Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

WP:UP#NOT

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

Resolved

 – all offending links are now DEAD from Delicious carbuncle's userpage

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)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Wikipedia user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on wikipedia to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Wikipedia and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is wikipedia a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow wikipedia policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog?[1] I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Wikipedia being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Wikipedia. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on wikipedia which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time, wikipedia does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Wikipedia is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been rejected by Delicious carbuncle.[2] Ty 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not acceptable

This page[3] would not be permitted on a user page. It violates WP:UP#NOT and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space. It is not acceptable to game the system by posting an external link to it instead. The page concerns a banned editor, and a real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan" with the comment "I couldn't have agreed with this statement more", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the commentator states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". The fact that some of this was stated on wikipedia is irrelevant. Some of it shouldn't have been in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be compiled and attention drawn further to it. All of this is far in excess of Delicious carbuncle's purported motive of simply asserting that s/he is not Pauline Berry, which can be achieved by a plain statement to that effect. If Dc, as appears the case, is not willing to voluntarily remove the link, then it would be best done by someone not significantly involved in this discussion. Dc has indicated that this is acceptable, but if they then replace it, they should be blocked for doing so. Ty 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would second the above. The link is not acceptable merely because DC has found some random line on a guidleline page that may be used to kinda-sorta justify it. WP:OUTING is a sacrosacnt policy at Wikipedia. We cannot control what happens off-wiki, but we really should prevent people from making any attempt on-wiki to out other users, and linking to a page which outs a Wikipedia user is the same as outing on the wiki itself. If the link is removed, then there would be no problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread I'm being unnecessarily threatened with blocking (both times by admins who have off-wiki contact with Bellinghaus). I've made my position clear in my earlier comments. If quoting the guideline that I'm supposedly breaking is finding "a random line" and wikilawyering then there's little I can say in my defense. I'm making no further comments here so that I won't be blocked for being "disruptive" which is usually what comes next in these kinds of witch hunts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I personally believe that this does not need to be solved at an administrator level. As I'm officially a neutral party with no real previous interactions with either, I have offered to John and DC to informally mediate. If they both agree I would personally like to put this ANI issue on hold until then. To start, I would like to only involve the 2 original parties, and will involve additional comment later. I am awaiting response from John and DC on my talkpage in order to move forward with a resolution that is acceptable to WP and all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

A mediator should be neutral. I do not regard Bwilkins as neutral, so I reject this offer. The consensus here seems reasonably clear in favor of removing the attack link. I suggest that Bwilkins or another party remove the link, and that DC be blocked for a short period if they restore it. DC has rejected what seemed to be a reasonable compromise offer in favor of the status quo, which I don't think is acceptable. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a sad understanding of both WP:CONSENSUS and of my own neutrality, if the above is actually what you believe. I'm actually quite blown away that you have no realization that your "opponent" is also a human being with feelings, and that I (as about the 4th person who was disagreeing against only 2 others) was somehow against "consensus", and is anything other than neutral. Wow. Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Marking as resolved as the link no longer works from DC's page. ►BMW◄ 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Block evasion (related issue)

Mark Bellinghaus' self-identified account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here. An account previously part of this Bellinghaus-related SSP case has recently begun editing again, on Mark Bellinghaus. Anyone having read the above thread should understand and recognize the accusations made here, even though they didn't make sense to me at the time. Weareallone (talk · contribs) is quite obviously Bellinghaus evading his block. SPA TerpischoreMuse (talk · contribs) is a likely sock as well. Can someone please look at blocking? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright concerns, input requested

• User:Chrisieboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following up a note at WT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material to Anglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice about London Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay, here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did, here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation is a personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add UIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice from WP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hopefully your input and that of Doug Weller at my talk page will help underscore the seriousness of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this - back in January this year he tried to get me 3RR-blocked for reverting his addition of a non-free-use image without valid rationale - see here. More relevant would be the simultaneous discussion on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page (here in his archives), in which Chrisieboy tries hard to Wikilawyer us into believing he's right. It's crystal-clear that Chrisieboy has learnt nothing from this, and the observable trend is concerning - we have a serious copyright violator here. _TalkIslander 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, considering that The Co-operative Bank seems also to have been an infringement I cannot read the source, but the contributor who cleaned it is the one who brought the problem to WT:CP to begin with, and he has been correct with respect to other contributions, as when he cleaned District Bank. The contributor attempted to restore that, too. See here. His response to that contributor for restoring infringement to Anglia Regional seems illuminating: "Sorry, I thought (hoped) you had disappeared." I've been working on some other copyright concerns, but hope to have time to take a deeper look at some other contributions later. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message from Chrisieboy in you post is very concerning, to say the least... _TalkIslander 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 or 3 lapses into cutting and pasting by Chrisieboy, that I cleaned up one by one without disagreement. I hadn't wished to trawl through all his contributions, so after inviting Moonriddengirl's intervention, I am surprised to learn that there are so many so early in the search, and surprised that his perception of free content has lasted so long.

He is a serious contributor, and has a featured article to his name (much more than I have) and I have dealt with him cordially in the past. I notice that he has done little editing in the last two weeks, and I sincerely hope that he acts to de-escalate things, and we can look forward to more of his very useful contributions here.

Oh, by the way, I can't read the source for the possible copyvio at The Co-operative Bank either. However, Google Scholar seems pretty certain that the text I deleted came from that 1996 article. Chrisieboy did not contest my deletion there.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been the very model of civility in this. :) Good contributions can balance well against a lot of concerns, but persistent copyright infringement is not among them. In my opinion, on the contrary, copyright problems are even more worrisome with a prolific and dedicated contributor, since we do run the risk that copyright violations will work their way into what should be Wikipedia's best content. I hope that this contributor has simply misunderstood the policies and laws in question and that there won't be any further infringement, but his defensiveness in response to these concerns (including in the initial article's talk page, on my talk page and in response to the issues raised by TheIslander above) and his removal of the matter from WP:SCV does concern me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Personally I'd like to have some kind of assurance from Chrisieboy that he now understands the issues and won't be repeating them. In the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off, I think future contributions will also need to be monitored, and to protect Wikipedia the account should be blocked at the first sign of any new problems. As Moonriddengirl has pointed out, a good contribution history often does result in the odd hiccup being overlooked, but copyright violation could have consequences for Wikipedia as a whole and we have no option but to take this very seriously. If we don't get these reassurances as to future behaviour, but editing continues, I'd suggest perhaps blocking the account until we do. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Chrisieboy to come, take a look at and comment on this thread - hopefully he will, and if so, we'll take it from there. _TalkIslander 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see that he has not edited in several days, but hopefully he'll choose to participate soon. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Some of the contributions here are way out of perspective, for instance Islander's remarks (on an entirely separate matter which occurred nearly a year ago) "that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this." I can't "get [Islander] 3RR-blocked," only he/she can do that by his/her actions, I can however, follow proper procedure and, on that occasion, Islander was not blocked or warned. Also, in response to EyeSerene's comments "in the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off," I would remind you I am a volunteer here, so please remember to assume good faith. Anything I contribute to the encyclopedia is part of the public record, as my edit history reveals and my attempts "to laugh [it] off" amount to a challenge to deleting the entire page, when only one section was called into question.

The importance of this policy has been impressed upon me, but I do take exception the above character assassination. EyeSerene's warning on my talk page is one thing, but now to "suggest perhaps blocking [my] account" because I decline to participate in this discussion, is quite frankly an abuse of power. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Evidence suggests that you have blatantly pasted content from a for-pay student essay to Wikipedia which moreover was linked from our front page. In light of that and persistent copyright concerns, after notification by CorenBot and advisement by a fellow contributor, blocking your account unless you are willing to address these concerns seems quite reasonable and within policy. The assumption of good faith "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." A refusal to acknowledge and frankly address these concerns would certainly be contrary evidence. In fact, in the face of what seems to be an action that would have you expelled from many educational institutions for academic dishonesty, allowing you an opportunity to continue to edit is in itself an assumption of good faith. In addition, refusal to engage in discussion about conduct concerns is listed as a form of disruptive editing, which can be in itself due grounds for blocking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I must also note that I believe you have misinterpreted the characterization of your actions here. I'm sure EyeSerene will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine reference to laughing it off was to this edit, which had nothing to do with the blanking of the whole page but with your restoring the single disputed section here, after previously having restored it here, here and here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be continued Wikilawyering here. His characterization of filing a 3RR report as "proper procedure" rings hollow. Filing a 3RR report is a pain in the ass, and people only do it if they expect/hope action to result from it. Nobody fills out a 3RR report just because they happened to notice someone making four reverts in 24 hours -- people only fill out the report if they think the reverts were inappropriate and/or want to see action taken against the person in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would remind you I am a volunteer here...". Oh please. I would like to remind you that we are all volunteers here. You're continued wikilawyering is doing you no favours - Jaysweet, above, puts it very well. The bottom line, which all editors in this thread seem to agree on, is this: you have been made clear of various policies regarding copyright, and have acknowledged this. Any single further breach of these policies by yourself will result in a block. _TalkIslander 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging v. untagging

Hi there, I did a stint at new page patrol, and I'm rather new to it, so I'm just trying my best. This article Sho Uchida doesn't seem to have established notability, so I've tried to tag it, but I get reverted. If someone wants to explain why I'm wrong (there is no edit summary in the reversions) or suggest the appropriate course of action, I'm all ears... or eyes, as the case may be. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert either, but if the contents on the page is correct the page does meet notability, see WP:BIO "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9]", so you should not have added a notability tag, what you might question is the references, my chines is not so good and a better reference should be resonably easy to find. On the other hand, to just revert you was not really correct either, the user that removed the tag should have explained in the comment why he removed your tag. --Stefan ^talk 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not really worried about the other user, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. Does this mean that every Olympian can have an article? What about Div. 1 athletes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. --Stefan ^talk 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on this line of WP:BIO is currently happening at the talk page of the guideline. Fram (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input and the pointer to the relevant discussion. It's been helpful to me. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, why don't you ask the person undoing your edits why they did do so? It is much easier and friendlier than directly going to an noticeboard over something like that. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not an appropriate use of rollback by Yellow Monkey. He reverted clearly good faith edits. Enigma ^message 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have notified YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) that he is being discussed on an Administrators' noticeboard. Should you mention an editor (and especially an Administrator whose actions are being scrutinised) on a noticeboard, please take a second to issue them a notice in the interests of courtesy, and to solicit their view and/or an explanation on the matter—such is the routine discussion etiquette and procedure, really. Thanks, AGK 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know he was an administrator, as his userpage contains no such designation and he's not in the category. Either way, it was more of an aside than anything. Not worth any drama. Enigma ^message 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • ...erm, actually, he's an Arb.GJC 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is resolved. I wanted a neutral perspective and some insights, and that's what I got. Thanks to everyone involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice again,

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

Now, I brought this user up here once before because I was unsure him/her, and due to sleep issues, notifying him/her of the discussion slipped my mind.

My original concern with this new user was this edit to Jimbo's user talk page, which is basically an attack/rant/monologue about how his time at WP was running out, he would be replaced, etc.

So far, this user has been rude to various IP users, who, as we all know, are users too. Even if the content of the IP's edit was vandalism, there is a reason that have standardized warning messages. Here are some more, rather rude warnings that the user has left on others' talk pages.

What made me bring this to AN/I again, however, was this edit to my own talk page, as noted in the edit summery, and in the message, this user is telling me to quit wikipedia because of a small mistake involving common courtesy. Not only that, but... well. No, I'll let all of you read the message for yourself. Something needs to be done here, as this user does not seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. I would suggest mentorship.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy's trolling. A misguided user doesn't write a long, elegant rant citing bizarre historical precedents in response to a minor error - i really get the feeling he's just after a reaction. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAPBOX... Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably only fitting that I address all of your concerns in a salient and forthright manner. I would not want anyone to be led astray by the machinations of one Daedalus. As you know, I have already called for his or her resignation. Notice first the inability of Daedalus to confine his or her report to the truth. He or she accuses me of saying time was running out on Jimbo Wales and that he would be replaced. Sadly, neither of these statements are to be found. Given that Daedalus either deliberately misrepresented these facts or lacks the mental ability requisite for the recitation of factual information, asking for his or resignation is appropriate. Nothing short of resignation can remedy the stain of incompetence for which such indifference towards the truth can thrust upon the fact-laden, digital pages of an encyclopedia.

Note also that Daedalus admits to making poor ethical choices while editing due to sleep deprivation. This is an admission of guilt. The integrity of Wikipedia should not be compromised because of the poor decision making of one editor. His or her resignation is in deed appropriate.

Finally, as it pertains to Daedalus, he or she recommends mentorship. I do like this recommendation. Given the significant amount of knowledge I have that I could pass on to others, I do believe I could mentor other people to be excellent contributors to this great project. Unfortunately, I do not possess the time to engage in such mentorship. Hopefully, I can merely lead by example. Perhaps such a compromise would be to everyone’s liking.

Next, I will address Mazca. I thank Mazca for recognizing me as speaking in “elegant” fashion as well as having mastery of “historical precedents.” No doubt such ability and knowledge is valuable to such a project as Wikipedia. Thank you for your words, Mazca.

Regrettably, I come now to address the unfortunate comments of Gwen Gale. This user directed a savage and vile warning at me, for which there was no merit or validity. This user charged me with failing to assume good faith. Note that such an outlandish claim is both unwarranted and unsupported. When I rightly called for the resignation of Daedalus, I specifically said, “If you want the best for Wikipedia, as I believe you do…” Not only did I assume good faith, I assumed the very best of faith on the part of Daedalus. Thus, I have judicially and gracefully decided to dismiss the warning on the part of Gwen Gale.

To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Wikipedia.

As a final matter, I turn my attention to Grsz11. This editor is guilty of a crime most foul. He or she has engaged in edits so reckless that the very metaphorical fabric of justice has been torn. This user has removed numerous of edits. These edits were designed to prevent the continued destruction of Wikipedia by vandals. These vandals seek to harm Wikipedia by leaving scurrilous epithets, frivolous comments, and otherwise unbecoming intellectual products on the digital pages of Wikipedia. Grsz11 has abrogated the justice due these hooligans. As the people of Mississippi denied justice to Emmett Till, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Adolf Hitler denied Anne Frank justice, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Pontius Pilate denied Jesus Christ Justice, so too has Grsz11 crucified me for my righteousness and honored the evil of the wicked. Grsz11, there is no place for your kind of disdain towards the ethical realm on Wikipedia. Atone for your sins, Grsz11, and resign. In one final act of selflessness, resolve to make Wikipedia a better place. Resign.

Thank you. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the most gratuitous violations of WP:NPA (and even some wikilawyering) that I have seen in awhile. You had to make 4 or 5 edits to this page, just so that you could slip in some inflammatory commentary (possibly even equating actions to racism). Wow. My applause shall have no end. Gigli was more enjoyable than that rant. ►BMW◄ 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, for any reviewing, even though it may be blatantly obvious, I never said I was going to resign, or that I planned to, and, although I mentioned the diff the first time I was here about this user, I'll mention it again: the user telling Jimbo that, basically, his time is running out. I shall also note this diff above in the starting paragraph of my report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Given I'd already warned this editor, I've blocked 48 hours for personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Words fail me. That's an awful lot of words for no purpose at all. I second Gwen's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this user isn't that new to wikipedia? Also, I've gone and reverted his inappropriate warnings, as Grz had done(I got what he missed).— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small note, it had been about two days passed after I notified this user of this thread before he replied, either he doesn't edit wikipedia often, or there is some other reason, my point being, that if it is the former, he might not even notice he was blocked. He needs to be watched.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs

I've posted this at WP:BLPN, but vandalism is going uncorrected so perhaps admin attention would be beneficial. This is an article about a recent suicide that was allegedly broadcast live over Justin.tv. It's already internet-famous and has attracted the attention of the chans. There is likely to be a lot of traffic to this page over the next few days, so I'd like it to be on as many watchlists as possible. Danke, the skomorokh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this per WP:BLP1E or something? Or per WP:CSD#G13, "articles that drag the encyclopedia even further down into the tabloid gutter"? --barneca (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics like this always resurface, and reliable coverage of them tends to emerge slightly slower than coverage in tabloids/blogs. To delete now would not serve any long term purpose. See Megan Meier, Jason Fortuny etc. the skomorokh 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be callous, but if he is dead how is this a WP:BLP issue? – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual response would be family, friends etc. You can imagine how inaccurate information about Abe's suicide disseminated via Wikipedia might effect them. the skomorokh 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but as it stands WP:BLP applies only to living people. I agree that the article should stick to the facts and avoid tabloidism etc, but that is pursuant to WP:V, WP:RS etc. If material otherwise conforms to WP policies and guidelines, we should not, in my view, be censoring it out of sympathy for his family.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that the article be censored out of sympathy for his family; I only mentioned BLPN so that editors here would not recommend I post it there. I would simply like responsible editors, preferably including some admins to watch the article so that vandalism is quickly dealt with and high standards of sourcing (note the types of sources that have been used so far in the article's history) observed. Regards, the skomorokh 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per BLP1E. While there is some coverage by sources much more notable than those that were present, this is still a classical example of what Wikipedia should not publish - we're not a news site nor tabloid. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way, I guess I am. I don't mean per the exact wording of BLP, but the philosophy behind it; that we should try not to be dicks when it affects real people, like any family or friends. Having this pop up as an article while the body is still warm just makes me feel like I'm associated with jackels and hyenas. I wish we were more civilized and let one of the 10,000 websites devoted to immediate pop-internet phenomena deal with stuff like this. I also wish I had a million dollars, though, and that's not going to happen either. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted. What foresight.[4] the skomorokh 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by, among others, the Associated Press and The Times. WP:BLP1E does not justify speedy deleting articles, it only justifies—"cover the event, not the person"—moving and refocusing articles. I propose that the Abraham K. Biggs article be restored and moved to Suicide of Abraham K. Biggs, with the aforementioned coverage in reliable sources added. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Biggs represents a larger issue. Many people are curious about this incident, and there are several links to the now non-existent page. All facts were double-checked, and the page was rewritten for proper tone. Every paragraph had a reference. Several people worked to write a proper page, and no warning of the deletion appeared. Pepso2 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If he represents a larger issue, then write an article on the larger issue. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore People who just learned about this on CNN are turning to Wikipedia for more information and finding zilch. Pepso2 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If they learned about it on CNN, then there's a strong likelihood that they are now in possession of all the facts which can be reliably confirmed. Since we should not, per policy , have anything more than that, there's not much need for us to have an article until the facts come out, the dust settles, and the wolves and jackals stop licking their chops over the tabloid-exploitable nature of this tragedy. We should let the poor guy's body cool down, rather than sticking a flag into a mountain of questionable "facts" and claim "we got here first".GJC 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of Biggs' family: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtO167ywBhMURgOmp4ScpR7rBdvgD94JV9P80 Pepso2 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be restored. Has been the subject of media coverage, like Kevin Neil Whitrick was.-Boshinoi (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it should at least be restored and subject to AfD discussion. WP:CSD explicitly does not list "biographies of people notable for one event", so this deletion was out of process.-Boshinoi (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simple Wikilawyering. BLP violations may be deleted on sight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He is dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. We fall back on WP:RS and the other relevant policies and guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

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

I would like to ask for a community review of editor Krzyzowiec. I have run accross him in relation to the National Revival of Poland article. After looking through the history of his contributions, it seems to me that this is a highly tendentious POV-pushing editor who is a net negative to the project. His user page essentially proclaims that his intention is to do WP:BATTLE here: "I am here to edit a lot of English Wikipedia's articles about Poland and Polish right wing or "middle" movements, history etc. because a lot of articles here are written by Polish left wing liars. I'm here also because Polish Wikipedia isn't fair, 3/4 of Polish Wikipedia's Administrators have left - liberal point of view on everything and they make changes as they believe in real life, so their articles aren't fair." There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!" His edit history shows that a great deal of his edits are indeed related to extreme far right, fascism and Jews related articles and appear to be exactly of the kind that WP:BATTLE proscribes against. There are 5 blocks from May to August of this year for edit warring, 3RR, incivility, personal attacks and the like. Although there are no more recent blocks than the one-week block on August 11, it does not seem to me that the editor changed his attitude much or that he is in any mood to reform. Just by looking at the edits for the last few days, one sees the following examples: an anti-Jewish rant[5], tendentious fact tags[6], more tendentious and clearly inappropriate tags[7] on National Revival of Poland (the article is well-sourced and the notability and primary sources tags are obviously not abpplicable), an edit summary[8] Who are you to decide what belongs in the article ?!, and finally the charming placement[9] of the fact tag next to the statement about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax in the List of conspiracy theories article. All this shows a dedicated POV and WP:BATTLE warrior who is here for the wrong reasons. I think that either an indef block or a topic ban on all Poland, Jews and fascism related articles would be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community review as you said, wouldn't a request for comment for user conduct fit that bill nicely? That is, that would be the best way to go if a topic ban is desired. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is for less clear-cut cases than this one. Here, according to the proclamations at his talk page and his actions, we have a self-described POV warrior whose main motivation on Wikipedia is to do WP:BATTLE and whose actions confirm this. I do not believe that this is a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as a "rant against the Jews" as you say and quote: >>There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!"<< I see nothing wrong with what was said, and it's a sad state to see any mention of a Jew lead to accusations of insensitivity or antisemitism. In addition, his ideas and opinions on the "left wing liars" bending Poland related articles towards their views...well it may be true! Who are you to decline him the opportunity to contribute here? The editing power of Wikipedia, the way this place works, prevents a lone person from hurting the project. Everything can be undone. I think you're over reacting, and I see no action necessary against this man. Good luck though. Beam 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You do not think that the passage about the Jews ending with This is how you pay us back ?! as offensive and repulsive? Now, that is pretty sad. What about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax fact tag? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Beamathan: Sorry no... Wikipedia is not the place to post ones political views regardless of whether said views support the left or right wing of any political system. Wikipedia is about collecting verifiable information from reliable sources and reporting that information in a neutral manner. Its not the place to post random rants about personal beliefs over conspiracies and the like. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, if one wants to post their personal political views, there's another place called "the rest of the internet" where such views are quite welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is precisely what WP:BATTLE is about. Someone who, according to their own user page, comes to Wikipedia with a self-professed agenda of fighting some political and ideological battles here should find another place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• This report seems to document disruptive editing. The appropriate response is an indefinite block. The user is repeatedly violating WP:NOT by using Wikipedia to advocate their political/historical views. Additionally, they are engaged in a campaign of anti-semitism. It is fairly easy to spot their use of traditional code words and arguments. This diff really gives it away. The user has not edited since the notice about this thread was posted to their talk page. I will hold off on blocking them in case they want to respond here. Should they resume disruption on any other page, I or any other administrator should block them immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

This user is banned for three years currently on Polish Wikipedia for all kinds of disruptive editing block log. Just one diff from pl wiki titled "Why I am (here)" [10] - one section of the user page is titled "Dlaczego jestem Antysemitą ?! (Why I am an antisemite), when long collection of anti-Jewish quotes follows. This is year 2006. And this is year 2008 and en.wiki: [11] openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language. Anti-Semitic "Talmud quote" (a forgery still popular in modern far-right and anti-Semitic circles) is cited: Žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit. ("Jew can not steal, he takes what belongs to him. The money of non-Jew is a property without owner, Jew has a full right to take it"). This user claims to be associated with National Revival of Poland on his user page. When talking about this organization he often uses word We. So agenda behind his edits at National Revival of Poland article is quite clear. Disruptive abuse of templates is repeated on regular basis for months now [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Recently Krzyzowiec stated what he would never leave this article [18], and I believe him. M0RD00R (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to take into account his activities outside of English Wikipedia, although I do think that his behaviour here, in en-wiki has been sufficiently disruptive to merit an indef block. Are you sure, and if yes then why, that the user on Polish Wikipedia whom you referenced and User:Krzyzowiec are the same person? Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on my non-admin account until I get back to a secure computer. I believe you can go ahead with the block if you are uninvolved. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kryzowiec is not here to benefit the encyclopedia. Going through his contribution history needs a strong stomach; take a look at this edit from 22 November. I support an indef block. (Nsk92 notified me of this thread, and reminded me I'd blocked K. previously for 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Florentino Floro who claimed to talk to invisible dwarfs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnitzled (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That picture...wow what has been seen cannot be unseen. On topic, that talk page might need to be locked down to prevent further, uh....rants. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aagggghhhhh where's my eye bleach?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

...sitting with mouth unhinged....That's just...i mean...Dude. That's the most....no. Seriously. Dude. I mean....what the...DUDE! What the FA...... No, man, seriously. I mean....why would you...what did...

...shakes it off... I'm going to bed. Would someone please come and remove my brain while I sleep? Thanks. GJC 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my turn to be no fun, I guess. Folks, this is somebody with schizophrenia. He has a brain disease that makes him behave erratically. That doesn't mean he has a license to disrupt Wikipedia, but it means that we should take the necessary measures without making fun of him -- in spite of how tempting it is. looie496 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the amount of time, thought, and--good heavens!--typing involved in the creation of that userpage. Can you imagine how long it took to write and format all that? Or how many articles could have been written during that interval, or with that number of keystrokes?? (I would add to his list of probable maladies "repetitive stress injury to the wrist"!) The content may be....um....yeah, something...but it's among the best-organized, most-fluent "um-yeah-something" I've ever encountered. Despite his diagnoses, he shows an impressive mastery of language and communication--assuming (and it's a BIG assumption!) you can ignore the WTF-ness of the content. (Could have lived without those ::::shudder::: pictures, however...Well, the "violet" one was pretty, anyhow.)GJC 06:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never underestimate the sheer endurance of those who've been Called By God, dear Gladys. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that fact mentioned on his page, but anyway, wouldn't it be better if Wikipedia prevented user pages from being indexed by Google? Surely such an action would prevent certain Wikipedia admins from bragging on slashdot that they're more popular than other famous people with the same name, but I don't consider this side effect a bad thing. Pcap ping 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

o_O I had no idea that we actually had an article on him... Wow. And Cortez, I'd be glad to remove your brain :) Anyways, what is it that we should do? ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the last version of the mainspace article that was written mostly by Floro himself [19]. Quite different from the current article, isn't it? He was clearly using his user page for more of his POV. The article and his user page are the top 2 hits on Google when searching for "Florentino Floro". Indexing of user pages makes soapboxing too easy for all but banned users. Of course, given his psychotic antecedents, Floro just embarrasses himself on his user page, probably without even realizing it. I don't think that facilitating self-ridicule of the mentally ill is a goal of Wikipedia. Good job blanking the page, but not allowing Google to index such pages would be better. Pcap ping 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The next time Bill O'Reilly goes off on a rant about American judges, he should take a look at this Judge. He may seem like a nutcase, but how many are not that far away from becoming what this guy is? In short - judge not, lest ye be Judge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's totally nuts. He's been spouting his nonsense on other forums and people's blogs as late as this month, identifying himself as "established Wikipedia editor Florentino Floro" and "creator of legendary 14 page forum thread." He's also been mailing viruses and copies of his books to bloggers and Wikipedia editors, and pestering us with friend requests on every social networking site available. I browsed through his 900 page book which he emailed to a Wiki admin, and it's just an archive of all his forum posts and rants from the talk namespace. --Migs (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the poor chap is bat-shit insane. Quite sad really. One feels for his friends and family. Can he not be ignored in the hope that he'll eventually slip into dignified obscurity? X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I actually came here to say. Users LUIS_Armand_and_Angel and Judgefloro are two of the dozen alternate accounts he claims to have. This is in addition to the now blocked Juanatoledo. They haven't been active since 2007, but should something be done about those accounts? Especially since he declared his intention to keep editing either anonymously or under another name. --Migs (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, it is good to see this issue (finally) getting some attention from the community. I think the proposal to prevent google from indexing user pages is a really good one. Where could that be taken up? xschm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins may also want to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, which he has recently been claiming that he won (presumably on the grounds that his account wasn't permanently banned on the spot). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel bad seeing that page blanked. It's like the world's longest monument to formal thought disorder next to the randomly-faxed pamphlets of Francis E. Dec. And this one's got pictures! I will admit, I laughed myself hoarse over the shirtless one with the rifle. God love this place... Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply, deeply upset by the comments I'm reading above. It's completely inappropriate to talk so disparagingly of someone who has worked hard on Wikipedia for quite some period of time. Can we consider unblocking him now? Have any conditions been discussed? If there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. At the very least, let's restore his user page and quit adding insult to injury. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring his user page would in no way be in the interests of Wikipedia. If we did that, it would be a statement that almost anything except attack pages is acceptable in userspace. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so totally pleased that people are now finally talking about how crazy this is. For so so long, I thought no one else could see it. TheCoffee (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, and smell the coffee! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pcap ping 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I IAR and delete the personal images? We (and I suppose, he) don't really want anybody out there to turn some of those into some internet meme or something, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, they are all on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, let me guess, we can't delete a picture of a half-naked psychotic individual holding a rusty rifle because it's free content? No WP:IAR on commons? Pcap ping 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Holly dwarfs! Did anyone check out his commons user page? Pcap ping 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we just need to find a commons admin. I don't know if the user is even blocked over at commons yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit in doubt about deleting all his images. This one won't scare the children. He's been admonished for uploading lots of personal images to commons (see his talk page there). The irony is that he's an encyclopedic subject, so some pictures of him may be appropriate. But we should have some decency, even if he lacks judgment, and it's all too easy to make fun of him. Pcap ping 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, uh...nice pictures -shifty eyes- , but I really can't see any encyclopedic value in them. I'm not really familiar with the deletion policies, but I really feel uncomfortable with just letting those images sit there. ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time and patience to go over his uploads, I think most of them can be tagged for deletion [20] because they fail [21]. Pcap ping 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is taking admin abuse to a new level

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

Resolved

 – Yeah, this complaint is going nowhere fast. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems incline to take the definition of admin abuse to a new level. He is the ultimate epitome of unsavory administrator conducts.

In his most recent exploit, Future Perfect at Sunrise aggressively albeit controversially pushed for the lifting of the ban of User:Alex contributing from L.A., who has a habit of making death threats, creating ban-evading sockpuppets, and possessing an overall lack of respect for the due process. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Alex_contributing_from_L.A. He controversially unblocked the ban-evading sockpuppet Alex contribution from L.A. himself after little discussion on AN/I [22] claiming that there was since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked

As a neutral editor, I noticed the AN/I thread and immediately questioned Future Perfect's judgment in this episode as well as his categorization of "fundamental opposition". Alex from L.A. was extremely hostile, but Future Perfect's continue to patronize the ban-evading sock. Future Perfect, angry at the fact that someone is questioning his judgment, became extremely defensive and was eager to shut me up by saying "let's close this discussion". He accused me of NPA against ban-evading sock Alex. [23] He then tried to exonerate Alex's pass transgression and sockpuppetry [[24]] as well as demonstrating a flawed understanding of WP:SOCK. He then failed to assume good faith WP:AGF by accusing me of 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?[[25]]

He then launched a relentless campaign to wiki-stalk/harass my contributions as well as censor/impede my editing. He even threatened to block me [[26]] just because I questioned his unblock of a ban-evading sock. After he stalked my contribution, an edit war occured at Salma Hayek [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]]. He continued to threaten to block me, even claiming that "conflict of interest" does not apply despite the fact that no other editor reverted me during this time except himself. [[31]] He seems to be reverting out of personal vendetta. Even my attempt to compromise by telling him to move the objectionable sentence to another part of the article was rebuffed as he continued to hurl insults in edit summary such as accusing me of being a sexist, misogynist, among other personal attacks.

I urge the community to take decisive action against this rogue admin who plays by his own rule, have little regards for the due process or wikipedia policies. I demand a formal apology and I also sincerely hope this admin can refrain from wikistalking and censoring my edits based on personal vendetta. If this desysopping is the only solution, then we have to do what we have to.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Alex situation, but your behavior at Selma Hayek was quite bad. Your post here is ridiculous. If your other allegations are as sensible as what you're saying at the Selma Hayek situation, I see no reason to look into them. Wikipedia requires that editors behave like reasonable adults. If you're unable to do that, this is not the place for you. Friday (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. You try to force content onto a WP:BLP about someone's breasts and then scream "censorship" when removed? Sorry, not going to fly. Ronnotel (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, you are one of those people who can't look past my userpage and tried to censor it. Judge someone by their contributions, not by their userpage.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that. This time around, I was looking at your contributions. Altho, now that I look.. your userpage is inappropriate. Please put this content on your own website, not on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go thru your contributions and see if all your edits are as dumb as the one at Salma Hayek, so I guess without research I can't just block you as a troll. But that's a really stupid edit, and it makes me have zero interest in whether you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate gripe here. No, that's not quite right; it makes me quite confident if I actually spent time researching it, I'd find it was groundless. Perhaps leave Wikipedia to the grownups? Or go focus on your sure-to-succeed ArbCom candidacy? Or something? I tried for over a minute to resist hitting "save page" on this, in the interests of assuming good faith and civility and treat the children with respect, etc., but I failed. Shoo. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmppphh. Not really worth commenting here, is it? If anybody besides NWA.Rep should want a comment from me, let me know. Absent that, I intend to continue upholding BLP standards of quality against people who think it is a good idea to claim of prominent Hollywood actresses such as Scarlett Johannson that their notability rests wholly or entirely on the size of their breasts [32]. Have fun desysopping me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With contributions like this (notice the player's name and the poor format of a four digit number), this, this, this, and this, maybe it'd be better for you if people judged you on your userpage. Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you tell people to go fuck yourself? User:Badger_Drink/sandbox If we are not talking about breasts, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, wikipedians are overly puritan.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

(Obviously a new meaning of the word "Resolved" than I was previously aware of :-) "Hi, I'm leaving Wikipedia for good, but please continue to vote for me") ►BMW◄ 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not really "retired", he's just an active free agent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one useful thing can come of this

Any reason not to just go ahead and community ban? Apparently many are familiar with, and tired of, these antics. Friday (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at users contribs- quite a few edits exactly the same as those to Selma Hayek- to other female celebrities' articles. While I'm not sure we're at community ban yet, a block for disruption seems to be in order. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and community ban me :-)) – Seriously though, I'm not familiar enough with NWA.Rep to judge such a suggestion. Note that he has a longer history, including some Arbcom conflict, under his previous account name "Certified Gangsta". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Freestyle.king; User:Bonafide.hustla; other former identities of NWA. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, I see a significant block log, and I see a fundamental lack of "getting it". If he's been around the project over 2 years and still treats Wikipedia like his personal playground, I don't see how it's reasonable to assume he'll shape up. I'm not all that familiar with him either, but in only a few minutes, I've seen enough to know what my opinion on this issue is. Friday (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of such sentences are quite common among the category of big bust models and actresses, usually with citations. I fail to see how an established editor, a rollbacker, an arbCom candidate should be community banned when he questions Future Perfect while Alex from LA is allowed to roam around as a ban-evading sock.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One point; the celebrities and actresses whose articles you have edited with respect to shape, size, naturalness (or otherwise) of their breasts, are not notable for that fact - as they are not for the shapeliness of their legs, the colour and styling of their hair, or the occurrence of freckles upon their skin - but for their body of work and the recognition by the public and their industry for their abilities. In this one matter you are consistently at fault, and no pointing toward other peoples perceived infractions should divert anyone from it. As for your "qualifications"; being around a long time without being banned (although blocked, and under different usernames) is no indication of legitimacy, anyone with the relevant number of edits over the qualifying period can run for arbcom (and you are not really among the favourites to gain a seat, it should be said), and being provided with Rollback is yet another indication on how low the standards are in being granted that tool. In truth, I do not support a community ban because you are not worth the effort of the discussion - sooner or later you are going to do something crass enough to get yourself indef blocked... and no-one is going to be concerned enough to unblock you. You do need to seriously consider whether you are able to contribute usefully on this project, and perhaps decide to direct your energies elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given these five unsourced edits to BLPs[33][34][35][36][37], I've blocked User:NWA.Rep 1 week for disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the block, not sure his talk page should have been locked down so quickly... Tan | 39 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now. His email still works. Meantime, I'm ok if someone re-enables it, if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep is a candidate for Arbcom and feel if he is allowed to contest he should be allowed to use his talk page and also be allowed to reply to questions put up. Through do not think Jimbo Wales who maintains high standards will nominate someone blocked or those with recent blocks to Arbcom even in the unlikely event of the candidate winning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-enabled Nwa.Rep's ability to edit his talkpage. Gwen, there was no need to restore the block notice when he'd removed it, per WP:USER (Users may only be prevented from removing declined unblock requests) - Nwa was within his rights to remove it, and should not be prevented from editing the talkpage except in the usual circumstances of abusing the unblock process Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even done writing the block notice and adding the diffs (see the history) when he removed it. Never had that happen before. Edit warring with a blocking admin straight off after the block is only another sign of disruption. As for NWA.Rep being a candidate for arbcom, so much the worse was his flurry of disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) He's allowed to remove whatever warnings he likes from his talkpage, except declined unblock notices Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning. I've been editing here for years and I've never seen a block notice removed like that, without someone putting it back. As late as last March, the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice. Now I know and won't give it a second thought if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk, I didn't assume it was malicious on your part. I was also checking that I hadn't missed something blatant! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I never took it that you thought I'd been untowards. Out of the thousands of block notices I've seen, that may have been the first time I ever saw one reverted so quick and I can't remember ever having seen one not restored. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should add that as per WP:BLANKING, the only kinds of talk page messages that editors may not remove from their own talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... and these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The NWA guy's aggressiveness and vulgarity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, over the mundane subject of baseball player templates, raises questions about his fitness for anything with authority attached to it. That's above and beyond today's 1-week block for edit warring, and his apparent abuse of the rollback privilege. I don't know how the ArbCom works. Would they seriously consider admitting this guy to that committee, given the type of behavior we're seeing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we answer ourselves by asking, Bugs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, between this stuff today, and his previous failure in seeking adminship, he seems to be working his way downhill here, and it just reminded me of Frank Nelson in one particular bit with Jack Benny. Nelson, as a floorwalker in a department store, was giving Benny a hard time, as usual. At one point, it came out that Nelson was related to the store owner, or something. Benny asked him, "Are you working your way up the company ladder?" Nelson answered, "Not exactly. I started as a Vice President!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's written a "poor little me" editorial on his talk page. One of the typical behaviors from someone who's just been blocked. But the block was only for a week. Maybe he'll come back in a week with a bit of perspective and decide that wikipedia is still worthwhile. (I understand, as I've been there too). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove some of his personal attacks on various groups and people on his talk page. He has reverted them. I won't revert back since this will turn out into another edit war. So I'm wondering someone can do something about it =/ Dengero (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One admin locked his user page, and another showed good faith by unlocking it. NWA has now trashed the second admin's good faith. The talk page is riddled with personal attacks towards you and others, and should be both cleared and locked by an admin, at least for the duration of the 1-week block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Seeing as part of the reason he was blocked was for edit warring, should we remove his rollback access? I'm not sure how to tell by edit summaries if an edit used rollback, but it seems like maybe we should. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday already took it away from him. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An undid edit summary will say Undid revision "number" by "User". A rolled-back reversion will be Reverted edits by "user" to last version by "user". HalfShadow 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if there's an accepted practice on this or not, but I would say for future cases any edit warring is a good justification for taking away rollback. Friday (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few rollbacks like these[38][39] [40] which are not reverts of what consensus calls vandalism. That last one reverts a good faith edit back to an edit by one of his own accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing policy re future cases, then regardless of what happened this time. surely a user who doesn't misuse Rollback should be treated differently to one who uses Rollback in an edit war? ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Is there any way we can start a push to stop indexing user pages? I've seen several cases of what I think are attempts to use userpages for publicity or as articles in the past couple of weeks. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User talk:NWA.Rep

The blocked user, allegedly having "retired", is in fact using his talk page for personal attacks. He has twice reverted the attempts of other users to weed out his personal attacks and leave the rest of his editorial in place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. See WP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later. Jehochman ^Talk 10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While selective editing of someone else's talk page is certainly a questionable tactic, taking verbal shots at others while under a block oneself (including, ironically, an empty threat of blocking someone else), is normally not allowed. You're in a generous mood today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, what you say is true, but outpourings like this are very likely to happen after an eager user who doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia has been blocked for a meaningful length of time. As for what he has to say, my only answer is that he hasn't brought up why he was blocked: It had nothing to do with anything he's talking about (I didn't even know he was running for arbcom). It had only to do with putting the same shoddily sourced/unsourced text about breasts into a string of at least 5 BLPs, then edit warring over it and bringing it himself under the baleful gazes at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your statement seems to apply moreso to new editors than an editor who's been here since 2006 (with a rather lengthy block log already established, at that). If he doesn't understand Wikipedia by now, and if he's not somehow used to getting blockbucketed by now, I think it's safe to say there's a definite problem here. Badger Drink (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit drinking caffeine about six months ago. I've been getting mellower and mellower. Jehochman ^Talk 11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove his self-appraisals. But accusing various users and groups things, and even those that are completely inaccurate (eg. He still insists his "breast" edits were good, and I'm in WP:CHINA when I'm not). While I extend my condolences and refrain from aggravating him anymore, I believe those partial edits are considerable. Of course, that is open to debate and I happily accept any consensus of the community. Dengero (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's initial instinct was to lock his talk page, and that was obviously the correct instinct. When a guy is blocked he's supposed to be either requesting unblocks in a civil way or possibly writing civil comments, not attacking others. I don't see why this guy is allowed to get away with it... unless it's on purpose, to leave something visible, to further scotch his chances of getting on the ArbCom, which is an interesting approach that has some merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok it was unblocked though (and said this could be done if need be). Meanwhile he didn't answer my offer to unblock if he'd acknowledge he understood why his edits were taken as disruptive and say he wouldn't do anything like that again. As for his claims about IRC, the last time I logged into IRC was when that longish outage happened about a month ago (?) and even then I couldn't log in to the admin board (didn't bother to ask for help because I was finding out what I wanted on the main one). Moreover, I didn't exchange emails or any other kind of contact with anyone about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He apparently sent an e-mail to someone else, who locked his page with all the personal attacks and verbal shots in place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else? Yes, that's right. You can see in the page history who protected the page: me. Or, well, Bishzilla. I agree with Jehochman on this issue. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

So do I, which is to say, I'm more or less neutral as to what happens to his talk page now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good that his venom is locked in place, as it gives the ArbCom a good chance to read it and consider the appropriateness of giving that guy expanded power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bish* almost never agrees with me. There you go. Thread resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But on that point, how would one feel if they were accused of baiting, sockpuppeteering, having a harassment campaign, having a double standard in policy enforcement, initiating personal attacks and having personal vendetta? Hmmm but I guess we can only leave him now. Dengero (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AS one of the prople mentioned on his talk page I don't give a flying whatever if a user contests a block he made months (years) ago when he makes whatever kind of attacks - its so common from users who have given up in disgust after their particular view of WP morality has been rejected that I am immune (oh and of course, like his recent - most of my blocks are 1 second blocks to apologise for making a mistake" claim, the claim, his claim that I missapply policy in deference to certain parties is demonstrably false. Viridae^Talk 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't archive this thread for another day or so (dear bot). I'd like to review the present block, and I'm busy and it's complicated. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

If at all possible, please let's avoid blocking ArbCom candidates. I have known NWA.Rep (a k a Certified.Gangsta and a few other account names) for some years. In fact you'll see him mention me, if you've read far enough on his talkpage. He's certainly a problematic editor, but I think him well-meaning. In my experience, he responds better to trust and AGF than to threats and contemptuousness. NWA.Rep obviously isn't likely to get the votes to get into ArbCom, but that's not the point: his candidacy is serious, and is no kind of attempt to game the system.
Unblock and topic ban. In order to leave the man some dignity, I intend to unblock him, unless Gwen strongly objects, and to remove the shaming—though well-intentioned—block notice on his election questions page. To replace these measures while I further review the thread above (oh man.. it's so long !), I will topic-ban him from all pages except those directly to do with the election, and also excepting this ANI thread. (If in doubt about what's included in this page ban, just ask me before you edit, CG, you hear me?) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

I didn't even know he was running for arbcom, though I don't think that should sway a thing. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would we decide to unblock him solely to give him a public soapbox for ranting about Wikipedia? That doesn't strike me as sensible. Running for ArbCom doesn't – or shouldn't – get a candidate a free pass on Wikipedia's user conduct policies. If he wants to preserve his dignity, I would support allowing him to withdraw his candidacy, followed by a courtesy blanking of the ArbCom election pages. Bending over backwards to allow him to continue to participate in what's supposed to be a serious process related to Wikipedia governance strikes me as a way to waste both his time and the community's. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Sorry Bishonen, but I too disagree here. Keep him blocked. He was blocked for all-out disruption on multiple fronts, one of them being this very report here. (If I were to start enumerating how many plain untruths are contained in his initial complaint above ...) Do you really think letting him back into this thread would lead to anything constructive? And I don't see how his (self-appointed) "status" as an Arbcom candidate changes anything. Calling oneself an Arbcom candidate doesn't give one a free pass; plus, this particular candidacy comes from a person who at the same time claims he doesn't want to remain on Wikipedia anyway, so yes, it is in fact in a very real sense not a serious candidacy any longer, he just wants it to remain listed to make a political point. I don't think we need to bend over backwards just in order to allow him to continue playing that game. (As for what kinds of communication he is likely to respond more or less well to, honestly, in the encounters I've seen him in over the last few days, he hasn't been responding well to anything.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Running for ArbCom doesn't give you a free pass. If anything, the community has indicated that running makes you a target of criticism and abuse.--Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bish, this is an awful idea. Running for ArbCom does not give a person a free pass to edit war and act utterly imbalanced and incivil. He has not been blocked indefinitely, and will still be able to participate in the ArbCom elections when his block expires. What also makes me nervous is the overtures of cronyism that accompany such a proposed unblock. While I'm assuming good faith (that is to say, I don't believe your actions were proposed with an evil, mustachioed grin), the fact that NWA.Rep was so vocal regarding IRC and a handful of Giano Affairs™ makes it very hard to consider you a completely unbiased, uninvolved admin in this instance. I don't consider you "involved" to the point where I would automatically disregard any argument you had regarding his unblocking due to your said "involvement" (whew, try parsing that sentence), but I do consider you "involved" enough to the point where I would prefer somebody else perform the unblock, if such an unblock had to occur (and I'm in favor of it not occuring). Badger Drink (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism? All right. But you must admit it's funny how the phrase "with all due respect" generally turns out to mean that no respect is due. As I mentioned, Badger Drink, I've known the user for some years, i. e. since long before the IRC case. I strongly doubt that the rather ignorant newbie Freestyle King, as he was when I started to communicate with him and treat him (for my crony-collecting purposes) like a human being, had ever heard of me or Giano. (Fuck, is no thread complete without Giano?). Bishonen | talk 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

The reason for the phrase is to state that, despite how the following might sound, it is not uttered with hate in the heart. I need a mention of Daniel Brandt or a link to WP:AGF for bingo. Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least now he has owned up to the reason for his peculiarly sympathetic view toward that character. If someone with the attitude of NWA.Rep gets a power position, then wikipedia will have abandoned its supposed principles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him because he's an ArbCom candidate? What a joke. Reminds me of a line from The Blues Brothers: "[Jake] is on parole! You can't go calling the cops on him!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bugs, this is not constructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like tolerating his behavior somehow is constructive? Fine. Delete my immoral comments. You have my permission. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Bish* here: the proposal to supersede the block with a topic ban seems amicable to me. Indeed, this new proposal from Bishhonen essentially makes the block itself moot in that NWA is now unable to contribute to the handful of pages he finds himself unable of not edit warring on. With the idea in mind that keeping the block in place would either be purely penal or purely a POINTy action (made to make an example of NWA: being a candidate is not a free pass to not being blocked), I offer a tentative support to the unblock, with a caveat that any failure to adhere to the topic ban by NWA after this lifting of this block will most probably result in it being immediately restored and reset.

  Tznkai and others make a good point, however. Being a candidate to the ArbCom should not be a pass for edit warring or unhelpful conduct across the project, under any circumstances. If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, however, I wish to observe that if NWA was not a candidate this year, it is highly likely that a proposal from a competent administrator (Bishonen does, of course, fall into that category) to remove a block on he, a long-term contributor, in favour of a respective topic ban would pass rather uncontroversially. Just as being a candidate should not be a free pass to ignoring the Community's standards for conduct, so to should it not be a rationale to hold that candidate to higher standards of conduct: such is the remit of the electorate on voting day—the community can give its opinion through a resound rejection there of an unfit candidate, but not through unfairly withholding an unblock.

  Just my two pence, but accurate ones, I think. AGK 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

His actions are immature, tragic and daft, but is this statement part of his attempt at poetry/rap whatever, or the lyrics from a song, and/or also a suicide threat? "Despite all this, now, I must turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it. Put it to my brain and scream "die Bonafide hustla" and pop it " Sticky Parkin 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncredited reference to "When I'm Gone": "I turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it / Put it to my brain and scream 'Die Shady!' and pop it." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing, nothing in the world, that pushes my "urge to violence" button like people who quote Eminem. Oh, wait--unless it's wasted potential. A moment of WP:OR, if you please: There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia. In the Venn diagram for the two groups--"true gangsta/hustla" and "Wikipedia editor"--the intersection is the null set. The amalgam of the two does not exist. Either/or, not both/and. The dawg in question? Does not hunt.(/OR). What's sadder, to me, is that just leafing through his edit summaries, this user reminds me a lot of myself: one foot in each of two very, very incompatible worlds. Maybe at my age I've hit the point of realization--you gotta pick a side, and (sad but true) the dividends of being on the "boring" side are much more palatable than those of the "edgy" side, to say nothing of the "mammary-fixated rapper-in-waiting" side. Hey, NWA--there's a very intelligent user in there somewhere, maybe even a future admin/arb. Do yourself, and Wikipedia, a favor--let THAT guy run the show for a while. Leave the fixation with hawt actresses for your...erm, quiet time; edit the way you've shown you can edit. This doesn't mean you have to entirely QUIT stirring the sh*t--sh*t needs stirring, sometimes--but once you leave behind the side of your personality that edits like a teenage boy and pisses people off, you'll find that when you DO stir up sh*t, your words will be viewed with more respect. (There. I'm done.) GJC 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia." -I just mentioned this elsewhere. This "Growing up in Compton, California, I choose usernames such as “Bonafide.hustla”, “Certified.Gangsta”, and “NWA.Rep” despite significant ridicules from the community. Being one of the few Wikipedians with any sort of street credibility, I often find it frustrating to blend in to the mainstream." made me giggle inside. (Involuntary?) comic genius.:) Sticky Parkin 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The persona he's made for himself here is amusing, sure. But his disruptive behavior is not amusing. It's time to show this kid the door. His behavior is not compatible with being a productive editor. I don't care about his "dignity" at all- his own actions have removed whatever of that he ever had. Friday (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See, I DO care about his dignity. And I'm not amused by his persona--actually, it makes me sad. It sucks to feel like you SHOULD fit in somewhere, but for whatever reasons, you just....don't. I can't think of too much that sucks more, and I'm an adult--can you imagine what it feels like to someone younger??? I think there's a very smart person in there, and just from the little I've seen, I think THAT person would be a very good editor. But--for whatever reason--he's putting his "street cred" ahead of his maturity. I'm not going to play amateur psychoanalyst here (esp. since if I was going down the Freud route, I'd probably run headlong into a wall of surgically-augmented boobage before long) but from what I'm seeing, the minute he realized that his street cred means zero here, and his words and work mean everything, THAT's the moment we gain (I suspect) one hell of a Wikipedian. So yeah--I believe we should treat him with dignity; under similar circumstances, you'd want the same, wouldn't you? GJC 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So kinda like a cross between Curtis Wilkins and Adrian Mole, then? Badger Drink (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we need to hold compassion at some point. Care about dignity whilst showing him the door, sure—but remember it's a real person behind NWA's persona, however laughable you think it may be. The second we stop caring about our fellow editors' feelings is the day our community will truly lose the ability to write a collaborative encyclopedia. That's a self-evident truth, in my mind, and one I'm not inclined to forget whilst contributing here. AGK 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A block isn't a personal attack. If the wording of the block notice wasn't wholly neutral, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.rep's statement is over 400, which brings up some issues, that I brought up here.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my experience with this user had been very unpleasant. The fight between the legitimacy between ROC and PRC has just subsided and NWA.Rep comes in on a third side about ETHNIC taiwanese. Except he doesn't even know what they are by definition. Vandals are easy to deal with, but editor who obviously have the wrong views yet know a bit of wikipedia policies are the hardest to deal with (the amount of technical jargon he threw at me-phew). I can dutifully say I solve most problem talking over the table, but his aggressive attitude towards editing was just tiring in the 4 or so days dealing with him. He can revert twice, wait 24 hours and revert again. It was like an endless hounding until you give up. And while WP:USER does not restrict editors from blanking their userpage, his preference to delete the comments that portrays him in a negative view while keeping the positive ones just ticks me off. Plus reconciliation with him after he came back proved fruitless. So to be honest, I think a one week block is very appropriate and hopefully during that time, he can find his mistakes in this cyber world, and perhaps act more accordingly in his real life also. Dengero (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RanEagle disruption

Was warned on talk, yet continues to deliberately associate organizations with the American State. Latest target: Fox News. forestPIG^(grunt) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And? RanEagle made an edit at USPS on Nov 14. Was reverted and warned about it on November 19th. He made one edit to Fox News Channel. He was reverted (by you), you haven't posted to his talk (which also indicates that he/she doesn't even know that he's being "talked about" here, how would you feel if reversed?) or the article talk. This isn't the first stop in dispute/content resolution. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the user's contribs, you will see that their behavior only just falls short of vandalism. RanEagle has been repeatedly warned, and continues to flaunt his/her issues with the American Government by making sarcastic edits of the manner identified. An indefinite block would not be excessive, IMO. forestPIG^(grunt) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum. Warn the user and if they continue to be disruptive, take it to WP:AIV. ANI is for issues that need admin intervention right away, and can't be handled through our normal processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Foresticpig, an indefinite block would be beyond excessive. It's a difference of opinion on content, it's not vandalism (you say as much directly above). This editor made one edit, you reverted him, and then you ran here with your diff to get someone to indef block him? How is that not excessive? I'm also very curious how you've come to determine that you are allowed to ask other admins (according to your userpage, you are a "non-disruptive sock" or somesuch of an admin account) to do your dirty work for you. Use your own damn admin buttons and take your own damn lumps if you screw up with them. Don't demand other admins to do excessive amounts of wikilawyering on your behalf, that's bullshit. As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of "I have this account so I can edit in sensitive areas and not tarnish my admin account." That's bollocks, and I consider this post of yours, after research, to be most disruptive and distasteful, and I've half a mind to block your sock account (the foresticpig one) so as not to have to deal with this garbage anymore. Don't tempt me. Keeper ǀ 76 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that this use of a sock is what the community has in mind. —Travis^talk 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's how I found out. I went to his user talk to explain to him that an indef block would be excessive only to find out that he/she is an admin him/her self. Bringing another editor here on a borderline case at best instead of simply handling things him/her self is the very definition of disruption, IMO. Without a logical explanation (that frankly, I'm not seeing), I don't see why the sock shouldn't be blocked. Perhaps I should create a sock, and use the sock to go to WP:AN and see if any admins would be willing to do it? Incredulous. Keeper ǀ 76 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian maps dispute

We are having dispute between user:LAz17 and user:Ceha about Bosnian demography maps. Because for me and user:Future Perfect at Sunrise problem has not been very clear I have asked users to give reasons what is wrong on this maps [41]. For few short hours everything has been OK. User:LAz17 has writen about problems with user:Ceha map and then user Ceha has writen about problems with User Laz17 maps, but after midnight user Laz17 has exploded because of Ceha arguments (maybe they are false, maybe they are OK, but for this noticeboard it is not important) and started to use words WHO IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, bullshit, peasants and fuck [42]. In my thinking because of that Laz17 has earned 1 little block, but maybe it will be best to block both users to calm down this situation ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If one user becomes uncivil during a dispute we don't block both parties. If the other user is presenting their evidence in a calm and constructive manner block the party who isn't.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that the discussion has been purged. The link was here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg ... so what now? Were is all that discussion? How will the third parties decide who is right if anyone is? We need that page back. (LAz17 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

That was apparently done as a routine housekeeping measure by an admin not aware of the ongoing discussion. Talk pages are routinely deleted if their main page is gone. In this case, I've provisionally restored (assuming the deleting admin won't mind). We can move it somewhere else later, but at the moment we still need the discussion preserved.

About the issue itself, I'm afraid the recent postings were "tl,dr" for me. And can't you guys discuss these things without those personal accusations? It makes it really harder to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

could you please allow the 1991 map to be on wikipedia until the dispute is resolved? We need that map because we agreed that it is an authentitic official one, and this maps helps prove that Cehas maps are full of laws and POV. I will try to discuss stuff with less personal accusations, but it gets hard when I see what kind of absurdity he says and how nobody at all seems to care about the problems or discussion that is going on. We need other people in the discussion, not just me and him. In every discussion that I had with croats on wikipedia, it was a third side that stepped in to help resolve them. The third side has left... we need help to resolve the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

As called I was called in this discussion, I'll just make a few comments since its weekend and I promised Rjecina to leave the map's issue till next week. Yes, there was a problem with user Laz17. He used some inapropriate words and was heavy on personal accusations. Also by his own word's he has trouble when communicating with part of users on wikipedia. I don't know, part of the problem could be that parts of his english comprehenshion is bad? Anyways (or he is also going to be blocked for puting maps which are constanly deleted) I would like to offer link for putting images on the internet[43]. That should solve that part of the problem. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Family removal of details about an individual

In the article about Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut there is a section discussin the deaths of four trainees over the course of a number of years, each trainee has a small section representing the conclusions of various studies into the establishment. The father of one of the individuals has removed the section and requested that it not be re-instated, here.

I suppose I'm more looking for opinions about how to deal with this, at the moment the deaths cover a disproportionate amount of the article content. I'm sensitive to the wishes of Mr James that the material about his daughter be removed, but for the sake of proportionality and weight would tend to also remove the other three sets of details. That said, the investigations into Deepcut played a significant part in the ongoing effort to professionalise the service police organisations of all three armed services as well as the selection and training of instructirs and how trainees are delivered and managed. the topic does deserve to be covered.

I'd be grateful for some opinions on the most appropriate approach.

ALR (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (or part of this edit) needs to be oversighted as the user has clearly revealed their home telephone number. D.M.N. (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

as I read the material, this it is not quite what it seems.They do not object to the inclusion of material, but rather they want to have the material suggest that it was homicide not suicide, as they are of the opinion that the Army is covering up the circumstances. They might prefer to have nothing rather than material giving what they think the wrong impression but this is totally destructive to NPOV, I do not see how we can do other than report what is in published sources, though we can perhaps look for sources other than the government report.

Despite the pain to the family, the material must be included as it is a matter of general public interest. BLP does not apply. Once we start applying BLP-like considerations to the feelings of survivors, where does it stop? This was 5 years ago, not last week. When would we finally be able to write objectively about the incident? If one resents damage to the reputation of ones parent or child, thee would be no history for the 20th as well as the 21st century. However, we should be able to find a more tactful way of wording things. DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not read very well particularly when one of the soliders has been removed and she first gets a mention in a summary. The deaths and subsequent review could really be trimmed down to remove a lot of the details and in an article about the barracks it looks like it has undue weight when the article has no mention about the history of the site or the physical barracks themselves. It may be better to create a separate article about the deaths and review which may make for a better constructed and neutral article without any unreferenced opinion and create a better balance with sourced material. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a pretty obvious case of reinstating the information, despite the sympathy we might feel for the family. We can only reflect what the reliable sources say and, obviously, most will report what a coroner reports. Yes we have a systematic bias towards Official Sources, but that is simply the nature of the beast. An icky situation, to be sure, but yes, revert the info back in. It is relevent and cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think that removing sourced material merely because it is distressing to someone (even though I have great sympathy for the James family on this one) is a good idea, on the other hand, the article does go into rather a lot of detail on these cases, and I think it's a borderline case of WP:UNDUE. That said, I think if we're going to cover one of these cases, we ought to cover them all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the views everyone. I agree the point that we could do with more substance around the barracks, it's been in existence a long time, although most of what's there is what I managed to scrape together a couple of years ago when I first ran across it. The initial article was mainly a rant about the deaths and went into an excessive amount of detail, as well as being unbalanced.

The main issue I see it is that the outcomes of the Blake review were very far reaching, although I don't think there is much in the public domain about that.

ALR (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal allegations on talk pages

I would appreciate administrators' feedback and advice on an ongoing situation best encapsulated by this sequence of edits. How can this be resolved? Jayen466 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly by informal or formal mediation for the underlying content dispute. However, the repetition of allegations probably should be resolved by explaining about user conduct RfCs - I'll leave a note on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For better or worse, I have responded to the allegation: here. I would appreciate it if any further such allegations on WP talk pages were removed promptly as per WP:PA. If there are any outstanding concerns, I am happy to make private information available to arbcom. Cheers, Jayen466 15:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This just now being a case in point. Jayen466 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest mediation, formal or informal. We need to be extra-cautious when dealing with the subject of an article who is also an editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh sock again?

78.148.56.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added "Scotland" to a city list[44] and has changed the photo in Edinburgh[45]. Does anyone recognize this? Is this the same sockmaster that deleted references to UK? I think it's about the same IP range. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the same user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_Russia&action=history and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th), although probably not worth blocking as the user changes IP address so often (e.g. 84.13.115.209 (talk · contribs) yesterday). —Snigbrook 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Angels Live

Resolved

 – I jumped through all the hoops of group MFD creation, and then Gwen Gale speedied it.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this. Angels Live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has devoted his entire editing career to creating a very intricate hoax album on his user page. I'm used to kids making up little infoboxes about themselves, but this is an entire fake album with tour histories and extended singles releases for a third party, Jake Glyllenhall.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least two similar pages exist: User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live. The three editors are editing each others pages, so there is a possibility of puppetry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly BatterWow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be the only editor outside of these three that is editing. He has a lot of involvement with Hard Candy (Madonna album), and that is the actual target of many of these links.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

Per Wikipedia:USER#What_to_do_if_you_find_someone_else.27s_user_page_being_used_inappropriately, it looks like the User:Angels Live, User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live pages should all be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Not sure what to do about the BatterWow issue. A warning at a minimum, for sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all three pages need to be MFD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/DevilAngel.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comment: out of idle curiosity, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the contrib histories I've blocked all three four accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month by Gwen Gale, and page protected for a week by FisherQueen. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) This bad faith editor has just filed this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin obviously as revenge for this ani and Firefly's subsequent blocking here and here. This sockpuppet charge, which will be easily refuted by a checkuser, and since I have no reason to use socks, is a personal attack. Since there is no reason to ever consider that I use socks, especially Verbal (talk · contribs) who shares interests in articles, but doesn't cross paths with me as often as about 100 other editors, I would as an extended block be placed on Firefly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

*blink* I have to say that this does appear from many angles to be a revenge SSP filing. I have suggested to Firefly that perhaps this action is unwise, based on their history of disruption. Filing a completely unreasonable SSP report is going to take more than 1 person's time and energy away from editing articles, and instead off on a snipe hunt - that's purely disruptive behavior. I recommend that if Firefly does not remove their obviously vexatious SSP report that they be given a few days rest to determine if they wish to stop disrupting Wikipedia in the future, or if the community needs to make that decision for them. ►BMW◄ 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's out in the open, so it's too late to take it back and take a time out. I think an indefinite block is warranted. In the Wikipedia world, this like defamation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Editors may discuss a shorter block, longer block or community ban and shift this as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it for a year? It's interesting that after his week-long block, he was nice for about a week. Then out of the blue this thing. It's clear he doesn't have the temerity to play nice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to archive close the checkuser, as it's clearly frivolous, or should someone else do it? Is there a different procedure for checkusuers? HalfShadow 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want Firefly to come back claiming "favouritism" or that his complaints were "unheard" or that he was poorly treated. Let it go through, and if he hasn't apologized for his vexatious attitude by the time it's completed, block him for a year. If he does apologize, continue his 1-month block and welcome him back cautiously when it's done. ►BMW◄ 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important the checkuser be completed per BMW. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's spurious. But since you asked nicely...  Unrelated ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How many bad unblock requests does he get before his ban is extended? ►BMW◄ 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ward3001

Block User:Ward3001 indefinitely. This person is bothering me and messing with my talk page. He's also a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's racist? How about what you said here? ►BMW◄ 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything on your talk page that justifies a block of Ward3001. If anything, the incivility has been on your side. Perhaps a few deep breaths are in order?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not even sure it's a pot-kettle thing; I haven't reviewed everything and have to leave now, so please don't consider this authoritative (more admin review needed here I think), but I can't, on the face of it, find anything wrong with Ward3000's recent edits. Pandyu appears, on first glance, to be resisting requests for reliable sources, and is doing most of the name calling here. A data point only, not a decision, as I'm getting called away but thought I'd mentino what I've seen so far. --barneca (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually re-added the contested category. When an actress wins a number of BET awards for her lead work in black family comedies, I'm pretty sure you don't need to source the fact that she's an African American actress. I have also noted this on Ward3001's talkpage - he was a little overly pushy about the obvious on this one, I believe. ►BMW◄ 19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge Bwilkins' good faith, but I disagree that I was pushy. I don't believe there is an exception in WP:V for ethnicity or ethnic identification. Ward3001 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not the place for content disputes, I was wondering which part of "Black", "Entertainment" or "Television" Awards you were contesting and causes you an issue in this matter? ►BMW◄ 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to further add (simply by reading the External links on that page):

• presenter, NAACP awards
• articles in Ebony and Jet magazines
• presenter, BET Awards.

I know, it could be a stretch on my part. ►BMW◄ 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe receiving or presenting an award, or being featured in a magazine, justifies an exception to the requirements of WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I will ask you to please stop edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've never edit-warred in my life :) I restored a valid category. My next edit removed a bad external link to youtube, and reinstated a category AFTER placing information on the Talkpage for the article. I would ask anyone else watching this discussion to give him a 3RR warning if he decides to continue playing (I won't do it because I got involved). I won't be dealing with logic issues here. ►BMW◄ 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate 3RR (and I'm not anywhere close to doing so), and I do not appreciate your suggestion for a pre-emptive 3RR warning and your suggestion that I am "playing with" the article. I again thank you for your civility, but I disagree with both your overlooking WP:V and your reverting the article before consensus was reached on the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quickly, please glance at the external links. One of them (when referring to the actress in question) refers to Contemporary Black Biography, Volume 8, 1994, Volume 42, Gale Group, 2004. This is a little too bizarre. ►BMW◄ 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I have placed a 12 hour block on Pandyu's account: comments such as this one ("you white fuck.") are not acceptable. Ward, I would encourage you to refrain in the future from all interactions with Pandyu. Also note that I have advised Pandyu that any future misbehaviour—especially, but not limited to, that of a racist nature—will receive a swift indefinite block. This may make this matter {{Resolved}} insofar as the project's Administrators are concerned: I see no more we can do for the time being. AGK 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your advice to avoid Pandyu, which I will do unless he decides to intrude on my talk page or any of my edits that are unrelated to him. Ward3001 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pandyu has sincerely apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology. I also resolved the problem of reliable sourcing by adding a sourced statement that backs up the category in question. I request that this issue be marked as "Resolved". Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Resolved

 – Betacommand gets his way this time.

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues....

I would like for someone who's an expert on the subject to comment on whether Betacommand is correct in removing the logos from that article which have sat there for months with no complaints. [46] He may well be right, but he's been blocked so often for misinterpreting the NFC rules that I can't assume he knows what he's talking about. If someone else could comment, I would appreciate it. P.S. He threatened to have me blocked for reverting him twice. I thought those threats came after three reversions??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the use of several historical logos (specifically for a TV station, just not this one) at WT:NFC. There has not been any consensus yet, though I am involved in that, the best unbiased statement I can state is that the issue is between too much non-free media without necessary commentary, and those that feel the logos are needed to show the historical changes in the logo, and can go without significant commentary. Is beta right for deleting them? It probably would have been better to tag the page with "too much non-free" instead of deleting them without a resolve to the issue - but there's also the fact there doesn't seem to be a resolve - there's no middle ground that can be readily approached. --MASEM 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, Betacommand is taking his usual slash-and-burn approach and threatening anyone who disagrees. Par for the course. He wins this round, from my standpoint. Just as it was stupid for someone to get blocked for a week over the importance of Salma Hayek's breasts, it's stupid to risk getting blocked over a bunch of TV logos. Luckily, I already downloaded them. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can be warned after making no reverts, but they are unlikely to be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously, yes you can be warned after two revisions or even blocked for same since 3RR is not an limit but a clear blue line. However, BC making such warnings is habitual (it seems to be his version of "hi, I see you have made some changes to an edit I made - can we talk?") and should be considered within context; does it exceed his civility probation? No, and therefore it is better to take the higher moral ground and investigate the basis of BC's actions and determine whether the consensus exists for it. If it doesn't, or is debatable, then the next action is to civilly draw peoples attention to it - and if it does then do right by yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, give up and let someone else do the fighting. As long as Betacommand is here, there will be no peace. And that's the way it is. The best thing is to avoid him like the plague. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

how about you just follow the policy? and all will be well. β^_command 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy set by legal counsel or policy as interpreted by you? I personally go with what Mike Godwin has said, but that is just me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 02:33

Please shut up as you have admitted you have no clue what your talking about. What Godwin was talking about as a legal issue not a policy issue. Non-free content is not allowed in galleries. it might help if you read WP:NFCC and its talk archives. β^_command 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please shut up" is overly aggressive Beta - try for a more moderate/conciliatory tone please. Exxolon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of his civility probation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 04:17

It is, and I have blocked him for 24 hours for violating that, in addition to the requirement that he "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion", which it does not appear that he has done. If anyone thinks I'm being unduly harsh, please let me know, but by this point, Betacommand really ought to know better. For reference, these restrictions are listed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't think you are being harsh enough. If it were me, I would have gone 72 hours. 48 hours because he last block was for 24, escalation in time, plus since he violated two terms of his probation, an extra 24. That is an this editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:48

Neutralhomer, please be aware that the legal position of Wikipedia is a completely separate issue from the non-free content policy set by the Foundation. A gallery of non-free images is, as Mike Godwin has stated, completely legally ok, but that's the legal side; a gallery of non-free images weighs down the free content mission goals. We're not going to get sued by having such, but we are hurting the ability to disseminate free content with it. --MASEM 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, really you are saying, they are "OK", but you are just going to throw any ol' policy at them to get them to go away? When Godwin said they were "OK" to him, that didn't mean delete them anyway. Perhaps we ALL should ask Mike for a detailed opinion on this before deleting everything and if Mike says they are OK and don't violate any policy, I think that should be made policy. I ask for all of Beta's changes be reverted until a detailed opinion on this from Mike is given. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 06:23

They are legal based on USA fair use laws, they are not OK by Wikipedia's fair use policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution. Wikipedia's fair use policy is much stricter than US law (and I believe always has been, this isn't news) in a deliberate attempt to restrict fair use usage, as Masem said to keep within the foundation's free content principles. Mr.Z-man 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said the "let's delete everything" idea should stop until we get a detailed opinion on galleries vs. NFCC from Mike Godwin. He has the final say on everything. Also, I don't think Wiki should be able to trump law, because, essentially, nothing can trump Wikipedia. I think there should be something that can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:04

Neutralhomer, you need to start getting the point. Mike Godwin does not have the final say in this case. Now, if it were the reverse—if Mike said "This is against the law, we need to stop it", then he does have the final say, and we would stop at once. But just because Mike says something is legal doesn't mean we will do it. Mike has the final say on legality. He categorically does not have the final say as to whether or not something passes our policy, nor did he even address that issue, he addressed only the legal matter. If he did choose to address the policy issue, his opinion would carry no more or less weight than any other editor.

There are plenty of situations where we disallow something, not because it would be illegal, but because it would be damaging to the project. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for us to allow companies to place spam/ad arguments about themselves. However, that doesn't mean we will allow that. It is not illegal to use sockpuppets to skew a discussion or vote. That doesn't mean we don't prohibit it, we certainly do. The same is true of our nonfree content policy. We cannot override the law, nor are we trying (we would only be doing that if we were using images we did know or believe to be unlawful). However, this aspires to be a free content project. We seek to use as little nonfree content as possible. In order to become a truly free content project, we would have to get that number to zero; however, we still seek to be as close as possible. That's why we have a policy on nonfree content that is much stricter than the law. That's not an attempt to "override the law", we have every right to say "Yes, the law would allow use of a nonfree image here, but we will not." Free content projects do not use nonfree content just because they legally can. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nothing trumps law or is trying to right now; that argument is a red herring. Rather, the NFCC policy is a condition in addition to the law, a policy established by the Foundation, and Mike Godwin's opinion is irrelevant unless he says that this policy is actually illegal according to US law and other laws that may apply. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it. —kurykh 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is legal and "OK", then it should be done. "We don't want to" isn't a good enough arguement. If Mike says it's OK, it's OK. Mere editors (which is what we all are) can't trump the head legal dude, which is what it seems ALOT of people are trying to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:55

I can say spam is "OK." Should we do it? I say advertising is "OK." Should we do it? If I were to say launching personal attacks at you was "OK," should I be permitted to do it? Such an argument is nonsensical. No one has invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT except for you, Neutralhomer. Mike Godwin cannot be trumped if he says what we permit is illegal, not if we restrict actions which are legal. —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is "OK" doesn't matter. Mike's opinion matters and he said galleries of images were OK. The anti-fair-use group, which you are obviously a part of, is the ONLY people who have said I Don't Like It (also, I never "invoked it", you just did). The anti-fair-use group is the only ones who are trying to trump the legal staff of Wikimedia and refuse to get Mike's detailed opinion on this because he might, God forbid, disagree with you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

Yes, I'm part of the secret cabal that will take over this place and wreak hellish anti-fair-use tyranny upon you. Please tell me where I can document my registration. —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And Mike Godwin disagrees with me on what? Point it out and provide evidence of your assertions instead of engaging in abstractions. —kurykh 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "policy established by the Foundation" are you referring to, Kurykh? There's a lot of misinformation flying around whenever someone says "Foundation", and it generally looks like the anti-fair-use people have gotten into the habit of claiming their preferred interpretation of English Wikipedia policy was mandated by the Foundation when the Foundation said no such thing. Particularly because nobody bothers to question it, except that's what I'm doing right now. If you're referring to a specific thing that the Foundation actually established, though, I apologize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Foundation say "minimal fair-use"? We're circling around what "minimal" means, and some people are wary that anything beyond "almost none" will open the floodgates to "always". In particular, Beta's Non-free content is not allowed in galleries is unsupported at the last discussion thread I've seen. (NB No admin action requested in this post) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess "Foundation policy" was not the most correct choice of words, but I refer you to this. More of a "mandate", I guess. I'm not saying that there should be stifling restrictions (I will leave "stifling" deliberately vague), but to reject the entire policy wholesale just because it is legal to do so does not serve us well. Also, policy changes such as these can be discussed without labeling others without first ascertaining their exact position on the issue (i.e., your seeming labeling of me as "anti-fair-use" when I have neither said nor asserted any such thing). —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that because it is legal to do so...it is legal to reject the idea and it really is OK for us to use galleries....you are going to do the opposite for what reason? Because you can? Because ducks fly? Your logic isn't making sense. It's OK, but we said it isn't? Come on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

No, no, no. You're misinterpreting me again. You're saying that we can do anything because Mike Godwin says it's legal, and that we shouldn't be allowed to add conditions in addition to US fair use law. I disagree with you. Are we on the same page now? Or are you going to talk past me again and call people names instead of discussing this without stuffing words in my mouth? —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralH, it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes in your own home. It's also legal for you to forbid people from smoking in your home. We're not talking about what is most legal, we're trying to figure out how much blue haze is acceptable. It says somewhere near the top, "the free encyclopedia..." We care about the law, but we also care about the goal of being free. So we set our own rules, within the law but also in accordance with our aims. The discussion is not about what could win a court case, it's about what will best meet our conflicting goals of being both free and encyclopedic. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Because we are a free content project, and in addition to being legal, nonfree content must pass these restrictions as well. There is a lot of content which it would be perfectly legal for us to use which we still do not because it is nonfree. Indeed, we even do not use "permission for Wikipedia only", "noncommercial use only", or "no derivative" licensed works (unless they pass the nonfree content test), even though we could perfectly legally do so in these cases. Our requirements for use of nonfree content are much more stringent than simply being legal, and that is by design—the Wikimedia Foundation has specified that use of nonfree content must be minimal. Using nonfree content anywhere the law would allow would be maximal—after all, we would be extremely unwise to make any more use than the law allows, so "everything the law would allow" is the maximum possible. That is not in keeping with our goal as a free content project. I think what you're failing to see is that "Yes, it would be legal to use those images" does not translate to "Yes, we should use those images." Certainly, if I went and asked Mike "Mike, would it be legal for me to remove the images?", he would tell me "Of course it is", and wonder why I would even ask. If I asked him "Would it be legal for me to change every instance of 'colour' to 'color' in every article I see it in?" he would, again, tell me that yes, that would be perfectly legal. Would that make me categorically and indisputably right? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. WP's policy is narrower than US fair use, in two precise, quite limited ways. First, because we ask not whether we ourselves could use the image, but whether a commercial downstream reuser using our content verbatim would be okay. Secondly, because we don't accept non-free content, even with permissions, if it could potentially be replaced by free content. Those are the parameters WP:NFC was crafted to defend.

These images aren't replaceable. So if Mike says these images are okay fair-use - which I would understand to mean okay for downstream verbatim reusers, then we should pay some attention to that. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are many, many, many circumstances where things are valid fair use under US law but are not allowed under our policies. Many nations have no fair use laws whatsoever. Reusers in those countries would not be able to use the content. Wiki(p|m)edia's goal is to spread free content, not "sort-of free" content. That is why we limit non-free content so much. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Will people please acquire a clue on the difference between "legal" and "within Wikipedia policy". For example, it's completely legal for me to spam my website on the external links of dozens of articles, but it's not within policy, and would be removed. It's completely legal for me to include reams of unsourced original research in articles, or to create an article about my dog, but ... you get the idea. The real point here is "do these logo galleries contravene WP:NFCC or not?", and IMHO the answer is "yes, they do contravene it". Though since no admin intervention is necessary here, this should really be at WT:NFC. As for the articles, I'd see no problem with tagging them all with {{Template:NFimageoveruse}} to perhaps spark individual discussion on their talkpages. Black Kite 12:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The key letters being IMHO. It would be brilliant if you could ever have your specific ideas backed up by solid judgements, but you never do. All you have is your own personal interpretation of the NFC, and your endless attempts to represent that as the universal opinion with much heat but without any light. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, a Betacommand thread and who pops up? Anyway, solid judgments? Try WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, which aren't my personal interpretation of NFCC, and both of which the non-free logo galleries fail. I put "IMHO" because I don't presume to be the ultimate authority on non-free images, unlike some people. Black Kite 16:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The galleries fail 3a and 8 in your opinion'. That's the thing you never quite understand. You are not the ultimate authority, and quite often, you are not even in the qualified minority. You never even undesrstand this basic point, which is what makes these repeated bs argumnents over the nfc pointless until such time as the foundation educates you on your absolute lack of knowledge of either the purpose or interpretation of the law, and the actual reason the NFC exists.MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know quite well that the vast majority of non-free image galleries always have, always do, and always will fail WP:NFCC; but not quite all of them, which is why I qualified my statement. Oh, and quit with the personal attacks, you've never masked your dislike of me since one particular AfD many months ago, and your singling out of me for your petty jibes due to a personal vendatta is getting really tiresome. Go and bother someone else, because I'm not replying to you again. Black Kite 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The vast majority of non-free image galleries" is as usual an unqualified, unproven, and just basically pointless statement with regards application of a policy. This is as usual just your personal opinion, you singularly fail many times to convince others of its merits because you never provide anybody with a working paradigm as to why everybody else should be convinced by your interpretations of 1b, 3, and 8. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand keeps citing the WP:NFCC policy as saying galleries of non-free images are not allowed. I'm not seeing that. Could someone point that out to me? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. And yes, this is a guideline, not a policy, because there might be a small minority of occasions in which non-free image galleries might squeak past NFCC - I can't find the article now, but there was one on the history of CGI imaging techniques in film where there was a gallery of non-free images but each was illustrating a particular CGI technique, along with a large amount of text explicitly commenting on the image which of course enables them to pass WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) snd WP:NFCC#8 (significance). That doesn't happen in these articles - they're just galleries of images. Black Kite 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Based on what I'm seeing above, and based on his edits in relation to Betacommand in the last 24 hours, I believe that something needs to be done with Neutralhomer. This is not the first time he's been involved in warring and incivility with Betacommand. He, more or less, came in and baited Betacommand into a block. He admits, time and time again, that he does not fully understand the policies and guidelines affecting fair use galleries, yet, he consistently engages in revert warring with people who understand the policies and guidelines far better than he does. When he was unblocked in July, he was told to stay away from Calton and JPG. I think that we need to now include Betacommand in this list. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer, which is another action between these two just a few weeks ago, is relevant here. I think some sort of restriction needs to be put in place here as this is a reoccurring pattern much on the same level as his previous actions with Calton and such which led to his block earlier this year. either way (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent of this thread, I have warned Neutralhomer, Betacommand, and Emarsee to stop edit warring over these images. All three need to stop reverting and wait for the discussion to play out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that things need to be done above that. Something needs to be set to prevent Neutralhomer from doing this again. If it's not about the fair use galleries, it'll be about something else. He did the same thing awhile back when Betacommand was tagging images with no fair use rationales. He went through and blindly reverted Betacommand's taggings without reason other than it was Betacommand doing the tagging. A restriction is needed because this is a reoccurring issue. I think the fact that he needs these same restrictions with other users makes it apparent that this is an ongoing problem with Neutralhomer as an editor, either way (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Metros...*sigh*...here "we" are again. Let me answer some of your points.

First, I never baited anyone. People make decisions on how they act, Beta acted the way he did. I didn't make him act that way.

Second, I understand policies about as best as I can, and saying I don't and making is seem like I haven't got thought one in my head (which is the way it sounds to me), is kinda pushing it. I am not a policy genius, but I understand them to the best of my abilities.

Third, you want me to stay away from Beta, all you have to do is say it. No need to bring things up on ANI, just post it to my talk page (it's always open).

Fourth, there is no "something else" to it. I would have reverted Beta's edits if he put "I like penguins" on 26 pages. He broke a rule in his probation, which states if he "undertaking any pattern of edits....that affects more than 25 pages" he must first propose it and "wait at least 24 hours for community discussion" (see here for the full list). Those edits were, yes, something I take difference on, but if it was putting "I like penguins" on 26 pages, I would have reverted. There is no "something else" to it.

If you have anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:00

The baiting of Betacommand is that you came into the thread and added this which only appears to be added in order to provoke Betacommand into saying something to you in response, i.e. baiting him to respond after you knew that there is not solid relations between you two. And yes, you need to stay away from Betacommand. From this point on, the same restrictions that were given when you were unblocked in relation to Calton and JPG-GR will also apply to Betacommand. You are to stay away from Betacommand which includes not reverting any of his actions and not commenting on any of his actions. Any violations of this will result in block. Is this understood? either way (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's understood...and for the record, JPG-GR and I have put our differences aside and are now on the smallest of speaking terms. I wouldn't call use "best buds", but we have had conversations and not snapped each others heads off (all of which was watched closely by several admins). So, I can get along with those of which I have had problems. It is a two way street though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:25

"I understand policies about as best as I can" - Which in this case obviously isn't very well. I count at least 6 users above trying to explain to you why Wikipedia is allowed to have stricter rules than US law, but you have not indicated that you understand this. And this is either a massive misunderstanding of policy or a sarcastic baiting remark after BC forgot to specify "galleries of non-free images." Mr.Z-man 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't shoot the messenger; there are those who will report BC upon him making the slightest edit in violation of his parole/limitations, and there are those who will ignore BC's occasional slip because of all the good work he does. There is no reason for these two groups to start an argument with each other when BC does appear to have breached his terms. If BC's friends were to notify him when he is about to drop himself into hot water then all this crap could be avoided. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Alastair_Haines

Sorry all, I have been busy and have to rush out the door to do chores. Reviewing civility and RR issues with the recent block issue on Gender of God (again). I'd do all the diffs etc. now but I really have to run. I will do the diffs later, but if anyone looks over it in the mean time and feels all is as it should be then so be it. I am not impartial so as why I am asking for imaprtial eyes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quick glance suggests that Alastair Haines reverted twice on the article within a week. That is a breach of the arbcom finding and the block is perfectly justified. Presumabaly Arbcom restricted the user for a reason so breaching a formal restriction is only asking for trouble. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Original blocking admin here. Here are the diffs of his edit warring violation: 1, 2. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Alastair_Haines. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd

Continually violating WP:NPOV and WP:V on pages such as abortion. Has been given sufficient friendly reminders on his talk page. When I pointed out that his continual violation of policies and guidelines might constitute disruptive editing, he responded with a personal attack. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just on his user page, Talk:Abortion#Problems with terms is also worth reading, and this IMHO goes too far. ϢereSpielChequers 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of christian groups do tend towards pro-life and there's nothing offensive or going too far about saying that, even to most xtians. His summary is accurate IMHO. I see nothing wrong in that particular diff (towards the end of your comment,) just expressing his summary/opinion in a content dispute. Will say more in a mo when I've read the other diffs...Sticky Parkin 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the vagueness of "Religious views" in that diff, as well as the labeling of one side of the debate as "arbitrary" (WP:POV, anyone?)--not to mention the utter lack of sources. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my reason for bringing the matter here isn't to discuss whether he's wrong or right; it's to point out that this individual is violating WP:V and NPOV, and throwing in a dose of WP:PA violation for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he shouldn't have said f*ck, I didn't spot that before. Is there an arbcom covering this article, as it's well known as one of our most contentious ones? Sticky Parkin 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Activity is actually rather low, and it had good wardens who were good at handling it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zahd has, in my opinion crossed the line with his incessant accusations of partisanship and bad faith, and I do not refer to the abuse he has hurled my way. As ignoring it, as many users have done, has not made the problem go away thus far, I think an outside admin stepping in would be appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[47]. Really nice :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just blanked this as polemic per WP:USER, one gets the impression this user isn't here to help build an encyclopedia. Misarxist 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales

User:I am Mario has indicated that he is going forward with an "anti-defamation move" on Jimbo's user talk page. Due to severely limiting connectivity issues, I'm not able to post the dif, but it's under a subsection entitled " response to mr. wales" if I'm not mistaken. Seems like a fairly straightforward legal threat to me, and the account should be indef blocked.--AniMate 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This, for example: [48] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

defamation isn't necessarily a legal term. one simple meaning is "an abusive attack on a person's character or good name". Unless his threat of an anti-defamation move means he's going to be suing and not just cleaning up articles I'm not sure how this is a legal threat. He doesn't really say what that is in the provided diff.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He was going on about pulling in the Anti-Defamation League and the media the other day on there, if one looks further up to the top of the page for the previous commentary on that. It's not really a legal threat, more like an attempt at a chilling effect by invoking some outside forces. Still annoying, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's certainly an attempt at a chilling effect, but legal action is certainly implied. He's been quite careful not to use the word "lawsuit", but his intent seems clear. Regardless, I'll certainly ask him to clarify what he means by an "anti-defamation move". AniMate 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't credible. He claims that we're defaming Albert Einstein and unnamed Holocaust survivors by calling their testimonies "POV". I doubt one can sue for defamation on a non-minor's behalf, and a dead person like Einstein can't be defamed. That's why it's the policy on biographies of living people.--chaser - t 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the administrators Mario is planning on report, I suggest following Jimbo's advice here and just ignoring him. The same articles keep seeing a variety of "new" users who ask the same things, war the same ways, and then get themselves blocked the same way. However, Mario's second comment here indicates to me that he has little interest in anything else other than POV-warring. Frankly, I'm getting tired of insults by various users like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films

There appears to be some deja vu about this. An IP address is adding a bunch of entries to this category. Trouble is, it's a red-link category. But if you go to it, it has a bunch of entries along with 2 separate discussions for deletion from October 2007 and earlier from March 2007. So evidently someone is trying it again. What's the SOP for this situation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To get to the category, you could go to The Muppet Movie. However, there are many other entries from that IP (71.190.26.165). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The category has been twice deleted and salted. DRV is the next step (I express no views on whether it would be successful) so I'm removing the names from Category:Post-credits scene films. I've asked the IP to stop, and have linked this discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.26.165 (talk) is continuing to add films to this category, without reply. Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like it's time to take him to WP:AIV, unless someone jumps in here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I just did, and which would leave a bunch of items to roll back. However, I don't want to do that until the IP is blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you gave him a 3-hour tour, er, block. Which end of the list do you want to start the rolling back? Or can you do all of it in one swell foop? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I also point out these, Talk:List of films with Post-credits scenes, Talk:Post-credits scene in movies, Talk:Post-credits scene in Examples, Talk:Post-credits scene in Movies and Talk:List of post-credits scene movies, all created and filled with lists of movies by this IP--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks as though this is the same individual at 71.247.88.225 (talk), who did the same thing last October, earning a block then. Bencherlite^Talk 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a deletion discussion. Someone nominated it, no one discussed it and somehow out of that we bore a "consensus" of deletion and salting. Whats the real objection to this being a genuine category? There are a number of movies that do this. Its possible to do cite this by using them as a primary source. so what if it was done by a single user?--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously only read the third discussion, not the first two (first, second). Bencherlite^Talk 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

and having read them I'm none the wiser as to what the real problem was. As pointed out trident's reasoning didn't quite make sense as he seemed to be talking about deleted scenes and not post-credit scenes and I see a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes (or were we still voting in 2006? I don't think so). The second one is based solely on comments of "we got rid of it once, do it again". Seems like a compelling candidate for DRV.--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did tell the IP to take it to DRV, but he didn't reply. In the meantime, the consensus not to have such a category stands. Bencherlite^Talk 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a type of trivia, which is not necessarily bad, but it's also anecdotal and depends on original research, in the sense that someone just happens to notice it in a few films and then defines it as a category. It's possible that there's an authoritative source that would discuss this topic, but I doubt it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, he didn't list The Cannonball Run series, which I'm pretty sure had clips or outtakes played during the credits. Or maybe that doesn't count? But why shouldn't it? It could be argued that the category itself is original research. Having said all that, this is the reason I generally don't mess with categories - they're shifting sand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian/Gennarous

I believe Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is back in his Gennarous (talk · contribs) / Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) guise. Immense sense (talk · contribs) has as first and second edits blanked large sections of the Sicily article (a haunt of User:Gennarous) [49], [50] and both templated me [51] --a sign of an experienced user, in my opinion -- when I warned him about it and then accused of me of Islamocentrism [52], a classic Gennarous tactic. This seems to be a reaction to my reporting his activity last week on the the House of Plantagenet article. [53], [54]. Link to confirmation of User:Gennarous as User:Yorkshirian : [55]. Can someone please put an end to this? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... once I have stopped sniggering at their claim that you can indugle yourself (... I might block them for that, it sounds sordid...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per Quacking edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

*snort* Indugle... I missed that. Aren't there laws about that doing that sort of thing in public? ;) Thanks for checking it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Erikbinder

This user has had three edits, two of which are vandalism, and one of which is their user page. I believe a block might in order. --—Cliffb (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warn him using the templates and then list him at WP:AIV. He's stopped editing since his final warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

HIJACKED RfC

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by Caspian blue as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V has been twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

• 1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
  • EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

• 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

• 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

• 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux   10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's otherwise commendable suggestions about WP:Arbitration assumes that this is a mere conflict between two editors; but that mis-reads the broader scope of a battlefield in which my trivial involvement is somewhat insignificant. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Wikipedia is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

• What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
• How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of extravagant language:

• "... false accusation ..."?
• "... personal attcks ..."?
• "... harassment ..."?
• "... bad faith comments ..."?

Why not de-escalating, non-confrontational, moderating language? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw

Following this exchange,[56] Montanabw has begun wikihounding me. This includes making insinuations about me on other users' talk pages and recruiting an administrator, Lar, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04 User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth[57]
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[58]

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling[59]
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI[60][61][62]
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[63]
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion[64]
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[65]
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth[66]
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[67]
• 04:48 Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?[68]
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[69]

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw Wikiquette alert, in which Una tried to make the case that there was a problem with Montanabw's behaviour. My take on the outcome of that was that Una had behaviour she needed to remediate. I believe that Montanabw is not the only person that Una has had issues with, and the Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring Thoroughbred to FA this year, our current collaboration on Horses in warfare, or her help to a new member working on Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-If I were an impartial editor or admin reading this situation for the very first time, you'd wonder if Una Smith or Montanabw were at fault. I'm not impartial, because I've either interacted with her or watched others do the same, and in general, it isn't positive. I spend most of my time in medical articles. During editing of articles, one runs into either editors who are knowledgeable or those who are not. The problem with Una Smith is that she is not very knowledgeable about medical articles, but pretends to be, and then is very disruptive about it. Most of my knowledge of it is around Herpes zoster. Here and here are discussions about the article. Una Smith tends to be very tendentious in making points about the definition of the word "shingles", "zoster", and "herepes zoster", a point that had be agreed to long ago. And this type of edit just exhibits a lack of knowledge of editing medical articles (both in accuracy and in quality) that is just frustrating. I'll add to this later. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the problems are apparently not confined to the Equine Project, as the Medicine Project has also seen some unusual editing and input from Una Smith. The issues Una Smith brought to the Herpes zoster article frustrated several other knowledgeable participants and derailed the FAC, leaving several editors expressing confusion on the talk page about the issues she was raising. I've seen other similar incidents, to the point that I have become reluctant to request help from the Medicine Project on articles, out of concern that Una Smith will get involved, having seen her cause deterioration to articles like Herpes zoster and Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT). For example, in this incident, another editor asked for assistance in cleaning up the AT/RT article. After I worked on formatting cleanup (as requested) for about four hours, leaving it ready for further medical input, Una Smith took the article from this version to this: she eliminated the lead, created two Prognosis sections (not in WP:MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections, and left the article in that state. Yet strangely (in that WP:MED discussion), she claimed not to even see the issues when she later returned to editing. This incident was so bizarre that it discouraged me from collaborating on the Medicine Project to clean up articles and I'm more cautious now about asking for input from the Medicine Project. There were other similar issues. I've also noted that she doesn't have a strong sense of collaboration (see the interaction with Montanabw, for example). I suggest a mentor might be more useful than an RfC, as the basic issues have already been reviewed and I don't think an RfC would produce anything different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These same 2 names came up in an unfounded WQA report a couple of months ago. I'll try and find it to provide some background. ►BMW◄ 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For your reading enjoyment, here is a link to the WQA ►BMW◄ 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite everyone telling Una at the WQA that the problem was not on Montanabw's side, she felt that the response there was telling her to take it to a RfC against Montanabw. See [70]. I was asked to provide a few examples of Una's behavior, which, although difficult because it streches over so many pages and often has discussions in multiple areas, I will try to do. First, her quick-failing of the GAN of Horse (which can be found at Talk:Horse/GA1, when she knew that Montanabw was a major editor (and this occured after the WQA). This was apparently a bad-faith fail, because the article was fairly easily passed by a reviewer who is known as fairly difficult to please. Una then argued that because she and Montanabw weren't "allies", there was no reason that she should not review the article, see here. For this action, she was roundly rebuked by involved and noninvolved editors alike, which can be seen on the Horse talk page and her talk page, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#GA review of Horse, where she apparently went to try to get some support for her side of the story. Another fine example is one that she conveniently just created for me - accusing me of biting a newcomer in the subsection right below here this one. I'm assuming she's trying to show a pattern of collaboration between Montanabw and I, and I will admit, there is one. It is a pattern of collaboration that has improved many articles, led to several GAs and one FA, welcomed and attempted to help and communicate with several new editors, and in general done what I hope is a service to WP as a whole. If Montanabw and I have a difference of opinion, we work it out on the talk page of the article, and have so far always managed to come to an agreement. That is the difference between my relationship with Montanabw and the relationship between Montanabw and Una - I am willing to discuss things at length and take criticism, while Una apparently cannot (or sometimes appears to not even read it). I hope this helps everyone to see a broader picture, as that is my intent. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer

Montanabw recruited User:Dana boomer to bite new user Sorrel filly 13. --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 June 13

• 23:02 User talk:Dana boomer#Ahem...[71]
• 23:10 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[72]
• 23:32 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[73]

• 2008 June 14

• (Dana boomer) 00:17 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Proposed deletion of Kool Little Leo[74]
• (Dana boomer) 00:28 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome![75]
• (Dana boomer) 00:37 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[76]
• 01:01 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[77]

• 2008 June 19

• 13:01 page deleted

Are any of those diff's supposed to show a problem? If so, um ... they don't. ►BMW◄ 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith, how on earth do you get "bite" out of that exchange? I'm mystified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential Libel on Talk:ITT Technical Institute

I am concerned about some of the comments on the talk page made by User:Veecort. In particular, he repeatededly references an alleged class-action lawsuit against the institution ITT Tech, and then proceeds to speculate that the lawsuit is a "pitcher plant" designed by the institution to "trap potential whistle-blowers" so they can be "neutralized". See the comments by Veecort at the bottom of the "Want to add a few sentences but we can't find credible sources" discussion thread.

Not sure whether this is a violation of WP:LIBEL or how to proceed if it is. McJeff (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a bad trip, actually... L'Aquatique[talk] 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ungroundable (South Park Episode)

We got some potential problems at this article and its talk page.

User RedPenOfDoom is the victim of personal attacks by the IP address 166.102.104.62 who calls him an "anal douche bag."

User Pizza With Cheesy Crust is accusing RedPen of "bullying" Wikipedia users by constantly reverting articles (mainly the South Park episodes) because "he doesn't believe one thing."

He also is accusing RedPen of violating the 3-revert rule. (which is debatable-see RedPen's User Contributions)

I didn't post anything in that argument because I didn't want to cause trouble, so I posted it here.

Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I left warnings on the IP's talk page and on User:Pizza With Cheesy Crust's talkpage, as some of the comments that they made were clearly over the line. As far as I can see User:RedPenOfDoom has done nothing to warrant sanction at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I left warnings on a couple editors' talk pages about the edit warring, and also removed some unsourced WP:OR from the article and tagged the article. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages

Looking at Template:BuckeyesFootballTeams, I noticed most of the per-year season articles were redlinked, so I've started creating stubs for them - Fills out the infobox, and the "CFB Schedule" templates for the scores, which is pretty advanced so a good start for the article. User:Fatal!ty has started slapping all of the articles I've created with SD templates, and isn't interested in my "please stop wasting time" arguments. Could someone weigh in on this? --JaGa^talk 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a sample. There's a lot of work in that! --JaGa^talk 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See here--Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that while A7 might technically cover these articles, it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. One could argue that being an "Ohio State Buckeyes football" team is an assertion of notability. I'll wait for other editors to chime in before removing any tags, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

That's the thing. I didn't invent the convention of having an article for each year's team; I'm just getting those articles started. The templates were in place - and not objected to - long before I got involved. If Fatality wants to delete those pages, he should get that template (and the other similarly-structured football templates, there's a lot of them) changed as well. --JaGa^talk 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also speedied and then went to AFD on Mario Fernando Hernández & Hilary Teague, both of who pass WP:POLITICIAN, thus not only not speedy but also not AFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician was speedied by Fatality without checking that the article is in good form. Speedy undone, but was he passed it to AfD. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this user also SD'd Eastern Alamance High School. I think Fatality is blurring the distinction between "notablility" and "stub". After all, if 1944 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't exist, 2005 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't either. --JaGa^talk 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They have also speedied several Olympic athletes so I think its time for a short block to get them to stop and read the criteria as their editing has become disruptive. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked more closely into this editor's recent edits, there appears to be a number of, shall we say, ill-considered deletion nominations. I'm going to assume good faith and just say that User:Fatal!ty is either just having a bad day, or is genuinely unaware of the generally accepted notability standards, but at the same time the volume of these nominations is becoming disruptive. Hopefully they will be able to provide an explanation as to why they thought that these three notable politicians would be deletable (other than the obviously shaky nomination statements), until then I would urge the user to desist from starting any more deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I've removed the speedys on the Ohio State pages. They're stubs, but I feel they're notable. Dayewalker (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not speedy candidates. We're talking about a team which plays in front of 100,000 people, not some pub side. I'm going to remove the speedy tags. If Fatality really wants the articles gone he could try AfD, but personally I don't see any reason for deleting them at all. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it can become quite disruptive to have new articles tagged like this. I believe he is doing so because he believes that stubs tarnish wikipedia's reputation further. Count Blofeld 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} I've summed up everything I'd like to say on my talk page. I view my behavior as justifiable and "encyclopedically-correct". Seeing as neither party is willing to compromise, there are a few options to resolve this "dispute". 1. You take the easy way out, and block me indef for disruption. 2. Start a RFC. The choice is yours.--Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And he has been asking for retractions from people who remind him of the rules. [78]. Time for a block until he learns about our deletion policy. DGG (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I certainly wouldn't consider refering to India as "Wup-Wup" as acceptable behaviour. To be it looks completely racist and narrow sighted that towns with a population of 7,000 are not worthy of encyclopedia coverage. Count Blofeld 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I note to avoid confusion that the Blofield was the ed Fatality asked for a retraction from--it was Fatality who made the wup-wup comment, and Blofield properly called him on it. DGG (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the removed talk page history, we have very recent removed RFA, revoked and renewed denial for rollback rights, and a recent unblocking, so it appears that this is more of some sort of pointed editing that is not inline with their unblock request: I would like to be unblocked so that I can prove to the community that I am a solid and helpful editor, and that from hereon in, I will use my time wisely - to build and expand the encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

as these continue even as we are talking, I have blocked Fatality for 3 hours. Looking at his block log, with recent blocks for vandallism from several admins, I invite some other admin to extend the block--I suggest at least a month.--I'm about to go to sleep, so if anyone should want to unblock, feel free, but look atthe log first-- Thatcher previously blocked indefinitely. DGG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see how he responds after the 3 hours is up and whether he has learnt his lesson. If he continues to disrupt by his mass tagging again then perhaps a more lengthy block will be neccesary. Count Blofeld 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I Support this block, and support extending it if he gets straight back to his old tricks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and started closing some of his nomination, for which the consensus is clearly speedy keep and for which the reasons he provides clearly do not apply. (BLP on dead people, WP:RS on articles with sources from NYT or BBC, etc) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• User:Fatal!ty just came from under an indef block on Nov 20 on condition that "he edit productively". In view of the resumed pattern of disruption and belligerent behaviour, I think that another indef block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note: The day after coming off a 2-month long indef block, this user applied for adminship, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty. I did not vote there since it was clear that his RfA was doomed to fail, but I thought that the RfA was basically a WP:POINT violation. The remark in his answer to RfA question 3, "It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway", was particularly telling. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who lifted that block, I totally agree. The unblock was based on Thatcher's comment to me that since the IP was clean there was no evidence of the sockpuppetry that led to the indef block in the first place. However, it's clear that there are other problems with this editor. This is the first time anyone I've ever let out from under an indef block has abused his good faith. I was tempted to reimpose the block but I am deferring to DGG and others involved in this discussion. But the next block, if there is one, should be indef. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just over at the user's talk to notify them of this clearly incorrect speedy... personally, I'd suggest forcible removal of Twinkle for the time being. — neuro^(talk) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Fatality is going to continue editing, I would ask for a topic ban from deletion process. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulnora Karimova article

The Gulnora Karimova article was re-written in a NPOV, press release/fansite fashion in August 2008 (diff). Since then, the single-purpose accounts Danch (talk · contribs), Bespredelwik (talk · contribs), and Unbal (talk · contribs) have resisted attempts to edit the article towards a more neutral tone (there was some related discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Gulnora Karimova#POV issues). Dchall1 has done an excellent job of rewriting the article in neutral, referenced and encyclopedic tone (diff), but the single-purpose accounts continue to revert to the version with POV and tone issues. I'm requesting interested parties take a look at the article to see if any action on an administrative level is necessary. --Muchness (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Muchness. I've tried to initiate communication with the SPAs, but haven't gotten anywhere. I'm not convinced it's malicious, and there seem to be some language barriers involved (for example). Full protection, preferably on the sourced/non-fansite version, might be helpful. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris Kreiman

Resolved

 – Necessary pages protected.

Something looks fishy. BBiiis08 brought us to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Kreiman which ended uneventfully with solid keeps except the nom. Since then, two IPs have deleted the content of the AFD, and they are the same ISP, diffs [79] + [80] and [81]. The whois are whois .153 and whois .125. The .153 has also been deleting the talk page for the article, and it looks like several IPs have been deleting article content, although that may be ok as contentious BLP. Would protecting so only reg'ed users can edit be appropriate? It isn't a daily thing, but there seems to be a very concerted effort to delete everything that relates to his controversy (game fixing) and web site squatting. These facts aren't in the article anymore, although they will probably show up again as proper sources do exist. Anyway, something looks fishy and I would appreciate another set of eyes on this, and I have the feeling once the more controversial stuff is added back, it will get worse. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the AfD, there is no reason IPs should change it anyway now it's closed. I don't think the page itself needs protection with the current level of activity. I'll put it onto my watchlist, I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP if the IPs become really aggressive in vandalizing the page. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is doing it - and I agree the anon removal does look fishy - the removal of the disputed material is well within policy. Here's the diff [82]: the removed text was all sourced from blogs and forums, which is never sufficiently reliable, and particularly so for material controversial per WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, which is why I qualififed it as ok for contentious BLP. Better sources do exist but not the ones in the article, and why I didn't put them back. I only mentioned as it may indicate who is doing this (the article's subject, perhaps) and to show the whole pattern. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Child's personal details in user page

Resolved

 – Deleted and oversighted.

I'm not sure what should be done about this user page, according to which the user is not quite eleven years old. It gives his full name, his town of birth and his father's and uncle's names. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request sent. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted the content (and gave my reasons of the usertalkpage), but better safe than sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this block warning warranted?

I was given this warning that I could have been blocked for a joking comment I made on my own talk page to an editor who had been repeatedly posting on my page. I have never posted on his. Here is the warning:

-- Way out of line comment --

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors allowed to use profanity in edit summaries and on users talk pages which was not considered blockable. I have also been personally attacked and have never asked for a block of the other because it seems short-lived and was not perpetuated over time. I am wondering if a joking response on my own talk page is a blockable offense. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to use administrative powers to block editors that one may be involved with. If Dweller had blocked Mattisse for that comment, I would certainly question Dwellers motives, regardless of what was said.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best to avoid personal attacks in any case. Apparently ADD is a sensitive subject, and it's best to SUBTRACT comments like that. Try to keep all attacks impersonal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That should mathematically eliminate future issues. ►BMW◄ 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a warnable personal attack to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ADD is not a sensitive topic for grownups. I freely admit I have ADD. The editor in question and I are both profession mental health practitioners and know that a joking reference to ADD is not the end of the world. He has been harassing me on my talk page for making comments on his FAC as well as personally attacking me on the FAC itself. It never occurred to me to ask for a block. His supporters have also been harassing me on my talk page. I have never posted on his talk page. I am really confused now about what constitutes a blockable offense. This will definitely limit my participation in any more FACs and I will start a policy of deleting comments on my talk page of the nature this editor and his supporters have made, without giving a response. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, his personal attack on me was merely removed from the FAC and put on the talk page.[83] Then, he and his supporters started harassing my on my talk page because I withdrew from the FAC because of his attack on me. They asked me to return and respond, so this is very very confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On its face, it's a warnable personal attack. However, you're suggesting that the warning itself was personal. That's another issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What were we talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what Baseball Bugs means. Do I think the warning was personal? Hadn't thought of that. My "Oppose" to Casliber's FAC and complaint that he spent time on 10 DYK's & articles, rather than on FAC comments started his harassment of me. Are you saying I think Dweller is favoring Casliber, because his warning drove me away from Casliber's FAC, you are suggesting? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people have an attention deficit without the "disorder" part per se. Reading the alleged personal attack I see the wry juxtaposition of three-letter alphabet soup as a attempt at discordian humor and nothing more. But I can see how some people might take it more gravely and issue a warning without prior warning. Psychological diagnoses—amateur or "professional"—are still a scarlet letter in most circles. — CharlotteWebb 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the "warning" was issued some 8 hours after the alleged attack, and after Casliber spent the night putting more posts on my page. Casliber and I are both mental health professions. It defies credibility in my mind that he takes that comment as a serious attack. Adults are proud of their ADD. I am of mine as in many ways I benefit from it. When he accused me of much worse, his personal attacks on me were merely removed by another editor. Why did he continue to post on my page all night,if he thought I had personally attacked him? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha)

Indeed it looks like he realized it was a joke, so I don't think this is worth all the fuss. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I still have to worry about a block from this editor? I have withdrawn from everything connect with Casliber and withdrawn from his FAC. I have asked that he not post on my talk page further. Is there more I can do to avoid blocks from Dweller? This is very scary. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody else who has been involved in this FAC has yet chimed in, let me just say that although Matisse has in several ways been creating more drama than is really called for, I don't believe that this block threat is either justified, necessary, or helpful. What is needed is some magical way to get Matisse to slow down, and a block threat doesn't tend in that direction. looie496 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The block threat requested by Casliber has had the desired effect of driving me away from my "Oppose" to his FAC. And I will net ever oppose an FAC again. So your wish is granted. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing this thread might be a good start. — CharlotteWebb 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that even though it's pretty lame as personal attacks go, it's still warnable. Being warned is not the same thing as being blocked. If the admin was involved in the dispute, he probably should not have been throwing those kinds of threats around, but he was technically correct about it possibly being interpreted as a personal attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have ADD so I do not see it as a personal attack. So, you are saying he could have blocked me without warning?

User:BoxingWear2

I am concerned that User:BoxingWear2 may be a sock of indefinitely-blocked User:BoxingWear. The former created his/her talk page with a rant against Wikipedians, mentioning "Paul Vario sr aka mkil". The blocked user's Special:Contributions/BoxingWear contributions shows that he/she had some kind of dispute with "mkil". Could someone look into this? I'm not sure why he/she was blocked indefinitely, and I haven't seen any vandalism from this account (though some of the edits were not very productive).--Srleffler (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of BoxingWear--and after researching the history of this user (with whom many older admins are familiar already), the userspace has been locked down. Blueboy96 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Location details of Minor

Looks like this person is giving out their school in conjunction with a username that could be their real name [84] - can we purge please? Exxolon (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it looks like the account name is the user's real name, I've blanked a couple facts to conform to WP:CHILD, and that might need oversight, and I've linked the user to this discussiion and the CHILD on his User talk. Admins please review my actions. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested oversight. — neuro^(talk) 18:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted and restored the page, pending oversight, to remove the details from the publicly accesible pages, and forwarded the delted history to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block User:Lightbot

Lightbot is an extremely controversial bot which is charging ahead delinking dates. It has various technical problems, itemized at its owner's talk page: it is changing book titles and quotations, and producing gibberish, as it goes.

Yet more seriously, the guideline it is attempting to enforce is itself disputed - edit-warring over it is why MOSNUM was protected - again; there's a wide-ranging RfC on the general subject here, which should be posted tomorrow; and a more narrow (and protested) RfC here. Under these circumstances, Lightbot should be stopped pending consensus; I thought it was.

As an aggravating factor, it is resetting its own stop button. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the validity of the bot's edits but offering a Stop facility that the bot will immediately undo itself is a total no-no. I've posted on the owners talk to come here and join discussion. Exxolon (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with block until repaired and discussed. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked pending discussion. Blueboy96 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Support block of this aggravating bot. I and no doubt 99% of the wiki community could not care less about the MOSdate wars, but I have sadly had to reduce the size of my watchlist by at least 50% because of these tedious and downright annoying edit wars over dates made by bots and users with scripts. In fact annoying doesn't even come close. I am certain nobody gives a crap whether dates are linked or not, but for me, watching over backwater articles for vandalism or dubious additions/removals will have to wait until these people get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the bot owner logged in and removed the stop button him/herself. That is not a bug; it looks like the owner thought the issue resolved. I have no experience as to the edits, so I won't comment there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff is very troubling. It reveals that the operator has, in fact, repeatedly removed the 'stop' command himself, without addressing the problems. As such, I'd support a disabling of the bot entirely, until MOSNUM is settled AND the bot properly reworked. The problems with the 'as of' test additions clearly continues, and there's no apparent effort on the operator's part to actually fix and resolve this stuff. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, this bot is approved to complete certain tasks involving the linking and unlinking of dates. It should not be un-disabling itself or communicating with other users as that is outside the scope of its Bot Request for Approval and an inappropriate use of a bot account per Bot Policy. I will not unblock the bot until I have the owner's explicit assurance that it will cease un-disabling itself and cease being used as a communication account. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-enabling, but the operator is enabling it without correcting behaviors nor responding to complainants, which is far worse. ThuranX (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block, I'd personally like to see a full review of what this bot is supposed to be doing, and in contrast what it is actually doing. — neuro^(talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To request a formal review of a bot, please see WP:RFC/BOT. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I logged in and edited the page. That is all. It isn't rocket science. If you had asked me on my talk page, I could have told you. I provided the facility as a convenience and a courteousy. It doesn't actually control the bot itself, I do. I expect courtesy from others too. I do not expect 'block first ask questions later'. I note that Pmanderson has been on my case for some time now and has been repeatedly stopping the bot without quoting an edit. So I no longer take his stalking seriously. He even 'stops' it when it isn't even running. I note that he hasn't quoted an edit to you guys either. If anyone wants to discuss matters unrelated to the false assertion of 'auto-starting' bot, then feel free to take it to my talk page. If I am going to be blocked just because I log in and edit my own bot page, then it is better if I simply don't provide the facility. Sigh. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your gripes about Pmanderson don't override bot policy. — neuro^(talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Lightmouse had removed the stop, using his own account, that would not be a problem; the rest of the questions about Lightbot's actions would remain. If he used Lightbot's account, he violated bot policy, and WP:SOCK. If Lightbot undid its own controls, that would indeed be a serious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, posting on your talk page has the same effect as pissing in the wind if the request amounts to stop using a bot in a controversial area. The fact is, you are dogmatic, your opposers are dogmatic. Everybody else could not not give a shit, but the collateral damage is that articles dont get watchlisted for vandalism/bad info because of your actions. Maybe you just don't realy care about that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pick any edit by your bot, reverted by someone else, reverted by someone else, then reverted by someone else. Like I said, I can't provide a diff because I gave up watching these articles long ago after the third or fourth revision. Date linking or not is clearly more important than vandalism or factual accuracy. 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is innocent until proven guilty. Blocks can't be imposed without evidence. Provide an example edit. Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I'm a liar. Carry on. Nothing to see here. I imagined the whole thing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you imagined the whole thing. I believe that you have seen something that you didn't like. I just don't know what it is. The block was imposed on me and it is very hard to find out the evidence for the block. I am the victim here, not you. Lightmouse (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

edit warring spam vandal ... in WP:AIV for over 20 minutes, still ongoing

Resolved

Can an admin take a look at WP:AIV, or at least at 211.115.111.59 (talk · contribs)? It's an anon who has an established history of inserting spamlinks ... usually to redirects that point to a referal link. The user has re-inserted the same spam link to the Spyware article over a dozen times in the last 40 minutes which has been reverted by multiple editors and the user repeatedly warned, and they are showing no signs of stopping their edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, the redirect page URLs have been submitted for consideration to add to the blacklist [85]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just report them after warning them appropriately - if there are indeed a dozen spamlinks, even if there are no warnings issued, you could probably justify adding a 4im and waiting for them to do it again. If they proceeded to do it again, then you should report them to AIV - AN/I is not really for this. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They had exceeded 4 user warnings, and had been in WP:AIV for over 20 minutes with no action taken - which is the only reason I brought it here (due to AIV backlog). They were finally blocked shortly after posting here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I dealt with it. Please understand that we are all volunteers and that some delay might happen when dealing with WP:AIV. Posting here will not change this. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we are all volunteers. The only reason it was brought here was the 20+ minute backlog at AIV.

Thank you for addressing the issue over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Villain article

I was wondering if I could impose upon some folk to divert a little of their attention to the Villain article. Before I began taking a closer look at it today, the article had no fewer than three 'reference needed' and 'unverified/original research' tags. To address that, I've reverted out the uncited information twice (the info has been there, uncited, for over a year), and transpo'd it to article discussion for citation work. Another editor has added it back in, and I suspect it might get a bit tedious, as the editor is the user who has recently been countering any removal of the uncited content.
I am not in danger of losing my cool, but it might be nice to get some bigger brains to levitate on over for a bit. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong to remove material merely because it is unsourced. If you had some reasonable suspicion that the statements might be false, it would be a different story. Much of the material you are removing is common knowledge. (Disclaimer: These statements should not be construed as an implicit claim concerning the size of my brain.)looie496 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I agree with the removal. It appears to be a big section of original research, more an essay on villainy than encyclopedic content. Dayewalker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On NWA.Rep

Seriously, what is going on? By coincidence I saw that NWA.Rep took a leave of absence after a conflict with some admins - well, too bad I thought. I took a look at his talk page and saw his apparent farewell message and noticing a small edit-war, with the result of Swatjester blanking the page, citing personal attacks - which I don't contest. Looking at his user page however, content was deleted by Swatjester (claiming a section was "disruptive to the project" - what project?) and Gwen Gale (called his practical joke "highly disruptive") - in my personal opinion ignoring WP:BLP#Non-article space and in fact censoring Wikipedia. Right now a full indefinite protection is on. I hope there is an admin out there who has the courtesy and decency to look beyond a personal grudge towards a feisty Wikipedian and shed some light on the subject. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The project" refers to wikipedia itself, and userpage editorials about why women should not wear clothes has nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes the whole project look exceptionally foolish. This is myspace stuff, kids. Take it there. Friday (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, wait. Bishzilla undid the removal of user content, calling it "dancing on the grave".

So, what if NWA.Rep is of the opinion that women shouldn't wear clothes? Just a matter of opinion. And no, it doesn't further Wikipedia, but neither does having a picture of Bugs Bunny on your user page, now does it? I hope it can rest now. Let go of the grudges and let him be. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked what "the project" meant, so I told you. The other part was explaining why they (temporarily) deleted it. Whether it's there are not don't matter to me none. And it will all be moot when his block expires. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read what's way up above, or just going by some off-wiki contact that you might have had? My wife, for example, is well-known for many positive things. I know that if she had an article about her, she wouldn't want to be added to "Women with large breasts" category, or having the phrase "she is also known for her tremendous knockers" added to her article. I mean, it's fine to have a breast fixation, but keep it off Wikipedia because it's disruption. ►BMW◄ 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Divulgance of personal info

A new user User:The Mad Pigeon first and only edit has been to add personal information collected about me off Wiki into an article[86]. While the information itself is public, how it was presented is disconcerting and stalkerish. Can this edit please oversighted and this editor checkusered? I strongly suspect from the last bit that this is a person who I've had a disagreement with before attempting to upset and/or embarrass me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted them of this discussion. I agree that this should be oversighted and editors checkusered, but I want to see what others think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I know who this is. In February I had a disagreement with another editor, User:Jdfielder over Bob Ross. This editor blogged about it on his personal blog, making personal attacks against me (by name). On that blog, he calls himself The Mad Pigeon. This would seem the most likely suspect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)