Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Jackiestud

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

User has been repeatedly adding the exact same stuff about Adam and Eve on several articles related to Feminism and is at 3RR on the Feminism article itself (see contribs). MuZemike 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See user's additions to Feminist theology, Goddess movement, Christian feminism, Goddess, and more. She's adding the same thing to multiple articles, creating real undue weight issues; no attempt is being made to seek consensus, she is replacing the text even after other users have reverted her and tried to initiate discussions. It seems like POV pushing, maybe OR or original synthesis, not to mention the etiquette problems. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've been trying to discuss this (including the OR issue) with her on my talk page [1]. She's added it to Women in the Bible, adding Goddess as a see also for Dolmen because she read something on the web that mentioned Dolmen and Goddess although our Goddess article won't help readers learn more about Dolmen, etc. There were problems like this in April that led to a short block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may borrow a metaphor, the problem here isn't as much OR but a sort of tunnel vision. An encyclopædia is about a particularly wide field of vision -- to horizon and beyond. Your edits have concentrated on certain small issues, which you apparently consider particularly important. It is against the Tao for me to try and convince you that you should neglect these issues, but at the same time, the Tao of Wikipedia is clear about WP:UNDUE, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still AGFing that jackie is working in good faith and may just be a little inexperienced, but I don't know how any of us can make things clearer than we already have. The information is ok (not prooperly cited but ok) it's just being given too much emphasis and is being placed in the wrong articles. The issue we all have with the edits is based on the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). I'm sure if Jackie goes through the policy they'll understand our objections --Cailil ^talk 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Callil. Thank you very much for your words. No doubt about my good faith. Iam jut trying to make it avaiblable in some of these articles because the are related to the text. So, no maybe not all of these but one or two... Adam and Eve is the correct one, as much as feminism. And I would thank if someone can help me with a better english instead of deletion. Jackiestud (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont knwo if you have Campbell´s book, but my text only cites him: Adam was born out of a red clay (and the etimology of his name is red clay, or blood (dam)); a such respected scholar like Campbell is only saying that pre historic religion( and art) worshiped the so called Mother Goddess and this goddess is still there in the Bible. Adam comes from, was born, from this Goddess myth. The Hebrew Goddess book says esaclty the same thing. Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having found the Truth is all fine and dandy, but this sort of proselytism does not really go well with encyclopædia-building. Dear Jackiestud, please don't do it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a statement on User talk:Awadewit about this. The individual uses a poor quality reference, has bad grammar, and insists on repeating it without discussion with others. How to handle? I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar, I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should be primarily editing the Wikipedia of your mother tongue instead of the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be more help to the French and Portuguese projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You know what's interesting Jackiestud? You were blocked for similar reasons at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edit warring at their articles for chaos theory and mother goddess only over two months ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Yes...see above? Maybe I was blocked for the same "REASON" (!!) I could now be blocked here (as you suggested)... You see, lots of "reasons". Feel free to block me... What kind of human being are you? Go read some Campbell...Why do ~you waste yr time with a freak like me...?? Jackiestud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie that isn't helpful. We've pointed you towards the policies and guidelines that govern how articles are written and what material is included in them. Please read them. And yes I have read Campbell along with many other works hence I see how little weight it deserves in the context of a global overview of the whole subject of feminism, or indeed an article on feminist theology. I've advised you a number of times taht a smaller better sourced version of the material you added would be useful in another article like Feminism and Religion. Also please redact your comment to Ryulong as it is both incivil and a personal attack which against our rules for talk page communication--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See this? These are the many refused, deleted actions of this editor at the WP-PT (loads of admins expressing their perplexity with your "requirements": http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ryulong. Campbell is cited in MANY feminism related articles all over WP-en (as I offered many links). End of talk for me. Bye, bye. Jackiestud (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

Jackiestud, stop now. My actions at the Portuguese Wikipedia are of no importance here (because I really don't do anything there unless I've found vandalism here that poured over to the other language projects, which happens every now and then). Your actions here are at question. If you continue to edit war on the English Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. If you cannot act accordingly here, you should stay on the Portuguese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, got nervous? Very bad and histerical words words (horrible and disuptive agressive, unethical, rude, unpolite summaries). You should be blocked for personal attacks! I have many articles here on the Wp-en. Many. As for the Wp-pt (since 2006) there are hundreds of articles and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. All of yr requirements there were denied!! All of it. Jackiestud (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Warning on ANI and user talk page)

Jackiestud - you are clearly being too rude in responding to your critics here and elsewhere. This is not appropriate behavior on the english language Wikipedia. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and edit in a more collaborative and friendly way moving forwards.

Regarding your content edits, you appear to be repeatedly reinserting material which a consensus of other editors believes is fringe material, not mainstream, and you are trying to give undue weight to it. This is against policy. You are also conducting a widespread edit war over that material. Once you were made aware that many other editors (all of them, on those pages, apparently) do not agree with you including it, you are required to stop reposting it over and over again and to discuss the issue on article talk pages. You appear instead to primarily be fighting in other venues.

This all is very disruptive, taken as a whole.

I am assuming good faith and giving you some credit for not having english as your first language. But you are pushing too hard here, and this is not ok. I or other administrators will block you if you continue this behavior. You need to calm down your edit tone and respond more politely, and discuss your edits in good faith on article talk pages.

This is an encyclopedia, and a project dedicated to building one. Please participate here in an adult and constructive manner. We expect positive collaboration from all participants.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She has also put this [2] into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove that material as a precaution Doug or is that an over-reaction?--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a breach of the licence, she says she doesn't know where she got it from. Now she's editing Ochre saying that her stuff comes from another article so it's ok, and citing a mirror (AbsoluteAstronomy) and a couple of websites. Maybe anything goes on some Wikis, but she clearly doesn't undertand ours. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah. So basically even if the info stays the material has to be rewritten to avoid license breach - just great *sigh*. Ok on a constructive note: it was only added to 3 articles: Goddess, Goddess movement and Feminism (i did a link search on the website ref for the Campbell stuff to confirm this). So I suggest we can salvage and prune what's relevant and verifiable (per WP:DUE and WP:V) and expunge what's breaching the license and any other policy. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and should improve the articles. We just do it to one, copy to the others with attribution? Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced it on Feminism by refocussing on thealogy and it seems like other people want to develop it in other directions. We can use the piece as it develops there as a model for the pieces in other articles?--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Should also note that she is edit warring at Ochre. I warned her for 3RR, she either didn't bother to count or miscounted and warned me, after which she hit 4RR and I reported her. But I don't want to revert on Ochre again (although we've discovered that we have Red ochre as well so some sort of merge is needed I think). And although I couldn't have been clearer about attributing copy and paste on her talk page and mine, she continues to do it - [3] from History of religions. I did report her for 4RR but just after another editor had done the same, and he combined the reports. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've come across her before and I see no evidence Jackiestud is ever going to understand and comply with core policies. She simply isn't worth all the time and effort employed on chasing up on her all the time. --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud has been blocked 24h for breaking 3RR → [4]. MuZemike 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance we can find her a mentor? If not, I suspect an indef block will be in the near future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno she had at least 4 people say exactly the same thing to her and she ignored the advice repeatedly - echoing Folantin formal mentorship may not prove productive. Her history at other wikis sadly doesn't demonstrate compliance with behavioral policies either. I think we should wait and see what happens when she comes back - if the same problematic behavior occurs lets open up options then--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho is Requesting an Unblock

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

After stating he will not copyvio any other pages (which is what got him blocked in the first place) and that his previous "retirement" is a moot point, ASE is requesting to be unblocked or would like a path to be unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you put in a pointer to the recently archived discussion? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The difficulty is that Allstarecho's comments after he was blocked have tended to suggest that he does not recognize that his copyright violations are wrong; for this reason, his protestations that he will not continue to disregard copyright have not been wholly credible. He could begin to restore this credibility by starting to go through his past contributions and identifying all edits which used stolen text; this, at a bare minimum, would be an essential component of any path to eventual unblocking. CIreland (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Is everyone stuck on retirement? ASE has stated before and I have above that retirement is a "moot point". He wishes to come back, which would mean he isn't retired. Let's focus on the unblock and not on a retirement that the user has said is "moot". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Concur with NeutralHomer; retirement is not and never has been relevant to Allstarecho's blocking or unblocking; really only Allstarecho seemed ever to think it made any difference. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• support unblock At this point, I don't think it is imperative that he is kept blocked, given that he has expressed clearly that he understands why he was blocked, and has promised to change his behavior. Blocking him again would be trivial at this point, and he should know he is being closely watched. Making him jump through some arbitrary hoops to get the unblock seems pointless given the ease with which any admin could block him again if he screws up the copyright thing any further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  User:Akhilleus has unblocked ASE. He left a lengthy post on ASE's talk page as well. Shall we call this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I've unblocked him. The declines seemed excessively wiki-lawyerish to me; Allstarecho wants to edit and promised not to violate copyright anymore. I trust that his contributions will be closely watched, and if anything even smells like a copyright violation, he will be indef blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I still think he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess, simply because it's far easier for him than anyone else to identify which edits amongst his very many otherwise excellent contributions were theft. I don't think that's at all an "arbitrary hoop" since someone else is going to have to jump through it if ASE is unwilling. CIreland (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess. I also note that ethical obligations are often unmet on Wikipedia. Since I unblocked him, I'll ask him on his talkpage to help us clean up the copyvios. Since I unblocked him, it's only fair that I help in doing so also. Please give me some pointers--is there an organized effort towards fixing the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has some details. CIreland (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the massive disruption he made to Wikipedia (knowingly adding copyright violations for years because he disagrees with copyright laws), and especially with his completely unapologetic tone after his block, he needs to stay blocked for a good long while to realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. A couple of months minimum is reasonable, or at the very least until all the damage he caused is undone. Akhiklleus should have waited for more input before unblocking, because jumping ahead to do it before there was real discussion or any way to gauge consensus just puts everyone in a bad spot. People have been permanently banned for less than what ASE did. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If what you are suggesting is done, that would be punishment and that is not what blocks are meant to do. They are preventive not punishment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: maybe you're right. If so, discussion here should establish a consensus against my unblock, and I won't stand in its way. Until then, I hope that community scrutiny will stop further copyvios by Allstarecho, or lead to his block. I don't really care if he apologizes, expresses remorse, or so forth--forced apologies don't strike me as useful. The important thing is that he stops the objectionable behavior. If he doesn't, then he gets blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Akhilleus should have waited for more community input and especially for the opinion of the blocking admin, Moonriddengirl. I find unilateral unblocks of this sort rather uncollegial, I am sorry to say.  Sandstein  05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified Moonriddengirl of this post. I apologize, I should have done that first, as she was the blocking admin...that is my mistake. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This unblock was a bad call - there was no need to rush and I'm not certain Akhilleus is actually familiar with the situation and how these matters are typically handled. I think that Allstarecho has been the one splitting hairs and wikilawyering since this problem was noticed - quite a few editors have tried to get a straight answer and his responses have been petulant and unhelpful. This issue was so widespread that it required not the usual one, but three pages at the copyvio project for tracking. While I agree that forced apologies are useless, if a contributor shows no remorse and has to be forced to admit they were wrong, isn't that just a useless? I have zero confidence in this unblock and I resent the fact that the unblocking admin's solution is that someone (other than themselves of course) should closely babysit Allstarecho. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep. Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing. Remember, AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to guess you're not aware that I assume good faith, usually till my eyes bleed :) Even so, there's a point where it stops being an assumption of good faith and instead becomes turning a blind eye to a problem; that's where I have to get off the bus. If you're aware of this case, surely you're aware that this wasn't just limited to article space, included difficult to detect copying of just sentences or phrases and that the only response has been "yeah, so what?" until an indef block was in place? I don't see anything in ASE's response that would make me comfortable that he won't continue the same behavior, maybe not at first, maybe not while he's being watched but I'm confident he would have no qualms repeating the behavior if he thought he could get away with it. I don't even see anything about him being interested in contributing further, only that he'd rather not be blocked. I would consider this an excellent example of a block intended to prevent further damage and disruption to the project and the unblock before allowing some semblance of discussion here was unwise. Shell ^babelfish 08:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF says, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The cleanup of this offers plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just yesterday I came upon this edit from April of 2009 while evaluating contributions, pasting several paragraphs of material by Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren (material which archives to 2004). There can be no question that much of the language was the same; origin seems clear. Keep in mind that Allstarecho was notified of copyright policy several years ago and one of his responses on noting these concerns was to indicate that "Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable"[5]. His primary interest during the whole of this clean-up is arguing about whether the copyright infringements removed from articles were actually placed by him. While he's very vocal when he thinks somebody has removed something in error, I've yet to see him say, "Oh, yes, that one was mine. My bad." Does he still believe that material like this and this, also from April of this year, are not copyrightable? Copyright infringement is a grave misuse of the project, one which can put it in legal jeopardy, and whoever is watching him, Neutralhomer, needs to do so not so much with an assumption of good faith, but from a position of objective scrutiny. Akhilleus, I hope you plan to keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, bad call, particularly without bringing the initial blocking admin into it. I support a reblock - he's never made any statement to indicate what he did was wrong, and has been particularly offensive to those users like Moonriddengirl who take the time and effort to chase people like him. An offensive, disruptive serial copyright violator who now expects us to trust him? By this point good faith has been thrown out the window, and I see no reason to believe he's truly changed - rather I see his apology as not "sorry I violated copyright" but more "sorry I was blocked for violating copyright". Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Three pages of copyvio's? What's next, unblock User:Primetime? For me this block is not punitive, this block is to protect the encyclopedia. From reading his talk page I am not convinced he will not eventually continue the same behaviour as before. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Glow in the dark bad unblock. This user causes major harm to the project. He doesn't grasp the concept of Intellectual property, nor Copyright, thus demonstrating no respect for authors nor the law. What makes anyone think he gives a damn about this project? He wants back in for his own addictive needs, and for the ego buff he gets from publishing stuff. Unless and until such time as he provides fro us a clear, lengthy essay about his 'awakening' to the rights of authors to have their works protected, and the value of copyright laws in protecting the creative impulse for the larger betterment of society, I see no value in AGF'ing. He's made clear his commitment to actively refuting and ignoring Copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on the same, and his desperate 'i won't do it again, I swear' is simply insufficient. ThuranX (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Spectacularly wrong unblock, per Moonriddengirl. In April this year he copied literally from one source while citing another. [6][7] And then he claimed that all copyvios were in the distant past, and that anything more recent is just numbers? Wow. I don't think we need this type of user. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• While the unblock may or may not have been ill-judged, it has been done. The result is that Allstarecho is under severe scrutiny for copyright (and likely any other) violations in his editing - his last chance has been and gone, and the next time he puts principle in these matters before WP policy he is gone permanently. I doubt that Allstarecho would have been allowed to return to editing under any more stringent conditions so, despite it being perhaps a little premature, I think we can close this matter as resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this assessment. It's his duty to clean up the mess he created and it's not formally part of his conditions that he does so. Instead, he can edit away and keep responsible editors occupied trying to spot his new copyvios. That's a denial of service attack on Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I completely disagree that the matter is resolved. One doesn't set loose the wolf in the hen house and then throw up your hands because its already been done. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've AGFed until my eyes not only bled but fell out of my head, and I have to agree that this isn't a good idea at this time. As a very involved admin, I either am biased or appear biased, so I won't argue the point strongly. Since I know where many of the proverbial bodies are buried, I will make a few points that should be considered (and I wish had been considered before an unblock):

• Let's keep in mind that at least two blatant copyvios remain: Old Mississippi State Capitol and Ole Miss Rebels football. There may be more.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Further, keep in mind that many more copyvios were found and removed during the course of this investigation, including, for example, Frank Frost and Pearl, Mississippi, and some were even deleted, such as Alamo Theater (Mississippi) and the article that put us on this path when I found it at Template talk:DYK, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company.
• It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer is an unapologetic cheerleader for ASE, given this sarcastic comment shortly after the initial block. I have no problem with liking and supporting a contributor; what I disapproved of in that comment was that either there was no attempt to look at the facts of the matter, or the facts were ignored. To his credit, NH did actually look a bit later and allowed as how he must agree with the community on this one. Now he's back on the other side of the fence. (Sorry if this seems like I'm commenting on the contributor rather than the content; I'm merely pointing out that this is a highly-involved user and providing some context.) Also, it should be revealed that we subsequently discovered a content disagreement we have, but again - I'm confining this to ASE, nothing more. I just think that if it is agreed that mentoring is the right way to go, perhaps a better choice would be someone other than a cheerleader.
• I think it would be wise to consider the length and severity of these violations, which would require an RfC to fully document, but a short summary can be found in this comment I made at User talk:Moonriddengirl.
• It's been pointed out that ASE doesn't display what most of us would call a solid understanding of copyright, or what we'd call a desire to comply with policy. Here are just a few diffs in support of that: You can't copyright facts, as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever, you can't copyright fact..., and this one from 2007: While I don't feel text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted, I made changes..

So, having said all that, if we are allowing the unblock to stand, a whole bunch of editors need to keep careful watch. ASE has repeatedly and forcefully resisted comments that characterize his edits as copyvios, instead choosing to point out that the text is elsewhere also, that someone else put it there, or that it isn't copyrightable. He has not participated even one edit's worth in cleaning up copyright violations since he was blocked, despite requests to do so, and has hampered others' efforts to do so because some of us have been willing to AGF and pay attention.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, as I said, it's entirely possible I made a mistake, and if there is consensus to reverse my unblock (as it appears there might be), I won't stand in its way. I'd just like to note, though, that the discussion on Allstarecho's talk page involved apparent technicalities such as whether he was retired or not, and also whether he was adopting the proper abject attitute of contrition. If the discussion had clearly communicated "your copyvios are so bad there's no way I'll unblock you" then of course I wouldn't have unblocked. I'm glad to see that people are taking copyvios seriously, though--when I've reported blatant plagiarism from copyrighted sources before, I've gotten no response or a shrug. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It might have been appropriate, as a condition of unblocking, and in light of his promise not to violate copyright again, to explain whether he still agrees with these sentiments that he had posted on his talk page shortly after being blocked: [8][9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll say it's never been said by me that copyvios were perfectly ok. What I have said is that apparently statistical facts, close paraphrasing and quoting is considered as copyvios, unbeknownst to me. I guess that is my fault for not finding out. However, I have seen many a "copyvio" removed from articles that have been attributed to me when in fact they weren't. Numerous copyvios that have been attributed to me, were nothing more than copyvio content that was already present in an article or in an article that I split to another (see Ole Miss Rebels and Ole Miss Rebels football as an excellent example). I had no idea that I had to go through each and every article I ever came across to make sure it didn't contain copyvio content. Do you do that on every article you've ever come across? I'm sure one or 2 of you do but I'd bet my house that most of you do not. Additionally, during vandalism patrol, yes, I may have reverted vandalism that also included reverting an article back to a "copyvio included" state, but how am I to know that? Seriously? Regardless, any continued block is nothing but punishment, which is whole-heartedly not in line with WP:BLOCK. As I have promised not to add copyvio content anymore, and as I know many an eye is on my edits, continued blocking can be viewed as nothing but punishment from this point. I'm not asking for your respect or your approval of me as a person as that really means nothing to me. I'm just asking that people be fair here. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. more waffling. now it's 'i didn't know', when he clearly did, and 'I didn't meant to', even though he was repeating old mistakes. He's not sorry, and clearly will do it again. He simply doesn't understand the concept of copyright. ThuranX (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure I will do it again when I've said probably 20 times: I PROMISE NOT TO ADD COPYVIO CONTENT ANYMORE. I mean, how much more plainer can one be? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of keeping a close watch, may I direct your attention to a thead on the Commons AN from last year. It would be prudent to review his image contributions again to see if there's been any relapse there. I am at work now or I would. HiDrNick! 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, they do come out of the woodwork. Haven't seen you since you started that mess a year ago. That was last year and on a different project which has no baring here. Thanks for your contribution though. Also, see here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, with all due respect, I think your final response in that discussion (claiming that other people stole your work) is plenty relevant here. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I started that mess? You were the one who uploaded those pictures in violation of our policies in the first place, and then lied over and over again about them, attempting to smear the character of those who worked to bring your transgressions to light. I offered you an explicit opportunity to clean up your own mess; when you declined to do so, I had to spend my own free time scouring the whole damn internet to find enough copyvio sources to convince the Commons admins to delete most of the non-free pictures you uploaded and lied about. I had to watch videos of Chris Crocker, for crying out loud, because of your flippant attitude toward our copyright policies. Even now, other editors are slogging though your “contributions”, trying to clean up your mess, and your attitude is not one of contrition, but arrogance. You have given no indication that you will not continue to be a net negative to the project. I am astounded that the unblocking administrator has not yet reversed himself. HiDrNick! 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a Biedermann und die Brandstifter scenario

Apparently the English name for this play by Max Frisch is The Fire Raisers.

(It's also been produced as The Firebugs Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

When someone uploads a large number of photos and many of them are found to be copyvios, then of course the rest needs to be deleted as well unless there is strong evidence that they are not copyvios. When someone is caught adding large amounts of copyrighted text to Wikipedia, then of course every substantial addition of text by that editor needs to be deleted unless there is strong evidence it's not a copyvio. After all, there are still books and magazines that are not available online.

What I have not seen, and what is absolutely necessary for this unblock to be at all reasonable is:

• An unequivocal demonstration (as opposed to a mere affirmation) by ASE that he now understands how copyright works.
• A binding commitment to help clean up his copyvios.
• A prohibition of any substantial article space edits other than his clean-up work for the time being.

Before he can be allowed to add more than, say, half a sentence per month to any article:

• The clean-up work must have been finished.
• He must demonstrate (rather than just assert) that he can add text to articles through methods other than plagiarism. One way to demonstrate this would be a series of assignments in which he has to develop an article on a prescribed obscure topic using a prescribed set of sources, in a short amount of time.

Anything less would be in contradiction to the core principle that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Seeing that it can take several man-hours to properly identify and clean up the damage done in ten minutes by some quick copy-paste operation, and that this thankless work must be done by qualified volunteers – many of whom would prefer to write content for articles of their own choosing – this kind of generous unblock on the whim of an administrator is simply not acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've begun to help on the cleanup as can be seen by my contribs - and that's enough as far as "binding". Actions, not words - which has been asked of me and which I am doing.

A prohibition from article space edits is unacceptable. What's the point of being on Wikipedia if you can't edit articles. I'm not to be treated like some toddler confined to his playpen.

Again, as I had promised not to engage in the activity anymore, which in itself acknowledges the copyvios and that there was a problem, continued blocking only serves as punishment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AllStar, you have earned the perspective that you are a toddler to be supervised everywhere. You got caught breaking a major, bedrock policy built to match the laws of most nations on the planet. Instead of immediately apologizing, you continued for over a year doing it. When you were finally caught again and blocked, you threw a tanrum, took your ball and left. Then you came back, 'unretiring' after the heat was off, a tactic you knew would reduce the actions against you, and then, when confronted, you've done nothing but make empty promises and blame others.

You have yet to explain, in your own words, what you did wrong, why it was wrong, why you won't do it again. An Open apology letter to the community would go a long way; taking responsibility for reversing every single copyvio addition you ever made would help too. However, all we get are condescending dismissals of our concerns 'I already SAID i wouldn't do it anymore' is meaningless. It's meaningless because you've made clear that you do not accept the idea of copyright - that the very principles of it aren't valid, they don't apply to you. This can easily be seen in your attitude that 'facts cannot have copyright'. However, they can and do. It's up to you to explain to us why, as part of that open apology.

I continue to oppose any unblocking of your account until such time as you give us that, and then commit to making no edits which are not repair, until the entire repair task is completed. ThuranX (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone reblock him first? Consensus that the unblock was a bad idea seems quite clear. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

that would be good ,we've got a clear disapproval of the unblock. However, if he gets all the reading he really ought to indulge in about copyright done and the essay up before an admin gets around to it, then it may not be needed. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Since people can't seem to accept my promise not to add copyvio content to articles anymore, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgement that copyvios are unacceptable, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgment that I understand copyvios will not be tolerated, I hereby once again, promise not to add copyvios to any article. I also hereby promise to help work on said articles even though I've already said once that I'm already doing that as can be seen by my contribs history. I also apologize to anyone that feels I must go to greater links than a promise: I don't know what else to do to make it right with you but you have my promise. Continued "off with his head" calls are, however, unproductive. Tell me what you want instead of degrading me. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd take your fingers out of yoru ears, and stop shouting 'LalalalaIcanthearyoulalalala', you'd see I was absolutely clear about what I want; it's quite similar to what a few others have asked for. You again make clear that you won't do what's needed to satisfy the community, so I call for an immediate reinstatement of a bad unblock where community consensus supports reinstituting it. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As to "actions, not words", I must say I am not too thrilled by this: [10][11][12]. I would really like to hear the opinion of an expert whether a gradual process from literal copying to excessively close rephrasing makes the copyvio go away. In any case it's still plagiarism. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That last diff isn't mine. And also, related to that, see here where it's obvious I have sought input from an involved administrator on the issue. I mean geez, at least ask me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that you made a slight rephrasing, someone else made a further slight rephrasing, and it's still blatant plagiarism. My understanding of US copyright law is that this kind of rephrasing is not enough, and basically these are merely typical steps to cover up a copyvio. The only thing I am not sure about is whether lifting two sentences literally is OK. It might be below some threshold. As to your post on Frank's talk page – that one puzzled me, and I am still puzzled that it came before your rephrasing. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It came before my rephrasing because I wanted him to look at it before my rephrasing. Then after asking him about it, I realized even in the state it was in it could be considered as close paraphrasing so I went on and made changes to it. He apparently looked at it after my change or the 2 changes and feels its acceptable via his reply to me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at a proper diff. I am not even sure that "rephrasing" is an appropriate word for this:

Long chart of evidence
Source [13]	ASE version 1 [14]	ASE version 2 [15]	Gavia immer version [16]
The FBI report
, which measures major crimes in cities with populations of 100,000 or more around the nation,
showed violent crime increased
in the city	by	by	by
9.3 percent and property crime
rose	increased by	increased by	increased by
4.6 percent.
The city rates buck a trend of lowering crime rates nationwide where	In contrast,	In contrast,	In contrast,
violent crime fell 2.5 percent
	nationwide	nationwide	nationwide
and	as did	as did	and
property crime
dropped			fell
by 1.6 percent.
The city's	Jackson's	Jackson's	Jackson's
rate of 36 murders per 100,000 residents
		caused the city to be
ranked
			the city
fourth in the nation behind
		the cities of	only
New Orleans,
		Louisiana,	Louisiana,
St. Louis
		Missouri	Missouri
and Baltimore
.	.	, Maryland.	, Maryland.
Jackson's
		[sic!] also has a
burglary rate of 248 per 100,000 residents
ranked	ranked	which ranks it	ranks it
second only to Flint,
Mich.	Michigan.	Michigan.	Michigan.

I have no idea how anybody can think this is acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm coming to this conversation later, but in fairness to ASE I'd like to point out one thing: similarities like the ones Hans Adler has found is considered plagiarism only if there is reasonable leeway to rephrase the original language. Just how many different ways can one say, "According to an FBI report released in June 2009 for the 2008 year, Jackson's murder rate ranks 4th in the nation"? Maybe he should have tried harder to put this in different words, but the source for the statement in Wikipedia expresses the information concisely & clearly; apparently without knowledge of the wording of the source, Gavia immer made several edits which made ASE's paraphrase more closely resemble the source. I'm not certain anyone could present this information better. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem for competent users of the English language such as Moonriddengirl. [17] If this kind of plagiarism is seriously being supported by established users, then the problem is worse than I thought. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to ASE, he specifically asked me about that rewrite and I responded that it looked OK to me. I would rather he work on the two copyvios that remain blanked (listed above), but I felt the rewrite was better than what it replaced. I might have been wrong, but let's give ASE a little room on this one since I'm one of the protagonisists here.  Frank  |  talk  21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which 2 blanked Frank? I don't see them link above. I've just been working off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin who originally blocked Allstarecho for copyright problems. I didn't know about this thread until just now. I approve of the unblock.

On the one hand, ASE has handled this whole situation quite badly, being defensive and sarcastic and unacceptably rude in at least one case. He hasn't said anything like "I know this was wrong, and I'm sorry." But he has clearly and repeatedly said that he won't do anything else that might violate copyright, and I believe him. (And if I'm wrong, it's not hard to reblock.) Should he own up and apologize? Yeah, I think so, but it's really none of my business. Would it have been easier on everyone if he had? Absolutely. Would I get some satisfaction on seeing him forced to apologize? Perhaps, I mean I'm only human, but that's not a valid use of a block. The preventative block is no longer needed; So long as he isn't copying and pasting questionable content -- and he's not -- he's welcome to contribute constructively. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• We now have a much more clear statement from Allstarecho that he will not repeat the problem and even that he will assist in any cleanup. While I still think some level of supervision is appropriate, that clears up my concerns about leaving the block in place. Shell ^babelfish 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe him. We do not have a case here of ignorance, but of outright refusal. He's made it his position on copyright clear; it's a matter of principle to him that copyright should not exist or be respected, therefore, I find it hard to believe that he's suddenly converted to a great understanding of the value of protecting the works done by others. I think that what we're going to see, six months to a year out, is an editor who persists in copyright violations via plagiarism, but now does it more subtly, rephrasing half a sentence into the article in one edit, then the other half, then linking them up. He will become a better, more subtle thief of others efforts, not someone truly able to write independently. ThuranX (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I suspect you're wrong, and I'd be willing to put money on it. I guess we'll find out in six months or a year. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for the personal attacks too Thuran, you've made your point well. A thief? Hardly. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually in legal terms you are a thief. Stealing intellectual property, y'see. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In "legal terms," he violated the intellectual property rights of others. Calling him a "thief" is unnecessarily pejorative and doesn't help us, and, in fact, only serves to escalate the drama. Enough. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An update on relevant policies and guidelines

Over the past few months Wikipedia's policy and guideline structure has strengthened with regard to copyright and related issues. Part of the reason was to prevent dramas like the present one. It appears that some of our administrators might not be fully aware of the changes, so highlighting relevant passages. First, Wikipedia:Plagiarism has been promoted to guideline. Also please note the following passages. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright violations:

Dealing with copyright violations

In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used.

Which I'm already doing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Assume good faith:

Good faith and copyright

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.

Documentation is in the contribs history, no? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting within the middle of another editor's post. Allstarecho has not complied with a relevant request that I made within the previous thread, yet am not opposing the unblock. Thanks go to Allstarecho for his cooperation in correcting the problem. A year ago, similar situations used to cause large amounts of both drama and frustration--as a few editors worked hard to clean up problems without sufficient support from the community. That's changed now, but since the change is relatively recent it may be possible that not all administrators are aware that our policies have become more robust in this area. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe "documentation" refers to the sourcing given when you upload the images as to who made them, where they came from, so on. And AGF pretty much flies out the window at this stage in proceedings. AGF is for a new user who's been caught uploading things. AGF is for a new user who made a mistake. AGF is not for a user who was caught, continued doing it because of his own beliefs on copyright law and was then caught again over a year later. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't apply here; ASE made clear he doesn't believe in the principles behind the laws, that the ideas themselves aren't right. I'm with Ironholds here. The cleanup clause needs to be made explicit in it's application here, ASE's word is not enough for me. Further, I note that ASE refuses to explain the value of copyright, that he's yet to show any contrition, instead acting more like an addict, saying whatever will get his wiki-fix back. I don't have any faith that he's actually changed. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All I'm hearing is the same blah, blah, blah from you. The "off with his head" is getting old from you. Take a deep breath, look at the cleanup work I've been doing, and then go find something constructive to do with an article that could use your attention. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for displaying the sort of attitude we like on Wikipedia - that's really going to swing community consensus in your direction. AGF does not apply in this situation, you've provided no evidence that you've changed and no evidence that you understand why what do you did was wrong - indeed, every statement by you I've seen seems to be designed to avoid saying that violating copyright is actually wrong, instead simply saying that we have a problem with it. If you want us to assume good faith in this situation you have to give something to show you've changed and this is a novel situation, rather than (as Thuran put it) another attempt to claw back a fix. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Which only further says either you and Thuran haven't been paying attention or just aren't listening... I've said many a time that I promise not to do it again. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges the problem. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges that copyvios are wrong. I don't know how else to put it so I'm done addressing it. I have been active in helping cleanup the articles and I have said over and over and over and over I promise not to do it again. And I assure you that continued belittling of me won't get you whatever it is you're seeking above and beyond what I've already said and done in terms of my actions to correct this matter. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your promise only acknowledges one problem - that you got in trouble. You have yet to acknowledge the importance of copyright in the world, or any understanding of why it needs to be respected. All you promises show is that you know you got in trouble for getting caught. Do you understand there's a difference between trying to get out of trouble, and trying to change an offending behavior? What Ironholds and I both want is for you to make a public statement explaining the value of copyright. Demonstrating an understanding of the value of copyright to society would be a big step towards convincing me, and I think Ironholds as well, that you really understand what you are doing wrong when you cut and paste, or mildly reword, someone else's work. You've yet to do that. IF you're confused let me be clear. I'd like to see a 'why plagiarism is wrong and why copyright improves society' essay of contrition from you. ThuranX (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

←I suppose that most people reading this thread (at least if they read the last one) know that I take copyright situations seriously. Just for the record, I have been impressed with User:Allstarecho's contributions to cleanup since his unblocking, which so far seem to be very much on the up and up (I have double-checked some, but not yet all) and which have gone a long way towards increasing my willingness to assume good faith from this point forward. Although I have seen multiple-article infringers blocked and unblocked before, I have never seen one of them actually apply himself to helping out with cleanup. Given his past, it is a good idea that a check be done in the future to be sure that infringement has not resumed (courts of law don't care about WP:AGF; Wikipedia needs to exercise some responsible due diligence with identified problem contributors), but at this point I'm willing to cast my lot with User:Quadell in believing that there may be no future problems here. I would encourage Allstarecho to seek feedback from somebody experienced with these issues if at any point he is unsure about a copyright situation. Better safe than sorry, since the likelihood that future inadvertent infringement could be misconstrued as intentional is high. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wasserman

This user has been made aware at least once previously that a number of editors take issue with his aggressive communication style. Personally I feel like some editors are far too thin-skinned about supposed incivility and have no particular opinion about the previous incident; I provide it only for informational purposes. Recently the editor has decided that there is an insidious conspiracy to eliminate the categorization of Jewish people as Jewish. Here he accuses User:William Allen Simpson of "rampant" and "blatant" censorship because that editor has nominated a number of "Jews by occupation" categories for deletion recently. In five CFDs from June 11 he copies and pastes substantially identical comments in which he accuses WASimpson of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of ... Jewish categories" along with accusations that WASimpson and I are engaged in a conspiracy against Jewish-related categories. Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here, at the very least the editor needs to be put on notice that hyperbolic and unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies constitute a failure to assume good faith and constitute incivility. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• In accessing the editor's page to advise him of this notice, I found this. User has a history of crying "censorship". Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a participant to those discussions and as such have been able to form an opinion about Wassermann. He seems genuinly distressed by certain nominations for deletion connected with "Jewish". And it is true that quite a number of these have been tagged for deletion lately. And it may even be that William Allen Simpson (with whom I have an issue here on wp:ani) is trying to tag as many ethnicity related categories as he can, in accordance with what he thinks is the right thing to do. But accusing editors of conspiracy, in the way Wassermann does, that is a little out of line. Nevertheless, in view of the emotional issue involved and in view of the fact that we all have been created by G-d with a different way of expressing ourselves, and for some that way is more emotionally loaden than for others, I hope we can suffice with a verbal explanation to Wassermann of the proper way to behave in discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any proof of validity of this users claim of "censorship"? Triplestop (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not really. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ill-advised, maybe. Deletionism gone a few steps too far, perhaps. Countered by reliable sources, likely. But there is no evidence of censorship based on religion here, and problems with deletions at CfD are a rainbow assortment crossing categories based on all races, religions, creeds and national origins, including claims that it is impossible to determine race, religion, creed or national origin for anyone without resorting to original research. A reminder that WP:COOLDOWN, clearly specifies that "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect" and that such blocks should not be proposed as a solution. CfD is in desperate need of greater outside participation to help produce consensuses that are representative of the community as a whole, and all necessary efforts should be taken to bring User:Wassermann productively into the CfD fold, rather than trying to push out and away those who disagree with some CfD regulars. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• COOLDOWN also says that if an angry editor is being disruptive they may be blocked. Accusing editors of engaging in conspiracies is disruptive. This is not a question of "push[ing] out" an editor on the basis of disagreement; that is not even close to an accurate assessment of the situation. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here" are your words. Policy is very specific that cool-down blocks are prohibited. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for god's sake. COOLDOWN says that they "should not" be used, it does not say that they shall not or cannot be used. It is advising against their use, not prohibiting them. And of course my words also say that he's crossed a line into incivility and disruption and COOLDOWN specifically states that blocks for this sort of behaviour are appropriate. Does there really need to be this constant parsing of everything everyone says?

• I had to censor one of Wassermann's sub pages. Is Jayjg still around, he has had interaction with this user? --Tom (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

from his user page it looks like jayjg blocked him repeatedly but he disappeared completely at the beginning of the judea/samaria arbcom case and hasn't returned since then. untwirl(talk) 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that userpage a yesterday, and did not understand the reason for its "censorship". Clearly User:Wassermann is smart enough that conversation, perhaps by more than one editor, should be able to explain him what and why. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery: I noticed this thread because of a whimsical "Recent changes" excursion a few hours ago. Some of Wassermann's recent edits do seem to be a source of concern on the basis of WP:BLP, because of the insertion of unsourced Jewish-related categories into biographies of living persons. He has in the past been blocked for exactly this sort of infraction. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconding this. See this and this, where there are no reliable sources saying these people are Jewish, and obvious BLP concern. He's had so many problems with this before, for which he has been blocked, that I can't imagine he's unaware that this is a problem. Recommend a block. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And upon investigation, I see that Category:Jewish Economists was deleted in 2007, and then Category:Jewish economists was deleted just 4 days ago. This looks like an attempt to recreate and repopulate a deleted category. (Not exactly the same category, but the same arguments apply.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the majority of people in the category are not said to be Jewish in the article. This is a serious BLP problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, Wasserman has used Catscan and/or AWB to intersect Category:Jewish Americans/Category:American Jews with Category:American economists (as the ones I looked at are also in the former, eg Kotlikoff was already in a Jewish category). It is something of an attempt to subvert the speedy deletion of Category:Jewish economists. Occuli (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, read his comment there. Sheesh. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a related note, I have come down on User:Epeefleche here about attacking the nominator rather than the nomination, with what I perceive to be a direct intimation of anti-Semitic bias. This followed Wassermann's allegation of the conspiracy on Otto's part. I'm not sure if Wassermann realized that could be a direct result of his careless word choice. I consider these actions to be on the other side of a line that cannot be crossed here. I won't weigh in on a block motion yet, but I'm certainly monitoring the situation with both these users. (I'm also not a fan of the words Otto has used in this discussion here and elsewhere, but that does absolutely nothing to justify the negative behavior on Wassermann and Epeefleche's parts.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

66.190.29.150

66.190.29.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 66.190.29.150 (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on several articles & the talk pages of those are full of PAs from him, mainly him accusing others of British POV pusshing. (The funniest one is on Slick tyre where rather than try to get the article's title changed he keeps changing 'tyre' to 'tire' within the article). His talk page is littered with warnings. He hasn't actually gone over 3RR yet, and I'm involved in one of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this. He is continually posting at Talk:Amesbury Archer in a way that I would call spam more than anything else. I know enough about the subject to be able to work out that he clearly doesn't know anything about it. At the risk of making a personal attack (not my intent here, I just want to tell you how I see it) judging from his methods of ignoring questions raised on the talk page and trying to extend an argument, I think he's only here as a persistent vandal (or WP:troll), not to contribute anything meaningful to articles. This would seem to be backed up by the problems other editors are having with him. I have no intention to hide facts about the article and would only welcome its expansion in a logical and meaningful form, unfortunately his edits seem designed to antagonise other editors so that he can have an argument. His insistence that anyone disagreeing with him is pushing a British POV is totally nonsensical on an article about Ancient History, yet he's doing it. I'm happy to be open about the facts of the Amesbury Archer and have even incorporated some of his views into the article, but his offensive tone, continual PA's and questioning of other editors knowledge and motivations is pathetic. Even got me a bit annoyed for a moment. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The consistent personal attacks and offensive tone has become disruptive on several articles. He has continued posting personal attacks, I note, after a last warning to stop or else be blocked. I would suggest we carry through with that.

Note that the IP was blocked for 6 months in February 2008 as a sockpuppet of banned User:Ernham (see here. I don't know if that's still relevant, but I think it's worth mentioning. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Ah yes, I've seen this one as well and had half a mind to raise it here. Clearly someone who knows wiki policies and only seems interested in trying to start pointless arguments. Sails close on 3RR but doesn't make the 4th edit. Bizarre, seems to set out to disrupt. Justin talk 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Definite intent to disrupt, I would say, based on attitude and approach. Language changes at Slick tyre ("It is not my problem the first person to start the wiki used the incorrect variant spelling"), removing properly cited material at Falkland Islands ("now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV"), several nasty attacks against Justin ("abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker"), and so on. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think he just likes arguing with people on talk pages. He'll ignore your questions and then accuse you of exactly what he's guilty of, constantly trying to get people to rise to his baits. At Amesbury Archer it looks to me as if he watched a BBC Timewatch program called Stonehenge Decoded (I think it was broadcast in the States with Carrie Fisher narrating it) and is basing all his arguments off of it, trying to come across as an expert. I can see from his comments that he knows very little beyond this, and I suspect the same is true at other articles he edits. It's amusing that one BBC article is Gods truth, but another is totally wrong because it disagrees - but only he is in a position to judge this for us. That alone shows his intent I think, and leads to his next ploy to start a fight - insulting everyone he can as quickly as possible Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some sort of consensus here folks? It seems to me that if this user is merely a sockpuppet of an already banned user, then the logic of originally banning him still stands. Different account, same user. No change in ways either! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf's conflict with User:Allstarecho becoming disruptive

So User:Damiens.rf doesn't seem to like User:Allstarecho, and it's spilling into a number of forums, and, I believe, becoming terribly disruptive. ASE wrote an article on Equality Mississippi, with potential COI problems as noted above, and Damiens.rf has been attacking that article -- I can't think of a more accurate term -- by adding a ridiculous number of fact tags (despite it already having Refimprove), removing the names of convicted murderers of ASE's friend, spuriously citing BLP, removing several sources because they mention "Mississippi Gay Lobby", not "Equality Mississippi" (despite the fact that the article says "The organization's original name was Mississippi Gay Lobby"), repeatedly removing information on offline sources (therefore making the copied PD text into plagiarism), adding {{pov-statement}} in many places (such as the word "historic" referring to a Supreme Court ruling), and many similar edits. Note that this is entirely tendentious editing; none of his many edits have actually improved the article. His few comments on the talk page have been brief and mainly sarcastic. Yes, there are legitimate COI problems in the article, and the sourcing can indeed be improved, but I don't believe Damiens.rf's edits have been good faith attempts to improve things. I believe they have been disruptive attempts to attack ASE.

Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated Wikipedia:ASE and Wikipedia:ASTAR for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit here and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like this one show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Damiens.rf on the two redirects. However, I'd say your characterization of his other edits is pretty spot on, and that this does seem to be a pattern with him. I'm not comfortable doing anything here either, but what kind of administrative action are you looking for? AniMate^draw 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf has also removed an OTRS link from the page several times. The mess of fact, citation, and "what" tags are continued to be added to the page. This is disruptive and Damiens.rf is not improving the article in anyway what-so-ever. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's continuing to edit war on tag placement. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his attention could be drawn to this ArbCom finding (currently passing) - "In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute." –xeno^talk 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this quite by accident and have encountered similar issues with User:Damiens.rf. After he nominated an image of a deceased legislator for deletion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_9#Byron_M._Baer.jpg here, responses that addressed his issues appeared to have triggered a sequence of new FfDs for eight separate images I uploaded on eight separate occasions at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_12. I have no idea what triggered this outpouring of deletion requests and these deletion requests accounted for almost all of his Wikipedia edits that day. Any legitimate issues with these images were readily addressed and could have been addressed without resorting to deletion, but the greater issue here appears to be that User:Damiens.rf does appear to have launched these FfDs on a retaliatory basis, in apparent violation of WP:HARASS and WP:STALK. I thought it was just me, but this ANI report seems to make it clear that this is a larger problem on Damiens.rf's part that needs to be addressed through administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the wikipedia rules, if any, about users creating "shortcut" pages that consist solely of redirects to their own talk page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_27#Wikipedia:PEDRO Kingturtle (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly different, as that was a redirect from an editor's name to a sub-page (that didn't even belong to them). A more accurate example would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 23#Wikipedia:GURCH, Wikipedia:EVULA, Wikipedia:ZN → User/User talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "harrassment by template" of Damiens.rf on the Equality Mississippi article and mass nomination for deletions of ASE continues. I wasn't going to suggest it, but since Damiens.rf isn't letting up in this template harrassment, a "chill" block might be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi currently has twelve templates on it, mostly {ref} and {fact} tags. The reason it's only twelve is that several have been removed. It makes the article quite difficult to actually read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed three (two tags and a template). I figured it was more than 12 to be honest....but no matter what, it is far too many. One or two, we get the point....12 is overkill. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing tags, why don't you remove unsourced statements? --Damiens.rf 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of littering the page with tags, why don't you source the unsourced statements? It's obvious why, but it just needed to be said. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained back in May (when I unsuccessfully tried to fix the article without the use of tags), I didn't sourced the article myself because I couldn't find much information about that organization. But since we're at it, why don't you, as the creator and main editor, sourced the statements when writing the article? --Damiens.rf 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.sf did the right thing, and I would hope that more editors would do what is an unthankful task, that is, pointing out problem with articles and their sources, either by deleting content or by tagging problematic sections. Andrei Rublev (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A user can do the right thing, but if they do it in the wrong way it isn't helpful. Damiens.rf has been disruptive and antagonistic here. It's not okay. AniMate^draw 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AniMate puts it well. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask the tough question...what are we to do? Do we just let Damiens.rf run rampant over the article, make snide and sarcastic remarks on the talk pages and edit summaries (which has already upset one user) or do we do something....anything? Bad ideas included. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's antagonizing ASE and being disruptive. He doesn't care if Equality Mississippi is improved. It's all about proving some kind of point. He's not listening to any one's advice today and it's rather obvious a block is necessary. (P.S. the people having aneurysms over his redirects need to step away from the computer...slowly...) APK (If You Wanna) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then someone should block him, cause this is disruption at it's worst. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and I have had a negative editing experience going on, I'm guessing, about 3 months now - ever since he went on an image deletion rampage that I disagreed with. Since then he's targeted me in several place.. images I have uploaded, shortcut redirects to my user page and talk page (he's nommed 3 of them at Misc. for Deletion just today), the article being discussed here and others in which he's felt the need and trolling on my talk page. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that at least 1 of the 2 IP users in the thread just above this one, is him. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you write up a report with diffs to substantiate that? Agreeing with several posters above that the actions today are probably blockable. If this isn't a one-off then there's also a more serious problem. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the Mfds; "bad-faith nom by user with a grudge against ASE. If someone feels strongly, pls re-nom and I suggest an admin topic-ban Damiens.rf from the discussion. (NAC)". To expand on that point, I think it would be fine for someone else to re-nom the pages for deletion if they truly believe that they should be deleted, but given Damiens.rf's history with ASE the well was rather poisoned and didn't appear to be done in good faith. Should someone re-nom the pages, I think it would be a good idea for Damiens.rf to be topicbanned from the discussion in order to avoid further problems. I believe what I did was within the realm of non-admin discretion for closing XfD's, as the close would best be described as "Keep inasmuch as the nomination was pointy and continuing a grudge, but there may be a valid concern here which someone without a grudge could raise with far less drama and enabling of ongoing interpersonal conflicts." //roux   19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I boldly re-opened them. Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !votes there, let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Which you should not have done, as you had already voted in the discussion. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel there is a goodfaith basis for nominating them. As someone without a grudge against ASE, you are probably more able to evaluate fairly whether they should be deleted, unlike Damiens.rf. //roux   19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Early closing a discussion with lots of delete !votes disenfranchises those good faith editors who believe in the deletion. Just let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • (edit conflict)Fruit from the poisoned tree. And I suggest you re-read what I wrote above, as it seems you didn't; re-nominating the pages without Damiens.rf's involvement is better for the project as a whole and ensures that those editors who had already commented may do so again as they wish. But since I don't particularly feel like getting into an argument with someone who clearly didn't bother reading what I had to say, have at it. You're completely missing the point that the nominations were obviously and purely further fueling of an interpersonal grudge, and we should not be enabling that. Apparently you think we should be, which I find perplexing at best. //roux   19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That's not the point though, as I noted on the MfD page. I was once followed around by a pernicious little stalker here, but it turns out that one of the places where the boy blindly reverted my edits did have notability issues after all. The right issue can be raised by the wrong person sometimes. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Have faith that the closing admin will take the bad faith nom into account when they close. This is distracting from the larger problems. AniMate^draw 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Indeed...There also wasn't that much participation from the nom either and the nom statement was short and to the point. –xeno^talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Note that Allstarecho has already recreated P:ASTAR which was speedily deleted just hours ago. Dismissing all of Damien.rf's actions as bad faith misses a critical element of why this ended up here in the first place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am thouroughly disgusted by this discussion here and at Equality Mississippi. In protest I will stop editing here. There is really no point in writing well-sourced and neutral articles on topics I am not personally involved in. Admins are apparently not willing to take steps against editors who abuse Wikipedia by creating vanity articles on their own organisation, and then revert everyone who dares to point out problems with this article. Not to mention the numerous copyright violations.

I guess that fits in the broader picture where editors who create fake articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deudonic_War) and attack other editors ([18]) are only blocked for a week and not for good. Good luck in attracting good editors, when in fact everything you do is to try your best to keep the bad editors. Andrei Rublev (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is interested in retaining counterproductive editors. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I read through the previous ANI reports and each time the conclusion seems to have been that there were legitimate issues that were identified by Damien and that accusations of bad faith and other personal attacks were inappropriate. And here again, I see a lot of complaints in this discussion about his prolific use of fact tags (for example), but the alternative corrective action was simply to remove all the unsourced assertions. There is also a serious issue of COI and an ongoing problem of pushing and exceeding the limits of our policies for photos, copyright, etc.

I certainly understand the sensitivity felt when an editor sees their work subject to series of noms (it sucks when you're the one targeted). But I don't see any evidence of bad faith, and when there's a pattern of mistakes it shows up in the edit history, and sometimes another editor will investigate and take action.

Normally I'm a big supporter of editors going there separate ways, but in this case there does seem to be a number of problems that need to be addressed. That many of the articles involve politically sensitive issues should not be used as a cudgel to scare away good faith editors trying to appropriately enforce policies. If someone has a suggestion on a better way to handle the problems Damien has identified, they are free to suggest it. I certainly agree that delicacy hasn't been demonstrated in the handling of this matter, but Allstar hasn't responded with a high degree of civility and kid gloves either. I think we should focus on resolving the issues and sorting out which of the problems identified are legitimate and how to correct them, leaving the rest of the accusations out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have little positive interactions with Damiens.rf so will confine myself to making a generalized statement that others can take in as they please. I found their editing across a handful of biography articles and at least two list articles, all about murdered LGBT people - mostly transgender folks - chilling. The seemed to prefer deleting to sourcing and set about edit-warring even when sourcing was added. Even if they are making some valid points that sourcing is needed, content needs to be NPOV, etc. Making articles into battlegrounds and targeting any minority group seems like a really bad idea and makes editing sensistive subjects toxic. This is completely counter to civility policies. This is among the reasons editors burn out and leave and prosepctive editors turn away. In a volunteer community we should be quicker to find ways to work with others, not in opposition to them. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no interest in the subject matter itself, but admins should be aware that regardless of subject or editor, Damiens.rf has a long history of overly aggressive editing practices on Wikipedia. While his base intentions may be good (AGF, after all), his overall style is very hostile and disruptive. Why should this be allowed to continue?

Please consider these past incidents when making a decision on how best to resolve this issue:

[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Radiopathy •talk• 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's one more to look at: [25]. (The result—"both editors warned"—was unfortunate, I thought, because Allstarecho had done nothing to warrant being warned, while Damiens.rf had been making the same disruptive edit repeatedly, not technically in violation of 3RR but certainly in violation of its spirit). That incident—wherein Damiens.rf six times in four days, against consensus and without discussion, removed an image he himself had just nominated for deletion for the second time—was my introduction to Damiens.rf. This behavior was accompanied by various other unhelpful edits to Violence against LGBT persons, including much tagging and deleting. The whole episode, which lasted several days, left a bad taste in my mouth because I had been actively working to improve the article at the time, including adding sources, and found it difficult to carry on in the face of such massive disruption.

Since that time, I've noticed a troubling pattern to his edits of articles on topics related to violence against LGBT persons, such as the murder of Fred Martinez. On May 12, he nominated the Martinez article for deletion. It was deleted (erroneously, in my opinion, since it was well-sourced and clearly notable), but what I found particularly disturbing was Damiens's conduct with regard to two related articles:

1. Shaun Murphy (murderer) was a simple redirect page to Fred Martinez. Technically, since it redirected to a deleted article, it may have been appropriate to delete it. However, Damiens's stated rationale on May 20 for speedy deletion was "Link accuses someone of murdered (sic) and redirects to deleted article." The inconvenient fact was that it didn't accuse someone of murder; it simply took as its title the name of a convicted murderer, namely the murderer of Fred Martinez. The Martinez article was properly sourced to show the fact of Murphy's conviction, so Damiens's apparent implication that there was a BLP issue was completely unfounded. I'm all for assuming good faith, and I do so every time I interact with others on Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine that Damiens thought that the page should be deleted because its title contained the word "murderer". Of course, the on-wiki evidence that Shaun Murphy was in fact a murderer had been conveniently deleted—due to the efforts of none other than Damiens. Circular logic at its weirdest.
2. Also on May 20, Damiens made an edit to LGBT movements in the United States removing Fred Martinez's name from a short list of bias-related murder victims, saying in his edit summary that he was "removing martinez since it was a normal crime" (my emphasis). Of course, it was anything but a "normal" crime—numerous reliable sources reported that Shaun Murphy bragged about killing a "faggot"—but again, the on-wiki evidence for that was conveniently erased by Damiens's own hand.

In helping to establish a pattern, it also may be worth noting that Damiens placed a notability tag on Murder_of_Amanda_Milan last fall, and said in the edit summary, "I think this crime was not notable outside local news and lgbt circles". This seems to imply that topics of concern in "LGBT circles" (whatever those may be) are somehow not worthy of article space on Wikipedia.

I have had no recent interactions with Damiens.rf and am not especially asking for mops to be wielded here, but I have been extremely troubled by these (and other) edits he made last month, and I thought it would be as well to bring them to light here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to establish a pattern, look at his block log. Once he has something in his sights, he's single-minded in his pursuit of the issue. Therein lies the problem. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of single-minded, here's something new to consider: [26]. On the plus side, Damiens.rf is opening a discussion on the talk page rather than simply tagging or deleting. Problem is, it concerns a late friend of Allstarecho (see Equality Mississippi#Founding). It strikes me as bad form, at the very least, to be singling out this one item while this ANI thread is open. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in the midst of an adversarial encounter with another editor, I'd stay well away from any articles relating to that other editor's off-wiki life. Rivertorch (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense that Damiens.rf completely disengage from that article and Allstarecho broadly construed? There seems little good coming of this and Damiens.rf, IMHO, gives every impression of baiting. I would feel a bit stressed if an editor who had been hounding me now wanted to work through the murder of a friend of mine. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm beyond stressed about it. Especially more to see he's now taken the fight to a whole nother article. Until Equality Mississippi's closing, we gave an annual award to honor him - The Jamie Ray Tolbert Equality Award. I just don't know how to source that he and I were friends, that I spent days on end driving around Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi looking for him/his vehicle, that I was on the local radio and news doing interviews through tears... I mean, I can't simply call beyond the grave and ask him for a written statement that we were friends. What I do know is his death is what propelled me to get off my ass and start a gay rights organization in a state that had none. I think that's notable. unfortunately, I have no way of sourcing our friendship other than the original Equality Mississippi web site when it had the full history of the organization. I'm currently culling through the now defunct site via archives at Archive.org. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, since you are using Archive.org, try looking on the local TV station websites of the stations you appeared on for a story link. They would have said in that story that you were his friend...and would be more than enough to source it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have and so far nothing. I've found actual pages that notate our friendship but there's the issue of self sourcing.. using the organization's web site as a source has been another complaint by Damiens.rf. See The March 15, 2000 entry here from 2002 and here from 2004. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Damiens has a history of using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia policy as a tool for bullying - it goes well beyond simple enforcement of Wikipedia ideals and is often rigidly (and contemptuously) targeted at one thing or person. Orderinchaos 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, I think they are good sources and regardless of if they came from a group you ran, I think they should be added....or at least let everyone decide if they should be added on the talk page for consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, redux (was How far can good faith be stretched?)

Boldly collapsing this as distracting from the originl issue. ASE could have handled this example better but so could have the others involved. This hardly excuses Damiens.rf's patterns of harassment against multiple editors as noted above. Can we please refocus on the more serious issue here? -- Banjeboi 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Presented for your consideration, this series of edits: 16 May - Allstarecho uploads a joke image labelled "Upscale Glory Hole" (the image is clearly an IKEA sink or countertop with a part missing) 25 May - Allstarecho adds it to Glory hole with the caption "A glory hole found in an IKEA store restroom" 9 June - removed by User:Mendaliv with the edit summary "this is not a glory hole, but was just humorously labeled as such on Flickr" 14 June - Allstarecho re-adds the image with the edit summary "it's labeled as such at the original source" 15 June - Mendaliv changes caption to add "possible" and summary "tweak description; image description does not say it was from a restroom, nor does it say it was actually a gloryhole" 15 June - Allstarecho removed "possible" with summary "sorry, the original source plainly says in big black bold letters "Ikea Glory Hole". It doesn't say "Possible Ikea Glory Hole". And where else does one find a glory hole besides in a restroom?" 15 June - I remove image 15 June - Allstarecho reverts me with edit summary "the source says it is, take it up with the source if you have an issue with it" 15 June - I revert and Allstarecho does not challenge the edit I have no doubt that Allstarecho knows that this is not actually an image of a glory hole. Should I assume good faith and pretend otherwise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) That's a problem, particularly since it continued after the recent unblock. A canonical example of unreliable sourcing is some random person's description at Flickr. Putting that sort of joke into article space is dubious at best, and edit warring to reinstate it one day after gettting an indefinite block removed does not look good at all. Is there some missing context to explain this? Because as this stands it's very disappointing. DurovaCharge! 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that "good faith" is an irrelevant red herring. If someone's behavior is disruptive, it doesn't matter how good their faith is; the behavior has to stop. Stopping to make claims about the goodness or badness of their faith distracts from the important task of simply stopping them. Every time I block a vandal, they might be acting in good faith, and just incredibly stupid. I don't care, so I don't mention their faith. Disruption must be prevented, independent of any considerations about "faith". Just my 2 bits. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) That's it exactly. I have arrived at the theory that even the most notorious vandals, such as that Grawp character, believe in their hearts that they're doing the right thing, or that what they're doing is justified somehow. So in that context, they are indeed acting "in good faith". AGF thus is not really a very helpful concept. The question that should be asked about any edit is not "Was it done in good faith?", but rather "Does it fit within wikipedia guidelines (i.e. verifiable, notable, neutral, etc.)" and "Does it enhance the reader's knowledge?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) It's still a helpful concept insofar as it reminds us to refrain from making motivation-based arguments. Those are weak arguments anyway, because they rest on a necessarily dubious conclusion. If, on the other hand, the AGF concept simply inspires editors to identify behaviors that they believe "excuse" them from an obligation to assume good faith... that's actively harmful. The ideal would be to encourage a culture where arguments about others' motivations are seen as not only irrelevant, but actively distracting and poisonous. The mosquito biting my leg last night was absolutely acting in good faith - no question. If I had justified killing it by claiming it wasn't... that would be very stupid, and it would cause sensible people to question my reasoning, and rightly so. I killed it because it was sucking my blood, and I don't care one bit about its faith. Bugs is entirely correct about the right questions to be asking. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) While hardly claiming to be an expert on glory holes ... I will disclose having been in quite a few sex clubs - it may have been research - and that image easily could be a glory hole from any of them or on someone's private property as a joke or any other number of scenarios, like a porn movie. It certainly looks like one and the words applied there also would infer that use so I would choose to accept it. That bad lighting? Most clubs have utility lighting in addition to the "mood" lighting. If it was a movie set they would likely have needed the lighting for the filming. Sorry, I see this as quibbling over a glory hole and aren't you terribly proud of that? -- Banjeboi 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The subject matter is irrelevant: Wikipedia's policy structure allows for an article to exist; policies apply equally. The relevant policies here are WP:V and WP:RS (as well as discouragement from edit warring). DurovaCharge! 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Amazing how this thread dealing with Damiens.rf's bad faith and harassment, has now turned into one about my bad faith. The fact is, I went looking for a better "glory hole" image than the one that was being used in the article. I found this alleged "joke image" on Flickr as a free image. I added it to Commons, and put it in the article. Nowhere on the damn Flickr page, at the time anyway as I haven't looked at it recently, does it say "this is a joke image, it's not real, etc". What the Flickr source did say was a big damn in bold title Ikea Glory Hole. So I am supposed to guess and assume it's a some kind of "joke"? And because I didn't, Wikipedia has now fallen to its knees? Seriously, grow up. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I invite anyone reading this discussion to look at the image, which is perfectly inoffensive in case anyone is concerned about that, and judge for themselves. After having been informed (unnecessarily) that it was a joke, Allstarecho replaced the image, and even reverted an attempt by Mendaliv to qualify it as a "possible" glory hole. Another editor has no trouble recognizing it for what it is. Now the photographer has responded to a query by Mendaliv on Flickr to clarify "mendaliv - It was in the kitchen department at Ikea. There should have been a faucet there to try". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) When Allstarecho claimed an ongoing wikihounding problem had been occurring for months he received an invitation to provide evidence; he provided no evidence. Instead, other evidence was forthcoming that Allstarecho had edit warred to restore an unreliable claim after his recent unblock from an indef. This has taken time out from two historic image restorations: one United States Capitol from the War of 1812, the other a portrait of John Quincy Adams. Will be heading back to serious work now, and hoping this thread ends in a sensible result. DurovaCharge! 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Slow down their private eye, go look at my talk page. You will see where such evidence is being gathered. Additionally, I didn't "edit war" as the timeline above shows. Also, your last post was 3 hours ago so if you've been sitting here staring at the screen and this section for 3 hours instead of attending to your historic image restorations, that's all on you. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Part of the problem here is that we are dealing with a case where both parties have rather major issues. I myself have observed some rather antagonistic behaviour by Damiens.rf in completely unrelated areas to the discussion here, extending over some months and I think he even got blocked for it at one point. The behaviour of which Allstar is complaining is *entirely* consistent with what I saw then. On the other hand Allstar doesn't seem to have the highest assumption of good faith either because of the copyright issues and some past stoushes. These sort of situations are always the most difficult to resolve. Orderinchaos 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I agree to a point but on this glory hole thing ASE's assessment that it seems tangential is rather spot-on. I'm not saying it's a purposeful red-herring but the issue here needs to turn back to the initial incivility and, IMHO, WP:Dickishness being displayed towards other editors and apparently the community as a ... whole. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I raised the glory hole issue in order to demonstrate that there are more issues here than simply Damiens.rf's actions (which I am not condoning). If this seems dickish on my part them so be it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I'm no expert, however this sure seems like it could be a glory hole (sexual) to me. I wasn't reffering to your raising the glory hole issue as dickish I was pointing out that I agree that ASE's behaviour, while perhaps not model-like is not the main core of the issue. Indeed they seem to be teh model of how we want editors to take on criticism and help amend for issues they have adversely impacted. Your glory hole example above seems a bit of a dispute and I happen to agree that this wasn't just ASE being stubborn or a problem editor. In fact by those actions it shows they desisted. Personally I think a bit of discussion on the talkpage might have helped a bit. In any case their did indeed explain themselves and didn't seem to hound you or the other editor. This would seem like a totally different league compared to Damiens.rf tenditious goading and what smells like bullying/wikistalking. Just because we don't have some rule outlined not to be a jerk and hound other editors doesn't mean experienced editors like Damiens.rf should do so. Personally I felt it may just be an issue with LGBT topics but now it may just be a larger behavioural issue that has gone largely unchecked for months. I don't like digging through distasteful and uncivil comments and I've never had a good experience with them. There are very few editors I can state such a thing about. This glory hole nonsense is rather distracting from some real damage being done to the volunteer community here. We don't encourage editors to act as taskmasters telling others what to fix and how and asking how soon can ___ be deleted? I'll give you X number of days and then the ax falls. Or filling up an article with unneeded fact tags or otherwise making such a stink on an article that admins have to be called in to stop it. It's a toxic approach to editing and makes the atmosphere of building consensus into a battleground instead. We don't need it. -- Banjeboi 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Also agree. Check the Australian politics topic as well where he engaged in similar behaviour months ago. Orderinchaos 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Am I the only one who finds humor in any mention of the word "dickish" in a discussion about glory holes? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is a difficult concept to swallow. Gulp! --WebHamster 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Whomever placed the image over there ---> certainly has a clue as that's how the image was described and presented originally at Flickr - as a glory hole found in an Ikea store - and is the only reason I uploaded it at Commons (that and because it had the appropriate license). Others, as seen in the timeline above, started removing it from the related article calling it a "joke image" even though it said no such thing remotely close to "this is a joke" at the Flickr source. I've done nothing wrong here and this sub-thread should either be collapsed or moved to its own section as it has nothing to do with the main thread and Damiens.rf's behavior. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ASE, at this point I can't help but think that you "doth protest too much." Not that I have any personal experiences with using glory holes, but I've seen them, and even the most cursory of glances at that photo pretty clearly indicates that it's a sink. The stainless steel, sharp edges, and very small size should have all been big clues. Fun and games is all well and good, but I cannot at this point believe that you sincerely thought it was an actual photo of an actual glory hole at an IKEA, of all places. It's either that or you have absolutely no ability to actually evaluate sources for their veracity and merely take them on faith. Even if that were the case, though, you should revisit what we have to say about self-published sources, which flickr most certainly is. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether you knew it was a joke, whether you simply accept any source you see as accurate, or whether you don't understand the problem with self-published sources, as the end result is the same: something that is factually incorrect that you engaged in a slow-motion edit war over including. Whether or not you were acting in good faith is likewise immaterial, and I for one utterly fail to believe you have acted in good faith on an enormous number of occasions. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm not really interested in mincing words here: your behaviour throughout the copyvio problem was massively disruptive, and while I don't have time to hunt through your contribs to look for similar issues to the one raised with this photo, based on your patterns of behaviour thus far I would be unsurprised to find more. As someone said somewhere above, it doesn't matter if you are acting in good faith, because the end result is bad, and repetitively so. User:Who then was a gentleman? pointed out yesterday, and I have come to agree somewhat (though not completely) that whether or not Damiens.rf has been stalking you, he has in fact raised some very valid concerns about your behaviour. These are now two separate issues: dealing with his behaviour (for which I hope a permanent ban is coming soon), and dealing with yours--which at this point, especially given your behaviour with the copyvios, I have some difficulty seeing why the solution should be any different. After all, the community consensus was against your unblock, and yet here you are--still refusing to acknowledge your behaviour (albeit a new behaviour this time), and, frankly, acting incredibly disingenuous when called on it. I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your reactions and change your behaviour accordingly. //roux   17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Roux, I usually respect and value your opinion but on this one, you are wrong and way off base. Frankly, it does not matter whether you believe that I actually thought this was a glory hole or not. What does matter is the facts, which are again: I went looking for a free image to use in the related article to give variety to the imagery presented. I found this free image on Flicker titled Ikea Glory Hole. It also had/has the description at Flickr Found in Ikea. For boys only.. Nowhere does it say "could be" or "possible" or "just kidding" or "this is a joke". I uploaded the image to Commons, because it's a free image. I placed the image in the related article. It was removed by a user proclaiming it as a humorously labeled as glory hole. I went back and looked at the source. Again, nowhere at the source was any such indication that it was in jest, a joke or humor. I re-added it back to the article with a notation that no such "humor" claim was at the source. I'm not a hardware expert and certainly not full of knowledge in regards to what may be a sink from such a vague in regards-to-sinks image. There's nothing else I can say about this. I know what I did and why I did it and nothing I did was wrong or against any policy. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Two factual concerns about that object, where it might fail OSHA standards: (1) Possibly sharp edges; and (2) the possibility of a disposal having been installed on the other side. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) If I were gonna maybe get banned from Wikipedia, I wouldn't want it to be for edit warring over glory holes, of all things. There's an idea of choosing one's battles, because not all hills are worth dying on. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I'd been avoiding chiming in here, but I've got to say I don't think ASE has done anything wrong in uploading the image and marking it as a gloryhole. However, I strongly object to his position above which suggests he's being accused of wrongdoing in having (mis)identified that image as one of a genuine gloryhole. The problem is ASE's manner of approaching the questioning of something he just happens to have uploaded. I don't think he was wrong to defend his contributions- we'd all likely do the same- but his manner in my view was objectionable as evidenced by the diffs provided by Delicious carbuncle. However, I agree that there's nothing worthy of action (administrative or otherwise) in this specific situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Here's the Flickr version of the joke [27] and this sink from the Ikea site [28] would be a candidate for what the photo actually portrays. You get stuck in that faucet opening, and you're sunk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A campaign of systematic vandalism (User:Dr90s and puppets)

Resolved

Tan | 39 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For over 1 year, a persistent and monothematic vandal (originally calling himself User:Dr90s) has been engaged in a vandalistic campaign on Wikipedia to remove all references to or to downplay as much as possible the achievements of video game designer, Shigeru Miyamoto. The person who is vandalising Wikipedia in this way has used and continues to use sockpuppet accounts to fool other editors into the belief that his edits have broad support. Due to the length of time this vandal has been operating, many of his edits have become semi-ingrained in the articles, and I think this is extremely harmful to Wikipedia as a project. As I mentioned in one of the many SPI reports I have filed on this vandal, I believe these edits skirt the edge of defamation of character. Mr. Miyamoto is a living person and the removal/downplay of his achievements on Wikipedia may adversely affect his professional and personal reputation. As it states at WP:BLP, "[f]rom both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible."

I do not wish to waste anyone's time and I recognize that the Sock Puppet Investigations is probably the best place to go with matters such as this, but I have a few specific suggestions for partial solutions which can only be achieved through AN/I. Please don't simply disregard or move this request before at least considering the suggestions below (especially those under the heading "ArbCom Sanctions"). In addition, I was wondering if there were any ideas for further actions I could take to try to curb this malicious editor's vandalistic impulses.

Filing SPI reports takes me a very long time (digging up difs of well-disguised vandalism and trying to differentiate between sleeper socks and normal editors), and unfortunately I seem to be the only editor willing to make the report. I am concerned that the people at SPI will soon tire of my constant reports (my most recent report was on June 12, 2009 and the one previous to this was on June 9, 2009). Knowing this editor's pattern of sock-based vandalism as well as I do and knowing this vandal's history of creating sleeper accounts, I always request the use of CheckUser at SPI. This is a powerful tool and the folks at SPI are naturally reluctant to use it every time I request it (according to WP:CHECK it is only to be used "exceedingly rarely"). Unfortunatley, this results in the further ingraining of malicious defamation of Mr. Miyamoto at Wikipedia until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that the use of CheckUser cannot be avoided. This may take months, and unfortunately there is no "clean-up crew" assigned to mitigate the effects of the defamatory edits that have now become part of Wikipedia. As a brief example, I just today cleaned up some vandalism left by a prior sockpuppet that had lingered since November 2008! While I haven't given up on SPI by any means, in this regard at least it is failing to correct the problem insofar as it applies a mere "band-aid" patch to cure deep wound.

To make matters worse, this vandal is extremely adept at dodging blocks, and I know of at least one account that is still active and that was created only hours after the latest June 14, 2009 SPI-imposed mass-blocking of 8 puppets (bringing this user to a total of 26 blocked accounts). This new account is User:Akane7000, and his last edit was yesterday. There is a large record on file at SPI for the puppetmaster and his socks. There are also several older reports that do not show up in the SPI archives. I have not traced this matter to its origin, however to make matters easier for those who wish to examine the full history, I present for your consideration a partial summary of offical action taken so far:

• June 17, 2008 dif showing original determination of and banning of Dr90s as a puppetmaster account with 1 sock
• October 19, 2008 AN/I report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:43.244.132.168 is rejected for lack of jurisdiction
• December 15, 2008 AN/3RR report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Eisai Dekisugi results in 24-hour hard-block for 1 ip-sock
• December 15, 2008 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Eisai Dekisugi reveals 1 user-sock and 2 ip-socks
• December 16, 2008 RFP directed at heavy Dr90s puppet vandalism results in Indefinite Full Page Protection for a target article
• February 18, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppets User:Millionaire01, User:Dailypilot, and User:Sharetowns reveals an additional 9 user-socks
• June 9, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Sunglle
• June 12, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppets User:Thisgift, User:Sergei semenovich1, and User:Honmatrix1 reveals an additional 4 sockpuppets

Thanks for your consideration of this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific AN/I Help Requested

ArbCom Sanctions

In order to be successful in a request for use of CheckUser, a requesting editor must show that the accused puppet diplays at least one (and preferably several) of the following:

• A - Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)
• B - Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents
• C - Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome
• D - 3RR violation using socks
• E - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks

or

• F - Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway

Because SPI is a non-arbitration group, my only consistently valid reason to request CheckUser has been Code E. Apparently Codes B and D apply only to the currently accused sock and as this vandal's vandalistic edits are spread over a great number of socks, and as I am usually largely unaware of them all, I am unable to furnish proof of the requisite 24 (i.e. two dozen) vandalistic/3RR-violative edits. The only times the puppetmaster has approached Code C, the votes went against him and so he cannot be said to have "affect[ed] the outcome[s]."

I am hoping that the ArbCom can impose a block on User:Dr90s' most recent puppet, User:Akane7000 so that a record can be created on this vandal and so that my future work at SPI in this regard can be streamlined. If it helps my case at all, an earlier report on this vandal was filed with AN/I in October 2008 by retired User:The Prince of Darkness. This report can be found here. Although it is true that this matter may arguably be more properly under the jurisdiction of WP:SPI, I think that an ArbCom ban is warranted in this case and could help with this problem greatly. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have considered requesting protection for pages that seem to be particular targets for this vandalistic editor, however I don't believe that accounts like User:Akane7000 will be blocked by mere Semi-protection, and I worry that Full protection may render prior acts of vandalism uncorrectable, and may furthermore be largely ineffective against this kind of vandalism insofar as the underlying theme covers a great number of pages (Mr. Miyamoto has designed a great number of games and references to this are scattered across more than 50 pages). I welcome any sugestions for creative solutions involving page protection. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Designated Admin

I'm not sure if such a thing is possible, but I was wondering if I could be assigned an administrator to whom I can report all matters involving Dr90s in order to simplify the sockpuppet reporting phase for myself. A previous administrator (User:Hermione1980) who had been a first-hand witness to an earlier round of Dr90s sockpuppeting had volunteered to be the do just this on December 17, 2008 (see relevant difs), however she has since retired (see her "goodbye" dif). I can honestly say that I have no vested interests in the underlying matters on which this vandal is editing. My edit history reflects as much. My only concerns are that a blocked user is evading community sanctions and that a living person (Mr. Miyamoto) is suffering the maligning of his professional and personal character on the pages of Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a complex situation at face value, but really, we just have a sockmaster who is pretty persistent, right? Having reviewed the SPI case(s), your contributions, the relevant page histories, and the sock's editing style, I think it's pretty straightforward identification - the duck test is applicable here. I'd be willing to be your go-to guy in this situation. If other admins (and non-admins) concur, I think this is the most reasonable solution. Page protection doesn't seem like an option at this point. FWIW, I blocked the most recent sock Akane. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds great to me. I'll drop a note requesting non-admin comments at the talkpage of some of the usual haunts for this puppetmaster. I think this will work well. A million thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I won't pretend to understand all of the procedural stuff that goes on here (though I sympathize with admins for having to put up with all the ridiculous nonsense that the anonymity of the Internet incurs). However, I greatly support anything that will simplify and expedite dealing with Dr90s' persistent POV editing and circumventing of blocks with socks. DKqwerty (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I remember dealing with this person before. This seems like the best option as we can't flat out stop them, only catch them in the act. Having a channel open to expedite the process will help keep in step with Dr90s.

I don't know what this person's agenda is, but if he's trolling a specific group of articles, then I suggest we get some help monitoring those articles. This may or may not count as canvassing, but would it be alright to post a notice at the Video games project's talk page and its Nintendo task force talk page? The more eyes looking, the easier it will be to identify the socks right? We just need to tell VG project members what to look for and have them direct the activity to Thibbs to analyze it (if that's alright with Thibbs). Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd be happy to help however I can. As long as I'm around, I will gladly discuss the edits of suspicious-looking Dr90s suspects. If I think there is substantial evidence, then I will turn the matter over to Tanthalas39, AN/I, or SPI. I think one of the biggest things is to maintain a level of awareness that this is an ongoing situation. Sadly I'm pretty sure this editor will be around for quite a long time... -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kotniski

Removing an RfC for a third time [WP:Link talk]. He was aware that another user was chastised in the talk page for thisHe was the user chastised, and the decision then was to just let the RfC be killed off by the Bot. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He would be unaware of HansAdler complaint on this page. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The only person who is continually being chastised in that discussion is you. Look, the proposal has been rejected by everyone, your arguments have been comprehensively met, it's time to let it go. If you really insist on having an RfC tag there for another week then all right, have it your way, but I believe it disrupts Wikipedia to allow this sort of self-indulgent attention-seeking. Every tag like this makes it less likely that people watching/viewing the RfC master page will find their way to any of the other RfC discussions, some of which are genuinely important.--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A mistake on my part, Kotniski is guiltier than I thought. I got him and Hans Adler mixed up - Kotniski it was who removed this already and was asked politely not to do it - now he's done it again. Disruptive behaviour in anyone's book. The content of the RfC has bugger all to do with who should close it. You do not help your case by the "self-indulgent attention-seeking" personal attack - a personal attack on the WP:ANI page! That should be commented on by the admins here. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, I must say that I totally agree with Kotniski's latest re-closing of the RfC. (I don't remember the first, so I can't say whether it came too early or not. I might not have closed if I had been aware of that.) A user with this type of edit statistics:

• 29 months (since January 2007)
• 280 article space edits
• 1 block (1 week) for disruptive editing

should not be allowed to keep others from building an encyclopedia. Such a user should not be given a forum for soapboxing about invisible technical details of MOS, where he can demand that other editors learn about various web technologies before disagreeing with him. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unjustly blocked for a week by Ckatz who was involved in the discussion, so what?

The self-link feature of Wikimedia was specially formulated for first mention of an articles title. It cannot be described as an "invisible technical details". There is a footnote in WP:link about this "invisible technical details". Again, dishonest straw man, using a plural when it is a singular, and when did I demand others learn anything? I simply suggested that it would be a good foundation on which to come to a conclusion. You are dishonestly describing my contributions - please don't do this. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodness me. The sooner that RfC is archived, the better. Seeing it is only going to dissuade other editors from discussing anything, if they suspect that HarryAlffa may be involved. Rather than providing diffs, I'll say that most of HAHarryAlffa's comments in this section seem to be uncivil and/or non-collegial in nature. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an untrue description - so please do point out the things I said which in their context are uncivil. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please avoid the abbreviation HA in this thread? I actually had to follow the link to realise that you couldn't possibly mean me. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Hans, I wasn't thinking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's a useful experience to question my own judgement and try to see everything with different eyes. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I provided some diffs in the thread above. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am of the view Kotniski acted entirely appropriately in this instance. Orderinchaos 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and non-collegial discussion by User:HarryAlffa

As requested:-

1. [ To Ruslik ] I'm sorry, but you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical aspects that you need to spend a few hours studying HTML & CSS (w3schools is a good start) before you get it. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ruslik's position seems quite clear and logical to me, and seems independent of any knowledge or lack thereof about technical aspects of HTML/CSS.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   You may think so, but it is not. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   i.e. "What you say is your opinion, what I say is the objective truth." Constructive? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, a quick negative comment without reading any of the previous discussion? Constructive? I'm only guessing, but am I right? ie. read the previous discussion and the technical aspects will become clear, about which I have demonstrated correctness. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

2. [ To Laser brain ] I'm trying hard to resist making a joke about 60watt bulb-brain :) HarryAlffa (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, was that supposed to pass for an insult? [ ... ] --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   No insult, just a little pun on your name - the clue was in the word "joke", here's a link so you can look it up. [ ... ] HarryAlffa (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I requested only uncivil stuff. Which is which? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• [ To Harry Alffa ] I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that collegial or uncivil, or perfectly acceptable? Note the date. You have mounted your attack on me with text from the 22nd of May. Selective? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The first words of mine you quoted were "I'm sorry".
Despite all of my patient informative comment from the 7th May, Ruslik on the 22nd of May displayed a fundamental misunderstanding - I said so. What's wrong with that? I then made a simple statement of disagreement with Kotniski's position. What was wrong with that? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that JamesBWatson was civil and collegial? I declared my comment a guess, deliberately leaving it wide open to refutation. Do you not think his was a negative comment? Did you read the [previous discussion] as I asked James to? It started on the 7th May, and I provided much technical information, which I was not going to reiterate there, or here. Read it - get back to me. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, more homework for editors who want to disagree with you! But in this case I totally agree. There can't be enough editors reading your output on that page and commenting here afterwards. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an impression from an outsider to the situation: Making a "joke" about someone's brain being "60-watt", and then when it (very unsurprisingly) doesn't go well, giving the editor a link to the article joke... is not respectful, professional, nor dignified behavior. It comes across as childish, contemptuous and condescending, and it's very likely to escalate a dispute. If you're in a disagreement with someone, making a joke (or whatever kind of insinuation, fore- or back-handed) that maybe they're dumb is a very, very bad idea. Until you change human nature, that's going to be a sure-fire way to increase the level of bad feelings, heat, drama, etc. I suggest some serious thought about what it means to interact respectfully and collegially.

Consider HarryAlffa, if I, in this post, were to suggest that maybe you're offending people because you're too stupid to avoid doing so... how would that come across to you? I do not, in fact, think that you're stupid, but I do think that you've been careless. Again, this is just my impression. Don't take my word for it. Ask around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Oh, make the title reiteration a link back to the same article, because then, through the magic of CSS, you've also made it bold. Unless they change it, that is." You just lost 75% of the people editing here. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Laser Brain's first contribution to the discussion. Rather terse? Some might say it was uncivil - but not me. I put a smiley face :) to indicate my reply to this was a Joke, I said I was trying to resist making a Joke. I even put <!--Yes, I'm sure you've heard it before. --> in the wiki-code! To take it as an insult was unreasonable - I replied sarcasticly, no biggy, NOT disrespectful, unprofessional, undignified, childish, contemptuous or condescending. There is a difference between causing offence and taking offence. It was a bad joke we agree, as I indicated by my code-comment. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's just my impression. I find it helpful to avoid any references to anyone else's intelligence. Your mileage may vary. The definition of "sarcasm" includes the notion of contempt, which is not consistent with respect, at least not in contexts where that level of familiarity hasn't been established. Bad jokes are best not made.

Also, I didn't say you insulted him. That was clearly not your intention. However, look where we are now. If you had simply refrained from making the bad joke, then no offense would have resulted, and at what cost? How many threads like this one are bad jokes worth? We have to live w/ human nature as it is, not as we feel it should be. Something likely to cause offense is best avoided, whether or not taking offense would be sufficiently "reasonable". The more clearly respectful and dignified your tone, the fewer misunderstandings. Seems like a good deal to me.

His preceding comment might or might not have been terse, uncivil, whatever. If so, then all the more reason to be especially careful. If someone else is borderline uncivil, then we are challenged to use civility to prevent conflict. Responding with a joke that refers to his intelligence.... didn't work this time. Two people perceived it as coming across rather badly. We may both be unreasonable, but if there are enough of us, then you either adapt, or you spend more and more time dealing with fallout from people not being as reasonably thick-skinned and joke-understanding-and-tolerant as you'd like.

Oh, when I wrote "comes across as childish, contemptuous and condescending" I was referring to the "helpful" link to the joke article that you gave him. Guess what percentage of the time that strategy successfully defuses a tense situation. My guess is that it's under 10%. Maybe I'm wrong... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here is another one, from before the RfC. Demonstrating a complete lack of acknowledging that there might be anyone around who reasonably disagrees with HarryAlffa. It's long, but I promise it's worth reading:

[...] I think the concensus is that the MoS be changed to indicate that self-links are a good idea! HarryAlffa (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to contribute? I have made reasoned, well founded, clear discourse on this subject, and have shown that all the problems raised by fellow Wikipedians, are not problems at all. Consensus is built on a system of good reasons, not on a simple vote count; for this reason and my system of good reasons I now declare concensus in favour of using self-links! :) HarryAlffa (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed the WP:Link to reflect this new consensus. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See my Essay on self-links. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this change since there is no consensus. Ruslik (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there isn't; and given how long the existing approach has existed and how widely, a small discussion here between a handful of editors isn't sufficient to overturn that either in policy or in practice. Also despite the pros and cons discussed above (not sure where the weight falls), my gut feeling is still that it's wrong. Links are for linking, not for style. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your main argument seems to be inertia: we've done it like this for ages. This, and a bad gut, are extremely poor "reasons" for disagreeing with something "new". Your last sentence is answered clearly in the discussion above, and in the links provided there. As you feel unable to weigh the pros & cons, how strongly held can your opinion be? Please assimilate the clear advantages I have given, before hardening your will! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change (in fact, I'm not sure anyone else agrees with you). A very substantial reason I gave was that a consensus for this change would need to be substantial, eg by listing at WP:VPP and doing an WP:RFC, that kind of thing. And you can't get away from the fact what you are proposing elides form and function in a way which is fundamentally inelegant and confusing. Rd232 ^talk 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone Ruslik's revert. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't persuaded anyone (yet); you may or may not be an Alfred Wegener ahead of his time, but that doesn't mean you should get into an edit war. Rd232 ^talk 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Herr Alfred Wegener was ahead of his time, and it may appear to someone behind the times that I am ahead of mine, but I'm simply in step with current thinking on markup languages. :) HarryAlffa (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of ONE strong reason why it should be banned, or even just discouraged? Only then should it be not recommended, we can't just say stuff for no reason, or we can but we'd look stupid! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Look Harry, due to the community nature of WP, policy on WP is made either (a) reflecting existing practice, to clarify it (b) to change existing practice for reasons agreed by a substantial enough part of the community that the policy change is likely to be reflected in practice. Your proposal currently meets neither. You would need to get more widespread input to make this change to the policy. (I think you'd be wasting your time to try, but I could be wrong.) Rd232 ^talk 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Look RD, patronise much? WP:Link is not policy. Now to your other points; wait a minute, your whole argument based itself on WP:Link being policy, so you have constructed no argument here!

Would it be sensible to say that WP:Link offers good advice? I have demonstrated that using self-links is a good idea. Do you totally discount the strength of reason in a debate? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

--Hans Adler (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You can infer consensus from silence, sometimes, and I was pushing it a bit to see if anyone objected to me claiming they now thought this a good idea when they had raised previous objections. :) One objector from the 3, so far! HarryAlffa (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At what point do we draw a line and simply say, "Enough, Harry." This editor has made little in the way of positive contributions, and any that he has made are far outweighed by the negative ones. He has stonewalled discussions, insulted and belittled productive editors, and (at one point) almost drove off one of the most dedicated editors in the Astronomy section. He cannot take "no" for an answer, and refuses to accept any opinion that does not mirror his own. To be perfectly honest, there is some benefit in Harry bringing his arguments here in that it has perhaps exposed his behaviour pattern to the wider community. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Were have I stonewalled discussions? I thought Wikipedia was let bygones be bygones? Yet you continually bring up stuff from the past. I'm surprised you haven't brought up my honest mistake in believing sock-puppetery again, as you brought up here: Ckatz 3RR violation. Since when is not agreeing with you a crime? You continually misrepresent what I say in order to use a straw man argument - this tactic I regard as dishonest. Why are you still an Admin, you are not exemplary. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Why are you still an Admin, you are not exemplary." Really? Really? And you wonder why we are discussing your less than civil behavior? Shereth 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So misrepresenting, quoting out of context and constructing straw men is exemplary? HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. What you are engaging in here are thinly-veiled personal attacks and attempts to discredit another user. If you want to refute accusations against your own behavior that is perfectly fine, but doing so by attempting to discredit someone else is absolutely unacceptable and merely provides more fuel for the fire; we are discussion your apparent lack of civility, not anyone else's, and you are acting in an incivil manner in the middle of the discussion. Not helping yourself, here. Shereth 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question? Do you contend that Ckatz has never misrepresented, quoted out of context, or constructed straw men? Who do you think I attacked personally here, and what did I say? You let personal attacks on me slide in the other section above, why the inconsistency? SheffieldSteel gave a list at the top of this sub-section, most of the comments have not addressed these, would it not be more productive to answer some of those, before we get to the rest? HarryAlffa (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not answer your question because it is not material to this discussion; this ia discussion regarding your incivility, not that of User:Ckatz or anyone else. You are a fan of bringing up logical fallacies (straw men), have you considered ad hominem or red herring? You seem to have no compunctions about employing them. Please focus on the question at hand and address the issues being brought up regarding your apparent problems with civility rather than try to distract us by slinging mud at another user. Shereth 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Making significant changes to WP style or policy--without proposing it for prior discussion is being very BOLD, and one can normally expect to be reverted. Sometimes one may want to do it in order to start a discussion (a very appropriate use of BRD) -- I've done that myself once or twice--but then one must take the subsequent objections in a cooperative spirit, even if they are rather sharp, and move to discussing the issue, not the manner of making the or objecting to the change. (For this particular change, it seems to me that the confusion to editors who do not understand the convention would seem to obviate the use of the MediaWiki feature.)DGG (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have walked away from the discussion referenced herein (as have several others) but here was the final straw for me, in which my attempt at furthering the stalled discussed was called "detestable" and "damn ridiculous", while Harry inferred that I was dishonest and operating in bad faith. This is his modus operandi. --Laser brain (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never seen any good result come from one editor concluding in writing that another editor is acting in bad faith. Never, in hundreds and hundreds of cases. Anyone who does that is pretty much asking for the opposite of dispute resolution. Generally, they're doing this unintentionally, and in the best of faith. However, there's a limit to how long we can keep someone around, if they keep doing that. (Admins can get away with it for a lot longer than other editors, in general, but I've seen it catch up w/ several.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Navin Shetty Brahmavar

Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk · contribs) has uploaded over 100 images, claiming the majority of them to be their own work. They appear to come from a variety of different sources, some of which clearly were not made by the user. For instance, File:Kaaranjji main.jpg was clearly a film poster, while File:Dubai-cricket-studium.jpg (source listed as "UNKNOWN", but still claimed as own work) was taken from the air. My usual action in this sort of case is to leave a message asking the user to come clean- if they're honest, I delete the images they direct me to. If not, I delete all of the images, and probably block them. I have contacted the user, but they have not edited in the couple of days since, and I'd hate to leave a load of probable copyvios hanging around. Has anyone got any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Give a final warning on uploading copyrighted images (which I guess you have already done). Looking at File:Mantis logo.gif, it is clear that user has understanding of image policies and it is difficult to assume in good faith that the user is perhaps ill informed about the uploads. As for the images, it is quite obvious that most are copyvios. I think it would be appropriate to delete them right away. ^LeaveSleaves 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all this user's uploads should be assumed copyvios. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I agree, some are not my Images and but majority is mine. Will clean it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eastside Sun redux - legal threats/issues?

Okay, now I'm cranky. There are several IPs that have been trying to insert what they say is a "court ordered statement" into the above article for some time now, despite multiple editors' attempts to explain that this is an encyclopedia article and we couldn't really give a flying fuck what a judge in Washington State told the subject it could or couldn't do. I even e-mailed Mike Godwin about it a while back, to no response, which suggests there's no issue on our part.

So what do we get today? The reversion, yet again, and this, which smells like a legal threat to me. Could some other admins please look this over? I'm >< that far from reverting and semiprotecting the article, and blocking the IPs involved for legal threats, but I'd rather have some other views before anything precipitous is done. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. No question in my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case referred to, but fwiw: [29] --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't get your link to work, SarekOfVulcan, but found this[30]. As the exhibits for case number 07-2-37030-7 were destroyed in June 2008, it seems unlikely to be a current case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of your links work - the links likely contain session data. Shereth 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like single-use/session tokens:( From the URL, it's case number 07-2-37030-7, but don't know which court. 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm, search for "07-2-37030-7" in King County Superior Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for Debbie Lamont in the 'Name Search' from this page [31] (hopefully that link will work!). Her (many) cases do not appear to include the Eastside Sun but the information is very limited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Though there is a 'Judgment Vs Gilday' noted on 03-05-2008. Gilday is name of the owner(?) of the Eastside Sun. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected given that IPs have been inserting inappropriate content ranging from 'Note from Publisher' to the more recent 'court decision' since at least December 2007. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I couldn't find any court information myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If a judge did place an order not to edit this article, then this article would have been protected a while ago per WP:OFFICE (i.e. the WMF would have certainly been notified about this). With that said, judges are not administrators here, they cannot protect/delete/etc articles except through the WMF. I call bullshit. MuZemike 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had gone through this article the last time this issue came up, rewriting, getting rid of cruft & advertisese, but the IP reverted and no one reverted back. I've gone back to that version of the article, which I think is pretty clean, and will keep an eye on it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirkland, Washington was another stomping ground for the IP warrior. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May I make a guess? It sounds like the judge ordered the Eastside Sun not to write about Lamont (or not to write about her in some specific context)... and she is perhaps under the impression that the order to the Sun extends to Wikipedia. Perhaps, like many other new users, she doesn't understand that Wikipedia's article on the subject is not the Sun's official web page? Or, of course, I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the IPs in question are representatives of the newspaper, actually, if you look back at the edits they've made - there's been some concern regarding promotional edits as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, they should be directed to raise their concerns to User:MGodwin or WP:OFFICE rather than editing articles. The article space is not the correct forum to raise legal issues. Lawyers can be reached via telephone and such issues discussed; anyone who seriously has an issue will find a way to do so through the proper channels. If you have a legal issue with store, you don't spraypaint your issue across the storefront, you contact the owner or his lawyer. This is no different. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be naïve to this point, but for the sake of argument let's say the judge's ruling explicitly stated, "There shall be no mention of the actions by the plaintiff on Wikipedia." Does a Washington State Superior Court judge even have the jurisdiction to make/enforce such a ruling for a foundation headquartered in California and organized in Florida? DKqwerty (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the answer is "yes" as long as the entity to which the order is directed is one that has a sufficient connection to Washington state, e.g. residency or a nexus of commerce (is that the term?). In any event, we have Mike to worry about this sort of thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that most of the IP editing are coming from the 75.172.0.0/18 and 206.188.32.0/19 ranges. If a rangeblock cannot suffice due to collateral damage, then perhaps we should consider semi-protection. MuZemike 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have semi-protected and the IP that made the legal threat has been blocked. Mifter (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I must seriously be lost because this makes absolutely no sense to me. How someone can claim that Wikipedia is required to post information about a gag order regarding one particular person is completely beyond me. Has anything like that ever actually happened? Aside from that, would it be acceptable to delete the false/ridiculous allegations towards me from the talk page? --Susan118 ^talk 02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was still there? Sorry. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! I'd have done it myself, but I wanted to be sure it wouldn't be a problem removing it. Thank you. --Susan118 ^talk 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyvio image case

Resolved

 – Thanks to \ /. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please nuke all images uploaded by Ukulelea (talk · contribs). They seem all to be taken from the web, most from a city website, http:www.strumica.gov.mk. I just tagged a few for CSD G9 (File:Old Strumica Law corte .jpg, File:Abba 2009.jpg, File:Strumica Global Mall, Palms and Fountains and the City Park.jpg and several variants), but there are more, all apparently from the same sources. There are also multiple images on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All local deletions are now deleted, you'll need a commons admin to do the rest. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcool35 and IP edits

• Rcool35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rcool35 and his/her multiple IP addresses are continuously making disruptive edits. They continually falsify album ratings by increasing the rating by .5. For example, here a few of Rcool35's edits: [32], [33], [34], [35]. The following are by multiple IPs, doing the exact same edits: IP 99.147.220.233: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]; IP 76.193.182.195: [42]; IP 76.197.240.99: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]; IP 76.197.249.241: [49], [50], [51], [52]; more recently, IP 76.193.187.229, among many, many others. It's probably best to indefinitely block Rcool5 and get some sort of a range block as well, or something to stop this deliberate disruptive behavior. — Σxplicit 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a range block would not work in this case.  :( -download ׀ sign! 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...but I do support the blocking of him and his socks. -download ׀ sign! 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, anyone? — Σxplicit 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

user:CelticWonder

CelticWonder (talk · contribs) continues to engage in appropriated behavior such as blatant canvassing and incivility despite previous warnings and a block. Would appreciate if someone could look into this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he's gotten the message at this point. I'm not sure there is any action needed at this time, though a formal warning from an admin might not be a horrible idea. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hobit, I respectfully disagree. Leaving aside the subject line of his communication ("RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia"), I note CelticWonder begins his communication with the following: "As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia." In fact, he has contacted not a single user involved in the previous AfD for RantMedia - all of whom recommended deletion. Furthermore, CelticWonder's communications greatly favoured those who had previously supported keeping previous incarnations of Sean Kennedy articles. To these concerns, and those brought forth by Juliancolton, I add recent evidence of hounding. Four AfDs that have nothing in common save the participation by either Cameron Scott (first three) and myself (the last), edited consecutively within a 22 minute period: [53] [54][55][56]. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

VictoriaGirl, don't be disingenuous. There have been a whole raft of AfD, DRVs and so on on several topics associated with the article presently under discussion. Please list all of them. You have referenced one single AfD that happened 18 months ago, which generated 4 "all of whom" votes. I'd also suggest that people go look at the AfD you mention, as only one contributor made a contribution of any value whatsoever: 2 were "delete per nom" and one was "me too!". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I stand by my comment. While there have been many AfD's relating to Sean Kennedy February 2005, February 2007, April 2007, May 2007 and one deletion review, RantMedia has only been subject to one previous AfD of which I am aware. Does it not follow that the participants in the previous RantMedia AfD be notified about the current RantMedia AfD? In his canvassing, CelticWonder leaves the impression that he did: "As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author)..." In fact, he didn't contact a single user involved in the previous RantMedia AfD discussion - not even the nominator (the fifth participant). As for those contacted who had taken part in the previous Sean Kennedy AfDs, I stand by my observation that the selective list is weighted in favour of those who supported maintaining the article. And, yes, I am amongst those not contacted. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[spurious comment removed] RANTMEDIA = SEAN KENNEDY. And if you'll notice, the majority of the previous AfD specifically for RantMedia HAVEN'T EDITED RECENTLY. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

What is this? Personal attacks and such on ANI, that's no good man, please strike that stuff out.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, CelticWonder, you've stated as much and I have asked for elaboration. Needless to say, I find your response highly offensive. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48h

That last diff was beyond the pale. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

After blocking this user, I realise that some offensive remarks have been struck out at the request of User:Victoriagirl. I am not opposed to unblocking this editor, although I am concerned perhaps that it was only the spotlight of ANI attention that caused this apparent change of heart. I welcome comments from uninvolved admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...aaand unblocked. At this point, it's best to let them get on with improving articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My change of heart came IMPLICITLY from input of users like User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, User:Hobit, and User:Orangemike -- reinstating the notion to me that there actually ARE genuine people on here after all. But to clarify, it came NOT AT ALL from this page. I wasn't even going to respond to this at all until I saw VG get on here. Ultimately, I was this || close to using a choice phrase from this page as a response to Wikipedia as a whole and wash my hands on something I was trying to save from what I believe to be unfair and unbased attack, which is what inflamed my model of actions as of late. I had fought and won to keep PC Club (mostly since it wasn't in there and I cared enough at the time), but I am WAY more adamant about RantMedia (as you all can obviously see). Nonetheless I thank you for your understanding. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased that CelticWonder has been unblocked and would have myself suggested that it be done were it not for SheffieldSteel's request for comments from "uninvolved admins" (I'm obviously neither). I wrote CelticWonder asking him to withdraw his comments - and he did. As far as this girl is concerned the matter is closed. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Personal Attacks by IP User

I have been forwarded to this page via Wiki user User:Cirt who has kindly been helping me with an ongoing situation, in which an IP user has been posting liable attacks via talk pages, and also has obtained my email address and posting the same context in emails.

The IP user in question has so far used 2 different IP addresses; they are... IP:85.50.127.181 and IP:90.163.33.152. The first incident happened on the main Eurovision Song Contest page. I made reasonable changes to the article; as I had found reliable sources to back up an edit in the article. Within hours of me making this edit; I received a vicious email from a HOTMAIL account. In the email I was subdued to abusive language. I replied to the email sender telling them that if they were to do such an act again, that I would have no other alternative but to report them to the relevant authorities. Everything was quiet until last week, when I made another edit, only this time to the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article, in which again I had found reliable sourcing to allow me to include the country of Estonia into the confirmed participation list. What happened following this utterly disturbed me. One user, who obviously is the same person, left 2 messages in the Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010. The reason I know they are the same person, as they signed their comments using the same tag-line, but with a different IP address included in the tag. The IPs are those as shown above (IP:85.50.127.181 and IP:90.163.33.152). That same user also sent the exact same comments to me via email; again the email address was the same HOTMAIL address as that sent weeks earlier following the main incident as mentioned above.

I would sincerely appreciate it, if you could kindly investigate this situation, and keep me informed as to what action has been taken. I will fully co-operate with this investigation, if you so require me to do so.

Thank you in advance. Kindest Regards (Pr3st0n (Gareth) | Pr3st0n (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Were the emails sent directly to you, or through Special:Emailuser? Prodego ^talk 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be a law that terminates a discussion (as with Godwin's Law) whenever someone mentions "nationalism". All these accusations of "nationalism" is getting rather absurd. MuZemike 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The emails were sent directly to my personal email address. And I agree with MuZemike some law should be brought in. All I was doing was helping with a wikiproject by supplying valuable information to aid readers; and I get unnecessary abuse from a random IP user whom I have never met or spoken to in my life. The way they treated me was pure evil and uncalled for. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Legal threats - block review please

Wow, my second legal-threat-related issue of the day. I'm special. Or I'm a shit magnet, one of the two.

Please review this section on my talk page, wherein a brand new editor has made some complaints regarding some issues claimed at Talk:Canadian Children's Rights Council. I have no idea why I was picked for this, I've never dealt with the page before. It appears there are a number of editors involved there with these issues. The latest comments on my talk page are an obvious legal threat, so I've blocked. However, it looks like there's some further issues here that should be looked at, so as I'm unavailable for a few days I'll leave it for further review. If there's a consensus to unblock, feel free - I won't be online to discuss beyond this post. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The block looks good. It is as clear a legal threat as you can get. What do those initials stand for? MuZemike 06:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. On an unrelated note, you'd think that lawyers for a statutory council would write and spell better. Orderinchaos 08:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A CU would probably be more useful than a block, since this is clearly a throwaway sock. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Children's Rights Council is the article in dispute. In our Talk pages this group is sometimes referred to as the CCRC, though the article doesn't use that abbreviation for them. There is also a Canadian Coalition on the Rights of Children, which has the same initials. A 2008 book by Erica Burman, cited in our article, claims that the Council "usurped the acronym of the Canadian Coalition on the Rights of the Child." (Note that her claim would be more convincing if she used the correct name of the other group). I have no opinion on this, but it may explain some of the sharp remarks by the legal-threateners who are so upset with us. My impression is that the name this organization wants to use for itself is Canadian Children's Rights Council-Conseil Canadien des Droits de l'Enfant, i.e. the English and French names joined by a hyphen. See the article Talk page for more. It is possible that this group has itself been involved in court cases about its name, so if it is a simple matter for us to sort this out, we should do so. They don't seem to object to CanadianCRC as an abbreviation. Within the last month the abbreviation 'CCRC' has been taken out of the article, which is good. But in spite of this, I fully support Tony Fox's block of MSLTT for making legal threats. Backers of the CanadianCRC have already received well-deserved attention at ANI and lots of admin sanctions have been issued. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakezing - enough is enough

User:Jakezing has been repeatedly goading User:Max Mux, who has had his behaviour discussed further up the page. As I understand it, Max and Jakezing interacted in articles related to Kosovo, and Jakezing has been following Max over to other articles to taunt him for his own amusement. here he gets involved in other areas Max works in, specifically the British peerage, despite having no activity in the area previously - obvious hounding. here he taunts max on his talkpage, here he seems to partly admit he's doing it just for fun, and he's been warned by multiple users that he's going to get blocked if he keeps it up. Despite this he's largely unconcerned, and doesn't seem to be taking the situation seriously. Based on his previous record (several blocks for personal attacks/harassment, including one indefinite one that was overturned based on promises of good behaviour) I'd like to push for an indefinite block for harassing users and treating WP like a battleground, and preferably a community ban as well. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block – highly unpleasant user, clearly harassing/bullying. That diff on Max's talkpage (much as I broadly agree with its content!) is completely out of line, while this, on my talkpage is just rather pathetic. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - After accusing me of violating WP:NPA because [Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. I told him he deserved to be blocked], I've understood this person has absolutely no idea what the word "mature" means. He's also denied baiting Max Mux with the aforementioned edit, citing his addition "as a reply." --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - Based upon the evidence i would say this is warranted. Making "Promises of good behaviour" to overturn an indef means that a user should improve his behaviour - Instead we see another 2 week block a mere three weeks after this incident. Statements like this and also this clearly show bad intent - man does not comment on a user like this if he or she feels some articles are bad. You come with examples then and start a discussion, and you certainly don't say "User XY makes article's we don't need". As noted in the unblock: "Last Change Unblock". I would say he already had his last change on the two week one. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per those above. It is not behaviour which assists with editing an encyclopaedia and merely compounds drama. Orderinchaos 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support (And therefore endorse Law's block) On its own, I'd think this is a bit of an overreaction but having looked at his block log, it appears he was given a last chance when he was last unblocked. He has clearly blown that. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment On my talk page, he pointed out [57] that he had also been indef'd (and later unblocked) as the user Cody6.[58] It turns out he was actually indef'd twice as Cody6 [59] and had been unblocked finally, but abandoned that account in favor of the Jakezing account, which was indef'd some months ago for basically the same behavior as today. So this guy has now been indef'd for the fourth time that we know of. I wonder if this one will stick? However, I have to admit that if someone repeatedly asks "Why don't you like me?", as Mux did of Jakezing, they're practically begging for an insulting response. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you're not an admin with an attitude like that. Jakezing had been goading him repeatedly, and Max is a foreign language speaker - from my experience (and after looking at the situation as a whole, which I'm forced to assume you haven't done) he meant simply "what is your problem with me" based on Jakezing repeatedly pestering and harassing him. That isn't "begging for an insult" - Jakezing is the one goading people, not Max. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good thing I'm not an admin, as I would probably hate the job. I am by no means apologizing for Jakezing. His comments about other users "annoying" him are part of what led to his previous block. And in any language, asking "Why don't you like me?" or "What is your problem with me?" is a leading question that's unlikely to result in a satisfactory answer. Jakezing should have responded with a list of some factual issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney and I both independently denied his request for unblock based on the promise that he would avoid all talk pages. Baseball_Bugs, thanks for that; note, though, that's it's really just one indef block; the second was just done to include a block summary for the first. Jakezing promised several times early this year that he could change if given the chance. I don't see much evidence that he is even better than he was. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops, you're right, it was really just one block, all done on Pearl Harbor Day in 2007. So it's three indef's overall. Cody6 is not currently blocked. The user says he created Jakezing because the Cod6 logon wouldn't work anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Three indefs, four indefs - at that point, does it really matter? I feel for him because he seems genuine but he's not been able to resolve the issues any of the other times he's seemed genuine. Hopefully its just immaturity and he'll be able to come back after a year or two and have things together. Shell ^babelfish 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think this is the first time I've seen someone so desperate to edit that they are asking for a topic ban from talk pages. That is obviously not appropriate, as it leads to "discussing" changes in the edit summaries instead, and I expect you know how that kind of thing can go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - no more wikidrama. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - How you do anything is how you do everything, and if that is the way he behaves then I say that we have totally no confidence in his contribution to wikipedia, in part or in whole. True or true? Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sockpuppet investigation seems a bit excessive, unless they're looking for additional "sleeper" socks. Otherwise, it should suffice to block the Cody6 account, which has been virtually inactive since the Jakezing account began. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - User was previously blocked several times indef as noted, and although this user promises the behavior will cease. It never does. This user has had.. let me see here, 8 chances at being good, and he's failed every time. Block indef and be done with it, he's shown quite clearly he can't change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a very quick 1 hour block...

... to help this IP user find their talk page? 219.115.138.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Or how do we deal with this kind of situation? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth? Unomi (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can explain the card suit edits. Not sure about the rest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is generally vandalism and should be dealt with through normal block lengths. IP addresses tend not to check talk pages or know what the orange bar is for. That and the ISP is Japanese, as would be the user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the third time this IP is doing this, always the four suit articles with about 10 minutes in between. The IP seems to behave similarly on the Japanese Wikipedia [60], but I think technically it's not vandalism per WP:VAND#NOT. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be leaving the user another message in Japanese soon. This may stop him. If not, try listing at WP:AIV by linking to this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's odd that AIV is specifically only for vandalism, ANI is too slow for such a situation, and that blocking is the only way we have to make users aware of their talk page. It would be great if one could block with an automatic unblock when the user reads (edits?) their talk page. Even better if rollbackers could do this. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You can try reporting blatantly disruptive behavior to AIV. The worst they can do is decide not to take action on it. It's a judgment call. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Honda

Resolved

Something a bit odd on Honda could do with a fix.--Cavrdg (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Tagged, bagged and booted. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IP editor removing useful hatnote

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for a week to encourage actual discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor, variously User:24.149.47.30 or User:128.151.71.16, keeps removing from the article The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) the hatnote which directs people to the The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (disambiguation) page, on the very technical grounds that it doesn't fulfill the letter of WP:HAT. Would someone please tell this person that with the release of a major remake right now, there's no particular harm, and potentially some good, that can be done by having that hatnote in place. The IP editor seems to think that the only way to get to the page for the 1974 film is by typing in the full title of the article, and that obviates the need for re-direction of the reader elsewhere, but, in fact, there are numerous ways in which one can have arrived at the page via various links, and for those who get there mistakenly, the hatnote offers a pathway to reach where they want to go, which is presumably the article on the recent film.

This is a common sense vs. strict letter of the law thing, and I'm tired of dealing with it. I would appreciate someone else conveying this to the IP so that he'll stop removing the hatnote. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that "letter of the law" applies here. Semi-ed for a week in an attempt to get some discussion on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it is very appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the hatnote is a guideline not a policy (which I suspect you know, but the IP may not (tho they look to have edits since 2006 or something). Syrthiss (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were a policy, making sense trumps fulfilling the letter of anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 week by User:SarekOfVulcan. Edit rolled back by User:Horologium. Horologium (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am too pissed off by this IP's posts directed at me to act rationally, and recognizing that (having already flown off the handle in unusual form and offered a feeding which was apparently quite nourishing) can someone take a look at the last four edits in my talk page's history and do something appropriate. I find the latest post incredibly offensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If any admin thinks that a 1-week block was excessive, feel free to reduce without consulting first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Maurice27

Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing his long pattern of personal attacks here and here (note edit summary). He's been blocked quite a few times for similar offenses and I don't see the pattern changing. Given other problems including the edit war on Catalan people, and previous sanctions, I think we need additional eyes on this. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty nasty attack, but it was in response to a 3RR warning for a single revert. Granted, you can violate guidelines against edit warring without making 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he could argue that he was provoked here. Can someone else take a look and see if anything besides warning is necessary here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his page. I note that he didn't react to the 3RR warning, but instead instantly got inflamed for it being labeled "vandalism" (which, well, he was using an "rv" edit summary)... at any rate, I gave a warning against edit warring AND civility; we'll see what happens. Tan | 39 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned over there, I use "rv" for revert, and "rvv" for revert vandalism. And I seconded your warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good call Tanthalas; it looks like he's definitely in need of a breather but hopefully he can do that himself as opposed to needing a block. Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks for weighing in here. I'm not sure I understand Sarek's comment of only one revert. I see 1, 2, 3, 4, mostly on the 15th, but also on the 11th. This is in the context of a bigger edit war on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"one revert" was shorthand for "one revert within 24 hours".

• 20:14, 11 June 2009 UTC - 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 60 hours
• 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC - 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 3 hours
• 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC - 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC -- 28 hours
• 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC - 20:11, 15 June 2009 UTC (your warning) - 4 hours

Time since his second revert back -- 35 hours

Time since his third revert back -- 95 hours.

Hence, not a violation of 3RR, in the strict sense. WP:EDITWAR might apply, if you are correct that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. But 4 edits over 91 hours is not really something I'd stress about -- especially since Maurice had been working for consensus over the past few weeks, and thought it had finally been achieved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct - I perhaps should have used WP:EW instead of WP:3RR in my warning (now ammended). However this editor has been blocked a number of times for edit warring on catalan-related articles, so I believe the warning was highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was appropriate, and that he went way over the top in his response, but I can see why he did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank you Sarek for understanding my point. Now, I'll explain you my point of view...

I have been accused of "reverting vandalism" for this edit (RV is used) when there are lots of examples where I used RVV here or here. Toddst1 blocked me for claiming that, what this anon was doing was vandalism and I stopped doing it. An administrator SHOULD verify this cases before accusing and Toddst1 DIDN'T.

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because I've been the only one warned for the reason he claims when other editors in that article have used "RVV" to revert the anon (here or here). Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps warning me of breaking 3RR while the anon user is reverting as many times as me (here, here and here). Again, Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because meanwhile I have all the other editors backing me trying to protect the consensus reached, Toddst1 keeps focusing on me as "the uncivil editor who prevents anon users to express their opinion". I counted 37 reverts by anons since 2 May 2009... Who is the one breaking 3RR? Again, Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because despite asking him for help semi-protecting the article against this anon user (who doesn't care about the consensus reached), he hasn't done anything! Other users have asked him to semi-preotect the article as proved here, here or here... What was Toddst1 short and careless answer to all these requests? "That's not vandalism."Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And finally I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps using my block log as a reason to accuse me. My last block occured 29 November 2007. That's a year and half!!! I consider it enough time to consider my log as "clean". Why doesn't he?

So, here we are, a bunch of defenseless editors who really discussed for days and weeks in order to find a consensus and a single anon user who is having fun blowing up everything, reverting us, not explaining in talk-page, with the complete permissivity of an administrator who just doesn't care about the sake of the article.

Toddst1 has proven today that he was observing and watching the Revision history of Catalan people. As soon as I came close to breaking 3RR, he jumped to my user-page to warn me. He didn't prevent the (close to) 40 reverts by the anon... Just like I was his only interest. He wants me blocked. Why hasn't he done anything to protect the article? Why hasn't he answered to the other editor's requests? Because he only wants to harrass me. Where is the Good Faith assuption? Where is the No personal attacks guideline? NOWHERE!

If you want to block me? I can only tell you all to go ahead! I believe that the sake of Wikipedia is far above us all and I keep believing that administrator Toddst1 has reacted negligently in this case and that he has abused of his administrator "power" with me. If he is not interested in protecting wikipedia, he should not be an administrator!

I, thank God, live in a free country and, when I see an injustice so flagrant, I don't remain silent. Thanks for reading.--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please shut this ridiculousness down? The only reason I even looked at the article was because of this request and the misrepresentation/NPA violations have gone far too long. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just told him to quit with the soapboxing and ACCUSEations and either file a neutral, well-ref'd RFC/U or drop it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly the kind of bickering that puts anybody off wikipedia and, therefore, this will be my one-hit wonder contribution and then I'll leave this sad bickering. But, if the truth be told, I think user Toddst1 should take a deep breath and honestly tell himself wether he is in this dispute with a clear mind or less so, not the least because he is an administrator and he is supposed to abide to some neutrality (and effectiveness, I'd dare to say) standards.

To put a little context, there was a dispute over the Catalan people article (in which I was not even participating at that point). On the one side there was Coentor and on the other Maurice, they were both discussing as politely as it gets about the content, while an anon who refused to discuss or even to articulate his point of view at the talk page, kept adding it at his own risk, absolutely disregarding the discussion going on at the talk page.

Then Todd came in, and, as an administrator, all he did was to block the page (more or less where the anon had left it, therefore olympically ignoring the two main articulated points of view at the talk page) and call for a consensus to be reached. Then he disappeared. That is much less than I would expect from an admin. but I guess it is correct anyway.

In the process, he had given Maurice a warning, while did absolutely nothing about the disturbing anon.

Then protection expired and, finally, a consensus has been reached between at least four editors (including the aforementioned Coentor, Maurice, Cnoguera and myself, all with quite diverse points of view, but willing to compromise in the end). Still, the anon keeps fighting his own war, while refusing to discuss whatsoever.

Now, next thing I hear about userToddst is when one of the parties involved in the consensus building asked him to semiprotect the page in order to block the disruptive anon, so that we can all move on. This is all Todd had to say in return [61]. And this is when an admin. starts to tread so low that you wonder what is the use of admins., if any.

So now it does get worrysome about his will to help the users who are discussing and building the very same consensus he asked for (before he left us in oblivion).

Todd, with all due respect, if all you are going to make is block a contested page in the version with the least support, then give dry replies to one of the civil users and, in the meantime, try to block a third user whom you dont like mostly his past record (including that message he left in your talk page one month ago)...I think a mere bot, not an admin. could do. If you are not going to be a part of the solution, try at least to not be a part of the problem, like when you keep endorsing (not with your words, but with your actions) the disrupting anon, like when you keep tracking the involved users bringing up past grudges.

A bot at least does not have revenge feelings or an ego to be vindicated. And it looks like whatever Maurice told you did sit bad with you and you are devoting your energies rather than in helping the article to improve, in getting one of the consensus-builders blocked, basically because of his past record elsewhere (and because he spoke less than nice to you once or twice).

Now, as I said, I won't be adding more about this. I have better stuff to do in wikipedia than arguing with strangers for the sake of arguing. In any case, Todd, I do hope that I can still sleep tight and walk through wikipedia's manors more or less carefree. In other words, I hope that you have not added me to your "to do" list now because of this post... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Eltrut

User continues depsite several warnings to remove speedy delete templates. The page in specific is Ben Knight, possibly a short term block would be effective or even a visit by admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have finally gotten it, and placed a {{hangon}} instead of removing the db. Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kim-Zhang-Hong and religion/atheism articles

User appears to be removing/altering information, mostly in articles regarding atheism and religion. For example, with some political figures, he removes "atheist" from the religion box: [62][63][64]. While I'm not familiar with the Religious war article, the history indicates that he is adding uncited information and POV. With State atheism, he's adding his own commentary and whatnot.[65]--Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling them about our policies in this regard might be a good idea. So far noone bother talking to the user directly and unless this is tried, I see no need for admin intervention at this point. Talk to them/warn them. If they turn out to be misguided, guide them. If they turn out to be an ordinary vandal, take it to WP:AIV after issuing enough warnings. Either way, nothing for ANI imho. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I left them a "NOR" warning and I'll see where it goes from there.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Several new users with similar pattern of creating nonsense redirects

I see that there are at least 3 new users creating redirects from unlikely search terms. First there is User:PinkKiwi239 with Wiki Challenge redirected to Kiwi Challenge, User:Pbskidz61 with Shit beetle to Dung beetle and several other redirects from unlikely search terms which are synonyms for feces [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71], and then there is User:Piroonangel14 with this, this, this, this, and this as well as a redirect from Fee to Fe [[72]. When I asked for an explanation on their talk pages, so far Piorangel14 has defended the redirects on the grounds "Some people still might use these search terms, though [73]." I would like to see a checkuser on these new accounts, and advice as to how much discretion they should have to continue creating such redirects from unlikely search terms. I will advise them of this posting. Please watch for other new users on a spree of possibly vandalistic redirect creation. Edison (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pbskidz61 pointed out on ,my talk page that this page is semiprotected so new accounts cannot post here. Seems like an odd way to do business, and it is unlikely that vandalizs here would long go unnoticed and would be dealt with efficiently. Is the semiprotection always there, and if so why? I suggested that Pbskidz61 could explain the odd redirects on his/her talk page as a stopgap. Edison (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This page was temporarily semiprotected due to vandalism. It is not currently protected. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An additional checkuser on User:Perdidymis13 as part of a possible sock farm might be in order given the addition of Feces on the Pupu page [74] and a vandal edit [75] to Peepee as well as other related vandal edits. Edison (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are,

• Pinkgirl941222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PkGry95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PinkRat34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PkGirly25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PGirly94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lawson.X. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pderdergal23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pinkgirl9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Perdidymis13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PinkKiwi239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piroonangel14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbskidz61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pachouvia38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Puppet master is ScienceGolfFanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to delete the redirects they have created which seem like unlikely search terms or unlikely misspellings? See [76] which has many consisting of variant spellings in all caps. Edison (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the pages edited by the above, also found similar edit pattern by User:PinkVan34: [77]. Edison (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been through the contributions of the above accounts and deleted many of the redirects (mostly as pure vandalism, some as implausible typos). If there are any left that should be nuked, tag or list at WP:RFD as appropriate. Bencherlite^Talk 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If ScienceGolfFanatic has created all these socks and disrupted Wikipedia, is a block or ban appropriate? I will notify the user of this discussion. Edison (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through pages vandalized by ScienceGolfFanatic, at Mucus found "booger" edit by SGF [78] and a similar edit earlier, on May 23, by Pepperroni57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [79]. Another sock? Too old for CU? Still, there is the "walks like a duck" test. Edison (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Pepperroni seems unrelated. Thatcher 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Icestorm815 has indefinitely blocked ScienceGolfFanatic and the confirmed socks. I agree with a ban. Edison (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Animal91X

Resolved

Animal91X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite numerous warnings, this user constantly uploads copyrighted material without adding relevant source or permission details, and all too often trying to claim it as own work. magnius (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete unused {{Rename}} template

Now that the move template needs to be subst'd, occasionally people try to use this template, {{Rename}}, but it does not work, and should be just deleted. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here, instead try WP:TfD --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

David Paterson

I've semi-protected this for two weeks. I've grown quite tired of the racist vandalism by IP addresses of this page. 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by A.K.Nole

• A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive

A.K.Nole has been editing disruptively on the article Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which has been put up for deletion by me. At the discussion on WP:FTN, he has been causing further disruption. Then, seemingly in revenge, he incorrectly claimed on my talk page that my name is a copyright problem because Mathsci is copyrighted by the American Mathematical Society. He changed the redirect page accordingly for Mathsci. However the trade mark for the web version of Mathematical Reviews (MR) is MathSciNet. This has been in place on wikipedia for years now. This user is continuing to change the redirect. (It is true that the joint electronic database for the two AMS publications Mathematical Reviews and Current Mathematical Publications is called MathSci and that the earlier multidisc version of MR, now more or less outmoded, is called MathSci Disc.) He has edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information. He has edited wikipedia only for a short time, previously having shared an account abusively with two other users as The Wiki House (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has made very few edits, his main contribution seemingly has been to blank a sourced section of Simutronics. The remarks at my talk page [80] suggest that this user is up to no good. He seems to be harrassing me and I think he should be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. I have made no secret that I am a directeur de recherche in the CNRS, previously having been a tenured staff member in Cambridge University. where I lecture a term per year and am still a fellow of my former college. I do not like this harrassment or baiting by A.K.Nole which seems to be just to prove a WP:POINT. As far as I can tell he is a total non-expert on matters mathematical (I assume for example he has no access to mathscinet). He seems to be editing wikipedia to make my user name illegal, but, as a simple search on google will show, mathsci is used everywhere (e.g. for mathematical forums, mathematics departments, journals, etc). Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I reject these accusations, which are significantly inaccurate in many ways and largely unsupported.

I will address the principal complaint first. User:MathSci alleges that I have "edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information". This is one of the most serious accusations that could be levelled against a contributor and it is quite untrue. The database (as opposed to its web interface) is called MathSci, and has been since 1999 at least: its name MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society. It is available today under that name as an online service and a CD-ROM. I provided sources for all this here before making any article changes, here, here here and here. User:Mathsci actually admits this now, having previously denied it here here summary and here, the last of these being at this very section.

The sources I adduced, here, here, here and here come from the MathSci products publisher and its two principal vendors (current, not outmoded, one disc, one online). They include two of the three top Google hits for search term "Mathsci". Hence my initial concern.

Copyright was never mentioned by me. MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society, registered on 6 Feb 1990 (go to USPTO to verify). Is this a valid username?

Minor allegations:

Disruption at Jeremy Dunning-Davies -- not by me. There was a BRD cycle and discussion at the talk page. I proposed a third opinion and User:Mathsci duly took it to WP:FTN.

Disruption at WP:FTN -- not by me. I leave it to the community to visit that page and decide who was disruptive.

Shared account. A beginner's mistake, resolved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House. It is not true to call it abusive.

Blanked a sourced section of Simutronics. Not true, it was an unsourced section, see long discussion at the talk page.

"total non-expert on matters mathematical". Perhaps, though not as far as I know a crime. What I can do is to read the sources, and tell the difference between a database and a website.

User:Mathsci fails to mention leaving threats to have me blocked here, here and here. This farrago is clearly an attempt to put those threats into operation for having dared to disagree with him. I reject all the accusations and note that major assertions here are demonstrably untrue. I invite the community to decide. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that the only reason A.K.Nole is editing items related to "Mathsci" is to harass Mathsci (talk · contribs), following on a contentious dispute. This is stalking and shouldn't be tolerated. Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Stalking" is a real-world crime: I reject that accusation completely and call on you to withdraw it. You probably meant "wikistalking", now called "wikihounding" for that very reason: the facts are against that too. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find Mathsci's user name to be promotional, and I recommend that he ignore the comment about his user name that Nole left on his Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Shortride violating WP:MOSTM despite tag

On Template:Time Warner was the completely documented code:

''[[Wallpaper (magazine)|Wallpaper<!--"Wallpaper" per WP:MOSTM-->]]''

But the tag is deleted and the prohibited trademark again forced as:

''[[Wallpaper (magazine)|Wallpaper*]]'

By User:Shortride with this edit, in blatant violation of WP:MOSTM, and without any decent right to claim good faith. Rules are failures when it becomes so easy to violate them at no cost. 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: it's not his first time at it, too[81] (restoration of ALL-CAPS "TIME" and "TIME for Kids") 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shortride has been on Wikipedia for only a few months;
• The issue was easily fixed (indeed, you've fixed it);
• You posted on Shortride's talk page then came straight here.

Thanks for fixing this issue, however your attitude towards Shortride seems quite WP:BITEy. Next time I'd suggest (a) fixing the problem, and (b) dropping a polite note on the editor's talk page explaining the issue. If the editor ignores you, and continues to ignore policy, then come here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree:

• Shortride has been editing since December 2006 that's not a few months.
• It'd also be "easy to fix" a vandal replacing birth date 1910 with 1492, that wouldn't make it any more an acceptable behavior.
• I came straight here because someone wantonly removing such an extensively clear tag documenting rules has no right to the sort of "AGF" or "BITE" laxism under which most vandals spam or damage the encyclopedia for weeks or months before any sort of retribution. And even if you can somehow believe in his good faith, you wouldn't make him any service by allowing him to continue operating under the delusion that there are no rules and that his blatant disregard for even the most explicit tag is anything less than unacceptable.

I'd counter-suggest that he should get a one-hour block with summary " blatant violation of WP:MOSTM in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Time_Warner&diff=295338213&oldid=292636102 " so that it's on the record and he can't fool any more people on his next offenses. 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right; somehow I managed to muddle the dates of the later posts with the first post on the talk page. That said, I did check the history of the talk page, and there didn't seem to be any previous posting raising this issue there - yours was the first, and straight after posting you came here without waiting for a reply. Discussing this is doing the editor a service. Incidentally, blocks aren't for "retribution" - they're to prevent disruption. They also don't typically come "out of the blue" - they follow a series of warnings. Right now this editor appears to be oblivious to policy - they've had no warnings, just one post on their talk page and then... whack! Block! Well, hopefully not.

I'll leave it to an admin to decide whether this merits a block; for my part I'd suggest discussing it with them first, slapping them second, and only blocking if they persist. For some reason HTML comments do seem to be invisible to many editors - I suspect people mentally parse out anything between <!-- and -->.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my part, due to deleting the original, and retyping from memory. I was unaware of the meaning of WP:MOSTM. - Shortride

IP User engaging in racist and homophobic vandalism

Resolved

IP User 80.177.246.229 has vandalised Hannibal (film) and Torture murder with successive racist and homophobic attacks. I have reversed the offending material. Can Admin. look at a block for the user please? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. As a note, I just happened to see this as I logged in, and this type of report will usually get a quicker response at the administrator's heads-up for vandals board. Black Kite 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

even better than 4 minutes?  ;) leaky_caldron (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be 4 seconds at AIV! Black Kite 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

4 seconds? Hardly. There are times when vandals hang on there for hours before anything is done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there are times when reports that are not simple vandalism hang on for hours. Any blatantly obvious vandalism, like this stuff, gets cleaned up within minutes, usually. The problem is that people use AIV for stuff like complicated sockpuppet investigations, or for tattling on their opponents in a mutual edit war, or for other stuff that AIV is not designed for. When used as intended, it works. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the case, in my experience, I'll start keeping track of how long it takes things I post there to get resolved, and we can re-address it then. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In which case maybe WP:Civility#Dispute resolution final sentence needs to be changed. It points to here, not to AIV. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • (Cough!) Ahem, WP:AIV, surely?! That's a link to here, which makes me head hurt... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops. Black Kite 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite: I don't know. It took 20 minutes and no response at AIV last night after an IP went nuts and decided to go on a vandalism/edit-warring spree on my user talk. I had to ping an admin on IRC to expedite that block, and the subsequent ones after that (block evasion). MuZemike 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring on AIV is sporadic. It all depends on who (if anyone) is watching, which in turn sometimes seems to be a function of the time of day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And times when AIV seems a little slow, the IRC Channels generally get a response much faster. There's always an admin hanging around there who will gladly take care of something like this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC cluebat needed

There's been a renewed bout of Greek-Albanian national edit-warring recently, which needs some treatment under WP:ARBMAC (the original). The main articles affected are currently Cham Albanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Souliotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as several location articles such as Gjirokastër (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The main participants are:

on the Albanian side

• I Pakapshem (talk · contribs)
• Sarandioti (talk · contribs)
• Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs)

on the Greek side

• Factuarius (talk · contribs)
• Xenovatis (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

My impression is that the main troublemakers are I Pakapshem and Sarandioti on the one side and Factuarius on the other: the aggressive edit-warring comes mostly from the two new Albanian users, while a lot of the tendentious editing that has been spurring the conflict has been the responsibility of Factuarius, with Balkanian`s word and the other Greek editors showing a somewhat more constructive approach. The whole situation needs ample use of the discretionary sanctions rule by somebody with a good solid cluebat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd help, but I'm afraid I'd get whopped by ArbCom's morningstar. Sorry. One ArbComm case is enough for me, and I sincerely apologize to both you and J.delanoy for the horrendous situation. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the disruption on location articles began recently, when Sarandioti burst on the scene and I Pakapshem soon after. These articles were more or less stable prior to that. These appear to be SPAs whose sole purpose is nationalist edit-warring. They have a battleground mentality, use ethnic insult and aggresively edit war. The level of disruption in recent days has become intolerable. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion as they dismiss any source I bring on spurious and endlessly repeat that wikipedia must only use official data. Evidence provided below:

(userlinks|Sarandioti)

Edit warring: On June 16th alone, 3R on Chams Albanians, Souliotes

Incivility: [82], [83] (calling user "greko"), [84] (michael "white"), [85] ("nationalist claims"), [86], [87] ("your pseudo nationalism, typical dodging")

Battleground mentality: [88] ("..attempting to hellenise.."), [89] ("stop your nationalist lies"), [90] ("Greek source=POV source"), [91], [92], [93], [94], [95] ("Warm welcome")

Assumptions of bad faith: [96] (calling others edits "vandalizing"),[97] ("meat puppets"), [98] ("vandalising by Athenean"), [99] ("greek nationalist Athenean"), [100] (assuming User:Politis is "recruited")

Gaming the system, thinks he is entitled to 3R: [101], [102], [103]

Endlessly repeating the "OFFICIAL data" (sic) mantra: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]

Ignores sources or dismisses them on spurious grounds: [111], [112]

Falsely claims I wrote "majority" when I clearly wrote "minority": [113], [114]

Continuously threatening to "report" people: [115], [116], [117], [118]

Canvassing (in Albanian) [119] "Greeks are vandalising articles")

I Pakapshem

Edit-warring: 3R on Chams, Souliotes on June 16th alone

Incivility: [120] ("greek buddy"), [121] ("trolling around"), [122] ("trolling around"), [123]

Assuming bad faith: [124], [125] ("extreme nationalist POV pushers")

Battleground mentality: [126], [127]

Official data mantra: [128], [129]

Dismissing sources on spurious grounds: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

Battleground mentality: [135], [136]

Threatening to report people: [137]

Gaming the system mentality: [138]

Also worth noting is that I Pakapshem is a member [[139]] of this extremist nationalist organization: [140] ("Movement of National Rebirth").

In this [User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Greece-Albania articles, some thoughts.]thread on Future Perfect's talkpage, I brought up the idea of having a round-table discussion to settle this matter between editors, but I am now convinced this will be impossible as long as these two editors are allowed to participate. --Athenean (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, an admin is ALREADY on this issue, check the talkpage of the article Cham Albanians, and stop accusing your fellow editors without even informing them for this. And please stop commenting others and issues you dont know, without their knowledge, that is totally impolite. --Sarandioti (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson

Note: I was refered here from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, see this advise.
Note: Relisted because of absolute lack of admin input.

You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:William_Allen_Simpson. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received here:

"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary [141]

"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary [142]

"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine) [143]

"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why" [144]

"We cannot help the English as a second language issues that you seem to have. Originally, folks tried to help you, but I've long since given up." (I may add that this particular baseless remark deeply insulted me, especially in view of my academic records and real-life experience.) and "I wonder why you only have one edit (under this name) at your advertised native language site? Perhaps you are banned there under another name? We certainly had that problem with others here in the past...." (outright libelous) [145]Debresser (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.

Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring [146].

The following quote put on his talk page in 2006 might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." [147] Nothing has changed for the better since 2006...

In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Wikipedia. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't think the advice to come here was correct. I have certainly seen people blocked at WQA in spite of refusing to participate in the process. Here at ANI this issue seems to be falling under the radar. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP:WQA page says specifically that WP:WQA can not

• Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.
• Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users.

Which seems to be what is needed here. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any inappropriate actions which William Allen Simpson may have done, Debresser was chastised at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, WP:VP, and elsewhere. It may not have been by a majority of those commenting, but it did include a number of established editors, and he promised not to do any more of what he was chastised for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A promise I have kept. But I really think it would be more correct to say that I have been informed by some editors of the proper ways to make certain improvements. "You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" is gross exageration and generalisation. Which is insulting, and unrightfully puts me in a black light. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like exaggeration; I reserve comment as to whether you were roundly excoriated at WT:CFD, as I'm one of the excoriators.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, persistent attempts at promotion

Psikxas (talk · contribs) has for the past six weeks or so been persistently trying to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable headlight bulb company called Kärheim. His initial attempt was a mainspace article, Karheim, which was speedy deleted for violation of NOTE and SOAP (with great difficulty; Psikxas & socks repeatedly removed SD notice — see SPI). Deleted article retrieved and moved by admin Jayron32 at Psikxas' request to his userspace. I objected at that time; no consensus for removal was reached. Psikxas moved the article text to his main userpage, which is its present location. Retrieving admin reiterated RS, CORP, and NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here.

Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas (where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).

Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as LAZER helmet (request for reinstatement here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned.

I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university Aristotle_University? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.

Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.

As far the LAZER helmet you mention, again lying!! Didnt the article reported restored or not??See there my reply here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[148]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt? (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that "report" at [149] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Under review by Wikipedia"?

Yesterday, User:Debora999 removed maintenance templates from David Ferguson (impresario), with no edit summary and no attempts to fix the issues. I added them back (with a few others that I thought the article needed as well) and left the standard {{uw-tdel1}} message on her talk page. In response (among other replies) she wrote:

Hmmm... Ms. Smith, it seems there is only one place that a citation is needed. I think I can take care of that. What is the problem here? I've reviewed your activities here and it seems like you must have a personal issue with this individual. Are you aware that you're under review by Wikipedia for your activities? They've flagged your talk page. I'm pretty sure they suspect that you know this person and have a conflict of interest... --deb (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, keeping in mind that I haven't touched that article in over four months (due to getting fed up with SPA editors), that most of that article's citations are primary sources and/or sourced solely to the subject's own website, that Debora999 describes herself as "a newbie" and that she & I have never previously interacted, I'm ignoring most of that rant. But the last part? I have to think that it would be a good idea for someone—not me—to drop her a line about WP:AGF, at a minimum.

And while I shouldn't have to mention it, I'm happy to state for the record that I don't know Ferguson; so far as I know, I don't know anyone who knows Ferguson; and I've never had any dealings (professional or otherwise) with Ferguson himself or with any of his businesses or organizations. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody has misunderstood the idea of Editor review. – Toon^(talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought also, but that bit about "They've flagged your talk page" gave me the willies. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid future errors with the template {{Editor review}}, it could be helpful to alter the text from "is currently on editor review" to perhaps " has asked for an editor review" or "has requested an editor review".

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand "editor review" and I am a newbie. But why is this person so concerned with my editing on that particular page? I apologize if it sounded like a rant, but does someone follow you and revert your changes as well, especially when it was so insignificant to you personally? It's frustrating. Anyone from Wikipedia can look at my activities and see that I don't know what the heck I'm doing... sorry Ms. Smith, I forgot a signature, probably more as well. As for that "rant" I tried to delete it before it posted but hit the wrong button and saved it, as the record shows, and the time stamp, I immediately re-edited to remove it--it was simply not meant to be left behind. But, honestly... what IS the problem with that page? I honestly don't get it... I don't even understand why everyone is always arguing here. By the way, I did fix the citation problem on the page, so I'm then allowed to remove that template right? I'm not trying to pick any fights so no need to go to the mattresses... ok--I'm asking for advice here. Oh yeah, Ms. Smith, when I commented about what I thought was a flag on your talk page, I thought I was doing you a favor. Is that why you left me that message on my talk page that stated that I was "under investigation" by Wikipedia? You forgot to mention it was because you started this... I guess they'll let me know if I'm going to get spanked. How does anyone learn this stuff if there's always someone to smack us down for learning it? This is not an ownership situation is it? Are you in the article or a subject of it? If so, I'm sorry for picking on your page, I'm not trying to do anything malicious.deb (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, she didn't say "under investigation" i don't know where i got that from... but why does everything have to sound so freaking scary?deb (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The way most of us learn it is by using what we learned about research in high school and college, combining it with what we learned about working cooperatively with others from our parents and our employers, and supplementing that prior knowledge by reading Wikipedia's rules. Sometimes we mess up, and someone corrects us- then we go read the rule (most people make a habit of linking to them), learn it, and do better next time. Sometimes we get into real disagreements with other people, and we have to just go do something else until we are less angry. The first few months, we make a lot of mistakes, and learn a lot. Even when we've been around for a long time, we still mess up, get corrected, and get into disagreements. You could probably read the talk pages and talk archives of anyone in this conversation and see lots of examples of mistakes, corrections, disagreements, apologies, negotiations, and compromises. But writing the encyclopedia is something that anyone with good reading, writing, and interpersonal skills can learn to do well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About the problem with the article, as the template indicates, there are multiple issues with the article. You can follow the links given in it to find out more about the problems and how to solve them. Since this has already been disputed, I suggest you discuss on the article's talk page whether or not to remove the templates (after fixing the problems of course) and see what others think. As for the arguments here, that's kind of traditional :D Everyone here likes contributing to Wikipedia and are kind of attached to it so you get heated discussions and debates... but once we develop consensus on what to do, we can move on. It's not like we bear a grudge and keep going on about it. After the matter is resolved,learn from it and forget the rest. Chamal ^talk 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, one thing at a time:

• The sum total of what I've written on your talk page is {{uw-tdel1}} and {{ani}}. That's it. If you have an issue with the standard templates, then that's your issue with the standard templates.
• I didn't say anything about you having left off a signature, because I don't care.
• I strongly object to your saying that I "follow you and revert your changes." That's calling WP:Wikihounding, and I have not done that. I objected to one change you made, and when I edited the page I modified a few things (not just a reversion). That's it. An apology would be nice.
• The problem with the David Ferguson (impresario) article is just what I said above: too many SPA editors, and too few good citations. If you took out all the primary sources and the refs that link to Ferguson's own web site, then we might have a shot at a decent article. But try to do that and "Wham!" the flying SPA monkeys swoop in. Have you read through all the talk page archives?
• And once again, no, I am not in the article in any fashion whatsoever. I just hate having this kind of biased and made-up crud in any WP article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Something out of the topic, but if you are sure of SPAs at the article why don't you (and others editing it) do something about it? By your comment, it sounds like they are practically controlling the article. No one can improve an article under such conditions. Chamal ^talk 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank Bruno's Laugh

Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that this user is engaged in a pattern of trolling and petty harassment. Please review his or her talkpage and contributions. At a minimum, he or she has started his editing career very much off on the wrong foot; very possibly, much worse. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and implementing whatever action he or she deems appropriate, whether it's a stern warning or an indefinite block. (In my limited inquiries, I have not found any evidence of socking, however.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, from my point of view. I made a few edits to the reference desk, somebody mentioned suicide, I posted to this board, by post was removed with the summary WP:DENY, I questioned this, Jehochman and I got into a bit of a debate about the way I was spoken to (which we resolved, amicably I believe), Ryulong also reverted me, I had the same discussion with him, he was IMO rude and dismissive, I raised this to him also, he continued to be dismissive and refused to answer, we had a bit of a debate, he was rude to me a bit, I was rude to him a bit, Frank started reverting my comments, I posted to Ryulong suggesting we never contact each other again, he then contacted me again in a rude manner, I responded in a rude manner, Frank reverted me, I asked Frank to review Ryulong's comments as well as mine, Frank told me that Ryulong was more experience than me. Then I got the note from Brad. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was getting the same impression as you, Brad...spends a disproportionate amount of time baiting Ryulong. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ecx2 with above) I had noticed FBL's behavior earlier, and held off on blocking for the time. Given the continued baiting, harassment, and refusal to disengage in the conflict, I have blocked indefinitely. Review is welcomed, and should consensus form against the block (or its being lessened), I need not be consulted first. ÷seresin 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, which took about a dime's worth of time to compose: I have followed this little bit of drama for a few days. Whatever prior opinion one may have of User:Ryulong, he is being attacked by User:Frank Bruno's Laugh. I direct you to:

• I find it laughable that you quote policies at me, when you have been found guilty by the community of flagrantly breaching policies and punished by having your powers removed. What moral authority do you think you can possibly have, when your reputation is in tatters? If I were you, I would learn to keep my mouth shut a bit more, rather than trying to moralise and stir up more problems.
• You are, in my opinion, a bully, and that a lot of people are unhappy with your conduct. I am not sure how long you got away with this, but it seems that your conduct has been noted by the community and that you have been dealt with.
• rm hypocritical comment - Ryulong was recently found guilty of appalling conduct and his conduct towards me has continued to be appalling (making attacks without been prepared to justify (edit summary).

This is all from a user with under 100 edits, zero of which are in article space. Note: We've had some interaction on this point; see my talk page, his talk page, or Ryulong's. FBL's trolling is disruptive to the project and harassing of a prolific article-space editor.  Frank  |  talk  23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor is currently requesting an unblock. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block based on the above links/quotes from Frank, and a look through their edits, R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty reasonable block to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Why do I always seem to stumble across these sorts of accounts. I was very suspicious of this account, and a few others who seem to be playing silly games at the reference desk. I believe there is a long term reference desk troll. Others know more about them than me. Is there anyone who remembers those incidents who'd care to enlighten us who the puppetmaster might be? Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DSTiamat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the other account that looks like it might be engaged in some sort of games. Perhaps checkuser to see if it's the same editor as Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Appears  Unrelated. (Yes, Newyorkbrad just ran a checkuser, and didn't blow up the wiki.) Thatcher has already blocked one sock, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Snappy Chappy (talk · contribs) was one of the two socks blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). That account was also fiddling with the reference desk. Who here remembers something about the reference desk troll? Who's the master account? Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • There have been several banned/indef blocked users using socks to screw around/troll on the reference desks in the time I've been contributing there. Light current (talk · contribs) and Freewayguy (talk · contribs) are two of the more memorable/persistent ones. Not sure if either one is involved here, though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I endorse it too. Seems like a wholly preventative block to me. I honestly wouldn't be suprised if a CheckUser turned up something interesting.--Koji† 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as well; disruption-only account. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block for all the same reasons mentioned by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request per their behaviour, and zero consensus for an unblock here. --Stephen 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Wuhwuzdat

Resolved

 – Wuhwusdat pushed, responded, gently advised Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sirs,

This gentleman has been very rude to me ever since I signed up for wikipedia, at first deleting everything I type, now searching me out and again threatening me. He has now used profanity.

The following threat was left on my talk page, I do not believe I have been a "bull in a china closet". Please Help

If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent postings have been deleted as well. I do believe you failed to take the hint when I told you to stay off my page previously, so let me put it in plain, ordinary RUDE English...FUCK OFF!!!!!! 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What part of FUCK OFF were you unable or unwilling to understand??? Feel free to answer me here, and NOT ON MY TALK PAGE! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This is the latest post:

Isn't this baiting?

Please helpDfwaviator (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you just frustrated the *&%# out of him by WP:Hounding him on his talk page after engaging in the edit war that got you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe Toddst1 has summarized the situation quite admirably. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Left Wuhwuzdat a note on his talk page (though he appears to have gotten here just fine without it) about losin' his cool. Should be the end of it, eh? lifebaka++ 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to put things in context, Dfwaviator omitted an important line when he quoted me above. In context, the quote should be: "If you stop bashing every other editor you meet here, you may find that Wikipedia can be a nice place. If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page." I was attempting to give him helpful advice. I shall refrain from trying to give this user any helpful advice in the future, as I feel he would continue his current course of disregarding anything I have said to him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The user posted an essay on his talk page: User_talk:Dfwaviator#Chip_on_the_shoulder..... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt

This former article-turned-redirect (about a character from a TV series) has been turned into a new article about a real talent agent. Both 72.144.106.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Thermalsnowball (talk · contribs) have been making the same edits to this article. The edits are a significant copyvio of http://www.epluri.com/TSA/TSAstuff/TSAcompanyhistory.html . When I reverted the changes and notified both users, they reinserted the text, claiming that they were Ted Schmidt, and that they were releasing the text into the public domain. I again reverted the changes, and notified both users, via the boilerplate messages, about creating autobiographies, with a note attached to see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to properly release their text into the public domain. Thermalsnowball's response was to reinsert the text into the article, and to copy-and-paste commons:Commons:Email templates at the bottom of the article. Once again, I reverted the changes, and left a note on Thermalsnowball's talk page, specifically spelling out what he needed to do. This time around, 72.144.106.128 reinserted the exact same text that Thermalsnowball inserted. I don't think this person/persons is/are getting the picture, can I get someone else to step in? Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to the redirect again, and semiprotected the page for a week. Chances are good they'll either go through the process properly now, or just give up. I hope the former. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonny Eagle High School

Resolved

 – Semiprotected by Juliancolton -- lifebaka++ 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I get more eyes watching Bonny Eagle High School? There's quite a bit of slanderous vandalism going on there right now due to a news report. Probably not enough to require protection just yet, but it is BLP-violating. I've been doing quite a bit of reverting, but I'm going offline for the evening. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella redux

Warren Kinsella, the subject of every Canadian's favourite nexus of contentious Wikipedia editwarring, has now sent me the following private e-mail:

from Kinsellawarren <wkinsella@hotmail.com>

to Bearcat

date Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM

subject Wikipedia e-mail

mailed-by wikimedia.org

You have preserved, and perhaps created, a number of libels on Wikipedia concerning me. Repeated attempts to delete the libels have been unsuccessful.

Can you please provide your real name and preferred address in order that this matter may be pursued further.

Yours truly,

Warren Kinsella

I want to stress the following points:

1. At no time did I ever express any form of personal opinion about the subject whatsoever; my very limited involvement with the article has revolved entirely around enforcing WP:COI rules. I have attempted to communicate on the related talk pages — the article and the user talk pages of the anonymous IPs that he was using — that Kinsella was free to discuss his concerns with the article content on the article's talk page for resolution; however, this e-mail is the first response of any kind that I've ever received from him.
2. The current version of the article has previously been listed here for review and been found to be consistent with WP:BLP on more than one occasion. I have absolutely no objection to content being removed from the article if it's found to be a BLP violation by a neutral party — and, in fact, I'd have no objection to the article being deleted outright, given that it's turning into more trouble than it's worth. But if Kinsella has concerns with the article's content, he needs to follow the proper procedures for resolving it, not vandalism coupled with legal threats.

So again, I need to ask: firstly, can somebody review whether or not the standing version of the article is consistent with BLP? And secondly, what, if anything, should I do about the legal threat apart from the obvious "don't answer his e-mail"? Bearcat (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)