personal analysis of US and Croatian copyright laws) on the idea that we shouldn't just post the entire lyrics (to a song with multiple versions). Brzica, put an editprotected on the page and get someone else to add that version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said - references are already in the text - all you have to do is to read it. They are all online accessible. Yes, you said this too

• 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included)

• which appeared to be wrong. (Hate crime texts are not copyrightable - as I explained already). So, you are jumping from one to another non-existent problem. And then threatening to block me for telling you that you are wrong. Also, you removed half of the Magnum Crimen article falsely claiming that the removed part is not sourced. And again threatened to block me if I put it back! Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise - what compromise you are looking for if you are removing text and not improving it at all???--Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I'm not going to keep arguing with you that your interpretation of US and Croatian copyright law are not the standard here. Policy says to use limited version of lyrics, especially when there are multiple versions (and when we are claiming that a living person may or may not have sang one version). I've said before that I would accept sourced lyrics but what part of this, and this (excluding the other people) indicates an attempt to use a source. Either use the source and put it in the article or it doesn't go in. I don't want it at all, but you are going to use it properly and stop reverting to get your way. Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). That is not the way things work. I'm not going to rehash Magnum again but claiming that other users will eventually add the exact source of information is not the same as saying it is sourced. What part of this and this are sourced? The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I got involved in this when I offered a third opinion that I hoped represented a compromise between the two viewpoints; it has developed into what is, without question, the most surreal experience I've had on Wikipedia. Ricky81682 has now suggested a RfC and short of keeping the article permanently protected forever and ever, I feel that an RfC offers the best hope for the article.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to attract editors in this area that have significant WP:IDHT issues. The RfC is probably a good idea, although I'm quite concerned that our productive editors are being forced to jump through these hoops on so many articles to successfully make even trivial edits. Brzica milos etc has had our copyright and verifiability policies explained very clearly to him by at least two editors, and still they're going over the same ground. Personally I'm inclined to give him an editing holiday, but since the article is already protected this might be unnecessary just yet. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the pattern is like the third opinion, editors who disagree won't respond there and instead will just wait until the protection is lifted before trying to war their way on, and respond with the same arguments. If we end up with a repeat, I have no problem with blocks at this point. We have had WP:IDHT games at this point. I just want to add that while I disagree with any lyrics, I have agreed that if they produce a reliable source, they can include them, but I still don't think it's necessary. I have challenged the inclusion of YouTube video links. The balkanpeace source was first mentioned at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource and my problem is that Brzica's logic seems to be "here, I found a source on the talk page so I get to put whatever version I want to on the article page." The source didn't match what he claimed the lyrics were, so I wanted him to either use that source or explain what in the world is going on. The other source I cannot read and am not interested in figuring out translations for something I don't think the article even needs. I have gone through enough hoops with this whole mess of articles. In addition, I'm curious about what to do with this comment to Jimbo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• • To This flag once was red We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain - please avoid making your own rules then representing it as a Wikipedia policy. You got valid references and bear with it. As to - Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). be so kind to verify that it is not my own translation and, me being a person who speaks Serbo-Croatian, my approval of the translation is an expertise. Stop selling that cheap idea that you are a 'third opinion' person.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To Ricky - would you please stop falsely blaming others??? Where did you find this: The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. Who said "knowledge is more important than verifiability"??? Me??? Where and who else??? Please quote!!!--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> We're clearly getting nowhere with this person, and editors who contribute positively should not have to waste their time with these constant trivial disputes. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Consequently, in the light of the above comments and this diff - where he's objecting to the RfC proposal, essentially making the WP:DR process unworkable - I've indefblocked Brzica milos etc as an incorrigible POV edit-warrior who has no intention of trying to work within our editing policies. If anyone wants to review, please do. EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I didn't say that, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). I didn't say that either, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

To be honest, I'm struggling to retain hope in a middle-ground. EyeSerene's indef block is regrettable, but sadly necessary. Brzica milos etc doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying, and seemed hell-bent on assuming that I'm on the "enemy side". I can't see the article moving forward like that, but hopefully it can post-block.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You can not cite a webpage as a reliable source of a folk song (from 1942?) - all a web link attests is that there are other people also using unreliable sources - no surprises there. Show me sheet music, or an audio recording, and then we can start to sort this mess out. Here is an example: s:K-K-K-Katy.

Keep in mind that a 1942 edition of a folk song may well be covered by copyright, depending on the country of origin coupled with the copyright law of America; as such it is illegal to place the entire work onto Wikipedia unless you provide critical analysis of it all, which if done according to WP:RS, would mean you would need to cite someone else critiquing the song. Until you have that, you can only mention instances of where it appeared in print or performed, and whatever topical aspects can be reliably sourced. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd take that. The prior arguments were all using YouTube videos as sources (just random videos of individual singing the song with the text displaying) are arguments that the song should be considered public domain or what the lyrics, etc. Also, let's avoid another round of "what do I think Croatian copyright is." We've had at least a week of "A hate crime act cannot be even copyrighted in any civilized country". Out of the dozens or so of people reverting to get that version in, I think only one is left who hasn't been blocked (and he didn't respond to 3O beyond "it a hate crime therefore no copyright" and just went to Jimbo's talk page with a screed about how he's going to accuse every admin against him of being anti-Semitic to major newspapers). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) "Webpage" is being charitable; "some random video found on YouTube and translated by someone unknown" seems to be the reference of choice (and the preferred option seems to be for no reference - or to direct the dear reader to a talk page discussion where another, different, version of the lyrics is cited). To complicate matters numerous versions of this song apparently exist and it isn't clear which version is being placed in the article - whether it's the original 1942 version, or a version which may (or may not - that's unclear) have been performed by the band Thompson, or some random other version.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the clearer picture.. the discussion was hard to follow ..

Which account hasnt been blocked yet ? A clear but gentle warning "drop it, or go to your library and do some real research" might help us keep an editor we might otherwise have to block. Or, has that been tried already? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:I am Mario is still available to participate in any ongoing discussion; they were blocked but the block has expired.

User:Nikola Smolenski may also be interested in any RfC, but otherwise appears to be an innocent victim in this train wreck.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to a non-contentious version, and protected it until further notice. Any admin who feels this is a problem is free to revert me, but I think there might be BLP issues here, and I don't like the tone that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) uses in his edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. Hopefully we will see discussion starting again over the contentious material. Regards, the skomorokh 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legal threat by User:Rescirscir

Resolved

 – Good Olfactory agreed that this could be enthusiastic advocacy instead and asked that it be closed.

(relocated from top of page so it gets more notice) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) :Thx—sorry for posting in wrong spot! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: [38], which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Administrators have certain different rights to observe users usage of a website. Otherwise it would descend into chaos. I would look at it as an idle threat mate. I know I'm a Brit anf as such have no idea on US law, but Admins have a certain job to do to keep the website safe for users. Imagine if it was someone continuously uploading paedophilic material, you would have to essentially stalk their edits to see how many times he does it, find out his location, etc. I hope I'm right otherwise its the end of this website. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like stalking to me, it looks like good faith reverting and immature threats. If they continued, I would consider them disruptive. As for your other point, being a non-admin, I would say editors have the same 'rights'. Even non-admins can have legitimate reasons to monitor someone's contribs to make sure a policy violation (like copyright or spam) isn't being serially broken. Reading WP:ADMIN In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. seems to support this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it became suddenly necessary to move this post from where it was - it had a pretty good first response. The editor's comments are a very enhanced way of saying "leave me alone". I wouldn't call it any type of real legal threat - but I would "think twice, edit" once when it comes to that editor's changes. I would also maybe let them know of this thread, so that they might see the responses above and maybe loosen up a little. -t BMW c- 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was top-posted. Not sure about everyone else, but I don't read the posts at the top of the page unless something specific appears in the index to indicate activity. I didn't want it missed, but was too clueless to personally provide a comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the wrong spot—thanks to Tony for moving it. As you can tell, I'm not exactly a regular here! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory has done the right thing here, by warning the editor, notifying him about this ANI, and asking what he meant. The guy's response appears conciliatory. The words of Rescirscir cited above don't seem to be a flat-out legal threat, but if the editor's comments about stalking continue, they may fall under disruption. Suggest that other admins watchlist Talk:Temple Lot, but that no further action is needed for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Dennis Brown's comment: When I was talking about Admins, i meant in general across the internet. They have added responsibilities to a standard user and that was my point, I wasn't trying to get into technicalities, but whereas we are asked to act like Admins, they are required to do so, thats where the responsibilities are different. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note to those who wonder about the underlying content: the church that was razed in 1990 sits on the site where many Latter Day Saints believe a temple will be constructed. Jesus Christ will return to the earth at this site, according to many Latter Day Saints. The arson of the church is therefore relatively important to note in the article.

Because of the previous problems with the material—and out of sensitivity to living people—we've removed the name of the arsonist in the article (since he apparently believes that the press misunderstood his motives). This is as far as we can accommodate without violating our policies. Some could argue that it's too far. At any rate, these threats are unacceptable. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the comments. As I said, in the abstract I'm not terribly concerned about the comments that were made, and they did seem to be a one-off event, and the editor has seemed conciliatory since this thread was started. But I thought I needed to post this here, given the history of the page in question and its nature—summarised well by Cool Hand Luke—and my relative inexperience with what constitutes a legal threat and how serious to take the editor's comments. I would be satisfied with no further action beyond perhaps some additional monitoring of Temple Lot (and perhaps its sister article, Church of Christ (Temple Lot)). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm to User:Good Olfactory that you're not being monitored, and there's really no need for us to do so. If you'd like us to close this thread now, just nod your head twice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. :) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: This was originally posted in reply only to chocobogamer and then later moved down the page to reflect chronological order)

Thank you for taking a moment to address the topic. I compiled the following information about U.S. civil rights law before additional replies were made to Good Ol'Factory's query. I note that none of the replies quote or examine the disputed information. Nevertheless, I've realized that Good Ol'Factory (unlike CoolHandLuke for example) has not acted in bad faith, nor has she particularly misrepresented the facts as she sees them. She, you say? Sure, we don't know if Good Ol'Factory is male or female, and cannot take his or her word for it, and that's just one reason it is not fair or even lawful for anonymous persons to harass someone at Wikipedia because of his or her political or religious persuasion. Protections for religious and political expression and conduct have always existed, but were spelled out with building blocks in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, violations still take place, and The FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for investigating such violations, because localized media and judiciary and law enforcement sometimes cause the problem, and are then and therefore unable or unwilling to resolve it. This is the case with the political and religious activist/writer which CoolHandLuke and other similarly less-educated Wikipedia personnel are fond of calling the "the Arsonist"-- an oversimplified caveman-like characterization adopted by those persons who have a vested interested in suppressing even the basicmost verifiable facts about the political protest of January 1, 1990. This reaction--evidently born out of longstanding instances of anti-intellectual, anti-Federal and anti-LDS sentiment in the region--commenced immediately after the protest of January 1, 1990, to where, with the partial exception only of the Independence Examiner, all media and police investigators refused to investigate or report facts about the protest as soon as they realized it was in fact a non-violent civil rights protest on behalf of African-Americans and other disenfranchised citizens. Instead--much like CoolHandLuke--local press and other persons or parties opted to replicate blatantly false claims and rumors about the protest, and the protester. As an example of how CoolHandLuke does that, glance at his comment in this thread, and then realize this fact: No Latter Day Saint or member of any faction in the Latter Day Saint Movement has ever believed that Christ will 'return to earth in Missouri,' in reality, Latter Day Saints believe that Christ will return to earth on the Mount of Olives, in the the Middle East. (Similarly, the Kansas City Star falsely reported that Temple Lot members believe Jackson County Missouri is the site of the biblical garden of Eden, when in reality, they don't). Virtually everything CoolHandLuke claims in regards to Temple Lot and its editing saga is similarly false. Maybe he should apply for work at the Kansas City Star, he certainly has the credentials they seek: A willingness to publish slanderous and uncorroborated rumors about anyone willing to 'rock the boat', including the new leader of Missouri Democratic Senators: Victor Callahan. (Mr. Callahan was recently slandered in a Kansas City Star article and threatened to never grant an interview to them again if they repeated the mistake. Police officials around the Greater Kansas City area already refuse to talk to Kansas City Star reporters because their reports are so often so incredibly garbled and inaccurate). Your concern that administrators have got to keep the site safe for users/readers is valid, in that issues involving civil rights and race relations have always been volatile, and should be handled with great editorial care. Thank you also for admitting outright you're a Brit who has 'no idea' about U.S. law (actually you do, since a great deal of U.S. law derives from British jurisprudence, see Bill of Rights). Here's a primer on U.S. law, and as it relates to the incident on Temple Lot in Jackson County, Missouri in 1990, and its aftermath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

.."in which the Thirteen Colonies of North America overthrew the governance of the British Empire and collectively became the nation of the United States of America."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

In July 1833, the process that would end with Latter Day Saints being evicted from Independence and the surrounding Jackson County, Missouri area started when W. W. Phelps published in the Evening and Morning Star a Missouri law which set out the requirements for free blacks to come to Missouri (they had to have a certificate of citizenship from another state before entering Missouri).

The publication of something showing blacks that there was an alternative to being slave was considered the last straw for other Jackson County non-Latter Day Saint residents — particularly the slave holders. They burned the newspaper plant and tarred and feathered Bishop Edward Partridge and church elder Charles Allen.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863)

• The Federal Government "...believed that Confederate combatants in the area were originating from, or being supported by, rural portions of four Missouri counties on the Kansas border south of the Missouri River: Bates, Cass, Jackson, and Vernon..."
• "Order Number 11 was the most drastic and repressive military measures directed against civilians by by the Union Army during the Civil War. In fact...it stands as the harshest treatment ever imposed on United States citizens under the plea of military necessity in our Nations History."[40]
• Federal troops and Missouri State Militia patrol[ed] the area, burning abandoned crops, houses, barns and buildings and killing stock and abandoned animals.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

"..Conceived to help African Americans.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders

"...symbolized the risks of participating in the Civil Rights Movement in the South..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Excerpt from 1964 Civil Rights Act:

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the [information] highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured...[42]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

President-Elect Barack Obama on March 18, 2008:

"..And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time...[43]

Excerpt from the material Good Olfactory deleted:

"...claiming that his actions comprised a pro-civil rights political protest on behalf of all Americans--including fellow members of the church. In the recorded conversations with police, the man "identifies himself and tells police that he wants to make a statement concerning violations of the U.S. Constitution." Asked to summarize his protest statement, the man told the police dispatcher he "was tired of black people and poor white people ...being disrespected..." by segments of modern society. Born in Berkeley, California in 1964,[44] the protester stated that he shared some of the peaceable objectives of the Black Panther Party, founded in nearby Oakland, California in 1966, and told police in regards to the recent death of Huey Newton, that "I cried when he died." "He complained of...'troubles' such as racism..."

Could an African-American administrator and/or someone otherwise keen to civil and political rights issues have a look at this thread? On an agreeable note, I admit the material as submitted needs more work. I disagree it should be quickly and completely deleted/censored/disparaged. I'm willing to cooperate with others to present the information in the most ideal fashion. "With malice toward none...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. "'[45] enabled1000 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgement that I have been acting in good faith, but I'm troubled by your suggestion that User:Cool Hand Luke has not acted in good faith. None of his comments suggest anything but pure motives and intent. The use of the word "arsonist" to avoid the use of the person's name and mere disagreements over doctrinal issues (where Jesus will appear and in what order) does not evince "bad faith". (For what it's worth (probably not much, since this thread is not to debate doctrine), what CHL said is correct. Many Latter Day Saints believe Jesus will appear at the temple in the Temple Lot. Whether that happens before or after his appearance at the Mount of Olives is not specified by CHL, but I believe most Latter Day Saints believe it's after. So you're both right, in a way.) I'm afraid that's all I have to say. I called the goings-on with this page "weird", and this thread seems to confirm that first impression. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct and hardly controversial. It's how Mitt Romney described his beliefs, for example. Last I checked, he's not considered anti-Mormon. Cool Hand Luke 08:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a "religious activist/writer"? I think you mistake me for someone more interesting. I'm just a law student. I don't see how anyone is hindering your constitutional rights, on an information highway or otherwise. Reliable sources show that in 1990 the Temple Lot church was ignited by someone who was convicted of arson. The whole building had to be razed. Engaging in speculation beyond what reliable sources show is against our policies. See WP:OR and WP:V.

For what it's worth, this is some of the strangest prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 08:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No you're not a religious activist/writer. I think you mistake the syntax in the sentence for something else. Reliable sources also explain why the fire was 'ignited by someone' but you don't want to know that, nor do you want anyone else to know that. And why not? And the whole building did not have to be razed, it was razed by church leadership because the leadership of the church had wanted it razed, before the fire damaged it. It was a dilapidated old firetrap, and they razed it quickly before investigators realized just who was culpable for what. You constantly engage in speculation, and then censor factual information from reliable sources, because you want your prejudices verified. Once the facts finally emerge--contrary to bad faith efforts by yourself to suppress the facts--I think you might then realize why I consider yours to be a particularly uninformed and unhelpful voice in discussions regarding Temple Lot. enabled1000 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. You refer to the arsonist as a religious activist/writer. I was very tired last night. If you have reliable sources, please produce them. So far, you've just accused mainstream papers of libel. We need verifiability. At any rate, this is a content dispute, as SheffieldSteel says below. Should go to the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As additional background, anyone reviewing this might want to look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive35#It.27s_official:_I.27m_being_.27wiki-stalked.27_.28closed.29. Cool Hand Luke 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also for additional background, anyone reviewing this please actually have a look at the Wikipedia article cyberstalking. Thanks. enabled1000 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute with a dash of incivility. I think this can be handled at Talk:Temple Lot, which I will be watching. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this can and should now be closed and the discussion moved to Talk:Temple Lot. It's clear to me now that what I originally interpreted as a mild legal threat was rather just some enthusiastic rhetoric. Everyone who has been involved has had a chance to have their say, some more people are now involved in watching the article and discussing on the talk page, and I'd have no objection to this thread being closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency images issue

Madras Presidency existed before 1947 and images in the article are over 60 years and are in public domain because its term of copyright has expired in India. According to Indian Copyright Law, all photographs enter the public domain after sixty years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (as of 2008, prior to 1948-01-01) after they were first published.A editor Ravichander84 had uploaded images which are important to the article and was building the article to FA status when it marked for deletion by an admin [46] and the response [47] .

• Can I revert this as [48] as per my understanding please correct me if I am wrong is that images in public domain whose copyright has legally expired can be used for articles.These images are needed for the article.
• Can you clarify why images over 60 years in this case over 75 years are removed or marked for deletion particurly when they are used in an article as there copyright ahs expired when they are in public domain.

The users involved have contributed heavily to Wikipedia and I assume good faith on both sides. This article is very important and the editor Ravichander84 who has over 138 artciles and over 30 DYK quit the project apprently over this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the message on my talkpage and was forced to explain the situation here. I guess User: Pharaoh of the Wizards got it wrong here. The issue was about Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG which might have been under copyright. I had uploaded the image from a February 1926 issue of the The National Geographic Magazine which I had in my possession. The image was under copyright in the United States of America since it was published after 1923 but it may have been in public domain as it unlikely that the copyright had been renewed.However, I had uploaded the image with a fair-use rationale which clearly specified why the image was required for the article.

Initially, I was not able to add the fair-use rationale as I faced network problems. It was about 10 mintues before the issue was sorted out and when I did login I found a speedy deletion tag on the image. Accordingly I added a fair-use rationale specifying why the image was necessary for the article. However, the concerned user tagged the image again and told me that the rationale was insufficient. I tried to negotiate with the user and explained to him the importance of the image in the article. I also explained it in a detailed manner in the license info for the image. However, I found that the user had tagged the image once again for deletion. He hadalso removed an image of "Periyar" which was present in the article. Three deletion taggings in a space of less than half an hour gives me the impression that the user was bent upon deleting this image. I feel that this was in bad taste especially because I was online at that time and willing to negotiate. I had also added a fair-use rationale with detailed explanation. The user could have atleast specified reasons as to why the image should be deleted and given alternate suggestions before taking it to an IfD. When I tried to communicate with the user,he said he felt that the image did "not belong to the article" without telling me why.

I don't mind the removal of the image of Periyar as it would not be difficult for me to find a PD-image for Periyar. But then, the pearl-fishing photograph was a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image. If at all there was something lacking, I should have been informed about it. I doubt if the conditional copyright relaxations for fair-use have been useful in any way since they are confusing as well as restrictive.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a big fan of user:Ravichandar84, and I've had the pleasure of exchanging many pleasant emails with him, the most recent only a week ago. I can't speak to the fair use rationale, since I'm not very familiar with all the Wikipedia requirements; however, I do know that Indian copyright law states that a "copyright is valid for 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author/creator dies"; only if the creator/author is anonymous or had deceased at the time of the first publication of the book/work of art, does the copyright expire 60 years after publication.

It is not clear from examining the image Image:Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar aerodrome.JPG, what the situation is. The name/year-of-death of the photographer is not provided in the uploading information, neither is the name/date-of-death of the author. The book was published in 1941. For argument's sake, if the photographer was born in 1900 (say), which is not an unreasonable assumption, and lived until 1980 (again not entire unreasonable), then the Indian copyright will not have expired. If a book doesn't carry the name of the photographer, it doesn't mean that the photographer didn't have the copyright (especially in India where authors of older books often neglected to add that information). I don't know how Wikipedia would proceed in that case. Would they accept the copyright of the author instead of that of the photographer? In that case, we would need the name and date of death of the author.

My admiration for user:Ravichandar84 is, however, undiminished by this oversight. He obviously didn't know that this information was needed. I am sure he can easily turn up the information, and if he can't, I'm sure he can find alternative images that would be relevant to the content of interest. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not about the aerodrome photograph at all. According to Template:PD-India, all photographs and other media published in India before 1-1-1948 are in public domain regardless of when the author had died. The user had tagged the image because I had mistakenly tagged the image as Template:PD-IND instead of Template:PD-India. See here-[49]. This issue had been resolved and is not, in particular, the object of concern-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you very much. :-) I never knew it before and I feel truly flattered. According to Wikipedia's article on the Indian copyright law, the copyright policy you stated here is applicable only to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and excludes photographs, audio and visual media. As for photographs, all those that have been published in India prior to 1-1-1948 are in public domain. So, according to Wikipedia, the photo you pointed out is clearly in public doman. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course. In my hurry yesterday (when I was reading the Indian copyright law), I neglected to take in "except for photographs!" Since that law itself is quite thorough, I'm a little mystified now why copyrights in photographs and movies don't last as long as those in literary works, paintings, or sculpture, be they high art or low. I wonder if the powers-that-be think that photography is not as "personal" as the other arts, that the author is not imprinted on a photograph in quite the same way as in a painting ... At any rate that is off-topic here. I'm glad things are working out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and long term policy violation by User:Florentino floro

User:Florentino floro has recently been the subject of an RFC [50] and has a long history of adding trivia with no regard for relevance to the articles he is editing. Yesterday he began what appears to be a concerted campaign of reverting edits to his edits all across the namespace.
See:
[51] vs [52]
[53] vs [54]
[55] vs [56]
[57] vs [58]
[59] vs [60]
[61] vs [62]
[63] vs [64]

Floro should understand wikipedia policies on trivia by now. He has over 6000 edits and has been talked to repeatedly on the subject. With the sheer number of his edits, the fact that such a significant proportion of them are trivial clutter is a real problem for wikipedia. xschm (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having encountered this editor before and examined the diffs, I agree. It is likely that this editor will not respect anything short of a block. looie496 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As editors, most (if not all) of us know very well that we should write information based on our observation and not paste it from another source. With regards to why he is doing these, Floro seems to have such explicit reasons why. Some of them can be found in the talk page of the Ten-ball article.FoxLad (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And often, these reasons are not very good at all. He started explaining himself like this after we took notice of his pattern, but his explanations are often just "Expand, do not delete. This is encyclopedic because it was in [news source]. Also let me tell you how much I love [subject] and how unfair the world is to a jobless judge in a pretend world and also here's some PHILIPPINE POLITICS to make my explanation longer." In fact, the Ten-ball talk page you mention illustrates this perfectly. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have been far less polite and diplomatic about this than the others, but I hope Floro's nonsensical rant below (among his many others) demonstrates the urgency here. He's been reacting this way to anything resembling criticism since 2006 despite several attempts by others to teach him better, and I think a block is definitely warranted. Do look at the RFC and the edits linked from there; his crazymeter goes off the scales every time he makes a rant and I am surprised at how several people can't see it. He's also recently taken on the habit of asking for help from anyone who's ever spoken to him on his talk page. He drops them a note and offers them a "Wikicookie" or a smile--I have to wonder if he somehow thinks this will appease enough people to get Wikipedia on his side. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I quote from his comments on the talk page of Ten-ball: "I decided to let you do your editing, as I respect foreign editors, and for sure, I will have time, later, to en masse review, revise, reverse, modify, amend and/or revert in full, all of your edits-reverts of my contributions, with reasons." This is simply priceless. It simply reinvents the concept of edit-warring. Makes any edit warrior I've ever met look like a rookie by comparison. Dr.K. (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Amid the fact that my passion is only horse racing, I contributed greatly to Philippines and other sports articles, updating them, especially in boxing and pool. I do have the edge from editors in boxing and pool, since, in the Philippines, it would be day while Wiki editors would sleep, when boxing and billiards encyclopedic events would be released. But it is not with ease, but I take hours and hours to edit sports, due to copy vio rules, I have to use thesaurus to reword the articles. User:Cma (the alter of Max, I say alter, based on their twin accusations against me) and I are both Filipinos and I am an alumni of Ateneo de Manila University and Ateneo Law School. Our personal quarrels ended in this: Cma does not contribute regularly to Wikipedia, but stalks my edits. That is the best evidence. Wikipedia rules can be used, tons of them to block a co-Filipino and co-Ateneo user, but I believe Wikipedia editors are built by a community who believe in truth and would share their wisdom for Wikipedia. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied that I keep close tabs on your edits. It's pretty clear from your replies and edits that my concerns are entirely legitimate. Now please reconcile your accusations of stalking with the fact that you are once again trying to disseminate personal information about Max and me that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --Migs (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rejoinder is what we call in law and jurisprudence a negative pregnant - meaning, you deny a) that your concerns are not illegitimate and b) you say that I disseminate personal information about Max and you, but at the same time, you admitted that you stalked my edits by keeping close tab on these. Put differently, you and Max admitted legally that both of you are very insecure editors, who daily feel the trauma of suffering and pain, if you would not revert my hard-worked edits. I spent daily about 10 hours to research and edit. Now, Max has no agenda like you, but what we call in American and Philippine jurisprudence, "fishing expedition" which is abhorred by criminal procedure: daily looking for my edit alleged violations, using tons of wikipedia rules to REVERT my edits, then, to block me, if I would revert your edits of my edits. But I have to submit evidence against you, lest administrators be not advised of your stalking. Here again[here[65]

A final point of suggestion. Why should I, you and Max do have the trouble in discussing here? I and you, as both Filipinos can amicably settle our hatred and enmity via the Ateneo de Davao Dean's table (who knows me, since I had been 4 years classmate of the Philippine Jesuit's Provincial Fr. Archie Intengan, S.J. (1971-74). If you have me blocked, then, you will be very happy, but it will not end at that. I can ask for unblock, and/or I can contribute as I had discreetly, before, by IP address. I am 56 years old, jobless, . I suggest that we instead discuss this with the Ateneo Dean, it is as simple as that. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even understand what I said? There's nothing "negative pregnant" about my reply. There isn't even anything "negative sexed up." I completely admit that I'm keeping tabs on you. I always have admitted this, and have made no secret of it. And for good reason. On the other hand, you have yet to explain why you accuse me of stalking (a crime, you say), yet you yourself post names, occupations, and personal history that I have never disclosed on Wikipedia. Do you not realize that this qualifies as "stalking" far more than anything I've edited? --Migs (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree with your stance, for reasons. Amid repetitions, I got you clear. You wanted me blocked, and how? By keeping tabs on my edits, with Max, then, you would revert my edits, to tempt me to re-add, then, you and Max would complain that I was edit-warring. Please review my edits. I allowed months from April 2008, to pass, to review my edits, that Max reverted, and after my re-adds these days, after careful reviews, you could not even submit one evidence that one of those edits are not good edits. Dominique, Wikipedia articles, even my own User Page, are not owned by us, but could be edited by anybody subject to the rules. Articles 19, 20, 21, inter alia of our New Civil Code was borrowed from Spanish Codes while our Criminal Procedure was taken from California Rules. These twin statutes prohibit stalking, do I need to cite here, jurisprudence, to explain and discuss to you that if an editor in Wikipedia daily and continuously stalks or using your words keep close tabs on my edits, that is violative of Wikipedia rules which are just borrowed from scattered laws and rules of the civilized world, like copyright violations? It is your choice. Submit hard evidence that you had not violated stalking, please rebut my hard evidence, not by argument but by links or diffs, please.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's your burden to prove that I'm "stalking" you, or did you forget what the burden of proof is? I've been closely watching your edits and reverting those that I think are unnotable. That's well within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. All the things I've brought up about your own history are things you yourself have mentioned to us several times before. On the other hand, you posted personal information below and above that is not on Wikipedia at all. I don't even need diffs because the evidence is on this very page. I would say that it is you who is doing all the stalking here. --Migs (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have just removed some personal information that Florentino floro added about another editor and warned him that he will be immediately blocked if he continues to add such information. I presume it should be deleted permanently but that is something I've not done before (is there a guide?). dougweller (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal complaint, with all due respect; and petition to block User:Maxschmelling

I respectfully accuse User:Maxschmelling of bad faith - irrelevant, continuous, unabated stalking-vendetta against me, by daily, since the RFC ended, on September 25, 2008, stalking my edits, by unabated reverting my daily edits, without any good Wikipedia reasons.[66] I stated, that even if Max violated the RFC conclusion against stalking, I did not, since then, revert his daily edits of my edits, but, left, in the meantime, to other editors the discretion to undo, revert or delete Max's edits. I, therefore, made the reservation, that, IN TIME, if I have time, I would examine closely Max's edits-reverts of my daily hard-worked edits, since April, 2008, more or less. Reason: to give ample time for new reliable sources to appear and for other editors to revert Max's vendetta edits, plus, to review Max's reverts based on Wikipedia rules.

Stalking is prime evidence to block User:Maxschmelling

• Now, it is my humble submission, the we editors, of 2 million editors are co-equal and are under supervision of more than 1,500 admins. I and Max cannot say that I and Max cannot revert or modify and delete our, or each others' edits. That is how Wikipedia works. Even my User Page had been continuously edited and one time vandalized. But I never reverted, since those who did edit my User Page did the adding creatively, and I am honored. Max is a very insecure editor - definately, full of anger, hatred and daily annoyed by my edits, amid reliable and noted sources; Max experiences [trauma]], if Max will not be able to stalk-revert my daily edits. Evidence is overwhelming that Max has had no agenda in Wikipedia but to stalk and patrol my edits, when other editors in totality do respect my daily hard researched edits. Max is now, verily, a liability, as disruptive editor and is no longer an asset to Wikipedia. I leave the discretion to the proper Wikipedia authorities to consider blocking Max.

Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia created not by a stalker and one editor

... but by more than 2 million editors, and 1,600 administrators. With all due respect, I respectfully quote your judgment: "xxx I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. xxx The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. xxx."[67]

• IN FINE, I welcome Max's threat to ask for my blocking, if ever, he has any single evidence, that I add and edit without any BBC, etc. reliable source. I am sure Max knows that all my edits-contributions are supported by AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC and top reliable Wikipedia approved sources, for notability. Max wanted me to be blocked ever since. Allegation-charge is not evidence. Today, I worked hard with more than 6,668 edits, and for sure, I spent about 5 hours for just 10 edits. A cursory perusal of my past 500 contributions reveal, that my 500 edits were seldom reverted, by editors, and for sure, Max daily reverted very many of them, to the damage and irreparable injury to Wikipedia. I submit this hard evidence[68]

Regards and Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro. You claim that Max and I have no agenda but to stalk you and revert your edits out of spite. All our reverts of your edits are reasoned out--either you had a conflict of interest, or the text you added was completely irrelevant. You are the one who has taken it upon himself to browse through each of our edits and revert them for no reason other than believing yourself to be in the right. You also claim that we are stalking you. All I have done is point out things you can find on Wikipedia, whereas you have taken the liberty of actually taking things outside of Wikipedia, searching our blogs and user accounts on other websites for personal information that you think you can use to discredit us. I can't speak for Max, but I'm sure you've also pestered him with YM, Facebook, and Friendster requests as well. Can you see the cognitive dissonance here? Every time you accuse us of something, it is you who are guilty of those very things. --Migs (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be bias or anything but I guess the reason sometimes on why a user's edits are repeatedly being reverted by others might be because his/her edits somehow don't satisfy the rules. Although they involve little creativity, text is just as copyrighted as images. FoxLad (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My accusation is based on hard evidence. Please examine the totality of my edits and contributions:

only you and Max had stalked my edits, amid verifiable resources. I and you do have personal enmities and anger against each other. It is sad that you, as student of Ateneo de Davao and I, as alumni of Ateneo de Manila University would discuss stalking here. Stalking is abhorred by most laws of countries. Wikipedia does not tolerate stalking. I respectfully submit these twin hard evidence and proofs that my contributions are fully in accord with Wikipedia rules:[69]; and I do present hard evidence of the highest character, that instead of being an asset to Wikipedia, your very own contributions are bare, and these proved that since Max stalked me, and you did contribute nothing but to edit my edits and/or to personally attack me and my edits, here[70] Due to my religious beliefs, unrelated to Wikipedia, Cma, based on his Wikipedia contributions, had no agenda, but to block me. I and Cma do have and did have the same Ateneo de Manila handbook and rules or ethics amid Philippine laws on this matter. It is the same here in Wikipedia. Can an editor conspire with another editor to daily stalk his very own Ateneo and co-Filipino editor? Oh, I respectfully submit to the community of administrators that this is the saddest day for Wikipedia. It is censorship by means of hidden personal vendetta. With all due respecte. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything I said. Can somebody, ANYBODY, explain to him the double standard here? Preferably not maxsch, as I get the impression that Floro has somehow just tuned us out. --Migs (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything Cma said. TheCoffee (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with all due respect: since September 25, 2008, end of our RFC, Max had continuously reverted daily many of my hard worked edits. I allowed time to pass with reservations, since, I do keep track or have a watch list of my edits amid vandalism, etc. But Max had stalked my edits until I began, since I had time last Sunday, to re-examine my April 2008 edits, with Wikipedia Rules in mind. Even my Uruguay edit was deleted but it was reverted, deleted, and then I posted on the talk page. May I ask you this query: I had inspected your edits, and I am awed by your contributions to Philippine articles, like Duck, his sports articles are too good unlike my legal ones. I am more on foreign articles, but, I also contribute to your own, created articles. My question is: if any or many of your own edits would be daily edited or stalked by a co-Filipino editor, a co-Atenean, is is right, is it just? Say, that you had not been an administrator, what will you do, while fighting alone, like me? I have had many choices: a) blocked, then appeal, b) I had previously and many times edited Wikipedia using an IP address not my username and my anonymous edits were very seldom edited or reverted, etc. But There is no way that I, Max and Cma can settle all this. But I stress, that since I joined Wikipedia, on July 2007, I had never edited or reverted a single original edit my Max or Cma, while Max reverted more than 1,000 of my edits. Just and Fair? It is your choice, sir.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query: can we wait for the comment of my adopter (busy) User:Diligent Terrier?

I was and still under adoption, but due to the busy schedule of my adopter, she/he was off since September 30, 2008; I sent him/her, a notice, TO COMMENT on this. Basically, my query is:

• since I joined Wikipedia on July, 2007, with now over 6,712 edits, I had never encountered any Wikipedian editor who, daily, continuously and without any stop, stalks - now, almost all my daily edits since - before, during and even after the RFC,[71]until last week, my stalker User:Maxschmelling daily, and without stop, reverted almost all my edits, via disruptive editing, even if any and all of my edits, are supported by verifiable sources, not by one but even 3-5 links - and amid the archived RFC conclusion warning User:Maxschmelling to cease and desist from confrontational edits. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query II, hard evidence

It is a very sad day for Wikipedia if a stalker asks an established editor to be blocked. I respectfully SUBMIT hard evidence that I am an asset to Wikipedia due to my very very well researched contributions[[72]. I certify and state with certainty, under your very own cursory perusal of my past edits, that all my daily edits are fully supported by not only just one but 2-5 verifiable and notable links.[73] I am a lawyer and Filipino judge, but I am not so familiar with all the laws and tons of Wikipedia rules. But in the civil laws-jurisprudence of all democratic countries, stalking is horrible, evil and punished by most laws.

• My point, is: since September 25 RFC, all my edits-contributions, were rarely reverted in full or deleted by editors except by this Max. So, my query, is: if I edit and Max reverts, is it Max that will fully determine that my edits were wrong? Put differently, should Max stop stalking my edits, by being blocked, and/or should Max stop from reverting my edits, and should let the Wikipedia community of editors, especially the creators of the articles and/or the articles' country editors, edit or revert my edits. Hoping for your kind REPLY to my query. Sorry, if this is too long. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Those 6712 edits are precisely the problem. Far too many of them are topical or trivial. It seems that Florentino's basic approach is to go through the daily news and put as much of it as possible into Wikipedia articles. To keep things in focus, let's just look at the first item listed in the complaint, this edit to Uruguay. Who will say that that material actually belongs in the article? Far too many of Florentino's edits are like this. looie496 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that someone else reverted this edit, contrary to Floro's assertions that only we do it. I'm sure that other people would definitely revert more of his edits if they only noticed them, but he mostly flies under the radar. Max and I are naturally the first ones to get to them since we know him to be a problem editor and check out the things he edits. --Migs (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refuting evidence, on my Uruguay edit, notable

Hi, I want to submit hard evidence that my Uruguay edit on barbecue is notable: a) here it still stays this hour,[74]Culture of Uruguay; the Uruguay edit of mine was deleted by IP address, but was reverted by: 03:32, 17 November 2008 User:Commdor Commdor (Talk | contribs) m (49,824 bytes) (Reverted edits by 203.26.38.39 (talk) to last version by Florentino floro)[75] (undo) [76]

Verily, my point is, each of us, 2 million editors and 1,600 administrators do have 2 million brains and should respect each others' edits. My edit was deleted on Uruguay, then reverted, then deleted, then I posted the message. I did not revert.

Put differently, maybe one of my 20 edits would be edited but not by just one stalker but by many editors. Who will be the judge, if this edit is good or should be reversed, Max, Cma, Floro, are there only 3 editors, one to blocked due to 2 stalkers? This is my refutation of the evidence against me on Uruguay. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just one example, you don't have to defend every edit individually here, or this page would have nothing but you on it. For the record, it is not hard evidence of notability at all. As we've said, just because nobody has reverted something doesn't mean it's not notable. Explain how holding the world record for barbecue is beneficial to understanding what Uruguay is. If I asked a geography or history teacher "what is Uruguay", do you really think they would ever say "a country known for its world record barbecue?" --Migs (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I submitted a counter or contradiction-refutation of the submission by User:Looie496 to traverse the evidence and at the same time, to state that my edits were very seldom reverted by other editors.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant references

• For reference, see these diffs (out of Maxschmelling's (hereafter known as "Max") past 100 contributions - see his contributions for further review): [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]
• Talk page edits (relevant and general): Past 50 article talk page edits for Max, past 50 article talk page edits for Floro, past 50 user talk edits for Max, past 50 user talk edits for Floro, relevant section of Floro's user talk page, [Request made by Max on Floro's talk to stop edit-warring, [[relevant ANI report (located above), relevant ANI report (located above), relevant post to Wizardman's talk page.
• Relevant request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro.

Master&Expert (Talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant conclusion

May I cite the ruling or conclusion in our RFC to prove that - since the RFC ended on September 25, 2008, Max still persisted in stalking, or put differently, Max continued to revert my daily edits as showed by the above posted relevant references: "The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[102] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query III - Can our block petitions be better submitted to the Arbitration Committee?

May I inquire, here, if, as noted in our RFC, this problem of our twin requests for blocking be referred to the Arbitration Committee? I respectfully quote the very pertinent parts of the RFC Conclusion: After reading through the evidence, opinions, and diffs of the RfC, I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. I ask that when Florentino makes explanations on talk pages of his opinions or editing patterns, to keep them pithy, and not not write statements that take 10-15 minutes to read (we are volunteers after all). The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[103]Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) --Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not "like" to see it go, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this issue is going to have to go to arbcom. Wizardman 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? What happens at arbcom that can't happen here? (subtext: I'm tired of the buck-passing. Why can't the wikipedia community do anything about a problematic editor? These aren't "twin requests for blocking" this is one serious complaint and one incoherent rant. Can someone with sense please look at what is actually happening! This is Floro's 4th trip to ANI. Incidents were posted by different editors each time. Come on people!) xschm (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be new information in this ANI thread that was not included in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro. (For example, it seems that Florentino floro did not write his own response to the charges in the RFC/U). It would be reasonable for the RFC/U to be reopened and this new information added to it. Even if people are right in thinking that no admin will tackle this, and it will have to go to Arbcom, it will be convenient if the on-wiki information is gathered in one place so Arbcom can judge whether to take the case. Perhaps Wizardman would be willing to unclose the RFC/U to facilitate this. I also note that Florentino floro's adopter, User:Diligent Terrier, has not edited Wikipedia since September 30. Maybe someone is willing to volunteer themselves as a new adopter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, this is the way it always goes. I don't want to deal with it (him), so send it to another forum. (See also User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling). And in the meantime, floro continues to add non-notable (and occasionally POV and COI violating) clutter to as many pages as he can. I continue to watch his edits and revert a large number of them (because someone has to!!!) and tempers rise. Did I mention he has over 6000 edits? There is no way to gather everything pertinent into one place, and I am tired of trying to do so when the solutions seem so obvious. Florentino floro is a net-detriment to wikipedia. Perhaps under close supervision he could be helped, but two adopters have been chased away already. (Are you volunteering, Ed?) It was, by the way, Diligent Terrier who told floro not to comment on the RFC/U. And I, for one, think that was a good idea, because as soon as he starts to comment it becomes very hard to hear anything else. Maybe you've noticed that. xschm (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All that admins can do is some version of blocking, protecting or imposing restrictions. The conclusion that Wizardman wrote for the RFC/U (punch line is included above under 'Query II') may be the best he could do, but it's hardly actionable by admins. What do you propose? EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I sort of hoped that a reprimand would be sufficient--not necessarily a block, and if a block, only a short block--but at least an admin telling floro in relatively strong and direct language that he is not doing the right thing. That he should not add non-notable and non-relevant content and that he has been doing so. That I have acted in good faith and generally only reverted edits of his that are actually inappropriate. You may have noticed that in his canvassing [104] he referred to "the long RFC, where Max lost". He felt vindicated by the RFC/U even though a number of editors there expressed reservations about his edits. It will be a bad thing if he feels vindicated again by this process. Whatever the conclusion, I hope it will be as unequivocal as possible so that he will not misinterpret it. xschm (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up, and it seems max is saying the same thing. Every time Floro is being problematic, the following things happen, in this order. We leave a message to Floro telling him what he's doing wrong. If he's never met you before, he'll say thank you and possibly send you a cookie, but will keep doing whatever he's doing. If he has, he'll complain about you stalking him and reverting his edits. The confrontation is eventually escalated to an RFA, RFC, or whatever. We'll post about Floro, then Floro will post about... something incoherent and irrelevant while bringing up unimportant facts about our personal lives and Philippine law. The admin or adopter will tell Floro something along the lines of "they have a point but we won't block you. Just don't be so crazy." Floro will respond with a thank you, followed by another rant that clearly shows he is not going to be less crazy at all. After a short period of time, he will resume being crazy, point out that he "won" the previous RFA/RFC, and the process starts all over again. --Migs (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? Really? FF just outed two editors above (with the information still visible as of this post). Then he insinuated the editors were violating Phillipine law and requested a face to face meeting with one. That is blatant intimidation. Is that not blockworthy behavior? Do you need Arbcom to do what admins should? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Aunt Entropy, but think that constant bickering between involved parties could make this hard to settle. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've given him an indefinite block and noted that it is until he agrees to stop outing other editors. I did warn him yesterday. He has evidently done this before, see my talk page and the RfC. dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, perhaps this will at the very least stop him from trying to use personal information to discredit people he disagrees with. I hope though that this doesn't diminish the urgency of the other issues we have with him. --Migs (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if someone thinks I acted inappropriately, that they would say so outright. If anyone thinks that I am not acting in good faith, I would like to hear it in plain English. What is "constant bickering" supposed to mean? I have pointed out a lot of examples of edits by floro that I think are inappropriate. Is that bickering? Or is that an honest attempt to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia? I admit that this dispute has a long history. That is why it is here now. That is why there was a mediation page and an RFC/U before the dispute was brought here. That is precisely why an admin should comment on the merits of the dispute. While I think Dougweller's actions are a step in the right direction, I really think that the outing issue is a side one. The real issue is that floro doesn't add good content. Wikipedia is fundamentally about content, so that is absolutely the most important issue an editor can raise. If there are any admins out there watching this dispute will they please either agree with me or tell me I am wrong. There can be no consensus if no one states an opinion. xschm (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cordingley

Cordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of banned user Bcordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who added spam links to articles two days ago. Now he is asking permission to add the same links he was banned for in the first place. Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since he appears to think Wikipedia is Yellow Pages, I added his wildlife destruction business to the spam blacklist, so he won't be able to add it regardless of what user name he re-appears as. Black Kite 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks. You saved me a lot of work. Dr.K. (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I actually advised him to do this once his autoblock expired. The block was only on the account, not a ban from Wikipedia. Asking for other editors input on the talk page is the correct way to go when you have a conflict of interests. He does seem to have gone over the top on the request, but he has shown a willingness to learn policies during our email exchange after his initial block. This may be a case of over-enthusiasm, rather than an deliberate abuse on his part. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. It is a rather unusual situation. It's the first time I see an editor just by arguing about something on a talkpage to convert the talk page into a living advertisement for his business. It belongs in a WP:SPAM horror movie, if there was such a thing. Dr.K. (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He started personal attacks and harassment. Please see relevant section below. Dr.K. (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I was just adding a bit more background. My hope in asking him to post a request to the article talk pages was that editors interested in the article subjects would deal with the requests and the issue would vanish. I had no objection to the adding of the site to the blacklist once that decision was taken. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia copying list?

Where is the page on Wikipedia that lists outside media that have "borrowed" content directly from Wikipedia, uncredited? I found a book today with a chapter taken almost exactly from my featured article Great Lakes Storm of 1913. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 01:45Z

• You might want to look at WP:MIRROR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I put them down on the "Wikipedia as a source" page, mentioning that it was uncredited and lifted "largely unmodified". Maybe not the right page for that, but oh well. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 02:01Z
    • Personally, I'd write to the publisher, and seek some legal advice. If you've got a copyright claim in it, you might be due some reimbursement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • So, no one bothered to read this above your edit summary?

        _{You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*.}

        seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

        • The GFDL still requires proper attribution, which what I understand is non-existent in this case. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Aye, copyright still applies, just the licence for use is the GFDL. Attribution is required usually in the form of a link to Wikipedia, a statement saying that the contents of the page are from article X on Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, a link to article X, and a copy of the GFDL along with a statement that this material is released under the GFDL. That's how it works with webpages usually. Not sure about books. Hence, legal help required :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • To reinforce your coment, my understanding is using the text in any way that doesn't comply with the GFDL is infringement, and the original authors still own the content. ie: I can upload a picture (or write text) here under the GFDL and still sell it under a different license, including closed. I don't give up my ownership when I license it under GFDL. MYSQL has been doing this for years with the GPL. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • You've missed a requirement, an important one. See §4(b) and §4(i) of the GFDL. The history and names of authors are also required in any copies. That it works this way with web pages "usually" is because many mirrors are actually non-compliant in this regard. See Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Imitation is the surest form of flattery? Really I'm not sure that much can be done. There is some legal weight moving our way (can't remember the case name, but the Apache license was upheld in court against infringement--a good sign that the GFDL would hold up), but the most that would happen would be that the author would be fired/reprimanded for plagarism. Might help to call or write the publisher with some choice >7 word passages. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I already emailed the publisher letting them know about attribution requirements of the GFDL and the fact that it was almost exactly lifted from the article. I also put a bad review on Amazon to that effect. :P — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 05:36Z

Tangentially, I just wanted to note that just yesterday I investigated a copyright report on Matthew LaPorta, where evidence suggests that this ESPN affiliate has violated our contributors' copyright. It's not the first time I've seen this. There's a reason we have {{Backwardscopyvio}} and Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, unfortunately. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Persons

Is there an established policy for how missing persons are dealt with? There is currently an AfD with regard to the Asha Degree article. I apologize if this is the wrong place to discuss this issue, if so please redirect me to the correct venue. Thanks for any and all input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where there is a "rule" set out for this. I'm also not sure where the best place for discussion is. What I can say is that the likely outcome of an AfD is to delete the article or redirected it to an article on missing persons. The basic idea being that we are an encyclopedia, not a service to find missing persons. That seems callous as hell, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to close the AfD per A7. While I wish the family the best of luck in finding the person, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I have no doubt that the police have been contacted, but our cardinal rule here is the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This article would be nearly useless in finding her, you would need to know her name before you found the article, in which case you can find out more information from a missing persons helpline, or the police. I will inform the office about this closure, just in case. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin disclaimer) Well there is a rule and that's WP:N, supported by WP:BIO - the person must be notable per that policy, supported by reliable sources - Natalee Holloway for example. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We have kept many disappearance article of persons who were not in any way notable until they disappeared and the TV news channels started 24/7 breathless coverage of their disappearance, such as Elizabeth Smart and Madeleine McCann. Smart and McCann are white. See Missing white girl syndrome. Degree is black, and got about 75 entries in a Google News search. This was not just one burst of coverage, but coverage continues to the present. The circumstances are similar, but the news interest was not, thus fewer reliable sources provided substantial coverage. The two local papers and local TV have continued to cover the story for 8 years since she disappeared. Five years after she disappeared, CNN had brief coverage of her case [105]. Her disappearance was cited in 2003 in debate in the U.S. House of Representatives as reason to support H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act [106]. I do not believe A7 applies. It should go to AFD and have the full 5 day period, if it was closed early. Edison (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I had made similar comments[107] at the closing admin's talk page after the AfD was closed (I did not !vote in it as at the time of the closure I was still thinking this case through). I did not think about the racial aspect of it, but I did note that the case has received a substantial amount of in-depth newscoverage over the period of about 6 years, but for some reason this fact was never brought up in the AfD itself. Perhaps this should be taken to DRV after all... Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Dennis Brown/Missing person, where a policy is being beaten out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Dennis Brown/Missing person, where a policy is being beaten out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From time to time some small group of editors try to establish such a niche notability guideline, but usually a couple of people object and it gets labelled as "Rejected" or at best "Essay." The way we decide what is notable is by looking at the outcomes of AFDs for the type of article in question. The AFD should be reopened, The article should be moved to Disappearance of Asha Degree, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.(Why is Deletion Review going on here instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review?) Is it in fact necessary to proceed to that step? Edison (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't deletion review, but this exactly the reason I started the essay on Missing persons, not to make new policy, but to develop an essay that covers what we CAN agree on, using only existing policy. For the record, while it pains me in some way, I think Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did exactly as the current policy dictates, including explaining it when he didn't have to, and was proper in his handling of it. People might not like the outcome, but the faith and method were proper. WP:BLP1E does seem to be the most applicable policy in this case. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, BLP1E is not a particularly strong argument here since in this case the person and the event are essentially the same. BLP1E does tell us to cover the event if the event is notable. If the underlying event (disappearance of Asha Degree) is notable, then the BLP1E issue is easily solved by renaming the article to something like Disappearance of Asha Degree. The real question here is/was if the underlying event, the disappearance, is notable or not. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The House Bill in which her disappearance was cited in debate as grounds for passage became United States Public Law Number 108-21 [108]. This is evidence of notability. I do not believe A7 applies.Because the AFD was closed after only 5 hours, there was no opportunity for me or others to add the evidence of notability in the AFD and to add it to the article with some re-writing. It is better to reopen the AFD than to have to start a whole new article covering the same disappearance. Edison (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Edison, given that this had an actual impact and published law it is very hard to see how this is at all A7able. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the person being missing resulted in a new law, then I would agree they are notable (that is covered in the essay). However....I would strongly disagree that every disappearance/missing person is notable, as (unfortunately) it is all too common. There are over 830,000 missing person cases on the books right now, including about 110,000 active, and all of them likely get a few news write ups. And that is in the US alone. As I pointed out to someone else on the talk page, this extrapolates out to over 20 million people globally. We only have 2.6 million articles here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 10:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may be me taking this for something it isn't, taking something too far, or various other things. Either way, I'm rather concerned about this user. First, due to this edit, secondly, do to that edit in conjunction with is username. Opinions on the matter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about his username, but he also left this note on the talk page of an editor with whom he has had no contact to her knowledge. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After receiving that weird message on my talk page from the user (whom I've never had any prior contact with) and the seeing the message they left on Jimbo's talk page, I'd say it's probably someone with far too much time on their hands and some sort of axe to grind (or at the very least, we have a new Joseph McCarthy in our midst). They seem to be doing ok work in the mainspace, but their method of warning vandals is a bit informal. *shrugs* Just random weirdness I suppose. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cordingley started personal attacks and harassment

Cordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just left a personal attack on my talk page telling me I had "an expletive" by reverting his edits. Dr.K. (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Left a message on his talk page explaining our policies on spamming and civility. Black Kite 11:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First, this probably should have gone to WP:WQA as it's a very low-level civility issue, and not something requiring immediate intervention. Secondly, why not just answer his question? "I feel as though x" is a description of his feelings about a situation, and in fact is pretty well phrased. What we have is a NEW editor who feels that he's being bitten pretty severely by your edits/reversions. What a great time to TEACH a new user how Wikipedia works. One of the many Welcome templates would have done wonders. -t BMW c- 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Did you look at the message I left on his talk? I think you'll find that it covers that pretty thoroughly, and wasn't in the slightest BITEy. Black Kite 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours was fine (although I actually don't feel there was a need to address civility ATM). Mine was a reply to the complainant. A quick look through his talk page shows a few issues where he decried "incivility" when none existed. Cordingly asked a very valid question to Tasos on why he was being treated in a certain way. Tasos deleted all of his questions as vandalism, and never replied. The entire issue seems to have have arisen from questions in a Talk page for an article that asked "I would like to put these links up, can I", which were then deleted as "spamming" by Tasos - which then led to the question by Cordingly. ►BMW◄ 12:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this remark. I quote: A quick look through his talk page shows a few issues where he decried "incivility" when none existed. This is an unfounded remark. I would greatly appreciate if you don't try to insinuate facts about me based on your distorted sense of civility. Dr.K. (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now let me get this straight. First we counsel an obvious spammer (WP:SPAM) account how to evade a block (WP:BLOCK) by creating a sock puppet. Then when he evades the block by returning under a new name (WP:SOCK) (instead of filing an unblock request on the talk page of the blocked account like everybody else on Wikipedia) and converts the talk pages of multiple articles into advertisements for his business, we are supposed to engage in conversation with him and not revert the obvious spam he once again introduced on the talk pages. Also when I introduced a civil level 1 warning to the sockpuppet and the sockpuppet tells me that I had a "-on" reverting his edits I am supposed to engage in a civil conversation with him just so as not to bite him. BMW I think you may have to revisit your theories and reexamine the facts, because it is hard for me to believe you reacted this way knowing the facts. Dr.K. (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff he put on the talk page. As you see he did not simply provide a link so as to have a simple conversation about the merits of the link. He goes on to advertise the services he provides including and I quote:

* Articles of interest

- * wild game home cooking tips and recipes - * Service directories for Pest Control, Roofers, Handy Men, Home improvement, Insurance and more. All sources are reliable new sources. - * Federal and Provincial hunting and fur management regulations and details. - * Pelt and fur preparation and handling techniques

Oh and by the way did I mention that in his previous (blocked) incarnation he edit warred and reverted multiple times despite being warned with multiple low level warnings? Dr.K. (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And that he converted his talk page into an advertisement and user Nursery Rhyme independently reverted his talk page citing advertising in their edit summary? Dr.K. (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I really think that this is all being blown out of proportion. His first account was blocked. He has not been banned. After the autoblock expired, he was entitled to come back on a new account and try to make a fresh start. He was over enthusiastic with his talk page requests which were advertisements and not the simple requests for consideration he was advised to post. Things spiraled from there when his talk messages were removed and his site was blacklisted. Can we just take a step back and calm down? It might be helpful for the admin that had the site blacklisted to send him an email explaining the situation. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Graeme I just saw you were the the blocking admin. I defer to your interpretation of giving him a fresh start, even though you realise that I did not know this when he came back under a new name, therefore I assumed he was a sockpuppet. Also I thought that he could appeal his block on his original account rather than coming in again as a new account for a fresh start of spamming because this guy is clearly, among other things a WP:SPA. But again I have no argument with you and I appreciate the fact that you wanted to stretch wp:agf to its outer limits. We would be on the same page now save for the fact that Cordingley chose to come to my talk page and leave a degrading remark. Degrading remarks are not the purview of WP:WQA, are not low level civility issues and are not "pretty well phrased". I don't appreciate being told that this was no big deal. On top of that since when was reverting blatant spam from a clearly commercial WP:SPA spamming multiple articles, a severe case of biting a newcomer? I don't appreciate being patronised this way. Dr.K. (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is the warning I gave him in his first account. And this after he had already spammed a multitude of articles. Is this biting the newcomer? If that's the case let's get rid of all templates. This was simply the lowest level one can get. Even in his new account after he came back I gave him initially another level l. Is this biting? Now I see that there is a welcoming template thanking him for his contributions which include the degrading remarks he left on my talk page and all the spam he left on the articles. That's simply too rich. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if you interpreted the above as patronizing, or as accusing you of having acted improperly. From what I have seen all of your actions were probably appropriate in dealing with this user. I just think an expanded thread here is an over-reaction to a fairly minor issue. I haven't had any involvement in the handling of this new account and will leave it to the admin who has to peruse it as he thinks appropriate. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Graeme if I inadvertently led you to believe that I was referring to you. I was actually referring to the comments that BMW made just above. I thought you had read them and you would understand. I appreciate your gracious (and not necessary at all) apology because your handling of the situation was fair and professional. I simply reacted to the remarks above. I did not intend to argue with your approach in any way from the beginning, but I wanted to set the record straight when I saw the remarks above. Take care and thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Taso/Dr K, someday I hope you take a good course in mediation. In mediation, we teach people to turn external accusations such as "you have a hard-on towards deleting my edits" into internalized statements of feeling such as "sometimes I feel that you have a hard-on towards deleting my edits". Note, the latter phrase does not mean the same as the former, just like "you are kicking me in the head" does not mean the same as "I felt as though you were kicking me in the head". Perhaps the subtleties are lost in translation somewhere, but I honestly wish MORE people on Wikipedia would use internalization. As such, my statement that this was minor incivility stands - in fact, there's no incivility at all when taken in the context of the phrasing. I also still feel that you would do well to simply answer the other editor's question (although perhaps BK has already done that) as the person actually appears to have made a sincere attempt at understanding your actions (see Getting to yes. In addition, WQA does deal with Wikiquette and civility, which would involve degrading/uncivil comments. Furthermore, you need to gain a better understanding of what a Welcome Template does. Thanking someone for their "contributions" may also be left on a WARNING template. I'm not trying to be patronizing nor insulting, nor belittle your own feelings on the situation. ►BMW◄ 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW this has been an extremely bizarre and unfortunate affair. I think in your mind you may feel that giving me yet another patronising lecture on mediation would accomplish the impossible. The impossible being to make me accept your reaction to me and your favourable treatment of the WP:SPA, WP:SPAM account combo. You broke new ground also by welcoming the spammer and thanking him for his contributions. Point taken. Now, as this is an extremely embarassing situation for me to have to discuss such low grade incivilities and to be in such ridiculous semantics-distorting discussions please do me the favour and end this as expeditiously as you are able to. Dr.K. (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, is there something above that you would like translated? I apologized earlier if there may have been a linguistic issue. One only needs a quick visit to my User page to see how I deal with Civility, and a quick trip through my contributions on the WQA page to know that I fully understand civility. I have also found in almost 3 years on Wikipedia that giving people immediate access to policy (via a welcome template) is beneficial - and it does not ever thank them for incivility. You can even have a quick look at a template that I created for situations where people's first contrib have actually been uncivil at User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil. Just because I disagreed with the requirement for warnings, does not justify your below the belt commentary. Based on your edits, I find you to be an intelligent and competent editor, and I respect that. I do not however respect your current line of comments. ►BMW◄ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your tone forward and presumptuous. You are the first here to insinuate that I don't understand the language and that I have decried (your own words) "incivility" falsely (which remark in itself is uncivil). I am not going to reply to your insulting comments about translation because it is not up to you to determine my competence in English and to be frank I don't think this is a matter of language but rather of mindset (and quite civilly I will not reveal whose), something that is not easily changed never mind what techniques or gimmicks you may suggest. Again you have distorted the situation at hand. Here we have a single purpose account and a spammer to boot and you welcome them and thank them for their contributions. That's your prerogative. However do not presume to teach me to do the same. Here we have two first class administrators agreeing with my actions and you try to insinuate that I don't understand what civility is, that I bite newcomers even though these newcomers carpet bomb Wikipedia with spam etc. etc. You even gave me a lecture on welcome templates. Whereas the warnings that we give to the vandals do include the word "Welcome" they don't say "Thank you for your contributions". This simply does not happen. We don't thank spammers for their contributions. But to make whatever point you are trying to make you welcomed this spammer and thanked him for his contributions. It's your prerogative to do so. But don't presume to lecture me to do the same. As far as hitting below the belt that's the first time anyone here has accused me of that. What are you referring to? I just tried to be as civil as I could under these adverse circumstances and I withstood your onslaught of presumptuous comments and lecturing quite well I would think as well. Anyway I would really be grateful if we ended this dreadful discussion; my worst here yet. Dr.K. (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this load of ...something... was over hours ago until an edit you decided to add, and I decided the insults towards me were unfortunate. Although I can work with anybody, I honestly and sincerely feel that you and I may have issues editing the same articles in the future (thankfully we have different interests), and it is truly unfortunate that you continue to have harsh feelings in my direction. My apologies noted before remain, and I'm also quite sorry about your lack of understanding on a wide range of subjects related to me. I sincerely say all the best to your future edits. ►BMW◄ 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you took any of this as an insult, even though I simply thought I was recounting the facts as I saw them. There were a few strong statements but I don't think they only came from my side. However I realise the whole experience was unpleasant for both of us and I apologise for my contribution to it. I am grateful however that you found a way to end this gracefully. I appreciate that. As far as editing articles together, I really don't know where this came from. Whatever our differences I am sure that you are a very competent and intelligent editor and I thank you for your previous comments in that regard about me. I'm sure that even in the very unlikely case we edited the same articles, there would be no issues at all, except if you decided to add spam or something uncited; a thing that I know you would never do. And I don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I simply expressed frustration about some points raised in the debate. Nothing permanent. Anyway take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing from L.A.

• Decius (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• James 007 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Alexander007 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Winona Gone Shopping (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Lisa the Sociopath (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Alex contributing from L.A. (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This is a single editor with a series of non-sock accounts (this may not be complete). Winona Gone Shopping was blocked in 2006 mostly because of a (possibly joking and nonspecific) death threat. After the block, the user's talk pages had to be blanked (repeatedly) due to blog or forum-like behavior.[109] About a year ago or more, he came back with a new account, and with the tacit approval of some admins. Since then he's used two accounts, Lisa the Sociopath and Alex contributing from L.A.. There was a question about his user page. [110] A fresh civility complaint[111] tonight caught my eyes, and I found a comnfused mix of old accounts, deleted user pages, and an indefinite block. For those reasons I blocked the account. However, the user asserts that he is a positive contributor, and has created many pages. Future Perfect at Sunrise has vouched for him and has volunteered to mentor.[112] He's posted some responses on his talk page.[113] Any objections to unblocking this editor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat here that I consider this a productive, good-faith user. (S)he went through a phase two years ago where they were no longer interested in contributing and did some trolling and tomfoolery instead, but have returned to edit constructively under the new "Lisa" and later "Alex" accounts for the last 12 months. I recommend to deal with whatever incivility complaints there are in the normal way, but not to hold the episodes of two years back against them now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From the sidelines, I wouldn't object to unblocking him (defaulting to male for convenience; apologies if I've defaulted the wrong direction), but I think we should be clear about behavioral expectations, and I don't think we should wipe clean the slate from two years back. When a user with a clean history blows up in the heat of the moment, it's easy to AGF. But according to his recent comments on his talk page, his previous block arose from an overemotional dealing with Wikipedia: "At the time I was disgusted with Wikipedia and figured that I may as well get myself blocked." I can't see his recent behavior, which he defends as "About the incivility, I am always provoked...", as completely separate from that. It seems a continuum of the same problem: when irritated, he seems to feel justified in becoming disruptive. (I say "seems" because I can't know, but I'm not seeing any signs otherwise.) He says, "My reaction to Warrington and other such incidents have to be considered in the context of my good Wiki activity too"; that works the other way around as well: his/her good Wiki activity needs to be considered in the context of his reactions to Warrington and other such incidents. Being disgusted doesn't excuse trolling; feeling provoked doesn't excuse personal attacks. If this is, as it seems, a pattern problem, it should be viewed in that context, with each incident judged as part of the whole and not as a one-off slip of civility. Hopefully it'll never be a problem again. But, basically, he's already in "second chance" territory. Future blow-ups might properly warrant withdrawal of that second chance. I'm not sure what form mentorship might take here, but anything that might help him learn to back away from the keyboard until he calms down seems good. Best outcome, obviously, would be that Wikipedia gets to benefit from his (clearly very) good contributions, but outbursts are not an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked. [114] Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't call people dickface and dingbat when I disagree with them or get upset. I never did and I never will. Warrington (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And? Anyway, I remember the "Lisa" account: it was pretty constructive, albeit occasionally it posted some random off-topic stuff on it's userpage that totally messed up one's head. No objections to an unblock. Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "dickface" was directed at a rude Hungarian user who was apparently trolling and who appears to have a habit of removing information about Romanians that he doesn't like (possible Dacian words in the Romanian language, Palatschinke deriving from Romanian, etc.). He removes the information that he doesn't like without comment [115] as you can see also in that example at Dacia. It is a kind of vandalism, and the anon's comment at Talk:Palatschinken was rude: "not from romanian or whatever". He's hungarian and he knows quite well what Romanian is, and he has a habit of being rude like that and removing information. So I got upset, and on top of that Warrington kept reverting me at the article as if he was possesed with some personal sentiments that I could not understand. I apologize even for what I called the anon, but more I apologize for the "are you a dingbat" comment addressed to Warrington. A from L.A. (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When I have said stuff like that, not only was I provoked (I know this is not an excuse) but I felt that saying that would relieve me and make me feel better. I can tell you from experience that it does not make me feel better, nor does it improve the situation. In most cases I will have to continue to deal with these editors, and my PA's did not improve what I call the Wikipedia community, and beyond that society (I know how that sounds but this does go over into society). A from L.A. (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact it was "dickface" the anonymous Hungarian who removed the correct derivation of the word from the article Palatschinken in the first place [116], August 18th, 2008. User:Bogdangiusca had the version before that with the Romanian derivation. That Hungarian with anti-Romanian sentiments (judging from his edits) incorrectly altered the etymology (with no sources provided for his version), and the incorrect etymology was on display till I noticed it and corrected it. User:Warrington may have had "the feeling" that my version (which brought back the correct etymology) was unlikely, and he kept reverting me even though I explained a lot on the talk page. But Warrington does not have linguistic knowledge. Warrington's edits pertain to the foods themselves, which is fine until you get so defensive of an incorrect etymology, as Warrington did, without checking the edit history and seeing that it was altered by an anonymous IP with no source given. Then Warrington continued to edit in a way that showed his unfamiliarity with etymology and languages, and he was aggresive in his changes, as if he is correct, and he is in charge of the article, and his User name will be on top if you are watching the article. However homeboy Warrington was defending a wrong version, he couldn't seem to realize that, he was aggresive, I asked him if he was a dingbat, weeks earlier I called the anonymous Hungarian a "dickface" for editing like that and being rude. A from L.A. (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't even refrain from personal attacks in the ANI forum, can you? ►BMW◄ 12:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend it like that. "Dickface" refers to that anonymous IP. I put "dickface" in quotations. A from L.A. (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Though you address the behavior as inappropriate above, you do seem still to be attempting to justify it. If another user's behavior is a problem and you can't deal with it yourself, you seek assistance, either through dispute resolution or through the vandalism procedures. Feeling provoked doesn't justify disruptive behavior. It's important that you realize this; no matter what anybody else does on Wikipedia, you alone are responsible for what you do. Again, it's the pattern here that is concerning—I do see this as connected to your behavior two years ago—and I hope that you will learn to go do something else, perhaps off wiki, until you feel better when you get upset. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It just becomes a mess when I use those kind of terms. It does appear that I wanted to jab at the anonymous IP again, but mostly I thought that was a...funny...way of referencing him. Sorry. A from L.A. (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the user's behavior on this very thread hardly inspires any confidence. Don't be a dick, Alex. A indef. block is an indef. block. We shouldn't reward someone for tirelessly creating ban-evading socks. Violating every single rule warrant the harshest remedy possible. On a side note, I read don't like any of this user's usernames (out of all the ban-evading socks listed).--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend it like that. It was in quotations. An indef block is not an indef block. Since when? No RfC? No Arbcom? Tony blocked me for a few edit summaries all of a sudden in July 2006 with no knowledge about my contributions, at that time I was already one of the most prolific and had been editing for almost two years. Two years later and I'm still productive. I had this incident here, which is for RfC if anything. Check the history of the block. A from L.A. (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See how easy it is to fall into these traps? NWA.Rep almost called me a dick. And if he had called me a dick, I wouldn't mind. A from L.A. (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. WP:DICK is an official policy. You are blocked because you were making death threats. I have no knowledge of the caliber of your contributions and I don't intend to find out. The community has decided you are a net negative to the project. You should've left quietly in hope of one day e-mailing an admins to respectfully ask the community to lift the indef. block. You chose to continue to create ban-evading socks. Unfortunately, you have wasted the community's patience.--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It was one edit summary two years ago aimed at no one that was meant to get me banned, that's why I wrote it. I later changed my mind and wanted to continue contributing. Have you read the edit summary? The community never blocked me. I haven't made further threats, have I? I was told I could come back with new accounts. I really didn't intend that comment just now the way you think, to me it seemed as like a context-reference to make the context clear (I called that person-so-and-so because it happened like this etc., in quotations). A from L.A. (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is hypocritical of you to question the legitimacy of the original block. The fact of the matter is you were indef. Blocked and instead of accepting the community no longer wants you as a participant, you continue to create ban-evading socks to circumvent your block. Your blatant lack of respect for wikipedia and its due process deserves an outright ban.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't banned by the community. No RFC no Arbcom, just one user. By the way, I think me and User:Warrington are becoming friends now, see his talk page. He has no sore feelings. I didn't say anything very mean to him. We will probably be friends in a few days. That's how i am. Chill out. There was no community decision. A from L.A. (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don’t worry. I’m calm, but I sense you are getting emotional. You seem to fail to understand that when you are making death threats, we don’t have to go through the arbCom and all that to indef block you. You were trolling and you got what you deserved. You don’t come back with more ban-evading socks. I’m not interested in your newfound friendship with Warrington. Is your life really this boring that you have to make friends on wikipedia?--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now look who's being nasty? Ok, re-ban me for the "death threat"...who was the user who complained that I threatened him? There was no such user. Read the edit summary. A from L.A. (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't learn anything from your indef block, did you? Are you still contending the legitimacy of the original indef block? Wikilawyering won't get you anywhere.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First: meta:Don't be a dick isn't policy; it's an essay, and it notes, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." I'm not sure if you're attempting to goad him, NWA.Rep, to prove a point, but please stop. It isn't productive. Alex, this would be a good opportunity to practice doing something else when you are feeling provoked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am contending the legitimacy of the original indef block. Because no user felt threatened by the edit summary. Tony just saw it on recent changes or whereever and blocked me, there was no community decision, no prior civilities/incivilities/contributions taken into account. Just for that edit summary. You can't be retroactive either and defend that block by my recent case with the anon & Warrington, and I didn't threaten them either. Yes I dispute the legitimacy of that block. No user was threatened, if you read the edit summary it was a silly conditional threat to no one, over two years ago. And besides you maybe, who still wants me blocked for that edit summary? A from L.A. (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, both of you, Alex and NWA.Rep, give it a rest now. NWA, you are sailing close to the wind in matters of WP:NPA now yourself, don't go poking the guy. The ban has long been a matter of the past; Alex has essentially been rehabilitated (if only silently) for the past year now, please treat him as a user in good standing. And now let's close this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Alex (is that even his name? Sometimes he's a he and sometimes he's a she) didn't appeal his block using the unblock template or e-mail an administrator to appeal his block when he was indef blocked. If he did, and those requests were rejected, then he should leave wikipedia instead of creating a huge sock farm. Contending the legitimacy is wikilawyering. Wikipedia should not be rewarding block evasion. The admin who unblocked him is setting a dangerous precedent and should indef block this sock right now. He is setting a even more dangerous precedent by patronizing him.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. He didn't "create a huge sockfarm". Please at least make yourself familiar with the case before you call for people's heads. He created one new account and edited under it constructively for a few months, then (for some reason I don't know) made another account change, once. (All the older account names were before the ban, and in fact several of them are a single account that got regularly renamed, they were never socks). It has always been implicit policy (confirmed as such by Arbcom) that we tolerate banned users making a fresh start by returning silently and editing as long as they stay out of trouble; a lot of people were aware that that's what he was doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt the arbCom would agree with you. Sockpuppetry, especially ban-evading sockpuppetry, is never allowed. If people allowed his presence, then why did he get indef blocked until you unblocked him? Anyway, I suggest we present this case to be the arbCom. In the meantime, Alex should remain blocked. (you seemed overzealous in unblocking him when this thread barely received any feedbacks) This could very much be a landmark case.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here, NWA? Boosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no sockpuppetry in this case, unless you regard the account that I came back with , User:Lisa the Sociopath in November 2007 as a "sock". However I stated that I was the same person returning back then. Then in August 2008 I went to User:Alex contributing from L.A. because "sociopath" may give people the wrong idea. The block was really all about those edit summaries. A from L.A. (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf, please remember to assume good faith. I sense a decay and double standard in the enforcement of wikipedia policy and I want to see it corrected. Frankly, your unilateral action of unblocking Alex is hardly the conduct of an mature sysop. Alex, you shouldn't have comeback with Lisa the Sociopath. What you should have done is e-mail an admin or appeal to arbCom through the due process.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been appealing since yesterday :) It was not unilateral, User:Will Beback unblocked User:Winona Gone Shopping yesterday. The block is considered by most admins to have been way too severe given the situation. A from L.A. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's considered way too severe, then I don't understand why another admin didn't unblock you 2 years ago when the original block occured. I'm disappointing at the admin conduct in this case. Again, I strongly urge admins to get the arbCom involved before unilateral actions.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom or RFC should have been involved in the first place to approve the ban, given the nature of the "threat" and my contributions etc. User:Will Beback unblocked Tony's unilateral (!) block [117] from over two years ago. A from L.A. (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes despite the fact that there was a lack of input from the community or the arbCom to unblock you.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on São Paulo FC

Can someone look into this? The IP is currently involved in several edit wars and was previously editing as User:Bruno P. Dori, cheers! BanRay 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page's history is a mess - I count one editor making more than 150 reverts since April - including 7 on 15 November - none of them with a rationale as to why the change has been made. It's not even like its vandalism - just disagreements over the squad list. Might be an idea to fully protect the article for a while. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Resolved

 – Clear copyvio, deleted, thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a feeling this is a copyvio as Image:97 Ford Probe.jpg is the car from 1997 Ford Probe meaning that it's not totally Gene Poole's work and no copyright info on the site which makes it hard to see if it's a PD, Free-use or just copyrighted image. I'm not listing the image as myself and Gene have history and he is uncivil towards me so I'll rather not list this image. I've posted this here as I'll rather an Admin to deal with this. Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Werdnawerdna

• Werdnawerdna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I see potentially serious problems with this account.

A. It was covered by a rangeblock. I've asked Avraham to explain why he gave it an exemption. This circumstance suggests the account might possibly be a banned user returning or one engaging in sock puppetry.

B. The account has a username confusingly similar to administrator User:Werdna.

C. The account is being used for homophobic soapboxing and at least one egregious personal attack on another editor:

1. "The above paragraph reads like the propagandistic fantasy of a promiscuous ephebophilic homosexual supremacist." (referring to another editor)
2. "The fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male and that over a third of known victims of pedophilia are male, proves that, among homosexual men, there is a higher incidence of pedophilia, as the large majority of people are straight." (synthesis)
3. Not responding to my comment 'line by line' is due to the fact that it is not possible to reasonably refute it all, due to the fact I wrote the truth. (Oh, The Truth®, well that makes it all right.)

D. The account has received a long list of warnings for vandalism or adding unverified information, including to biographies. [118][119][120][121][122]

What are thoughts on this matter, and does anyone see any other evidence that might help clarify matters? I am inclined to ask for a an indefinite block at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

His logic is rather skewed. "Witches float in water. So do ducks. Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch". Very soapbox, and becoming disruptive. ►BMW◄ 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." -- Woody Allen in Love and Death. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally we might try the warn-block cycle, but the behavior pattern observed here (in my experience) does not resolve with that treatment. A good number of warnings have been issued already, and the problematic approach only seems to have become more entrenched. Comment C-1 by itself is enough to justify an indefinite block. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, his mimickry of an admin's username is certainly unique, in that he calls attention to it by denying the connection. However, there's always the educational value, as I learned a new word today: Ephebophilia, which is Greek for "love of Ephebo". Whoever Ephebo was, he must have been the Clay Aiken of his day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel so old -- "WERDNA" was a name in a very old computer game. And I saw a bunch of variants on it in CompuServe aeons ago. Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll race you with my walker -- I wasted many an hour on Wizardry in college. (Werdna was the villain, and didn't get his name into the title until about the 4th game.) I kinda miss those old text based dungeon crawls. *grin* But as to the username, I don't really have a problem with it. I encountered this user just a couple of days ago and felt they made it plenty clear that they were not THE Werdna. I'd judge them solely on their actions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Bartle tried barring "Conan" as a username on MUD -- until he learned a little kid really named "Conan" was crying. I have seen several variants on "andrew (backward)" over the years, and really see no legitimate concern for sure. Aren;t there more important issues to raise? Collect (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to point B, being a similar username to Werdna, the names are quite clearly different. One is Werdna and the other is Werdnawerdna. If someone was to impersonate me, I'd expect a username like "How do you turn this off". However, if someone registered HDYTTO, I wouldn't consider that necessarily impersonation of me, because there's lots of things it could mean. Maybe this user's name is in fact Andrew, and his username is Andrew backwards twice? The username point really is a very weak one here, and I think Jehochman should strike that point. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading all the comments cited supra, and noting that the "egregious" comments were made to a person who made what could also have been considered comments to decry as well, I would err on not censoring user talk pages by elimination of the user. No sign of the person making homophobic remarks willy-nilly, and apparently some very reasonable discussions on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, provocation does not excuse an inappropriate remark, but the resolution may be different. I'd like to hear what Werdnawerdna thinks about this. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the lengthy list of warnings and notices, and the poor and inexcusable comments (along with the obvious username issue), warrant this user an indef. But I'd like to hear what this user has to say about it first... seicer | talk | contribs 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The rangeblock was implemented for a specific sockpuppeteer. Currently available technical evidence indicates that Werdnawerdna is not that sockpuppeteer, so the IP exemption was granted. That is independent from any other issues which would affect werdnawerdna's continued edit privileges. Should the user be blocked for other reasons, the IPexemption should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to email me the name of the specific sockpuppeteer? I'd like to see if there is a behavioral match. It is possible to foil checkuser. As Obi-Wan said, Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Bruce99999/GaryGazza. They're both on a massively shared range used by many contributors. Thatcher 16:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a very long reply to the above issues. I typed it all out, but was unsuccessful in submitting it fisrt time due to 'loss of session data' (I don't know what that means) and the second time due to an 'edit conflict'. Subsequently, I am subitting it in sections. Please allow me to finish sending it all before taking any action which may affect me adversely. I have a very good case that needs to be put across. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is even a section on here about me, and why the some of the above unfair criticisms are being put against me. I have never been banned, nor have I ever engaged in sock puppetry. My editing is on the account Werdnawerdna only; I have never edited from an anonymous IP. I am the only person who ever edits Wikipedia from this computer. I guess someone with a similar IP is causing a problem; obviously I cannot do anything about said person(s), as I do not know who they are. I have been editing since January, and have had the same username ever since then. I did not know, until someone pointed it out to me in September, that there is an administrator called Werdna. That same month, I received, and followed, advice given to me, to clearly state on my user page that I am not Werdna. It is only on here, now, that someone has brought up the 'similarity' of the two usernames. It is inevitable that many usernames are similar, due to the limited number of letters in the alphabet, and the fact that well over six million usernames have been created. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere, it is not homophobic to state the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer was homosexual; it could be argued that it is heterophobic to deny it. The only changes to that article I seek are the justified and necessary aditions of "he was homosexual" (for which I added two independent, reliable sources), and the application of the category LGBT people from the United States. Said category definitely applies, due to the fact that he was, without doubt, a) LGBT; b) a person (be it an inhumanly evil one); c) American. I have not 'soapboxed' on any article. The comment, above, is being misinterpreted as me having made a personal atttack in it. I have never made any personal attacks, anywhere on Wikipedia, against anyone. I stated "the paragraph" (not the person) "reads like" (not is). In addition, I stated that I hoped the said comment was just trolling (bear in mind the content of the paragraph I was replying to). My statement regarding the proportions of pedophilic crimes by gender and orientation of perpetrator is proven by statistics of known offenders and known victims (note the proporotion of LGBT men who are in jail/prison for committing sexual offences, in comparison to the equivalent proportion of heterosexual men incarcerated for sexual offences. The authorities (in my country at least) use the fact that pedophiles who target males are more prolific offenders than those who only target females as a major part of how much of a risk the pedophile presents, and how much he thus should be monitored. The only reason I first stated that fact is because I received comments to my talk page that falsely claimed it to be straight men (rather than homosexual and bisexual men) who are sexually assaulting boys. In any case, accusing me of breaking a Wikipedia rule regarding editing articles because of a claim that I synthesised (even though I did not, I actually stated the truth), is irrelevant. Said comment was on my talk page, not on any article. In any case, no-one is accusing me of androphobia or misandry for stating that the large majority of pedophiles are male nor is anyone claiming that I must not state that fact, nor that such a statement is offensive to men in general. I have been insulted many times on Wikipedia; yet, until now, I have not mentioned it. How can it be considered acceptable for other editors to insult me, yet I am not allowed to defend myself with facts? As I stated, I did not make any personal attacks. Swear words have been directed towards me in insults, yet I have never sworn at all. I responded to comments by analyzing and replying to the coments themselves, not by criticizing any editors personally. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The instances which are being claimed as evidence of me being a vandal were actually nothing of the sort. One refers to me pointing out, in a neutral way, that Jesus was definitely not born of a virgin. There were no virgin births then. It is not POV to state the truth. The article was, at the time, delusional Christian fundamentalist propaganda that stated that he was definitely born of a virgin. An encylopedia should not state what is a proven lie, then prevent me from adding the truth. It is true that some people believe the lie that Jesus was virgin born; it is a lie nevertheless. Another instance refers to me correcting a spelling error: sqeeze to squeeze. Another instance refers to me clarifying that the subject of the said article was, though definitely born in Sutton Borough, not necessarily born within the town itself. That alteration of mine was correct, and referenced on the index of births registered in England and Wales, which was the reference present. Regarding NNDB, I did not know, until it was pointed out to me, that it is not considered reliable source by Wikipedia. I had already seen NNDB on the external links section of many Wikipedia biographies, as well as cited against many details within biographies, before I ever cited NNDB on any Wikipedia article myself. As with all my other edits, I added a small amount of information from Wikipedia with the good intention of improving biographies. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The implication that I am a 'sole purpose editor/account' who only edits about LGBT issues is proven false that I have edited a wide range of subjects. The majority of my edits do not involve LGBT. Although it is true that a significant minority of my edits are LGBT-connected, that is not justification for any negative action to be taken against me or negative attention to be paid to me. In any case, there are editors who have made far more LGBT-related edits than me, yet are not on the receiving end of the severity and amount of verbal attacks and threats that I have suffered. That I am alleged by a very small number of Wikipedians to have an anti-LGBT bias is only because that is the only topic, out of dozens I have edited, for which I have faced fierce opposition to my edits regarding. In any case, even if were Fred Phelps (I'm not), I would still be entitled to edit, providing I adhered to Wikipedia guidelines, which I do. The torrent of opposition is the only reason for the lengthy comments on my talk page, the Jeffrey Dahmer talk page etc. Had no-one opposed stating the proven fact regarding the dead serial killer, for which I reliably, clearly verified, twice, none of the section 'article fails to mention he was homosexual' would even exist. I cannot understand the presence of such opposition - Dahmer's orientation is solidly proven, and has been since way before Wikipedia first came into existence. If anyone is trying to make an issue out of me adding LGBT categories to articles, I need to point out a couple of things: a) I have never added an LGBT category to a heterosexual's biography; I do not spread lies or gossip. b) The articles which I have added LGBT categories to, did, in the vast majority of cases, already state the subject's homosexuality/bisexualty and/or already had LGBT categories present. What I did was to add relevant categories and/or to improve the categories from non-applicable or less relevant ones to (more) applicable ones, such as to a more specific subcategory. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(interpolated) Readers who don't have the courage to take on this lengthy screed might benefit from reading the first few sentences of the second paragraph above this one. looie496 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

*blinks eyes at sheer absurdity of some of the logic shown above* ►BMW◄ 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have kept within Wikipedia rules; I make frequent improvements, to many articles, over a wide range of topics. I am not preoccupied by any one subject. Inevitably, most editors read and edit what interests them; the specifics of that vary from person to person. There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors spend equal amount of time on each topic, nor should there be, as that would be ridiculous. The entire body of my work on Wikipedia, around 3,500 edits, on various subjects, all of them this year, show that I am a positive contributor, and should consider to be. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that I should be indefinitely blocked, when I have made over 3,000 constructive edits, and have never had my account blocked or banned at all, even for a short period, is completely unjustified. The range block was not imposed because of me, or anything I had done. It was, by the blocker's own admission, to deal with a specific sockpuppeteer. I was unfortunate to be within the range blocked to stop him/her - I guess I have an IP which is similar to the sockpuppeteer. To use someone else's wrongdoing to try to justify punishing me is wrong. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything in the style of the 'witches and ducks' or 'Socrates and mortality'. Of course, many different things float on water. The truth, of course, regarding the second statement, is that Socrates was mortal. We know that for certain because: a) Socrates was a man and all men are mortal and b) Socrates is dead. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, I never mimicked a sysop's name. I only pointed out that I am not said admin, by putting a simple message on my user page, very soon after I was asked to just that, in order to prevent anyone mistaking me for him, or vice versa. I never want to be mistaken for anyone else, and have never tried to encourage that. I have no connection to Werdna; I have never had any contact of any sort with him. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All of my edits and comments, on various articles, show me to be the honest, direct, forthright, straightforward, fact-stating person that I am. What could make anyone wrongly believe me to be a sockpuppeteer or someone who pretends to be someone I'm not? Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The fact that, in prison, homosexual acts are common, and that a significant proprotion of such acts are rape, proves that there are a disproportionately high number of LGBT people in prison, which in turn proves that LGBT people are considerably more likely to commit criminal offences" ([123]). I'd like to see the explanation for that one. Black Kite 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Eh, if the editor stops soapboxing and such we should let them stay unblocked for now. Please don't rant and please contribute productively. If not, you will be blocked. Now are we done here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I really had no intention of coming to AN/I about this person or issues, but since it is here, and some of the discussion I’ve had with him has been raised here, I do have comments. It’s interesting that the predominant topic Werndawerdna has chosen to expound upon is the Dahmer article. Initially, my challenge for his category additions was based on the article not discussing Dahmer’s sexuality. The two sources which he supplied that are “reliably, clearly verified” include adherents.com, which does not detail their sourcing, and a one word mention on a biography page that does not further address sexuality in any way. My concern initially was with assumptions being made, but then continued mostly based on the rationales being given. Werdnawerdna maintains above that since his comments are on a “talk page, not on any article” it isn't relevant, and apparently, he's not accountable for such. He’s said that more than once, including the Dahmer talk page with “The statements of mine that Wildhartlivie claims to be POV were never on the article, only on the talk page.” Statements on talk pages reveal attitudes and attitudes govern what is being edited and what is being added.

Regarding Dahmer, I have continued to state that his actions were not caused by his sexual orientation, that the pathology involved in someone like Dahmer defies discernable categorization. I’ve replied several times that to assert that the sexuality is the overriding reason for making the categorization doesn’t demonstrate a good understanding of criminal deviance and psychopathology or the psychological pathology of persons who commit sex crimes. What is alarming to me is the myriad of comments, both on that talk page, in edit summaries, and in rationales given in discussions. Werdnawerdna has said on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer:

• “Dahmer is notable for being a homosexual who murdered many men and boys because he was a homosexual”
• ”The only more relevant point about him than the fact he murdered many people is that he was homosexual.”
• ” His homosexuality... were why he committed his crimes.”
• ”More people know that Dahmer was homosexual than know that he was a necrophile and cannibal.”
• ”However, he could not, and would not, have committed his crimes had he been heterosexual.”
• "man who was definitely homosexual, and for whom orientation is central to why he is notable"
• "had he not been homosexual, most, if not all, of the people he murdered would still be alive.”
• "Contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians, said categories are not only for those who are 'out and proud', they are correctly applied to people whose sexuality is/was definitely homosexual or bisexual, even if they have never admitted they were, including people who were secretive about their non-heterosexual orientation and activities

Elsewhere, he has used edit summary rationales like "all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual" and His identity is homosexual cannibal necrophile serial killer and has routinely used the term “homo” in edits summaries: [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131].

Then there is the rape analysis and feminist indictment on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer: “That many serial killers ejaculate in or on their victims proves that, in those cases, their crimes are sexually motivated. Rape is always sexual. Rape is a type of sex, it is, by definition, false that rape has little or nothing to do with sex - it has a lot to do with sex. It is about abuse of power and control, and often sadism as well, but always in combination with sexual motivation. Some people, especially feminists, claim that rapists' motivation is only to hurt and subjugate their victims, and has nothing to do with sex. Such feminists often use that false notion to attempt to lend weight to false claims by many sharing their politics that 'all men are evil', 'all men are capable of rape' etc. However, whilst subjugation and causing suffering are a major part of rapists' motivation, rape is always sexual.”

In response, he suggested that my concerns reflected “homosexual supremacism and/or heterophobia”. He finally asked, in response to my comment about “truth” - What does "truth is something that is not verifiable" supposed to mean? I referred to the basic tenet of verifiability on Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Truth is a nebulous concept, quite frequently based on one's personal perspective and much harder to prove than verifiability.

What troubles me even more was when he decided a profile of me personally on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer was relevant. He discusses that “he possesses a degree in psychology, and is obviously intelligent. He is an experienced Wikipedia editor, who is a member of the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and the Serial Killer Task Force. It seems he is not young, and that he has a considerable amount of life experience. For someone privileged, dedicated...” That I’m not a he is the least of what offends me about this profiling. That he brings it up at all is yet another issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too far into content and logic. After all, the "fact" that men in prison resort to homosexual behavior is likely more of a proof that man by nature is primarily bisexual in nature, rather than proof that homosexual men perpetrate more crimes. There is a sad twist of logic, and either we Topic Ban for massive non-NPOV and soapboxing, or we have him mentored until he realizes that NPOV is a key tenet around here. ►BMW◄ 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What sort of thing do you think a mentor would do? Is it that you think Werdnawerdna has never been introduced to logical thinking, verifiability, and common sense? Do you think you could instill this in him? --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the inherent (and likely naïve) belief that everyone somehow has something beneficial to add to Wikipedia, rather than simply being tied to a target at the end of the firing range at Fort Hood. ►BMW◄ 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite stunning. Why is this person still active here? --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Moni3 (talk · contribs). Also agree with this comment for indef, made earlier by Seicer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite asked for an explanation of certain facts I stated so that is what I will do here. There is definitely a high frequency of homosexual acts in prison, that has been shown to be true through studies and surveys. It also also true that a substantial proportion of it is rape. Even the relevant articles on Wikipedia clearly state that most sexual acts in prison are coercive/abusive/forced/violent. The true figures are probably much higher than any study shows, due to the massive under-reporting of sexual offences against prisoners, as few people care about them, and many victims feel 'unmasculine' for having been overpowered by a homosexual, and would be ridiculed for having been victimised in such a way. If the orientation distribution of the prison population was the same as it is in the general population, there would not be anywhere near as many homosexual acts taking place there. That is because the large majority of people are heterosexual. A straight man does not become aroused by the hairy, sweaty rear end of another man, so how could he bugger him? If LGBT people were not significantly more likely to commit crime, then how can it be possible that LGBT people are massively over-represented in the prison population. People do not get sent to prison for being good. LGBT people are not given massively longer sentences by the courts compared to heterosexuals who are convicted of the same offences. There is not a massive conspiracy to imprison thousands of LGBT people who haven't broken the law. Women's prisons are dominated by butch lesbians. Homosexual acts are not currently illegal anywhere in the Western World; LGBT people are not sent to prison for being homosexual/bisexual. Much of it is genetic, you see. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's wrong on so many levels that I'm in awe. Still, it confirms the above; that you really shouldn't be editing anywhere near LGBT articles with that level of "knowledge". Black Kite 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why, this is awesome on the scale of Radio City Las Vegas Olympic Opening Ceremonies. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• As a criminologist by qualification and research (it was my Master's and my Fellowship) I find almost all of this ridiculous and unsupported by evidence; certainly to the extent you claim. However, it isn't just the LGBT issue is it? I'm wondering what sort of person refers, in 2008, to people of mixed-race as "mulatto" and "quadroon"? Now, you've either stepped straight out of the 1950s and have missed some recent changes in acceptable terminology, or you have an agenda. Please clarify. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some of these remarks are extremely offensive in nature, words like "homo", "mulatto", "quadroon" and "negro" are completely unacceptable. There is also clear soap boxing here, it's not even rational in nature. Net negative anyone? — Realist² 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Wildhartlivie's comments to this section; please note that by her own admission, she did not intend to bring the any matters concerning me to this board, and she frequently showers me with heavy criticism. I did not claim not to be accountable for my additions to talk pages, nor that they are completely irrelevant. I merely stated the fact that the it is not the same as if I had added the same text to the articles themselves. I was accused of breaking rules regarding articles that do not apply to talk pages. My point there is that I have been falsely accused, multiple times, of breaking Wikipedia rules and having bad intent, when neither were true. Why has the rule of assuming good faith not been applied to me, and my edits? Like I said, Dahmer's crimes were caused by his homosexuality and multiple other factors, not his homosexuality on its own. That is proven by the fact that that most homosexuals do not commit the kind of crimes that he did. That the subject is LGBT is exactly the correct reason to add an LGBT category to an article. Dahmer was, without doubt homosexual, therefore the category applies to him. No-one has given a reasonable expalanation for it not being present, because such an explanation is not possible. The statement repeated about pedophila and homosexuality was an edit summary, which, obviously, had to be brief, and related to a film, Sleepers, which includes young boys being homosexually raped by adult men. Said film does not include any same-gender pedophila, only male-on-male pedophila, which is, by very definition, homosexual. It has been displayed in this section in a way that makes it appear I stated that all pedophila in the world is homosexual, which no-one is claiming. We all know that opposite-gender pedophilia also exists. Dahmer's homosexuality is a central part of Dahmer's (actual and publicised identity - it is strange in the extreme for anyone, let alone people who are intelligent and educated, to dispute the the fact that Dahmer was homosexual. Try telling someone, in person, that you spent a considerable amount of time arguing that Dahmer was straight! I already explained that shortening homosexual to homo in edit summaries is due to lack of space there. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By extension, then, BTK's crimes were caused by his heterosexuality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I believed that Wildhartlivie was a man, and am surprised to find out that said editor is a woman. For my mistake there, I apologize. However, the rest of my description of her is accurate, much of it gathered from the huge amount of tags she freely chose to put on her own page, despite claiming multiple times to be 'anti-categorization'! Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Why should it make any difference whether Wildhartlivie is male or female? Nobody else has made an issue of it. And nor should they. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Men in general are not bisexual by nature, most men are entirely heterosexual, despite what many bisexuals, liberals and anarchists claim. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The venue to argue content is on the talk pages of articles, not here; the sooner you realise that, the less likely it is that you are going to be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually a lot bothered by the assumption that I am not young and come from privilege than my gender. However, the viewpoint on rape and feminism is just a wee bit... over the top. That I didn't plan on bringing the points I've made here to AN/I doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the ongoing discussion. I have never argued that Dahmer is heterosexual. I argued that his psychopathology is well beyond classification, as is most any classification of a serial killer based on supposed or possible sexual orientation. I'm not against categorization when it is useful, and I'm fairly certain userboxes are quite often tongue-in-cheek. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, exactly which parts of my recent explanation to you do you claim are wrong? Please explain what 'levels' you are referring to. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Rodhullandemu: The terms mulatto and quadroon are anthropological classifications that do not have any 21st century/'politically correct'/appeasing replacement terms. Mixed race covers all types of racial mixtures. The article in question that I edited required specifics to be stated. Hence I used said terms regarding her; her extraction is known - she is indeed a quadroon. I have no agenda, other than to improve Wikipedia with relevant facts. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have argued content on talk pages, but I have been brought here. I have had numerous questions and accusations put to me on this page, which I need to defend myself against. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The last 3 warnings to Werdnawerdna's talk page seem to be:

• 20:41, 16 November 2008 about a "minor edit" but didn't provide enough information to explain what the problem was;
• 14:34, 22 October 2008 a complaint about adding an LGBT category to a film; in the ensuing discussion Werdnawerdna shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding of NPOV and NOR.
• 06:40, 5 October 2008 Notification that NNDB is not a reliable source.

My opinion: comment C1 mentioned by Jehochman at the beginning of this thread is completely unacceptable and a violation of NPA. Werdnawerdna, you can't get away with making personal attacks by making them indirect or hypothetical. If you want to talk about what someone has written, you can call a piece of text "long", "short", "unclear", etc., but when you apply descriptions to it that are normally descriptions of human beings, such as "epobophilic", it's clear that you're saying or implying something about the person who wrote it, not the piece of text itself. That's not acceptable, and adding hedges like "seems to be" or whatever really doesn't help much at all. For something like making a promise there's a big difference between asserting something and merely mentioning it hypothetically; but for something like accidentally giving away a password, or insulting someone, there is little or no difference.

The username doesn't seem to be a problem, and if the username is given as one of the reasons for an indef block then it must be made clear that the user is free to edit under a different username.

The rangeblock doesn't seem to be a problem. C2 and C3 don't seem to me to be problems: C2 would be a problem in an article, but not in a signed comment on a talk page.

I don't see severe warnings and there are no previous blocks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu asked why I am making an issue of Wildhartlivie's gender. I am not, it is her who brought it up here, I merely replied. I wouldn't have known had she not stated it here. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you claim on here that you never argued that Dahmer was heterosexual. That is not the case: when I first added the LGBT category to Dahmer's article, you very quickly removed it, asking in your edit summary how can I possibly know he was LGBT. I correctly described you as privileged: you are lucky to have inherited intelligence and to have had enough money to have afforded a university education. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I said "and you know this because?? pathology does not always confirm sexuality", which is qualitatively different than saying he was heterosexual. But that isn't the overwhelming issue here, which is an overall pattern of commentary and attitude, not one article issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In regard to what is being claimed to be me making an 'egregious personal attack': it was on my talk page! It was only after, and, in direct response to, a horrible unsolicited post to my talk page by AvatarMN, who never needed to be involved in the first place. He brought up ephebophilia, stating that it is 'universal and normal', along with claiming that many straight men enjoy homosexual acts and sexually assault young boys. That is why I replied the way I did. Any punishment/restriction I would receive should be given to him many times over. Why am I being persecuted for defending myself on my own talk page against unnecessary attacks from him, yet he gets away with repeatedly targetting me with abuse? Why the double standard? Please explain. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The message of 16 November is wrongly stated above as a warning to me, but it was nothing of the sort! It was a friendly request to participate in a discussion which was triggered by my correct removal of an inapplicable category. It claimed that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Dutch! Obviously, he wasn't Dutch in any sense - he merely lived in the Netherlands for his last years, and died there. Last time I looked at that discussion, the large majority of people on there agreed with my removal of the category, and accepted and seconded the fact that Maharishi was not Dutch. For anything to do with that to be taken as me doing wrong, and/or being given a warning, is totally unjust. I should not be punished for doing something good. Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible resolutions

The above sections are long, but are worth reading in order to get a feel for the breadth of the problem here. A number of editors/admins have suggested that User:Werdnawerdna be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing, and there is logic in this suggestion. However, I suggest the following;

• Topic ban on LGBT articles
• Agreeing not to use racially sensitive epithets
• Staying rigidly within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Any further violations of the above (or other disruptive editing) may be met with increasing and/or indefinite blocks. Thoughts? Black Kite 01:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to a topic ban on any LGBT-articles, and any additions or modifications to pages that relate to any LGBT-topic (e.g. adding a user was homosexual), and agree to the remainder of the discussions. Any violation of this should result in one warning, followed by increasing and/or indefinite blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a topic ban would be premature. I suggest a strong warning about NPOV including the concept of respecting others' opinions, and about CIVIL and NPA; however, a topic ban for a period of time may be appropriate if such warnings don't result in the necessary changes in behaviour. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban here. This person has shown a shocking lack of ability to work within the confines of acceptable social behavior, and the source of the problem is their editing of the LGBT related articles. I would also endorse an insta-block (no warning) on the use of any racial or orientation epithets, starting at 24 hours and doubling for every instance thereafter, and same for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse a topic ban, inclusive of sex crimes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse at least a topic ban. A ban on "edits/consecutive edits longer than 50 words" sure looks like it wouldn't hurt, either--and I'm saying that as the queen of TLDR.GJC 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A tiny proportion of my edits have been selectively cut up, taken out of context, and blown out of proportion. Many false allegations and misinterpretations of my edits, yet no praise or thanks for my continued good work. How can you be considering punishing me and restricting me? Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the proposal of Black Kite. Werdnawerdna is intelligent, erudite and articulate without question. Stop stomping on the bunions of Wikipedia with archaic terms such as "quadroon." Wikipedia is not New Orleans in the 1700's, for pity's sake. Stop the gay-bashing. Edit articles about war, polar bears, flowers, airplanes, stars, and baseball (or cricket, depending on your nationality). Do not edit article wherein you might be tempted to make unwarranted and unsourced biggoted generalizations like those in evidence. Become the great Wikipedian you have the potential to be! Edison (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to counter 'tiny proportion', 'out of context' and 'blown out of proportion', here are some gems from problematic topic areas:

Lengthy list of diffs/quotes capped for convenience

Sexuality:

• [132] "This character is very different to that of a real British nationalist. Nationalists strongly oppose homosexuality. In comparison, 'Pub Landlord's' favourite band was led by a homosexual immigrant who died of AIDS. He also interviews homosexual guests without condemning their destructive, harmful, and counter-productive lifestyle."

• [133] "...The fact that Hickok was so close to E. Roosevelt, with such high risks to their reputations, should the lesbianism have been discovered, proves that there was a reciprocal lesbian relationship that was very important to both women..."

• [134] "...Would a heterosexual man chose to have spent so much of his life in the company of a homosexual man whom he knew to be an extremely violent sadist?..."

• [135] "...It would be very unlikely that Burton's quote about actors being homosexuals who cover it up with drink would be first said by a heterosexual...."

Pedophilia and sex crimes:

• [136] "External links: Added American rapists category: bisexual Manson raped and otherwise sexually assaulted males and females." See Talk:Charles_Manson#Bisexual.3F for more.

• [137] "External links: Added LGBT-related films category: already in pedophile theme films category; all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual."

• [138] "References: Added LGBT-related films category: the pedophile is homosexual."

• [139] "Added LGBT from England category; he sexually assaulted victims of both genders, therefore he is bisexual."

Race:

• [140] "There are other legitimate concerns which motivate the desire to reduce miscegenation, such as the high rates of criminality and mental illness among mixed race people, particulary mulattoes"

• [141] "...She's a quadroon..."

• [142] "Improved racism to race, to make it widely inclusive. Most common example of en 'elephant in the room' is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of serious crimes are committed by negroes."

Disability:

• [143] "The photo of a DS child using a power tool to assemble a bookcase should be replaced with a more appropriate picture of a sufferer of this horrific, incurable, lifelong condition....It gives the misleading impression that DS sufferers are productive and capable of carrying out tasks which many normal adults are unable to do, in comparison to the reality of them being uncontrolled wrecks...The article is already biased against the necessary implementation of eugenics..."

Religion:

• [144] "Personal life: Added about how his claim to be secular is completely contradicted by his turban-wearing."

• [145] "...He rightly blamed Muslim immigrants and their offspring, especially Pakistanis, because they are disproportionately involved in hard drugs dealing and trafficking in the UK...."

• [146] "External links: Added American Buddhists category: his homo wedding was a Buddhist ceremony."

These edits—and there are many more—evidence severe problems with WP:BLP, verifiability, and POV pushing. He seems to at least basically understand WP:V/RS: "...There are many online sources which claim he was homosexual, but most, if not all, of them would not qualify as reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. He was certainly camp; that, combined with the facts he had AIDS and that there is no real evidence of him being straight, make it almost certain he was homosexual. However, that does not prove his orientation, and it is not sufficient for it to be stated on his article that he was not heterosexual." However, as recently as three days ago he posted to a BLP talkpage asking "if anyone can reasonably refute that he's bi." As noted by others above, he has been warned many times about BLP, verifiability, reliable sources, and POV pushing, yet his disruptive edits appear to continue unaltered. Short of an extremely involved mentor, I do not see this ending well. Maralia (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite happy to act as, if not a mentor, a check and balance (i.e. "if you think you're about to do something wrong, run it past me first"). A consensus appears to be forming above. I will let this run until the US is all awake, though. Black Kite 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would also agree to a topic ban and think that Black Kite's offer is good. But I also think the long postings and the Soapboxing needs to stop. Careful attentions to editing WP:BLP article needs to be done so that inappropriate materials are not entered. If any further behavior as shown by the difs above is continued then an indefinite should be applied. To me this is how someone thinks about how things are the "truth" which is mentioned by the editor many times. I personally find some of the difs very upsetting but if they are stopped and the editor can restrain himself/herself from further behavior that is shown here, then happy editing. But as it stands now, I was concerned about the edits to Jeffery Dahmer enough to bring it to the attentions of the administrator who brought it here to have him check out whether there was a bigger problem then what I was seeing, and there was. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• The editors here seem to think this is behavior that is borne of immediate ignorance of Wikipedia policy and its community sensitivities. I tend to think that editors bring to the community the good sense God gave them and expound on that with some knowledge of wiki formatting and bureaucracy. Werdnewerdna appears to lack any knowledge that the world has moved past 1936. It's quite astounding and impressive, actually, because I imagine it takes an extraordinary amount of mental power to filter out the ideas the rest of the world has embraced in the past 72 years. He's putting forth ideas that have been debased by social science and psychology, let alone good taste among unknown company. So mentor or topic ban. I'll eat my hat if he doesn't end up getting blocked for doing the exact same thing in due time. I hope the ANI page doesn't become so familiar with Werdnawerdna because he's back time and again and the community just feels so darn bad about chucking him out. Wikipedia is not for everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand, given some of the edit summaries by Werdnawerdna, why he has not been at least indefinitely blocked (I would prefer a ban). DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• At the very least a topic ban, further use of bigoted terminology should be punished. — Realist² 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus to move forward with a topic ban; shall I give notice on this? seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Afmrahman

Anyone feel like looking over this user contribs? Since June, every contrib (with the exception of the football ones), is vandalism. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick review and blocked for 24 hours pending a decision on whether it should just be indef. --Trödel 16:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it. Considering the low-flying nature of the user (once a month, which is why I didn't do the routine warnings), I'm not sure what effect it'll have. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No discussion really needed; clearly a vandalism only account, has been warned (although personally I'd block even if he hadn't been; can't possibly think what he's doing is OK). Block indef. I'd just do it now if I didn't think I was stepping on Trödel's toes. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually prepped the indef-block form when I noticed the "pending at AN/I" note--so I read this, looked at his contribs, and blocked indef anyway. We can live without his contributions at Freestyle football, I think, if it means not having to clean up his ignorant profanities everywhere else.GJC 17:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure of the correct current procedure since I hadn't been doing active administrative tasks for a while, but thought there was no reason not to block immediately - I agreew ith the indef block --Trödel 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. If he's indeffed, he can explain himself before being allowed to edit again. This is the classic reason for a block; its a long-term problem that shows no evidence of letting up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

indef block endorsed by me and implemented --Trödel 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Roaring Siren (possible personal attack, and other policy violations)

Resolved

 – spoke with user.

(proof)Provoking me, gender confusion, possible personal attack/incivility. Please evalutate this user and make sure he/she does not insult any more users. Ellomate (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Contacted user. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

220.239.49.19 deletes then vandalizes whole page!

Resolved

 – The IP edited the article twice for which she/he was warned for. Simple vandalism that was reverted. The last edit was hours ago. No blocking necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

220.236.49.19 has deleted all of the bionicle page and then vandalized the page thanks to some people it was reverted but i think he should be blocked because he has vandalized multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knapper1176 (talk • contribs)

Reverted, warned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 blocked for edit warring after one edit

Resolved

 – Tony1 unblocked, dispute resolution recommended instead of edit warring. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a very hardworking and valuable FAC specialist who has been here a long time and never been blocked before . He was warned by MBisanz on November 10 about edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since the warning, he has edited the page in question once. Yes: one time. Here it is: [147]. Is that a nasty edit? Does it rise to a one-edit war? Have we totally re-defined the concept of "edit warring"? Anyway: 8 minutes after he'd made it, Tony was blocked for 12 hours by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

What the..? 12 hours is a short block. In fact, being an aussie, Tony may sleep through it. But that's not the point. A block is a humiliation. especially if done to a long-time highly active and trusted user who has never been blocked before. I will unblock unless somebody posts an objection pretty soon. I would particularly like to hear from Rjd0060 how one edit was a war. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Unless you understand the background here, I advise not unblocking without discussion. The background is a lengthy war concerning MOSNUM that has led to admins being given block warnings, etc. looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is what I'm after. That's why I posted it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

• Support unblock While I see some editwarring in the history, that was over a week ago. I don't get how one edit deserves a block, especially of one of the more variable editors in the project. I also agree that this should be discussed further. Secret ^account 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you (and everybody else reading this) to take a close look at the history of edit warring on that article. Tony1 was one of the primary "warrers". There were two others, who were also blocked. Please review my comment to Tony, here which contains the entire timeline. The page was protected at one point, and immediately after unprotection Tony, and others continued to edit war. I felt that since protection was attempted, and failed, blocking was the best alternative. I've blocked all three users who continued to edit war despite the protection and despite being warned. All users responded to the warning last week and Tony1's response is noteworthy. Please review this section. Should help clarify things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed it, thanks. "Tony...continued to edit war" Really? He made one (notably harmless) edit, and that was the entirety of his "continuation". Theoretically, you blocked him for it. But what I take from your post is that you either blocked him for edit warring a week ago, or else because he spoke to those who warned him in an uppity way. Those are not blocking matters. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

No, I blocked for continuing to revert edits without pursuing dispute resolution. Long-time editors should know better. Why did he continue to revert? Why did he not pursue DR? Why, just because he is a long time editor, does he get off the hook for reverting edits without following basic policies that even the new users are expected to follow, especially after being warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be as poor as your judgement. Edits, in the plural; what edits? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it seems a little heavy-handed for one edit, made more than a week after the last one. Blocks are a black mark on an editor, especially wrongful blocks, even if they do get overturned. Tony's been here what, 3 years, and has never been blocked before, so it is a little dismaying to see this. I would encourage Tony to stop edit warring though, whether the block was right or wrong. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, This diff is the edit in question, it was not even removing a tag, but instead changing which tag is used. I'm astounded that somebody could consider blocking somebody for that edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Unless they were officially told not to revert at all on this page, I don't see how one revert could count as edit warring. I also note that the person who reverted Tony's changes was not blocked or warned. I'm glad Bishonen brought this here because I was just about to. Tony should be unblocked. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this sequence of edit warring from Aug 1 to Nov 18 establishes the ground for such a block: [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171] as well as indicating a serious ownership issue for Tony1 w.r.t WP:MOSNUM. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, instead of continuing to edit war against there being a tag Tony1 was trying to reach a compromise seven days after he had stopped the edit-warring by proposing a different tag in a single edit. He was then blocked. That's just not a sensible response. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He did revert to a version that was part of the edit war post-protection. Having one's opponent blocked for edit warring is not authorization to revert his edit. MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be true. The edit war was over adding and removing part of the text, or a "disputed" tag. That happened on the 10th. On the 18th, Tony did not remove the "Disputed" tag when it was replaced, but proposed replacing it with an "under discussion" tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the disputed tag had been placed by Locke Cole in objection to the under discussion tag placed by Kotinski. Since there was disagreement over the tag type, Tony1 should have known better than to revert. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that edit warring like that is very bad, but the block was over the one latest diff. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. What is the use of blocking a productive editor like this, for 12 hours (which he may not even notice)? It's not supposed to be a punishment, or timeout. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, Rjd blocked Tony three minutes after his last edit, I don't think the "he knew he was asleep and still blocked" argument applies to that timeline. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said notice I meant it wouldn't affect him because he'd be able to go and do something else (be that sleep, eat, work whatever). I'm sure he's noticed he's been blocked. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A page protection should have worked better, again what's the point of blocking productive editors over one edit. If the edit waring was a day ago instead of a week, a block could have been in order, but it's not. Blocks aren't punitive. Secret ^account 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected for a week, none of the involved parties attempted to discuss their differences during the protection and resumed the edit war when the protection expired. Locking down an entire guidelines page for 3-4 edit warriors is not beneficial to the 10,000 other users who are editing pages constructively. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Blocking established editors like this is not the way to go. I suggest instead using page protection. Also note that User:Locke Cole was blocked by Rjd0060 for a week, which seems quite excessive. He should be unblocked as well. User:Kotniski was also blocked for 12 hours. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't Locke Cole still in Arbcom Enforsement, also most of the edits I saw from him is edit warning of many articles. I'll support the block of him unless there is something I'm missing? Secret ^account 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his 1RR parole expired last year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision#Locke_Cole_placed_on_revert_parole. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Locke Cole, but now see that he has a lengthy block log. Still, a week seems a bit long when page protection could work instead. And, I don't know anything about User:Kotniski, except see that the user has never been blocked before. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, what a blow to my ego. I'll try to get blocked a bit more often then in order to increase my profile. (That was a joke, just in case anyone...) But seriously, this whole issue is ample evidence that WP's dispute-resolution and rule-establishing mechanisms, though doubtless philosophically pleasing to many, are seriously broken in practice.--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Tony1 and Locke Cole per the growing consensus here. I'd still encourage both users to pursue dispute resolution and to stop reverting each other. Long time users or not, they shouldn't be exempt from these basic guidelines; guidelines that even the newest contributors are expected to follow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock of Tony1. He's put a tremendous amount of work into the MoS trying to make it consistent and correct, and a block isn't a good way to repay him. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's already been unblocked. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And who exactly is User:Rjd0060 to have the power to block one of Wikipedia's most valuable edotors? How dare he? Who on earth votes these peole t be Admins? No wonder this site is going to the dogs. Make sure he never crosses my path. Giano (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is surely obvious. Those who vote people like Rjd0060 to be admins are generally those who want to be admins themselves. Who else in their right mind would choose to hang around the corrupted slough of despond that is Rfa? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely not those are aren't cut out to be one. ^_^ Synergy 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All just reinforces Douglas Adams' sentiments: "the only people who should have power are those who don't want it".  HWV 258  23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Rjd0060 should probably be immediate desysoped. This is ridiculous, and no admin should have ever have blocked Tony1 in this situation. Thus, he is either not fit to use the powers, or his account is compromised. Either way, that means that he should be stripped of any access to tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment to be lacking in (a) use of exclamation marks; and (b) use of the words "abuse" and/or "harassment." A more appropriate comment would be in the form, "How dare he block an editor! Abuse!11! Desysop at once!"

To Giano: Is an edotor like a special type of editor or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is what people have done in threatening those who challenged this action. This actual action is something that cannot be said because of the civility policy. But I wonder if that is true, especially with yourself declared "snark" acknowledging that no one really cares about civil anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that Rjd0060 was perfectly capable of warning people before blocking (as seen here). Thus, blocking in this instance such a highly respected editor is extremely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I warned everyone Rjd0060 blocked today that I would block for further disruption and edit warring earlier this week. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And honestly, how many warnings does a established editor need to be given? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this was one revert, and this is a well established user, a week old "warning" by a different administrator is not even close to being acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole

In response to this thread, User:Crotalus horridus created an MFD for WP:MOSNUM that is here. Given that this is pretty much trying to change policy by deleting a page, User:Kotniski (who I should point out is not an uninvolved editor) speedily closed the MFD (here) pointing out MFD is not the place to established policy, and removed the MFD template off WP:MOSNUM - a move I think is appropriate. Locke Cole has since gone and reverted those changes (here on the MFD page and here on the MOSNUM page). (As I wrote this, Kotniski has again tried to speedily close this). There is a lot of disruption going on here, which I feel needs some action at least on Locke Cole's side. As I'm involved on that page, I won't do it, but seek opinions if there is problems going on here. --MASEM 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...and Locke Cole's gone and reverted the close, invoking IAR. --MASEM 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm done reverting this. But it's getting REALLY frustrating seeing these kinds of actions from editors who are clearly involved... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not involved and what I am seeing is some very disruptive behavior from you. If you revert again, in any shape or form you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated I won't revert again. But it'd be nice if we could get more than fifteen minutes of discussion before someone closely involved tries to shut it down. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Locke Cole's rollback access; see also #Edit_warring_at_MFD.--Maxim_(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear yet what Tony1 has been dealing with as he tries to keep the MoS pages usable and coherent? All this while Tony sleeps down under, and will awake to find his work was rewarded with a block log. Gee, I want one, too; seems all good editors have one these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't the slightest bit helpful. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Let's dilute the hell out of the system. This whole debacle has done nothing for the dignity of the admin process.  HWV 258  22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I too have been sleeping down under; and I am appalled to wake up and find that Tony has been treated like this, simply for adjusting a tag. I think there should be a formal apology, and everything should be done to ensure that this mistake by an admin will never count against Tony in any future deliberations on Wikipedia. Tony is a fiercely hard-working and remarkably competent editor, passionately concerned to bring order to WP:MOS and its associated pages – where I for my part simply left, finding certain editors' lack of good will and good sense too much to endure. I am sure others have done the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, if you harbor delusions that this won't be held against Tony, you missed the Ceoil case. He was blocked because an admin misunderstood jokes between him and another friend on their own talk pages. Then yet another admin later misunderstood another set of jokes between Ceoil and another editor, and baited Ceoil on his talk page, specifically mentioning his block log, and then threatened to block him because of how Ceoil responded to being blatantly baited. Then that admin tossed a truckful of F-bombs all over the place, was desysopped by Jimbo, but had the bit back within hours. Such is Wiki; that all of this happened in about a month gives us an idea of the circus we've got going. The Tony1's and Ceoil's, who work to turn out what we put on our main page every day but aren't admins, are judged and hung on one word or edit, while admins are protected even if they toss out a truckload of F-bombs. And then some admins don't understand why hard working volunteers are insulted about having their block log smeared. There needs to be some dialogue somewhere on Wiki to get better understanding about those who are toiling away at the different tasks in different areas of Wiki. Admin tools and tasks are needed and welcomed, but all too often, the vandal fighting mentality is turned on our most productive writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sandy. — Realist² 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly true. Admins takes a quick look at a block log and then double the last block. What that has to do with building an encyclopedia will forever remain a mystery to me. Administrators get away with murder, but regular editors have every one of their alleged misdemeanours recorded in their block logs. It's about time that administrators were held equally to account. Number of blocks reversed, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Outrageous. WTF? True that Tony's been very vocal on the talk pages, which everybody bar none agrees is the correct action. He discusses, makes one teeny edit and he's blocked - This is kangaroo adminship in action! The real danger is that it can be totally arbitrary and retrospective, as it appears this incident to have been. I'm totally quaking in my boots now to learn that any old admin can come along, see me doing something xhe disagrees with, and blocks me without warning. How can this be considered resolved? Tony's block will forever be an ugly wart on his nose, unless it is rolled back or expunged forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Wikipedia" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Wikipedia. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Wikipedia, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Wikipedia. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch ^T 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Edisonpartdeux

Edisonpartdeux (talk · contribs) Could use another opinion on this new user, name and this deleted article, Edison administator have me thinking this person is only here to attack User:Edison. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, this [172] satisfied my suspicions and earned him a trip to blocksville, [173]--Jac16888 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good call. Might be a sock of a blocked editor [174] of a deleted attack article, who also vandalized another article [175] related to the recent attack article. It's amazing anyone can get so worked up over Incandescent light bulbs. Edison (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do I apply to become an "administator?" Edison (talk)

Edit warring at MFD

Right now there is a rather inane edit war in process at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Two editors who were blocked yesterday for edit warring over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) yesterday are edit warring over speedy closing the MFD[176]. Eyes are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed Locke Cole's rollback access for abuse. I'm not against giving it back in a week, when cooler heads prevail.--Maxim_(talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The MFD has been closed by an administrator as a speedy keep. [177]. I would advise that this not be undone. Those that care about the issue should consider opening a RFC if the talk page of the guideline is not sufficient. —— nixeagle 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent incivility in edit summaries and elsewhere

• Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#User:_Reqluce
• Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently blocked Reqluce for a day, and then for a week, for repeated incivility, mainly in edit summaries. Now back from that second block, incivility continues (e.g. this IP BITE-ing) and my efforts to steer this editor back onto the rails don't seem to be working (see my Talk for more on that). Possibly someone uninvolved would be more successful. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You left a reasonably nice warning message. A possible improvement in handling it may have been to leave that kind of message first, rather than the two short messages that you wrote before you blocked him twice.

I work in customer service. From my experience, a message like the one currently on his user page might have been helpful before but now that it's rather late, it's much less effective.

These comments are not meant to say that Sheffield Steel is wrong or bad or that Reqluce has an excuse to be bad. Rather, good customer service is an art that can be learned over time. Good customer service can sometimes calm an angry customer and prevent them from vandalizing the store or shoplifting in retaliation for bad customer service.

How do we fix the situation? Maybe an administrator can write a kindly worded message encouraging good behavior but noting that persistent bad behavior has to be minimized and the few ways to do it is by blocking (spanking is not possible, otherwise there would be a WP:RFS board - request for spanking) Chergles (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Long block needed. I reported Reqluce to User:Useight who then gave Reqluce two warnings for incivility. Reqluce blanked his talk page with the edit summary "removing shit". He has managed to escape blocks by blanking his talk page warnings. I reported him to Useight after he got rather personal in an AfD, accused me of all sorts of bad faith actions. It got rather intense and I withdrew the AfD just to get away from the aggressive attitude. I then looked at his edits and noticed his edit summaries were largely made up of vulgarity, baiting and personal attacks. Also, he would sometimes revert an edit calling it "fecal", which redirects to poo. Nasty individual and way too aggressive. — Realist² 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

West Paterson, New Jersey redux

User:Woodlandpark has already been the subject of a number of blocks related to edits he has made changing the name of the borough of West Paterson, New Jersey to "Woodland Park". As discussed on the article's talk page, the borough has not confirmed the results and shows the results on its website as unofficial at http://www.westpaterson.com/. The borough web site links to http://hn.new.adqic.com/view.html?type=stories&action=detail&sub_id=50254 this article that makes clear that the results are not yet official. User:Woodlandpark has already been requested multiple times to wait until the change is official before any changes are made to the article. He has already been subject to blocks for changes made without any sources or justification. He has just now made these edits which again revert to his preferred version. I would like to ask that an admin investigate this situation and determine if any further action is justified. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who rv some of the edits of Woodlandpark, and even properly cited my own changes, perhaps some form of topic ban for this editor. Also, with the username = the article they keep editing, is this perhaps an SPA account that needs another form of action? ►BMW◄ 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for 72 hours, which should give the officials and press time to published authoritative data and results. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

LaVan Davis - copyright issues and a persistent editor

Can someone help with LaVan Davis? There have been ongoing issues with edits by Cassandra Davis (talk · contribs) and 209.215.63.122 (talk · contribs) on that page. The page has already been protected once due to their activities. Once the protection expired, they immediately returned to restore the content that has been removed by multiple editors. Prior to the protection, the content added by the above two accounts had been removed by multiple editors, including the protecting admin who looked into the issues following the initial protection.

Issues:

• Image:LaVanDavisPhoto.jpg, this is a re-upload of an image that has already been deleted twice under Image:Lavandavis-naacpimageawards-5.jpg as it's a copyright violation (one copy of the original can be found here: [178]). The same person continually re-uploads it.
• Image:Houseofpayne.jpg continually gets re-attached to the article. While that image meets the fair-use requirements for the Tyler Perry's House of Payne article, it does not meet the requirement for use in an article about LaVan Davis.
• The career section is a near word-for-word copy of [179], and is simply far more verbose than needed for an encyclopedia article.
• In the personal life section, the text that starts It is frequently mistaken that LaVan Davis is married to actress Cassi Davis in real life... through the end of the paragraph. A conversation was started by another editor about it on the talk page - but neither of the editors who insert it chose to participate in the conversation - the simply re-insert it despite the questions raised about WP:RS and WP:BLP.
• The protection tag - the article isn't currently protected, the anon re-applied it, presumably hoping to prevent others from re-removing the above mentioned content she/he added.

I've tried re-removing the content mentioned above today, and the anon immediately restored it. I have no interest in getting pulled into an edit war, so I'm bringing it here. I have no doubts that admins will be required yet again to either protect the article and/or block the users involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed protection notice, deleted copyvio image and removed copyvio text. As for the House of Payne one I'm fairly sure you could provide fair use rationale for that. As for the married-to claim, I'm not sure what to do about that, as I can't find out whether it is true or not. If they keep reinserting the content I'll lock the article. Thanks for reporting! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Those looking for drama are directed to the Giano thread, or the Tony1 thread, already in progress. Those not looking for drama will be satisifed to learn that Kurt has been reminded of the conditions he agreed to on his talk page, so further dredging up of old fights isn't needed right now. Suggest we re-open this thread when the Giano and Tony1 threads die down and our thirst for drama must be slaked again. --barneca (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Kmweber has broken his conditions of editing again. He has been spotted of editing Wikipedia-space pages. What is the next action on this user? --Mixwell!^Talk 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to conditions, please. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few diff's [180], [181]. Tiptoety ^talk 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic in those edits. Two months passed, he's not even polemical whatsoever. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

'Jimbo has no legitimate authority to do these things on his own' isn't polemical? That's a rather strange interpretation of 'polemical', it seems to me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Just a brief return for one comment) "It would be good if Kurt could post to or email an uninvolved administrator on his behalf should he wish to request reduction in his restriction." - Kurt agreed to that. He thinks the community has forgotten about the problems (and time wasted) he caused us a few months ago. I would have to agree that the Jimbo diff is very polemical. He's back to his old "turn Wikipedia into a political battleground" escapades again. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of bringing politics back onto the Wiki: [182], [183]. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear breach of explicit conditions. He's been reminded, but if he does not prevent himself from breaching these conditions again, then he needs to be blocked promptly. Given the reasons for which the ban was imposed in the first place, I'd support a move to restart the ban from today for the duration specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

HD86 legal threats

HD86 has been making frivolous legal threats [184]:

Not when you make them look like transliterations ... you just keep on making these false transliterations and eventually you'll see me suing you for systemic deception ... HD86 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha.

By the way: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Wikipedia:No legal threats --macrakis (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suing Wikipedia, I would be suing you, Macrakis (Arabic: al-muqarqisu المقرقس). HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to sue me constitutes a legal threat under Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, even if it is (as in this case) an absurd threat. If you want to change WP's policy on this, you can pursue it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic). --macrakis (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have become an expert in the Wiki law. You are certainly going to need that. HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but could someone please remind him that this is not acceptable? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning in progress... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...warned. Please try to keep it civil with him and not provoke him into escalating further, but hopefully he'll abide by the policy and this won't escalate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, legal threats over what culture falafel comes from? Seriously lame people. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

... and I just noticed that WP:LAME already lists an isomorphic dispute about Hummus. I should just keep my mouth shut. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT is quite clear on this: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." This user should be given a reasonable amount of time to strike these threats and if the user refuses, they should be blocked until they agree to strike. It sounds harsh for something seemingly silly but the policy exists for a reason. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account pending a retraction. I have also left a note that any admin may unblock the account if he provides that retraction. If he does retract his legal threat, then please unblock him and direct him to also strike through his comments and put a public retraction on the talk page in question. As always, I open myself to review for this block, but given the clear and repeated nature of the legal threat, I felt it within the letter and spirit of NLT to block pending his retraction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like falafel almost as much as baklava or barbecue, as great, even world-class, ethnic foods. Edison (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragonfiend Attacks and Harassment

User:Dragonfiend has recently begun posting comments that are rather inflammatory and, I believe, cross the line into personal attacks and harassment. The two main posts in question are: [185] (scroll to the very bottom to see her addition) and [186].

In the first post, Dragonfiend's statement, "Lots of new users here displaying unfamiliarity with wikipedia's content standards as well as users with long history of using multiple accounts for conflict of interest edits and to manipulate AfD results," is clearly a case of WP:BITE. Instead of trying to explain those content standards (despite having been asked what she meant [187] and being asked to provide more info to support her claims [188]), she tries to discredit their input by associating them with sock puppetry (which is a bad breach of WP:AGF).

The second post is worse. She blatantly ignores the concerns raised by the other users over her first post, "In case it wasn't clear from my bolded statement Comment to closing admin, my Comment was to the closing admin," another incidence of WP:BITE and incivility. She crosses the line into personal attacks when she says, "My hope is that they can take into account things like the amazing coincidences that seem to surround User:Buspar and his many multiple accounts which have a habit of showing up and voting together on the same AfDs and making the same conflict of interest edits." Less than 2 months ago she was told by an administrator [189] "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry. Please don't venue shop that claim any more." (Emphasis mine.) Her post is therefore in direct violation of the instructions of an admin. Furthermore, because there was no sock puppetry and she knows of that finding, the only reason she would repeat such an inflammatory claim is to try and discredit my contributions to the AfD discussion. It was a disruptive statement as it contributed nothing to the discussion and served only to provoke other discussants.

The post also constitutes harassment when you consider her past behavior: a violation of WP:OUTING [190] and repeatedly restoring false accusations made by another user to an article talk page [191] [192] [193] [194] despite being told it was inappropriate to do so by other editors and an admin [195] [196] [197]. This past behavior combined with her recent post is evidence that her behavior is not a one-time problem, but a pattern that continues to persist.

Putting this together, Dragonfiend is exhibiting a tendency to assume bad faith about those who disagree with her in discussions and to repeatedly make the same attacks on people even when warned not to do so by administrators. Buspar (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment for user conduct on the user, especially when more then one user has tried and failed to resolve this disruptive manner. MuZemike (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Halqaashrafia

Vandalism of the Main Page talk and obvious spammer account. §FreeRangeFrog 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning given. WP:AIV is the appropriate place for requesting users like this one be blocked. Hut 8.5 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, will do next time. §FreeRangeFrog 08:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert move from userspace into mainspace

Would an admin move Patrick Slider back to User:Autodesigner, including talk? The editor moved his or her user page into mainspace (actually moved it twice, since originally the move was to Autodesigner with a subsequent move+redirect), and now it can't be moved back to that user without admin rights. Incidentally, if there is a specific report page or tag for this type of situation besides AN/I, I would be interested in learning of it, since I encounter this situation every so often. Wikipedia:Requested moves doesn't really fit. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I'm more concerned about what he's planning on doing with his user page. Language like "you can browse through photos, view my discussions, and more" plus email him if someone edits it tells me he probably doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about. PicJungle ("to be completed in January 2009") also looks to be a WP:COI problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PicJungle PRODded, I will AfD if necessary. — neuro^(talk) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account socking to add AIDS denialism copyright violations

User:Whereistheproof registered on 01:34, 19 November 2008. The user immediately began spamming slander directed at the man who proved the link between HIV and AIDS into a number of articles, along with mass links to AIDS denialist site 'virusmyth.com', and copying rubbish into Wikipedia while violating copyright. The user is now socking on the unnecessary AfD. Nevard (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've performed an WP:IAR deletion of the article, as it's clearly not only a copyvio but utterly unsuitable for Wikipedia - of particular concern, the article contained various personal attacks on a number of named individuals in clear violation of WP:BIO. That should also hopefully put an end to the disruption at the AfD. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit) I've also closed the AfD, though someone might want to check to ensure I've got the procedure right, as it's my first :P EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back, though to be fair it is very different - shorter and about the report, rather than the report itself. I !voted delete, no notability established in the AfD and I can't say I've changed my mind but User:Whereistheproof does seem to be addressing some of the concerns raised in the AfD.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it had been recreated while I was composing an explanation for his talk page. I agree that it's improved though, compared to the previous version; perhaps we can leave that version up and see how things develop (though I think AfD may still be its eventual destination). EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Whereistheproof. — neuro^(talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. He now appears to be editing as an IP too, though given the user's obvious unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that may be accidental (he's currently objecting to a speedy deletion tag that doesn't exist). EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated it for CSD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallo's Egg. I see little improvement, and more garbage on the article page. I chose not to wipe it to gather more discussions if need be. seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection here; I can't see it surviving another AfD even in its 'improved' form. Might be worth salting too? EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A little investigation suggests that this report is a big deal to some people and that one of the subjects of the report is quite prominent - In the 90's, Science magazine did a 3 month study into his refusal to accept the link between HIV and AIDS and he's mentioned on the AIDS denialism article. I'm not in any way supporting the article or the message it spreads, but wonder if a redirect to the denialism article would be more productive than deletion? GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems very sensible - done. EyeSerene^talk 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

Concerning the death of Baby P, there is a British ruling protecting the names of the baby and two of the adults convicted of his murder. On the talk page, it has been pointed out that this is primarily to protect Baby P's siblings. Nevertheless, the names of those involved are available on the Internet if you search hard enough. Various editors have put the names in, but have been reverted and there is some discussion on the talk page indicating that this is the preferred state for the article.

It has been suggested on the talk page that the edits naming the people involved be deleted entirely - otherwise it's pointless reverting since the information is still easily visible.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is. Legally, Wikipedia is probably safe. Out of respect for the decision of the British courts and in the interests of protecting these individuals, I wanted to raise the issue here to see if administrators believe deleting parts of the history is the right thing to do. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally wikipedia doesn't have to do anything. (Although British editors should take care!) However, our "do no harm" rule comes in here. The law is passed to prevent harm to minors, by reducing the prominence of their names in print. (A prominence that will endure into adulthood!). Given the intent of the law, the possibility of harm to minors, and the fact that the names add little to the reader's appreciation of the case and its significance, then all such names should be expunged from wikipedia pages.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting that you comment about British editors - it was something that also occured to me. I could say that I have an onus and duty to uphold the court's decision and should remove the material on that basis irregardless of consensus or 3RR! But I can't delete it entirely, which is why I've come here. The "do no harm" is a policy I can agree with without any hint of sarcasm and wonder if that's enough to scrub the edit history. I can do the work in finding the diffs if required of me. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They have all been oversighted, and I am leaving the user a note now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind. There are other examples in the edit history. Would you like me to go back over it and provide you with the diffs? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have got one more oversighted, and added a commented warning. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, if one person could please email the list of diffs (any/all that contain the names) to the list mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, that would be great.

Also, we have the ability to add notice when a specific page is edited - could someone create one of those for this article, informing the would-be editor that these names are being systematically reverted by editors, and oversighters are removing the edits. Note that semi-protection isnt likely to be effective - it is also regular contributors who are adding the names. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that semi-protection still could be more effective than nothing at all. I will add the edit notice if necessary, but for now I would think that the standard comment warning will suffice. Naturally, if someone feels different, the page is at the /Editnotice subpage. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the decision of the British courts was made to "protect the children" however I am not quite agreeing with this decision, especially as the talk page seems barren of any real discussions of concensus apart from some randomly placed yells of wikipedia is not cneosred. It brings to mind Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required where the opposite decision to this one was reached on a similar case. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This case is a unique situation, and requires a sui generis solution. It is certainly within the spirit of the relevent policies, such as WP:BLP, to do no harm. While this situation may not be covered within the text of any policy, this is an WP:IAR case in the sense that what is best for the encyclopedia is to avoid propagating harm against individuals who themselves did nothing to deserve it. I endorse the removal and oversight of their names; and feel that there is no value to the information being added to the article. I am not bothered by the lack of policy guidance in how to proceed here; common sense says that removal is the right move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More diffs should they wish to be oversighted. I think you got the rest. Thanks:

• information added [198], some info removed [199], rest of info removed [200]
• on talk page [201], removed here [202]
• another one [203], removed here [204]
• new one [205], removed here [206]

As for the comment about lack of discussion on the talk page, yes, there wasn't much, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the prospective harm outweighed the insignificant benefits. I also wanted to take discussion away from the talk page to an arena that was more likely to be neutral - ie here. Also, the names will doubtless be released in time and they can be added then. GDallimore (Talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, there is a guideline that is relevant to the mother and her partner: Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_names

How widely disseminated are the names? Appearances in news sources or on blogs/forums? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it matters much, but it's apparently on some blogs and also on Myspace (I'm told). The BBC did publish the names, but then took the report down although it can still be found through google if you're really desperate. A paper referred to as "gutter press" published the names. Can't recall the details. That's about all I know based on the article history. GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Newsexpress

Resolved

This person deliberately wants to start an edit war . Read edit summury.[207] I was on huggle so I reverted his edit (thought it was page blanking/vandalism) but now I guess I shouldn't revert him to stay away from any dispute. Also this [208]. --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 11:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned with {{uw-3rr}}, next time they do it they will be blocked. — neuro^(talk) 12:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They did indeed vandalise another page after their final warning (the term 'final warning' seems to be disputed by SoWhy, who also removed my report from AIV since they were here at ANI). Not sure where to go from here, I always thought AIV was a supplement to ANI, but apparently not. — neuro^(talk) 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy has blocked them. — neuro^(talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I blocked the user now because of the 3rr-warning and subsequent breach (see my talk page for further reasoning why I removed the report from AIV). Probably a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonu-nn. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)