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

NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though

Hello all. Further to the previous notifications on the NLP article [1] [2] [3]: The most constructive effort now seems to me to be the encouragement of a civil atmosphere that allows editors of different viewpoints to get along [4] and to present an article that includes all relevant views “presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[5]. There are some problems remaining:

• Despite being reminded of the importance of civility for constructive editing - some editors (possibly the same one) are continuing to be uncivil by demanding blocks in edit summaries ([6] (under “serious examples”)) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

• Editors ignoring suggestions to civilly discuss edits (diffs as above)

• Some editors (possibly the same one) persistently restoring argumentative phrasing [12] [13] [14]

• Editor trying to marginalize (ignore) critical discussion by using spacing [15] [16] [17]

• Continued obscuring of relevant science views eg [18] [19] [20]

On the positive side:

• Editors have stopped actually removing critical discussion from the talkpage:

• Concerning evidence for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: Some editors are editing using predominantly single use accounts [21] [22] [23] [24]: The recent COI issues on the article are perhaps more important [25] considering the cultic issues inherent in the subject. Apart from this I see no evidence of any sockpuppeting actually going on in the article.

• There has been some compliance with Cleanuptaskforce suggestions. Also - though they do tend to try to marginalize critical suggestions critical influence shows some effect and there is a delayed positive response towards some of those suggestions afterwards.

Overall things are slowly moving forward. Civility is clearly very important on Wikipedia (as I see it in a nutshell - to “Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally) and especially for articles such as the NLP article. None of the other articles I edit on have editors who persistently restore argumentative phrasing (WP words to avoid) into the text. It seems to me that as long as civility is properly adopted and reasonably maintained though - then all relevant views can be fairly presented and constructive article proceedings can be maintained long term. Again - if I inadvertently make any suggestion or action that is not constructive then I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thank you AlanBarnet 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been trimmed down considerably, which is major progress. When I was a mentor on that article, it was ridiculously large. Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Woohookitty. Yes there's definitely room to make the whole article more concise in criticisms and in the general presentation of the subject. Redundancy can be reduced and the style can be made more encyclopedic. Moving forward. AlanBarnet 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty for some positive remarks. As for AlanBarnet, the reason why he is sidelined and/or ignored by all the other regular editors is that they are all of the view that he is a sockpuppet of Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown [26]and therefore attempts to negotiate/discuss civilly or compromise with him are a pointless waste of time. Several of these editors lived through the previous mediation/arbitration marathon and therefore have experience of this. The major improvements in accuracy of citations and quotations took place in the teeth of his interference and major improvements in trimming have taken place since all editors agreed to ignore AlanBarnet as a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown thus enabling some constructive work to be done.Fainites 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. This is a good opporunity for you to try to get along with editors who hold different views from you. Some infrequent editors on the article seem to be in agreement with me concerning the need for civil discussion[27][28].. However, the prior assessments [29] [30] [31]: indicate that you seem to be part of a domimating group who encourages COI editing and the promotional obscuring of views. You seem quite resistant to reasonable admin suggestions [32]. According to policies on sockpuppetry [33] the dominating group in this case could possibly be considered meatpuppets when following the same NPOV non-compliance and can all be considered the same editor when voting about other editors. I'm not particularly interested in banning COI editors or rooting out all possible meatpuppets though - and I'm sure admin will deal with any sockpuppetry. The main solution is to encourage editors to get along civilly so they can present all relevant views in concise form without obscuring the most relevant. I believe that above all - admin suggestions and scrutiny have been helpful in improving the NLP article and I'll continue to make helpful notifications to encourage civility and constructive editing for as long as its needed. I believe its inevitable that at some time you will have to show that you can get along with editors of different views. For the sake of civil discussion and a balanced article of course - the sooner the better. AlanBarnet 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 4th effort gaming WP:AN/I [40] [41] [42] -- and his message is again overflowing with sugar-coated bait, arbitrary diffs, and flat-out lies. No-one has corroborated any of his stories and lies -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to all other editors indepedently deciding to ignore AlanBarnet completely -- enabling them to discuss and debate issues with sincerity. Even without an ear on the NLP talk page, AlanBarnet has nonetheless persisted in trolling both there and here. Please check out AlanBarnets talk page and you'll see his conflicts began with his arrival at wikipedia and have continued up to this date. Please, can an admin please review this situation? 58.178.97.116 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 58. I am not gaming anyone. I have shown commitment to civility and that will continue in cooperation with admin. I believe my discussion behavior complies with how a Wikipedian should communicate on Wikipedia and follows how other admin communicate. Criticising it probably doesn't help. I believe my userpage is full of undue harassment towards me and shows a particular group's pressure to stifle criticism. If anything it shows that the more pressure I get - the more civil I become. I hope to encourage this civility reaction in others long term on the NLP article and all the other articles I am editing on. Feel free to join. AlanBarnet 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a quick note. It has been a pleasure collaborating with 58.* and Fainites. I believe these editors tend to be on the healthy skeptical side. Together we are working on NPOV. We have systematically worked through the entire article to checking facts and references. It has come a long way on the road to become a wikipedia feature article standard. We want to promote an atmosphere in the article and discussion so that more experienced wikipedians are willing to weigh in. --Comaze 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Judging by the past notices there is a dominating group on the NLP article (and there are COI issues) who tend to obscure relevant views for the purpose of promotion. Just yesterday Fainites and 58 added defensive writing to the lead section dressed up as criticism. The Cleanuptaskforce just asked for less defensive writing from proponents yet it was added as if its criticism. Criticism has been obscured. The science fact is that NLP is unsupported. The main criticism and concern is that NLP is pseudoscientfic and there are concerns about it being promoted as a therapy in self development and in HRM. Its fairly clear that as a group there is no substantial skepticism. It took a lot of work and even scrutiny from this ANI to make the basic fact present on the article (unsupported). The obvious solution: If more experienced Wikipedians are to be encouraged to edit there then it would help if you as a group would show that you can get on with editors who hold diffent views and who want to report straight. AlanBarnet 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense.Fainites 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Professor Devilly appeared on the talkpage a while back and said he held NLP as an archetypal pseudoscience [43]. His paper also supports the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. Professor Drenth (1999) and others call it pseudoscientific. Its discussed in books about mind myths and pseudoscience and the main reason for mentioning it is because it is promoted in fringe psychotherapy - pop psychology and human resource management. Editors have persistently been suppressing that information in the lead section eg [44]. I'm glad to see that the incivil edit summary has been omitted though. Now in order to be properly civil it is necessary to discuss with all editors whatever their view. I believe most here would deem that to be in the spirit of constructive editing on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell wikistalking

Closing pointless and fruitless finger-pointing discussion to save everyone's sanity. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

• Note: comments moved from above discussion of Milo, to avoid muddying of issue

Yes, and I responded to you here. Please don't respond with groundless ad hominem attacks every time your behavior comes under scrutiny. MastCell 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet which you used only to comment at Barrington Hall, and I have left numerous articles to avoid you, as you aware. The WP:STALK evidence is very clear in your case, and I think you have gambled that I would not report you because you know I don't want to have anything to do with you, not even an ANI case reporting you for wikistalking. But I would do it at this point, and ask any admins who are paying attention to bar Mastcell from stalking me. (Especially because he has done so twice now in order to escalate disputes at Barrington Hall/is having a dispruptive effect on the article.) This should be clearly marked as a separate issue from Milo if it continues, and moved to a WP:STALK complaint against Mastcell.-Cindery 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Cindery, the "sockpuppet" situation you're referring to was reported (by me) at AN/I and received admin attention here. As far as my "disruptive" effect on the article, I invite any and all to review my contributions at Talk:Barrington Hall (I've made no edits to the article itself), and everywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Cindery, your claim to the moral high ground on matters of disruption and sockpuppetry is tenuous, at best, and since you've shown no lack of vindictiveness, I can only assume you haven't "reported" me because I have not, in fact, violated WP:STALK, WP:DE, or any other policy. MastCell 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you because you stalked me from Emergency contraception to Depo Provera. In November, I left all birth control articles, specifically to avoid you. (And I was an excellent contributor to those articles, so it was a loss for Wikipedia). You then stalked me to Barrington Hall, using a sockpuppet. When I inquired on my talkpage in general about who "Girondin" was, you admitted on ANI to being Girondin. Your "confession" was archived by JMabel, in case I wanted to make an issue of it. Barrington Hall is an article you have never made an edit to, and which you aware I will not leave. You crop up at this article only during disputes, to escalate them. You should be barred from stalking me to any articles, but Barrington Hall in particular.-Cindery 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a timeline for this stalking and diffs to back up your position? How recent was this? Spartaz 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the evidence can be found here: [45]-Cindery 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its nearly a month since then. Have you anything more recent to report? --Spartaz 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the "diffs" supplied there, and judge for yourself whether I was in fact being disruptive. MastCell 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but I just ignore him when he comments elsewhere. I will dig up the diffs. What I am concerned about is Barrington, because it really gives the creeps--he know he's "cornering" me at an article I'm personally committed to, and he shows up only to try yo escalate disputes. The recent diffs are all on the Barrington Hall talkpage. Someone else already pointed out to him "perhaps you are editing the wrong article," to which Mastcell responded with WP:OWN b.s, I think because he thought I wouldn't report him-- reporting him means having to be involved with him. For him, it's a win-win situation. I just want him to leave me alone, I already left all the birth control articles, and his presence at Barrington Hall is making things worse for everybody, not just me.-Cindery 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: here is a good example of him wikistalking, me just ignoring him. (Everyone else ignored him as well.) This was an ANI complaint started by J.Smith, in which J. Smith, Nick, and Guy were all involved, but dropped it for obvious good reasons. To their credit, they admitted they weren't unbiased, since they were all involved in the big You Tube/EL controversy at EL, taking the opposite position from me. Mastcell appeared at the end to try to continue the argument (and by doing so let me know that he was reading/stalking all of my contributions to EL, saying, in essence, "I am following every one of your edits, I read everything you write, and I will chime in if I think it will bother you, or make a situation worse,": [46]-Cindery 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC) And here is a link to the entire discussion, so you can see his comment in context:[47]

I started to respond, but since the above is mostly personal attacks and bad faith, maybe I'll just wait for diffs. It's all at Talk:Barrington Hall, if anyone cares. MastCell 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if it has been well-estabished that you and so and so don't get along, so and so has left articles where they were a regular editor to avoid you, and asked to be left alone, you should try to stay away from them--not stalk them. That's disruptive in and of itself. As for your "de-escalation" absurdity, no, it does not de-escalate disputes if you join them when they are heated and unbalanced, and you join on the unbalanced side against someone who has already asked to be left alone and pointedly avoids you. Since you stalked the EL issue and the EL You Tube issue at Barrington Hall specifically, you were already aware that the side you were joining was the "EL" side--editors who are not neutral, and arguably not disputing the issue at hand. So, seeing a bunch of people disgruntled that the You Tube link was allowed to stay try to pick a fight about something else, and deciding "hey, this would be a good time for a stalker to join! That would de-escalate the issue, if I sided with the disgruntled EL people!" is ridiculous, and you know it. Now everyone else knows, too.-Cindery 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd refer the reader to the following diffs: [48], [49], which are my responses to her initial charges of "Wikistalking" and an attempt to de-escalate any conflict we had. Both were deleted by Cindery, with an edit summary describing them as "further harassment". I'd also suggest that my input at Depo Provera was not disruptive, and would note that you also "left all birth control articles" at a point where other editors (besides the two of us) were getting involved and a consensus was developing against some of your more strident edits. Perhaps most importantly, I'd invite anyone to review my input at Talk:Barrington Hall, which was aimed at de-escalation. But isn't this more appropriate for WP:DR? MastCell 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: and if you read what I wrote to him in those diffs, hopefully the irony of him providing a message in which I asked to be left alone, which he refused to honor, as evidence that he is not wikistalking me months later to is not lost.-Cindery 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that my contributions to Emergency contraception. Mifepristone. amd Depo Provera were stellar. You have wikistalked me, and I consequently left all those articles to avoid you. Then you created a sockpuppet to stalk me to Barrington Hall, to escalate a dispute with baiting, uncivil language. Now you have returned to Barrington Hall, and are doing the same thing. You should leave me (and the article talkpage) alone.-Cindery 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really have nothing else to say about this. For every further personal attack you make, just assume that I respond by disputing your charges, noting that others at the talk page don't agree with you ([50], [51]), and referring any interested parties to review your behavior on Wikipedia. It will save time and space, and I can move on to more productive things. Think Ford Prefect asking Prosser to lie in the mud in front of the bulldozer in place of Arthur Dent. MastCell 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear that you should stop stalking me. If you do it again, I will note it immediately at the location with a link to this page and make another report. -Cindery 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU need to stop assuming bad faith. Someone uses an alternate account for a legitimate purpose, and you immediately jump on it and start calling it wikistalking. You have no proof for your claims. Therefore, stop calling it such unless you have much, much, more proof than flimsy speculation. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that he only used the sockpuppet to make inflammatory uncivil comments to me. (And he admitted they were uncivil.) That's a nice story--I invented this sock puppet for some noble purpose, but then I accidentally only used it to harass you?

• Let's also note that I left all the birth control articles/Wikipedia entirely for a month, and when I returned, it was to Barrington Hall. Mastcell's first edit ever to Barrington Hall talkpage occurred then, after I left all the birth control articles--since he could no longer harass me there. Thinking I would ignore/avoid him, since I was actively avoiding him, he used a sockpuppet.-Cindery 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the stalking continues in spite of this complaint:

Per WP:STALK, you should not be here. [9]. Cease your disruption at this article. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) It almost feels like you're trying to bully me (and Localzuk, and J.smith, and Milo) with ad hominem attacks and accusations of ulterior motives. There is actually constructive discussion going on below about the issues which got this page protected. Why not contribute to it? MastCell 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) You're a special case all by yourself of WP:STALK. Why are you harassing and stalking someone who completely avoids you? It's not helping the article. As Astanhope said "you are editing the wrong article." -Cindery 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note I am the author of most of the "constructive discsussion below.") -Cindery 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So, he makes admittedly incivil mistakes a month ago, and now you make accusations based on events way long past? Ludicrous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the quote you give us is a great example of irony: You say that you won't discuss with him because he violated WP:STALK (a flimsy pretext in itself), and when he asks you to stop, you continue with accusations of WP:STALK and hound him wherever he goes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I completely avoid him,l eft all articles I previously edited, and did not even make the prior ANI report I should have made about stalking because I didn't want to interact with him; I just want him to leave me alone. He's fixated on me, he has been for some time, and it gives me the creeps. "A month ago" shows a pattern--he has been stalking me for a while. If he doesn't stop, I will point out that he's doing it every time he does it, with a link to this page. -Cindery 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that Cindery is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Cindery - let it go. if someone really is wikistalking you, someone will notice, especially after this AN post. You're only digging yourself into a hole here, really - for if an admin is to take any action in this case, they would have to consider the actions of both parties, and your actions have been less than stellar. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AStanhope has noticed. I haven't advertised that I have a stalker, because I hoped he would go away if I ignored him. but he should leave me alone. "If you find that you can't get along with someone, perhaps it is best to avoid them," per Wiki--not stalk them after they leave all the articles they used to edit in order to avoid you.-Cindery 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof that he's doing it right now? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict):::::I posted above what he posted to the Barrington talkpage during this discussion. (Around the same time he said he had nothing more to say on the subject, and I said I would point out his stalking in the future if he did it again, he posted to Barrington talkpage. While this discussion was/is ongoing.) There's no benefit to Wikipedia in him stalking me; there are a million other articles for him to edit, etc. Again, I completely avoid him and left articles to which I was a significant and productive contributor just to avoid him--there's no need for him to stalk me to articles he doesn't edit at all, let alone to join disputes, use sockpuppets to make inflammatory remarks, etc.-Cindery 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him stalking you; I do see, however, you harassing him. Unless you will provide convincing diffs instead of futile rhetoric, I will hold this opinion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Less rhetoric, more proof, please, Cindery. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Following people --who leave articles to avoid you and ask to be left alone-- to articles you don't edit is stalking.-Cindery 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not proof, that's rhetoric. Proof in the form of diffs, please, or your complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting from when? (To establish that I contributed 60 citations--half the research--to Emergency contraception, while he contributed only to the talkpage, in comments addressed only to me, I could provide diffs, but there would be hundreds. It's boring research, too. A glance at the edit history of the article and the talkpage will give you the overall picture. I'll give you a diff which shows a clear personal attack on me which I did not report, [52] and includes a statement from me that I would report him for harassment, and points out that I had already asked him not to address me on my talkpage because he was overly emotionally engaged with/fixated on me. I never reported him--I just left. The story is: after a fairly minor disagreement at Emergency contraception, he stalked me to Depo Provera, so I left Depo Provera, after expressing concern that he had imported anger from the EC dispute directly to Depo. He was very emotionally overangaged on my talkpage, so I asked him to disengage/leave me alone, stick to articles. He then devoted all his time to harassing me on the talkpage of Emergency contraception until I left. After I left, he stalked me to Barrington Hall.)-Cindery 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• And here is a recent diff of his response to User:Astanhope, who told Mastcell, "perhaps you are editing the wrong article. I think you are needed elsewhere.":[53] -Cindery 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no personal attacks by MastCell, but I see instances of incivility by you. Though minor, you are now only serving to discredit yourself, not the person you are disagreeing with. I find your post of "Sorry, you just have no case" particularly interesting. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, you keep saying you "left articles to avoid me" and that I "harassed you away from articles". It seems a little incongruous that someone who dishes out as much abuse as you is so thin-skinned as to be chased away by our relatively mild (in the grand scheme of things) content disputes at emergency contraception or Depo Provera. So I just took a look at the chronology. Your last edit to Emergency contraception was Dec. 1. Your next edit was to post a Wikibreak notice. You then returned early from your break specifically to fight about YouTube and managed to accrue 3 blocks in rapid succession. After which you wrote that you would no longer contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and would limit your involvement to a campaign to de-sysop someone you had a disagreement with (and for good measure, went after Essjay, who had run a checkuser case on you). And now here we are. So to claim that you left emergency contraception to avoid me is convenient for you at the moment, but it seems equally likely that the above sequence of events, which had little or nothing to do with me, was responsible. MastCell 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, look, I'm fairly thick-skinned, but Cindery's now made dozens of edits today calling me a "stalker". You've presented your case. If you want to add more diffs, do it. But further unsupported accusations are really just personal attacks, and at this point I'd ask that they be treated as such. MastCell 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about you, and the fact that you are stalking me, and that it serves no good purpose for Wikipedia. (Anyone with the patience to read your 40 pages of nitpicking harassment on the Emergency Contraception page will want to leave that article too.)

But I will address what you have said, for the benefit of readers, with the caveat that it does not mean I will allow you sidetrack focus off of your stalking.

• 1. I had a sterling rep prior to the block--which was one extended block, and if I wasn't already disgusted enough by you to have left all the articles I used to edit, I would have contested the blocks, as the first, for "npa" was extremely weak. The block was for a draft of an RfC against Nick on my talkpage. The next person to make a draft saw their draft deleted and protected from recreation. There was definitely concerted interest in preventing people from organizing transparently to file an RfC against Nick. If I had intended to "personally attack" Nick, I would have left a message on his talkpage. Putting together an RfC is not a personal attack.

• 2. User:Mumblio is not a sockpuppet, he is a human being. His unblock request and his letter to Essjay were ignored. No one "went after" Essjay--it was pointed out that he ignored an email in the hope that he would reply. Mumblio, incidentally, interviewed a lawyer this week, in his capacity as a journalist, who turned out to represent a member of the Foundation. (They traded stories and gossip.) He does idly sometimes want to contribute again--about some guy named Gene Savoy. He thinks the lawyer will help him. I told him just to create another account and stay away from me (his home IP is not blocked.) He likes the name "Mumblio," though. He was blocked after making a single comment re the Barrington You Tube dispute.

• 3. Yes, after you, and then that, I was completely disgusted, and I still am--I agree with a lot of "Why Wikipedia is not so Great." Nevertheless, I followed through on the Nick RfC, and the EL issues (I felt somehwat better about Wikipedia at the Foundation level after the Foundation's comments on that, but still feel there are too many people-with-problems.) I also massively improved Rheingold Beer--it's hard to resist improving articles sometime, even if one agrees Wikipedia is not so great because of the people.

In closing, maybe I haven't made myself clear enough about your stalking: you give me the creeps. Leave me alone. I will never like you. You crossed the line when you stalked me to Depo Provera and then refused to stop posting on my talkpage after I asked--your emotional over-engagement was the creepiest thing that has ever happened to me on Wikipedia. There is no chance I will ever change my mind and want to have anything to do with you if only you stalk me enough. I know that you feel rejected. That is not my problem. Invest emotionally in something in the real world. What part of stay away from me don't you understand? The "dispute resolution" that you desire/keep asking for, where I end up liking you is never_going_to_happen. The way to resolve this is for you to stay away from me. I left all the birth control articles--you can stop stalking me.-Cindery 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of contributions

Out of curiosity, I've tried to compare the contributions of both of these editors. I don't promise that this is all correct, but I've tried to match pages that both have edited in their past 1000 edits, to see who was 'first'. None of this proves or disproves anything, but just in case its interesting to anyone.

First instance of each user editing at the same page:

1. Depo_Provera

   2006-11-03 23:01 MastCell

   2006-11-16 02:49 Cindery

2. Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:11 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:50 Cindery

3. Mark_McClellan

   2006-11-11 01:38 MastCell

   2006-11-11 19:32 Cindery

4. Mifepristone

   2006-11-11 22:02 Cindery

   2006-12-19 18:49 MastCell

5. Talk:Barrington_Hall

   2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery

   2007-01-17 06:43 MastCell

6. Talk:Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:03 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:57 Cindery

7. Talk:Mifepristone

   2006-11-12 03:34 Cindery

   2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell

8. User_talk:Cindery

   2006-11-07 05:28 MastCell

   2006-11-13 07:42 Cindery

9. User_talk:Milo_H_Minderbinder

   2007-01-17 19:49 MastCell

   2007-01-19 20:30 Cindery

10. User_talk:William_M._Connolley

    2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery

    2007-01-17 19:44 MastCell

11. User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon

    2007-01-18 00:22 MastCell

    2007-01-20 05:44 Cindery

12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

    2006-11-21 19:49 Cindery

    2007-01-15 18:32 MastCell

13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

    2006-11-28 23:44 MastCell

    2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery

14. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

    2006-12-29 17:12 Cindery

    2007-01-04 21:54 MastCell

Checked MastCell back to 20:34, 26 October 2006. (1000 edits) MastCell was 'first' 8 times.

Checked Cindery back to 01:50, 11 November 2006. (1000 edits) Cindery was 'first' 6 times.

Regards, Ben Aveling 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your diffs don't make any sense--at Depo Provera, for example, I was a long-time contributor--Mastcell showed up there 30 minutes after the dispute at Emergency contraception (and a day after I sent a message to another editor saying that article meant something to me). After he was (and admitted he was) "more argumentative" than he should be, I left. His knowledge that I edited that article didn't come from the article. At emergency contraception, I returned after a long break and didn't even notice him until he fixated on me/began responding directly to me. Your Barrington diffs don't take into account his sockpuppet, Girondin, in December...and so on.-Cindery 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

...and your diffs for Milo's talkpage, William M. Connelly's talkpage, and the admin noticeboard refer to instances in which one or the other of us was discussing something completely unrelated/wasn't aware of the other. (But the idea of "first" leaves out the concept of "repsonse"--so while you have included two completely unrelated comments we made on ANI, you have left out his responses to me on ANI.)-Cindery 10:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is looking only at the fact of editing. For example, it 'shows' that MastCell was first to your talk page, which clearly isn't true. It's just that in his past 1000 edits, he has some edits on your talk page that are older than any of your past 1000 edits, so he appears to be 'first'. Regarding Depo Provera, all my report says is that he too is a long time contributor. That doesn't mean he wasn't stalking, it just provides an alternate explaination for why he might be at the page - he probably already had it watchlisted. I guess I could list all of your edits at each page, would that be more useful? It might be quite long. What about I take this to your talk page? Anyone interested can follow us there. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is an example of a meaningful comparison: I left on Dec. 1. I returned on Dec 20--to the Barrington Hall talkpage. (an article I have edited for a while, far away from birth control articles.) Mastcell made his first appearance there on Dec 21--as a sockpuppet.-(How would he know I was back if he weren't stalking me, etc.)Cindery 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He might have seen your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. More likely he may saw that you had edited your own talk page. What I can say is that you didn't edit any other pages that I would expect him to have on his watchlist, based only on his last 2000 edits. Below are all the edits from either of you on pages that you have both edited, from when you left to when his sock appeared at Barrington Hall. At a complete guess, he either followed your contributions or the link on your user page. And I'm going to log off. Back tomorrow. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: thanks, Ben. I would like to point out that there was no link to Barrington Hall on my userpage at the time. As you have noted that I didn not return to any articles I previously edited/that might be on his watchlist, I think it is safe to guess that he was stalking my edits.-Cindery 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No, that's not what I said. He edited your talk page in November, so it's quite likely that he knew you were back as soon as you edited it. I'll annotate below. For me, there are two issues here, of which I'm only looking at one, but you should consider them both. The issue I'm not looking at is what did he say, was it valid? The issue I am looking into is why did he say it? Was he following you, and why? There are valid reasons for following people. For example, I'm following you both around at the moment for what I hope is a valid reason - to try to help you both contribute better to Wikipedia. But rather than you and I guessing, let's just ask him. MastCell, I assume you're reading this. What took you to Barrington Hall? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 2006-12-07 06:55 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
2. 2006-12-07 06:57 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
3. 2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
   • Last edit by Cindery
4. 2006-12-08 05:27 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
5. 2006-12-15 18:20 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
6. 2006-12-17 00:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
7. 2006-12-18 23:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
8. 2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell Talk:Mifepristone
9. 2006-12-20 18:21 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
10. 2006-12-20 18:22 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
11. 2006-12-20 18:32 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
12. 2006-12-20 18:43 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
13. 2006-12-20 18:58 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
14. 2006-12-20 21:57 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
15. 2006-12-20 21:59 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
16. 2006-12-20 22:02 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
17. 2006-12-20 23:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • Cindery returns
18. 2006-12-20 23:46 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
19. 2006-12-21 00:18 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
20. 2006-12-21 00:30 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
21. 2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
22. 2006-12-21 01:23 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
23. 2006-12-21 04:01 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
24. 2006-12-21 04:59 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
25. 2006-12-21 06:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
26. 2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery User_talk:William_M._Connolley
27. 2006-12-21 07:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
28. 2006-12-21 22:58 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
    • Cindery edits her own talk page
29. 2006-12-21 23:08 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
30. 2006-12-21 23:16 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
31. 2006-12-21 23:34 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • 36 minutes later, the puppet makes its first edit
32. 2006-12-21 23:35 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
33. 2006-12-21 23:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
34. 2006-12-21 23:49 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall

• Note that his reapperance at talk:Barrington Hall was January 17th, and his mea culpa about the sockpuppet harassment was Dec 25 (and the long notes re his previous wikistalking, in which I stated "I completely avoid you.) There's nothing innocent about returning to the page three weeks later.-Cindery 11:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Girondin? I'll check, see what I can see. Just let me do the washing up first. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a way to get a count of the mainspace edits I made to emergency contraception vs. the mainspace edits he made (and a count of his talkpage edits) for November. Is that possible?-Cindery 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the mainspace for that page in November, you made 220 edits and he made 48. On the talk page you made 159 and he made 88. Why do you ask? Do I want to know? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted attention

I looked at the contributions from Girondin and can't relate this to stalking. Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. It looks like a normal content dispute to me.

evidence of bad faith ...mimsy-whomever [Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington] was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Now can we get back to more self-congratulatory reminiscenses about how great Barrington Hall was, and how lame the youth of today are? ...it doesn't really change anything/make a difference if NHN is a sockpuppetesque rather than meatpuppetesque. Cindery 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account. unsigned by girondin

In this interaction above girondin is trying to explain to Cindery the ins-and-outs of wikipedia. It borders on being helpful!!! Closer to a mentor than a stalker. David D. (Talk) 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He found this page by stalking my edits, used a sockpuppet to make comments he admitted were uncivil, during a dispute. (And clearly was not much of a "mentor" as WP:SIG doesn't advise having a username and sig which are not obviously the same to the casual reader--it can be considered disruptive. There's no reason a user couldn't apply right now to register the username "Nearly Headless Nick," as it is not registered to anyone, but the sig of Mimsy.) Let's also note that you are currently involved in the Barrington Hall dispute.-Cindery 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG is not policy as far as I am aware. Many users have signatures that differ from their user account. The fact he was trying to point this out to you was quite helpful considering your first post in that section. The only uncivil bit is the "self congratulatory" part which is not exactly OTT given what you have on your user page, re: the "Barrington six" . [54]

My involvement in the Barrington page is due to the arguments overflowing on to this page. There is no reason why i should not edit the page and give my opinions on whether your sources are reliable, or not. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that 1) WP:SIG states: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive" and 2) I edited my userpage to note Barrington six, etc two days ago 3) please keep content dispute on the page of the article. Noting that you are involved in the content dispute is helpful here, in my view. Let's not confuse the issues. This is about a clear case of stalking.-Cindery 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered it was a recent edit (added link to my original comment for clarification) but still the fact you wrote still shows it is not an OTT observation. I repeat WP:SIG is not policy, I know what it says. Look around you and note how many other users do not follow the guideline. It is no crime, although I personally would not recommend it. [55] Also it is quite normal for people who are involved in a dipute to comment on WP:ANI, this is a place for community input. To be frank you probably need to learn a little more about how things work in wikipedia. It seems that all your disputes involve people trying to help you understand how to sucessfully contribute to wikipedia. If you refuse the advice from others on what can be considered a reliable source then you will be in many more disputes. Please listen to what other have to say, believe it not, many are trying to help your write an article that will be stable. David D. (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perception is reality

Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. --David D.

Remember though, that unwanted attention is itself harrassment. Suppose a colleague kept giving you gifts, even after you asked them stop. It's important to look at what was said, but it's also important to look at other things as well. I've looked though both users contributions at some length. I have not checked the quality of the contributions, but they do match the pattern Cindery is complaining about. At Depo Provera, Emergency contraception, Depo Provera and Talk:Emergency contraception Cindery was editing regularly, then MastCell started editing, both of them edited for a while, then Cindery stopped editing. At Mifepristone Cinder was editing then stopped, and MastCell is now editing. At Talk:Barrington Hall Cindery was and still is editing, and MastCell occasionally drops by. Let's just say that if MastCell were to show up at any more pages where Cindery is editing, I'd look badly on it. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look at the "quality of contributions", then. I stand by the fact that I've improved both Depo Provera and emergency contraception, and not disrupted either article. I explained what should have been obvious with a basic assumption of good faith here (which Cindery rejected as "further harassment"). I don't see why I need to check to see if Cindery's been at a page before I edit it, so long as I contribute constructively and don't disrupt/attack/violate policy - and I think that's a really questionable precedent to set. MastCell 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is "Because it would make the universe a happier place". It doesn't take long to check the last 50 edits once and it would save a lot of stress for a lot of people. Right or wrong, Cindry is convinced that you are still following her around. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a dangerous precedent to set, though well-intentioned. Should we cater to Cplot because he perceives there is a pro-government cabal on Wikipedia? No! Doing so would be absurd. Likewise, doing so here would be akin to acquiescing to disruptive forces on Wikipedia, though I do not equate Cindery to such undesirable elements. We are not here to make everyone happy, warm, and fuzzy. If we are to edit peacefully in this world, we either must swallow what bitter medicine others force down us or we grow a thicker skin. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I do not think it is necessary that he check the last 50 edits of every new article he edits to see if I have edited there. What I would like him to stop doing is harassing me at a specific article, and following my contributions in order to make inflammatory comments, like the one at ANI regarding the You Tube/EL dispute. He doesn't need to check every article (I edit so few anyway) what he needs to is stop adressing me directly in a hostile way.-Cindery 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That does not explain why your sockpuppet appeared at talk:Barrington Hall a half hour after I edited my talkpage after a long break (you did not answer Ben's question about that) and it especially does not answer why you would return to the same talkpage after I pointed out that I was purposely avoiding you. There was nothing "innocent" about returning to the Barrington Hall talkpage after you used a sock there, and after I explicitly told you that I completely avoid you. That was clearly stalking and harassment, not accidentally stumbling on a page you merely hadn't noticed I had edited before--you were aware I edited that article because you had already harassed me there with a sockpuppet. -Cindery 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I suggest we all try not to repeat ourselves. Let's try to find the things that haven't yet been said. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it is not harrassment to correct people who are not willing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:V. It is common for editors to try and limit the damage that such individuals bring to wikipedia. To suggest it is stalking and protect editors such as cplot flys against reason. Not supporting Mastcell now is a bad precedent to set and is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: David D. is heavily involved in a dispute at Barrington Hall, and has started several others, apparently after an uncivil "request for input" from Hipocrite, who was involved in the EL dispute (read towards the bottom):[56].-Cindery 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for the admins

Since this is being discussed here, could an admin persuade Cindery to stop bringing up her stalking accusations at Talk:Barrington Hall? We're trying to edit an article there, and repeated "go away, you're stalking me" messages just sidetrack the discussion. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I feel a little ridiculous even continuing this, but if nothing else, look at WP:STALK. It defines Wikistalking as "following an editor to another article to continue disruption... the important part is the disruption." Look at emergency contraception, Depo Provera, Barrington Hall, or at any of my contributions - can anyone (besides Cindery) say that I've been disruptive, there or anywhere on Wikipedia? The User:Girondin edits are here, and were made to correct a misunderstanding in a debate I wasn't involved in. Judge for yourself if they're disruptive. The situation was reported, by me, to AN/I and discussed here. Finally, when I've said anything about Cindery here, it's been backed up by diffs. On the other hand, her posts (this one in particular) consist mostly of personal attacks and abuse. Like I said, I'm thick-skinned, but aren't there some standards, even in a dispute? MastCell 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Is defined as:

"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

That means that if on Dec. 25th you admit to using a sockpuppet to harass someone at an article you have never edited before, after they have left previous articles to avoid you, and you are aware of that because they write:" I completely avoid you. For you to then create a sock account and use it only to make inflammatory comments on the talkpage of an article where I returned as a regular editor and you have never before made a contribution appears to be very clear use of a sock to harass/wikistalk in the worst faith possible. What is creepy beyond-the-pale to me is that you were harassing/wikistalking someone who left articles in order to avoid you/was very actively avoiding you." [57]--returning to the same article only three weeks later is very clearly wikistalking (and harassment).-Cindery 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I haven't been disruptive there or anywhere, a fact that others at Talk:Barrington Hall agree with ([58], [59], [60], [61], etc). These are continuing personal attacks by an editor who's been blocked for the same in the past, occurring on WP:AN/I no less. I'm asking you to stop. If you don't, I'm asking that someone put a stop to your constant, unsupported personal attacks. MastCell 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the regular editors at Barrington Hall do not agree with you: [62]. As for disruption, you are not only wikistalking/harassing someone at an article where only three weeks ago you used a sockpuppet to make inflammatory remarks/tried to inflame a dispute, but you are doing the same thing again: you returned to Barrington Hall precisley when the You Tube/EL people picked a fight about something else (a dispute that has no lack of contributors, and is now an extremely long thread completely out of proportion to the importance of what is being disputed.) As your ANI stalker comment [63] made apparent that you followed the You Tube/EL dispute, you aware of exactly what you are doing.-Cindery 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• What you need to do, which I have repeatedly pointed out, is stop stalking me, if you don't want me to point it out. There are a million articles for you to edit, and it does not serve Wikipedia for you to stalk anyone, i.e., return to any articles where you have used a sockpuppet to harass someone whom you are aware completely avoids you, as I explicitly told you I completely avoid you, and left all the articles I used to edit.-Cindery 20:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you see a distinction between "regular editors" and other editors is a perfect example of the attitude of ownership you and Astandhope have over the article. I have seen no disruptive behavior by Mastcell there, and based on the lack of action taken by admins it looks like they don't either. However, your continued accusations there are off-topic and becoming disruptive, please keep the whole stalking thing here and not at the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't stalked me there in the last 16 hours or so--he stopped last night after I began pointing it out (at the article, but after this report). Hence I have not pointed out on the talkpage that he is stalking me during that time. There is a distinction between the regular editors of the article, and a small group of people leftover from the You Tube/EL dispute (and then there is Mastcell, who is in a WP:STALK category all by himself, who opportunistically joined them.) As I have just made a complaint against you, Milo, for blanking a section against consensus instead of discussing--when the consensus included all parties, even the YT/EL crew--I do not find that you are an impartial judge of whether Mastcell is wikistalking. Clearly he is. Again, he created a sockpuppet to harass me on the talkpage, was aware that I completely avoid him because I explicitly said so, and then returned to the talkpage only three weeks later, to inflame a dispute.'-Cindery 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that he's stalked there in the past month. You're not saying that you plan to respond to every post of his on the talk page with a stalking accusation, are you? And you're still insisting on that "blanking a section against consenus" thing, even though at least three other editors have removed that same passage and more have agreed with the deletion on the talk page? Who exactly do you feel is part of that "consensus" besides you and Astandhope? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) editing there at all is stalking me (perhaps you are confused that Girondin=Mastcell).-Cindery 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That statement shows a blatant misunderstanding of wikistalking. "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption" is the definition you provided yourself. Now you insist that if he edits the same article as you it's stalking, even if there's no disruption? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread the definition--wikistaking is itself disruption, and is defined as following abother editor around.-Cindery 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an important part of the definiton that nobody has pointed out: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Cindery has shown disregard for WP:RS and WP:NOR at the article in question (not to mention WP:OWN) - I hope someone is keeping an eye on the articles she edits. It seems like there's some circular logic going on here - it's stalking because it's disruptive/it's disruptive because it's stalking. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Milo is the subject of a complaint above which got the article protected, is not participating in discussion at the article now, and was involved in the EL dispute.-Cindery 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done pointing fingers yet? It seems like everyone has dropped the issue except you. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redux

It seems to me that this entire thread (or rather, these threads) boil down to Cindery complaining that some other users are nearly as argumentative as she is. Can we please archive this and send it to dispute resolution? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about stalking. ( Let's note also that you were majorly involved in the You Tube/EL dispute, and are in no way impartial. You probably shouldn't be commenting at all without noting that--unless you're trying to derail the subject?)-Cindery 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Editing there at all is stalking me?" That's interesting, but not what WP:STALK actually says ("...disruption is the important thing") and seems to fly in the face of "anyone can edit any article at any time." You've "settled" disputes in the past by bullying those you disagree with - Severa comes to mind [64] - or accusing others of harassment. That's generally not a productive way of settling disputes. But Guy is right - no one seems inclined to block me for "Wikistalking", nor to block you for your constant, unsupported attacks, so why not go to dispute resolution? It wouldn't be the first time you've filed an RfC to try to settle a score. MastCell 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to derail the issue with false accusations will not work. Wikistalking, again, is: Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. As you admitted to using a sockpuppet to harass me at Barrington Hall three weeks ago, returning to that talkpage is very clearly stalking. There is no dispute to resolve: what you need to do is stop stalking me. It's very simple.-Cindery 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, my edit has diffs; yours has accusations. Here is what I "admitted to", which you keep misrepresenting [65]. My point was that you use accusations to bully editors with whom you have content disputes. A question to any masochistic admins who are still reading this thread: Cindery's now made nearly 75 edits in the past 24 hours containing my name and some variation of the word "Wikistalking", without providing any convincing evidence. Is there some point at which these become personal attacks that warrant preventive action? I'd like to move on, but it's hard to do so with a constant drumbeat of unfounded accusations. MastCell 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made no edits to Barrington Hall pointing out that you are stalking me, since you stopped. It's very simple: do not stalk me if you do not want me to point it out. You shouldn't be stalking anyone, period, whether they are forced to point it out or not. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. You have not substantiated your claims, Cindery, you have merely spouted off groundless accusations on this thread. If you have definite proof, lay it out for all to see; if you don't, stop whining and avoid MastCell (MastCell, also avoid Cindery). Further harassment of MastCell (yes, I am now calling it harassment now) will be seen as disruption, and will result in a block. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There should also be a ban on Cindery ever using the word "stalk" again, since she's used it here enough for one lifetime (71 72 73 by my count). ^_^ JuJube 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolution?

I have a proposal for both of you. MastCell, you agree not to edit Barrington Hall or any page that Cindery is editing, excluding the birth control articles. Cindery, you agree never to mention MastCell again. MastCell, you agree never to mention Cindery again. Both of you take each others' talkpages off your watch lists, as well the other pages I've proposed you agree not edit. How does that sound? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is all I want.-Cindery 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• (Note: his talkpage is not on my watch list; never has been.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

• Since part of the problem appears to be Cindery's WP:OWN issues regarding Barrington Hall, encouraging that idea and seeming to reward behavior which enforces it seems like a lousy "compromise" to me. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All compromises are lousy. It's in the nature of the things. But it seems the best tradeoff to me. Most, maybe even all of MastCell's edits on that page are not about the Hall itself, so I suggest that it's an acceptable loss. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not own Barrington Hall, I am a significant contributor to that article. I think the unfair compromise (to Wikipedia) was that I left all the birth control articles already, to avoid Mastcell. It's not much to ask that all he do is desist from following me around elsewhere, esp. desist joining/inflaming a dispute against me at the talkpage of an article he has never edited, and where he has admitted to harassing me with a sockpuppet. I think Ben's suggestion was extremely balanced/fair-minded.-Cindery 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said ppreviously, not an admin, just a watcher, generally. However, I do agree with Calton. It seems that your solution rewards Cindery for assuming someone's out to get her, and raising a stink about it. Even worse, your solution is one sided, because it says MastCell can't edit anythign Cindery does, but not vice versa. Thus Cindery could easily use this restraining order to ruin his wiki-life, by editing his more usual haunts, and then run for admins when he goes to them. While I'm sure the admins would see through it quickly, why set up for more AN/I filings about this? I think Cindery set herself up for most of this by giving the statements about her personal relationship with the subjects of the article, and it came back to bite her. ThuranX 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not one-sided, as I already avoid all articles he edits/avoid him entirely, and will be happy to state that I would never go near any article he edits--I have clearly stated since late December that I want nothing to do with him, nor have I edited any articles he edits. (Thanks for claiming I "set myself up"--nobody deserves be stalked/harassed; there is no possible justification for it.) If he's truly interested in "conflict de-escalation," the very simple thing to do is stay away from me. It takes zero effort.-Cindery 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Calton as well. The article has serious ownership issues, and I don't think using stalking as an excuse to make people who aren't "regular editors" go away just encourages it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

• I haven't violated any policy or guideline. I've been civil and content-focused at Talk:Barrington Hall, and I've been as civil as possible here. Every claim I've made here is backed up by diffs. (Compare my behavior here to Cindery's). Therefore, I don't see why I should be constrained, every time I'd like to edit an article, to first make sure Cindery hasn't been there first.
• I cited the diffs above to indicate that Cindery has a history of responding to content disputes by bullying editors she disagrees with. That's what's happening here, and I think your suggested resolution only rewards such behavior.
• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall, because my concerns (which had to do with WP:V and WP:RS) are shared by a number of other editors there and are being addressed by them, and contrary to Cindery's assertions, I really don't enjoy dealing with her. But at the same time, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively there, or anywhere on Wikipedia. If, as Cindery suggests, she considers my very presence on the same page as her to be "stalking" and a policy violation, regardless of the content of my contributions, then I'd suggest that the issue here is primarily Cindery's and not mine.

Here's my proposal for resolution:

• If Cindery has a problem with me, follow WP:DR. Isn't that why it exists?
• In the meantime, further unfounded, unsupported accusations against me should be treated as personal attacks. Is this an acceptable edit anywhere, under any circumstances (much less on WP:AN/I, from an editor with a long history of disruption and personal attacks)? I'm patient, but 70+ edits calling me a "stalker" in 24 hours, without any convincing evidence, seems to me to cross a line. MastCell 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly seconded • Giving in to unfounded abusive claims of stalking is counterproductive and promotes a negative environment on Wikipedia, where if one yells loud enough people will get their way. This is in no way desirable, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I think the sockpuppet and Ben's diffs are evidence aplenty. But, as I state below "I avoid you; you avoid me" is perfectly acceptable, and not unilateral.-Cindery 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall--that's good. As long as you continue to have those "plans" and do not respond directly to me anywhere else, we're done here. I avoid you; you avoid me.-Cindery 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to avoid me; you're welcome anywhere on Wikipedia (including any page I edit) so long as you're civil and not disruptive, as everyone should be. That was my point. And as I said above, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively anywhere on Wikipedia. If I hear my name and the word "stalking" or "harassment" in the same sentence from you again, it should be in an WP:RfC, WP:RfM, WP:RfArb, or other form of WP:DR. Those caveats aside, like I said I have no plans to involve myself further at Talk:Barrington Hall, so hopefully we're done here. MastCell 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 steps of DR are Talk and Disengage. We're doing the first, and I think we're close to agreeing to do the second. If by "have no plans" you mean "plan not to" then yes, I think we're done. I assume you've removed Barringon from your watchlist? And Cindery's homepage? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I want nothing to do with you, intentionally avoid you, and that the DR contact you want with me is never going to happen. If you stalk me again, I will report it to ANI again. The solution that's best for Wikipedia is: I avoid you; you avoid me. Goodbye.-Cindery 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalk you "again"? Sigh. I'll let that (presumably) final completely unsupported personal attack slide. It might demonstrate a commitment to disengagement if you changed this, but that's your call. I've said my piece above. Good night. MastCell 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay away from me. Disengage. Start by not reading my userpage.-Cindery 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd caution you both that if this becomes a game of "can't touch me", you're likely to both be blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So Cindery is suggesting that it's OK to attack me on her userpage, and that if I complain about it I'm continuing to "stalk" her. Got it. "Disengagement" isn't unilateral. By the way, if any of you ever find yourselves in my shoes - if a disruptive editor with a history of settling content disputes by bullying or accusing others of "harassment", who has a personal dislike for you, comes to AN/I and starts what amounts to an attack thread, calling you a "stalker" 70+ times with the amount of "evidence" Cindery's presented here - I hope that someone steps in with a preventive block somewhere around the 20th or 30th personal attack. It's surprsingly hard to disengage unilaterally in the face of continuing attacks and abuse - especially as these things tend to acquire a certain believability through repetition, regardless of the complete lack of evidence. By the way, I apologize to the community for taking up so much space here with this. MastCell 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strive to be better than disruptive users, not the same, or worse. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Violation of recently closed ArbCom case

In the recent changes channel, I found that Evanreyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was moving several episodes of the series My Name Is Earl to disambiguated titles, which recently is found to violate the arbitration committee ruling on naming conventions. I originally reported to AIV, but this is something that should be posted here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is currently one page that I cannot move back due to the editor editting over the redirect, Stole Beer from a Golfer should be at Stole Beer From A Golfer (it seems that every episode uses capital letters in each title).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Were they a party to the arbitration? If not then there seems to be no reason to believe they would be aware of the situation and may indeed have been acting in good faith so diving in with a block would seem harsh. I've posted a warning to their talk page. I would guess the right place for these would actually be arbitration enforcement --pgk 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the arbitration case when I made the moves, and apologize for what I now see is a blatant disregard for a standing policy. I've fixed all the disambiguation changes I've made. However, the capitalization changes I've made should stand. Regardless of how the producers wish to name the episodes, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which overrides the show's conventions. Therefore, Stole Beer from a Golfer is correct, as well as all of the other naming changes I made. Evan Reyes 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you should have been aware of the arbitration case; most editors have probably never been near an arbitration case. That's why the arbitrators cautioned admins not to enforce it in a "mechanical" fashion. Thatcher131 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rfwoolf

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs) has not made many contributions to the encyclopaedia, but one of these was a re-creation of Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was deleted and endorsed then endorsed again. At one point he asked me to userfy the article so he could rework it, which I did, but he simply reposted it minus a small amount of text, and it was deleted as WP:CSD#G4 - its third deletion under G4, by my count, so at that point it was WP:SALTed. Ever since then, Rfwoolf has been making louder and louder disgruntled noises, largely against me, as the last deleter and salter (although the previous G4s were by other admins). I have tried to be fair to him at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf but he appears unwilling to accept that this is anything other than a personal vendetta against an article which, presumably, he considers to be of vital importance to the project. He has now started causing disruption at [66] the Village Pump (is it a natural law that mis-spelled accusations of "hyopcrasy" are baseless?). Would somebody mind having a go at calming him down? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why does he say he has more than 12 trillion edits? JuJube 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Funny ha-ha userbox. Teke ^(talk) 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oof... okay, question: does he have a copy of the article in user or article talkspace anywhere? It looks like he's trying to recreate/fix it up in the article's talk page but it's rather disorganized right now. I'll do my best to help; it's pretty clear he just didn't understand policy and now is so worked up over it he's refusing to let it sink in. I think we can fix this, it'll just take some work. —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] It was recommended by a) Deletion Review and b) the AMA Request for assistance and c) [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] himself -- that I recreate the article in my user talk page, then show it to [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] (or another admin) and if it was up to scratch they would re-instate the article. So I spent a few hours begrudgingly recreating and reresearching the article all by myself to make peace and I put on the talk page of Anal stretching only to find that your precious hypocritcal Guy has deleted all my hard work without warning and completely unilaterally. So the answer to your question was yes and now it is now no! Please encourage him to put back all my work. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. He reposted the thing all but identical, twice. That is not "not understanding policy", it's obsessing over a truly dismal subject for an article. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] Guy, if you have heard me at all in all these proceedings, you'll finally understand what I've said a thousand times: I didn't know what G4 was, I thought deletions took place in AfD debates, and I was trying to fix up the Anal stretching article, yes, by reposting similar content twice but in the same hour because it kept on being G4d. You then salted the article. That was over a month ago. Even though you should now understand that I won't abuse privilage by reposting the same content without templates this time, you still refuse to unsalt the article! So stop accusing me of malicious disregard for policy. If you were a bit more open and reasonable it would really help! Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left some advice on his talk page, though looking over his activities I'm not optimistic that it will do much good. Nevertheless, I'll continue to try to settle him down. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] FeloniousMonk, I have tried my best to be completely open to reason -- and continue to do so. I remain fully reasonable. Your pessimistic comment is either because Guy has completely misrepresented me in the above, or because you don't have a solid understanding of this dispute. I have tried recreating the article -- which was G4d and salted (even though the article should exist) -- then I tried Deletion Review which didn't help -- then I tried Request for Assistance, and my Advocate (User Talk:dfrg.msc) has thanked me for being civil and encouraged Guy to be more civil and supported my attempt to rewrite the article on the talk page of Anal stretching -- which Guy didn't object to -- but subsequently deleted my hours of work and its history without warning, unfairly and unilaterally, going against his own recommendations. So, I don't think I need to be settled down. I think if anything, Guy has done a lot to provoke me and prevent solution to these problems. It's him that needs to stop throwing his weight around and get some admins with balls to talk to him. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, agree to disagree here. I think he has a clear lack of understanding of policy (as shown by his insistence that since he only recreated the deleted article three times, it should not have been SALTed and the SALTing should be deleted to make room for the recreated article again). I'll do my best to explain things, but I need an answer to my question — is a copy of the article residing anywhere in user or talkspace? Thanks —bbatsell ¿? 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about User:Kingpr0n? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am being grossly misrepresented. Guy has defiled my userpage by removing some harmless Userboxes and removing some constructive criticism on Wiki Deletion Policy without reasoning with me (and he cited WP:SOAP which has little/no bearing on userpages) -- his actions were unilateral and I have support from at least 1 admin that his actions were too harsh. Guy has further disobeyed the recommendations of Deletion Review the AMA Request for assistance recommendations and his own recommendations -- that I recreate the Anal stretching article on a talk page -- because he has since deleted my hours of work on the talk page of Anal stretching and deleted its history. He is being more than a dick. I'm considering arbitration if he doesn't come to his senses.

1. He should immediately undelete my hours of work on Anal stretching and restore it to the Anal stretching talk page
2. He should immediately unprotect my Userpage

These are two perfectly 150% justified requests -- and you admins should be assisting me with this.

Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• That would, you know, wrong. From the DRV page:

Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated.

You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.

Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already, so unprotecting your user page before you're willing to promise not to use it as a soapbox isn't going to fly, either. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.
  

You are unfortunately rather mistaken. I did create in the linked space Anal stretching talkpage (honest to God!) in fact I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch and the next day it was gone! I have asked Guy if he was responsible but he says no. I am in the process of finding out who was responsible.

Also, why does it have to be in my user space? If articles on wikipedia are collaborative, then there's no reason why articles shouldn't be collaborated on their talk page -- it's what it's there for.

• Re: Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already,...
  -- have you read my comments about that? WP:USER clearly says that constructive criticism of wikipedia or wikipolicy is allowed on the user talk page -- don't be so self-righteous. Now, is somebody going to admit I have a point, or try to reason with me because nobody has. Rfwoolf 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the article was wrongly deleted then take it to deletion review. It's what deletion review was created for. Don't troll Guy on your user page, that is not constructive. MartinDK 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His issues are not just with SOAP but WP:POINT as well: [67], [68], [69], [70] I'm saddened that he has failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears he's trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page:[71] He gives every indication that he is refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I've urged him to reconsider both my advice and his method, but I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a troll, considering the source of all this concern on his part is over a deleted article on "Anal stretching"... FeloniousMonk 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tried really hard to resist this conclusion, but I have to agree. The combination of the subject, the obsessive nature with which he pursues it, and his very limited prior contributions, looks very much like one of our recurrent trolls. This edit in particular [72] is deliberately provocative, inserting his editorial comments into my statement on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy I am by no means a troll. Do you believe you have been beyond reproach here? Do you believe I have no reason to be frustrated and confused? You block my userpage, somebody deletes my hours of work, you cite WP:SOAP and I cite WP:USER and instead of being civil you block my userpage, you deleted some harmless userboxes -- and all of this was after the SALTing of Anal Stretching. So in many ways I have been rather tormented by admins, yourself included. My editorial of your one post on my talk page -- which I have apologised for -- was not too inappropriate at the time considering I thought you deleted all my work -- and I wouldn't dream of doing that anywhere else but on my own talk page. I am not a troll. Rfwoolf 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose him using hello.jpg as an example image to the draft article in his user space I proposed and citing Goatse.cx as a reliable source would be conclusive proof we're being trolled, but I'd rather not wait for it to get to that stage. FeloniousMonk 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be unable to tell the difference between an article and yet more meta argument. At what point do we cut our losses? As to his comments above, they are utterly without merit. I did not delete "some harmless userboxes", I deleted a rant, and some random crap got swept up with it (a self-awarded barnstar, for example). And that was only the second time, the first time I removed it I managed to leave the random crap behind, but being Rfwoolf the rant had to go back of course. Oh, and I have since restored the random crap anyway, which makes the complaint doubly baseless. Felonious is right: Woolf is trolling us. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:SOAP and WP:USER, this admin has rightfully put some constructive criticism about Wikipedia and is fully justified in doing so and is fully protected by WP:USER, and WP:SOAP is irrelevant. So far this gives me even more of a feeling I was in the right about that issue. Rfwoolf 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's constructive. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Everyone with a legitimate complaint that presents it in a civil respectful way should be treated with respect. Your criticism amounted to personal attacks and incivility. It has been ignored by most, and dealt with by those so inclined to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. This should not come as a surprise. I cannot honestly believe that you are so willfully blind as to not see your "criticism" for the attacks they were. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent trolling by User:193.219.28.146 on Talk:Ass to mouth - 3RR violation?

I submitted a 3RR violation report concerning anonymous User:193.219.28.146 persistent re-adding an unconstructive and inflammatory comment to Talk:Ass to mouth, because he objects to the existence of the article rather than suggesting improvements (the article recently survived an AfD). His comment has been removed by 5 different editors (including one admin) over the past few days, and the anon editor has recently re-posted the comment a 6th time today. He has been warned multiple times, and claims on his talk page that (a) his talk page comments are meant to improve Wikipedia; (b) he is not doing any reverting, others are reverting him and they shouldn't be deleting talk page edits; and (c) there isn't a precedent for reporting 3RR violations on a talk page.

My question is, is this appropriately reportable as a 3RR violation, or is there a better place to report persistent trolling? Details of the incident are documented in my 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:193.219.28.146_reported_by_User:Axlq_.28Result:.29. If there is a better place to report it, please let me know. =Axlq 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're within your rights to remove the comment (within 3RR), but my advice would be to leave the comment in place and answer him. Or leave the comment in place and ignore him. He's wrong, but he's within his rights to ask the question, so long as he doesn't 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, I agree with the anon - not about the substance of his comment, but about the fact that you shouldn't be deleting a reasonably civil talk page comment. He writes that this article is one of the differences between the Wikipedia and Britannica. Well, in that, he is absolutely correct. I personally believe that makes us more useful, but that's just an opinion. In any case, it is less disruptive to just let it stand. Trying to delete those three lines of text has already wasted ten times the effort of writing them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second this. Viridae^Talk 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me. He was answered repeatedly on his talk page, civilly. =Axlq

I had blocked the IP for 24hr for disruption, and then saw this (and then 3RR). Feel free to alter the block. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Endorse the anon's right to ask the question again after the block expires. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What question? He didn't ask any. He posted a comment about how articles like this devalue Wikipedia. =Axlq 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly places the same message on some one's talk page that they have acknowledged (deleting a message is the same as acknoledging that you read it) then it becomes harassment and incivility. The only time you should -ever- force a message to stay on a page is if a user is currently acting to vandalise the pedia and an easily accessible log needs to be there for a WP:AIV note. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda irrelevant - we have been removing a trolling comment from an article that has had a lot of scrutiny recently. The comment is completely non-constructive and its removal is in line with WP:TALK (ie. the second sentence, namely 'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.') Also, as I have stated elsewhere, 4 editors agree that his comment is inappropriate for that talk page and have removed it.

I disagree with the earlier editor who said it is wasted time removing them. If they stay it leads to other users adding similar comments which are also pointless (for example just prior to this silly incident there was another anon who went on a bit of a rant about it being anti-christian). Keeping a talk page tidy and on topic is just as important as actually working on the article in my opinion.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has restarted. I removed the comment (and that of a supporter as it would have been redundant without the thread opener). It has been reverted again. Can this talk page be semi-protected to avoid this? Also, the block imposed seems to have no deterrent effect. Mallanox 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only has the issue restarted, but the anon editor has already violated 3RR yet again -- and has promised to keep doing so on his talk page. =Axlq 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point - it may as well be a student prank. We will see what the accused replies; According to posts below, he admitted to this. One way or another I'd expect that the involved teachers should stress to students that 'vandalising Wikipedia is as bad as breaking a window in your local shop' and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and never can be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are also other IP ranges, such as the following:
  • 71.56.0.0 - 71.63.255.255
  • 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
• Both of which are utilized by the city of Dekalb, Illinois, home of NIU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SQL access is not necessary. Checkuser can do it. Raul654 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to the professor (it's spelled Pierce, by the way), who acknowledges that he did indeed make this assignment. I told him I would be forwarding the informaton to the president of the university. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: he acknowledged this in an email reply to you? OOC, did he apologize or is he arguing he did the right thing? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He acknowledged this and tried to justify his actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have passed Professor's Pierce's reply on to the Northern Illinois University office of public relations, and have asked them to pass it on to the school's President. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that uncommon task for university profs to set - I've seen it used a couple of times on courses (generally the prof will commit the vandalism and then revert). One use is to show why wikipedia should not be used as a source (Study skills context), the second is to show that wikipedia is to open to abuse (with an INFO-SEC context). --Fredrick day 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, if one wants to prove the violatile nature of Wiki's, that's what sandbox and one's userspace is. I teach, I talk about Wikis, I do use my userpage to demonstrate those issues - but I'd never thought to vandalize a real article even for a few seconds to prove to my students what can be proven as well on my userpage (as messing up real article's history and allowing a reader to find vandalised info during the few seconds it takes one to revert a change is simply bad). That said, I encourage examples of 'good editing' - I prefer to show my studnets how easy it is to add interlinks or copyedit articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great but you are coming from a perspective of domain expertise - many of the people doing this, don't understand wikipedia beyond a) "it's that free-speech website that anyone can edit and add anything about anyone" b) "this is the place that students cut and paste large sections of their assignments from". I'm not excusing anyone but that's just how it is. --Fredrick day 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - so it is our job to educate them. A very good way to to it in the academia is to ask them to read this article from Journal of American History (I do suggest sending it to the professors involved in this incident).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished checking the NIU class B.

• Edits that concern me and should probably be verified:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeling%2C_Illinois&diff=101685760&oldid=96451410
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wooden&diff=101268126&oldid=101232824
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michigan_State_University_Residence_Halls_Association&curid=4575200&diff=102152804&oldid=92396515
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huntley%2C_Illinois&curid=111373&diff=101151565&oldid=101050130

• Vandalism:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brookfield_Zoo&curid=1207234&diff=102039931&oldid=101862270 (Uncaught)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steroid&curid=141922&diff=102024168&oldid=101770838

The other ranges are too large and dense to check easily. Raul654 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just plain undid the questionable edits that you listed (except for the Wheeling one, as you beat me to that). One was a fact changing thing, the MSU one could not be supported, and the Huntley one was not supported by the reference (there are five Pacific Islanders in all of Huntley, Illinois, which has a 0.00 percentage of the population, not 0.02).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

5/16,719 = 0.000299 or approximately 0.03%. That wasn't vandalism. Can an admin unrevert and de-warn the editor? Jd2718 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave all of the above {{Test4im}} warnings, and a {{SharedIPEDU}} with the link to Northwestern pointing to this discussion. I say we have an extremely short leash -- A minimum one month IP block (including user registration) on the next obvious case of vandalism. This cannot be allowed, IMO. -- Avi 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Pierce's reply

This was Professor Pierce's email reply to me:

They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

I then replied to him that I would be passing his response on to the University President, and he relied:

It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth is he talking about? I tell my students not to trust Wikipedia, and that if they do, they're likely to get things wrong, and get worse results; that's what most of my colleagues do (though most sensible undergraduates don't need to be told). Why does he have to tell them to vandalise Wikipedia in order to get them to work sensibly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tell my students Wiki is a great place to start their research - but a very bad place to finish it. We are moving towards a level of quality with every fact properly referenced, but of course we are just an encyclopedia. Undergrads (and grads, and even professors) may find reading a Wiki article on unknown subject useful to get a general gist of relevant info, but then they should have enough knowledge to go to academic databases. Although I think increasingly we will have high quality articles on obscure subjects that may not even be covered well in English academic works (I challenge anyone to find a better English biography of this person then we have :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I smell WP:POINT violations. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Mr. Pierce. If you want your students to learn about the dangers of using wikipedia, have them search for five unreferenced figures in this encyclopedia. They can use the random article button on the left side of the screen. Have them verify those figures. Chances are that some of the figures will turn out to be wrong. You will get your message across to your students, they will hopefully learn from it and we will know which information is incorrect. Aecis^Bravado 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. He could get his students to improve an article on Wikipedia, and verify it.

As an aside, this professor has very little technical knowledge about Wikipedia, especially as we have the revert function and don't have to rely on printouts to restore the article to its previous state. Yuser31415 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez the same pointless experiment over and over. Don't these people realize they can just look into the history to see how we react to vandalism? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few people who are not editors realize what Wikipedia really is. I am not suprised at that, this is only to be expected. I would however expect an academic to read up on what other academics have done with Wikipedia: WP:SUP and WP:ACST are the two links that Professor Pierce should look through as soon as possible and Rosenzweig's article in JoAH should be obligatory reading for anybody thinking about 'teaching' and 'Wikipedia' in the same sentence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Page break for readability

I have no qualms with a prof making a real-time point by inserting erroneous info into an article while the class watches on a screen, and then reverting it right then and there. But asking the whole class apart from oversight of the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) needlessly takes the point too far.

Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. This has to be admitted and, yes, possibly expected. That said, this does not appear to be the case here.

The response letter composed was probably hasty and not done in the most effective manner. All that needed doing was to remind the prof that, for class research projects, he must first get IRB approval - which he would certainly admit to - and if he does the project again, you would report it to the university's IRB. IRB approval of research projects is a time-consuming, tedious task. This would have probably been the end of the matter. If not, if it occurred again, then the letter should go to the IRB, indicating the prof's class is doing research not under their approval. That really would put a stop to it. CyberAnth 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would assume that the professor was doing it as a research project. Professors and students also have to abide to a code of ethics (I know I have to in my university), and violations usually are taken seriously. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the description, it certainly appears as though it were a research project - one NOT done under the IRB. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. If asked by several users, I would be happy to write a second letter to this prof along the lines of what I am speaking. CyberAnth 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to prove to your students that glass shatters, you buy a sheet of glass and a hammer. You don't ask them to throw rocks at the windscreens in the parking lot. yandman 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but that analogy is seriously not correlative. CyberAnth 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

defusd timebomb

I just blanked, and deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death

We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying: Not a single reference.

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or keep. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.

So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.

Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it. -- Drini 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• So if people want to reconstruct it, references are easy to come by for 90% of the names there at least. It's a kinda dumb article, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Deletion If it's recreated with references than yes, it could be a decent article, but as it was, it could have been a liability to the project. Canadian-Bacon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletion. Humongous BLP liability, not to mention being an entirely ambiguous and unproductive list. Who qualifies as "famous"? What constitutes "responsibility" for a death? Does it only included people convicted of murder or manslaughter, or anyone alleged to have "had a hand" in someone else's death? Seems silly to me. —bbatsell ¿? 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is worth noting that WP:V puts the burden of evidence on those seeking to add content or readd it, and that if this burden of proof is not satisified, it may be deleted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call, of course, and we should be embarassed it was sitting around this long. Jkelly 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting sourcing issue. Every item listed on this list had a wikilink to an at least one other article (usually a biography, sometimes an article about the incident itself). I haven't checked them all, but those linked articles I did check did have sourcing for the death incident. So they are sourced on Wikipedia, but not on this particular list article, where each incident is just briefly mentioned. Are we now going to require sourcing of an incident in every article in which an incident is mentioned, even just in passing, or is linking to an article with proper sourcing adequate? We could have a field day if every list must be sourced on the list itself. Who wants to delete List of Australian criminals and the dozens of other related biographical list articles? Perhaps we could start using footnotes on wikilinks that say "information sourced in the linked article." NoSeptember 11:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is a very bad idea for an article, open for all kinds of sneaky POV and vandalism, and bound to fail to give adequate context. Being responsible for something can mean anything from failing to call the cops during the escalation of a dispute to actually pulling the trigger. The subject is too fraught with difficulties. And I don't see an encyclopaedic subject "famous people being responsible for a death". Guy (Help!) 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please AfD it if you think so, because I'm working on restoring it. You can help! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse deletion as per above. If it is recreated, this should be done one item at a time; any reference to a living person without an iron-clad reference must be deleted immediately (per WP:BLP). Bucketsofg 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness to this list, it was actually a pretty tight list. Users Zzuuzz, Jessek and Duemellon were actively removing any unsourced or incorrect listings in recent months. The items were sourced on wikipedia (just in the actual biography articles, not on this list article) and the sources would have been easy to find on wiki. At a minimum these would qualify as the equivalent of a Convenience link. There are hundreds of list articles that are in the same format (unsourced on the list itself, but just a click on a wikilink away from proper sources). We should not get too lazy when deciding to delete these articles, save the deletions for the truly bad articles, not well maintained ones like this one was. (This in no way reflects on how I would vote on an AfD of this article - I'm addressing the sourcing issues of lists only). Cheers, NoSeptember 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Sourcing" via wikilinks is probably fine when the information is readily available and not controversial; in such instances, the convenience link argument holds. However, for information that is contested, controversial, difficult to find, or -- most especially -- covered under WP:BLP, wikilinking is unsuitable as referencing. We have no means to ensure that the references in Bob the Living Person's article today will be there tomorrow, for example. This is one of the reasons that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Claims about living people require reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 06:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the deletion was a good call. In cases like this a category might be a better choice (Leaving aside the appropriateness of the topic.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD started by me: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article nees to be afd. AS badlydrawnjeff is redoing it with references, it's ok. It was the unsourcing that was bad. Jeff is doing right reconstructing it with references. -- Drini 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with that call. Blatant violation of WP:BLP. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect segue (although maybe not a perfect forum) for an issue I've been thinking about: contentious categories. Categories don't have references either, and IMO such examples as 'anti-semite', 'bisexual', 'serial killer', etc constitute borderline BLP vios because they aren't referenced on the cat page (and often on the article page too). Anchoress 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Haham hanuka

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#haham hanuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A community ban was proposed for this user previously, with many people endorsing either the ban or an arbitration case instead. He has a very extensive block log for edit warring, disruption, evasion, etc. That was two months, and since then, neither happened, but has continued his disruptive behavior. He just violated 3RR yet again at Adolf Hitler [73], and persists in calling those he disagrees with "vandals". Previously, it was brought up that he is banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia, with his user page saying he was a troll. I'm not inclined to give him any more of our patience. I've gone ahead and implemented the ban, but this is up for review, of course. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse permanent ban. Was only recently edit-warring on Adolf Hitler; also looking at all those blocks, I think the community has given him enough time to reform. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Has been a fairly disruptive force in Wikipedia, and he hasn't changed his ways. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as above. Bucketsofg 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban. --Coredesat 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Khoikhoi 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, he has shown he cannot edit without being a disruption. --Wildnox(talk) 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. General Idea 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse BenBurch 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse • The community has been very patient with this user, but I suspect the community's patience is worn threadbare. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed userpage to appropriate template, suggest notifying WP:LOBU, no comment. 68.39.174.238 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, a noxious bot reverted me; someone else will have to do it instead. 68.39.174.238 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Amazed he lasted this long. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial percentages of Sean Paul

A line continues to be removed from a Sean Paul article relating to his racial percentages. The line in question is "Racially, this means that Sean Paul is 62.5% White, 25% Chinese and 12.5% Black". This is based on testimony which is already shown in the article. However, I calculated the percentages and posted them, because it is in general easier to understand. Since many users will be going to the Sean Paul article specifically to find out about his racial background, this information is important. The user Guettarda has removed it, stating that it is original research. However, in my opinion, this is not original research, but a simple math calculation that anyone could perform in their head. The only difference is, this makes it easier for readers who are less math-saavy than I am. I have once again replaced the line, but I informed Guettarda that I would report the issue to administration to find out what should really be done. Rhythmnation2004 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it's not original research then you will be able to cite a reliable secondary source which says precisely this. Otherwise, it is original research. Quite why anyone would care about these percentages is an exercise left to the reader. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Have you tried WP:DR? What administrators abilities are you looking for? I find Third opinion is a great venue for such things. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of what value it adds to the article, the "percentages" (to 0.5%!) really are not supported by the source - "mixed black and white" does not necessarily mean half and half, while "Portuguese descent" does not mean pure Portuguese, especially since he claims descent from Solomon, making the family Portuguese Jews (like many in the Caribbean) - after 500 years in the Caribbean, the default assumption is that these people are mixed, not that they are unmixed. So the "percentages" are not in keeping with the available information - the info is too vague. Guettarda 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Generally, when a person says they are "mixed black and white", that usually means that it's half and half. It's not as if Sean Paul is perfect when it comes to the English language. He speaks the typical lingo of Jamaicans, who always consider "mixed black and white" to equal half Black and half White. And Portuguese Jews are white - since when are Jews a separate race? That's a little bit Hitler-ish, if you ask me.Rhythmnation2004 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this on the talk page of the article in question or take it to dispute resolution. This is not the forum for this sort of thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're 100% correct, articles can only include information that's verifiable, not based on facts that might "generally" be true. SuperMachine 15:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) #1, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. #2, without a clear-cut source, this constitutes original research. #3, "race" is an extremely fuzzy concept (which many people don't realize) and calculating the exact percentage of one's racial affiliations is laughable to me. #4, why would the average reader care? Grandmasterka 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And #5: implying and insinuating that another way of thinking is "a little bit Hitler-ish" is absurd. Please leave such rhetoric out of this. Wikipedia is not a chat room. Aecis^Bravado 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that this editor seems to have a thing for original research and then making uncalled for comments when he does not get his way. I to the editor would suggest that you study wikipedia policy a bit more closely, especially [WP:AGF] when interacting with admins and other editors. Especially if you plan to take a 4th run at RFA. --Fredrick day 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Slightly odd considering I'm neither adminned nor a crazed Michael Jackson fan, but I won't hold it against him. Trebor 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, this is not the place for this discussion. However, seeing as it's here: Giving percentages to 0.5% is false precision. I doubt anyone is the world is 100% one race (I don't think race is well defined enough, for a start), so the chances of anyone being 50/50 between two races is pretty much 0. It's much better just to state the approximate races of his ancestors and let the reader decide how to interpret it. I don't think it is really original research though, it's just misrepresentation of verifiable facts. --Tango 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as a recent channel 4 show indicated (anyone remember the one I'm on about - they genetically tested various people), even if you know your family tree back - 6 or 7 generations, your ethnic mix is far more complex than that. It's a nonsense to come up with such numbers. --Fredrick day 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Tango, it is original research as he is taking the vague descriptions of the persons racial heritage and drawing his own conclusions from them - namely the figures. -Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention to interpret the facts. The editor sincerely thought that was what the sources said, and was simply representing those facts incorrectly. It was bad research (which is excusable - being able to fix people's mistakes is what makes wikis so great), not original research. --Tango 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I was not saying that Jews aren't white (although in the English-speaking Caribbean Portuguese weren't "real white", which is why they tended to intermarry with the light-skinned mixed lower middle class, rather than the white upper class descendent from the plantocracy or the upper middle class originating from the English civil servants). I'm saying that Portuguese Jews were expelled almost 500 years ago, and that after being in the Caribbean for 500 years a lot of them would have intermarried. With respect to "mixed black and white", this means just that, mixed. In the English-speaking Caribbean we have families who have been mixed for 200 years, and have continued to marry mixed people. They had their origins not only in slavery, but also in the "poor whites" (mostly Scots and Irish indentured labourers who were sent to the Caribbean in the 1600s and 1700s (see redlegs for the Bajans), who often intermarried with the mixed lower middle class). So to say someone is "mixed black and white" says nothing about the proportion of each race; there is no reason to take it as "half and half". Guettarda 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Siokan

This user is totally denied the cleanup in the few articles, Special:Contributions/Siokan. Few days ago, i make the cleanup in few articles for Asian football competitions with the appropriate Manuel of Style. However, in this days, this user are reverted my cleanup with unapproprate reason "degrading a page" without remark my cleanup editing. With the account just create in this New Year, i believe that he is not read the Manuel of Style of Wikipedia and even not browse any examples as references to editing he articles, while like to edit with his style. I hope admin can resolve this problem. Thank you.

I having talk to him regarding my cleanup editing, he seems arrogantly denied it and not accepting my cleanup. --Aleenf1 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the work was reverted back to old version. However, this time is from Special:Contributions/210.253.171.2. I suspect it is a same user to do it. Please help me again. And i won't revert back to cleanup version until problem resolve. Thank you. --Aleenf1 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Yarillastremenog

This user is using personal attacks and is engaged in revert war. I asked him politely several times to provide proof of the salacious pictures he is inserting in the text and as a responce I get insults like stupid and degenerate.[74] I also challenged the validity of the salacious picture he is inserting in multiple topics on Wikipedia and would like a fair use rationale on it reviewed again.[75][76] I would like to ask for administrators to intervene and protect the article until the decision on its deletion is confirmed. I would also ask that the aforementioned user be made aware of the inappropriatness of this behaviour and the language he is using. --Chuprynka 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him about the personal attacks. I'll need someone else to look at the images - I can't do it now. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuprynka started the personal attacks [here] by claiming I was 'avid viewer of pornography' that is a totally unfounded allegation posted in response to the source of the documentary video which as these links show [[77]] and [[78]] is NOT a pornography movie. I ask you to warn the user to make make personal attacks in this manner. --Yarillastremenog 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yarillastremenog made a legal threat on his talk page, and I have blocked him 24h and pointed him to WP:LEGAL. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone an "avid viewer of pornography" is a personal attack, even if it is a few points shy of civility, compared to saying someone is "obviously too stupid" to understand something, which is clearly one. JuJube 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask administrators again to protect the page I mentioned from edits until the decision on its future has been made. The revert war around it still rages on, it is very disruptive. I also hope that the questions about the picture I raised above will be adressed in due time. Thank you.--Chuprynka 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block

Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Mr. Darcy has warned the user here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already warned him several times on User talk:71.247.255.190, including once with the "approved warning template". --NE2 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper article for deletion protocol used by [79]SuganthinifromJaffna

This user, as can be simply seen from his contributions [80] is tagging multiple pages for deletion, without putting a pointer into AfD, aseveral times even puttinjg in his "deletion" vote into an already closed but kept AfD. Maybe someone should talk to him and explain to him the correct process for AfD on an article?

A brand new user who's edits consist of AFDing articles? WP:AGF doesn't mean we stick our heads up our arses right? --Fredrick day 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'M just totally unsure what kind of intervention is needed here. Help from an experienced admin would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it must be some user who knows how articles are deleted, i.e a sock of some existent user. I would keep an eye out for any existing user who consistently votes in favor of his deletions and open a WP:SSP case on him then. Eli Falk 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact I see none of his Ad listed in WP:AfD. That's a major concern to me?--Ramdrake 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All AFD's created by the user were deleted by me, Race and intelligence AFD was kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the R&I AfD was removed as well by User:Mytwocents--Ramdrake 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations) looks eminently AfD-worthy, in fact. Is it a PoV fork, or is there some other reason for such a peculiar article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert History A revert every three minutes (automated bot?) - Immediate attention needed... wasn't sure where to put it. /Blaxthos 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and WP:NPOV problems at Brown people and White people

I am having trouble with two editors (LSLM (talk · contribs) and SqueakBox (talk · contribs)) who continue to edit from non-neutral points of view as their discussion page comments have stated here and here. I had previously brought up the subject of SqueakBox's poor approach to the Brown people article here. I have reached my limit of reversions allowed and discussion has been like talking to a wall as attempts at discussion and compromise have fallen on closed ears in both articles. I'm unsure exactly what to do next. I feel like both are attempting to make a WP:POINT by adding PoV statements and/or remove useful lead summary statements (that are detailed within the actual article) under the guise of being "unsourced", simply because they have both stated that the articles represent racism and ignore their historical usage (or even current usage in some cultures/places). Any help would be appreciated. I may not have handled everything as appropriately as possible, but I have tried to point out in numerous ways that their edits fail multiple WP policies. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has moved on to claiming other editors are "...filling it (the article) with ridiculous fringe ideas..." [81], which violates WP:AGF. At the same time LSLM (talk · contribs) is also adding insults like Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. [82]. The talk page is rife with these two editors talking past my attempts to discuss the actual article and the content in it (including a complete diatribe with links on how parts of the world hate Americans) and only want to see the article as a racist rant (which it has nothing to do with). Am I being unreasonable here? ju66l3r 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation

This user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ju66l3r

Has violated the 3 revert rule in the White people article. Veritas et Severitas 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you did too. Neither of you revert again, and neither of you will be blocked. Yuser31415 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Page has now been protected. Trebor 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article page and served warnings to both editors to discuss first (well, it's more of like they have no choice but to discuss on the talk page). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to report such activity is at WP:AN/3. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...Though it might be rejected out of hand due to the circumstances surrounding the edit-warring. Oh well, all's well that ends well. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thing it was brought here (WP:KETTLE comes to mind, since both editors violated). Never mind. Yuser31415 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I was not out-right reverting the content of that page. I also made an attempt to incorporate their edit in a more appropriate place and in a more appropriate way in an effort to compromise and was told that it "wasn't convincing" (whatever that meant) and was reverted again. If their edit was B and the page was at state A, then I went B->A, B->A, Compromise text, B->C. I will have to review 3RR but I felt that because I had introduced a new version that a revert to that version was not in the spirit of the rule since I was working towards compromise on this issue and they were simply ignoring my efforts and reverting to make a point. ju66l3r 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, 3RR is interpreted very strictly. The 3 reverts is an absolute limit. Even 2 partial reverts can be enough to get you a block in some circumstances. Edit warring, however nicely done, is still edit warring. It's best to just go to the talk page, and if that doesn't help, request backup. --Tango 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I recognized that I was reaching a problem situation. I went to the talk page and was ignored, even after drafting compromise text in the article. So I did come here to request help (please see the AN/I section just above this one). ju66l3r 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not part of the dispute resolution process, it's for getting the attention of admins. Admins exist to do chores, not to make judgements about content. --Tango 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but unless you are completely sure the other user's edits are being made solely to deface Wikipedia, don't revert more than three times. Cheers! Yuser31415 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarenne

• Sarenne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned more then 4 times and has continued to disrupt articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetary Chaos (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those warnings are all from you over an issue that is not vandalism, and on which there is a live discussion. Please settle your disputes through talk page discussions. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Put shortly for others reading this: The issue here is using SI prefixes in articles where our sources quantify numbers using binary prefixes. I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:V will always override MOS guidelines. The MOS says that converting from binary to SI in articles fine, but I'm of the opinion that doing so where our sources are explicit in using another format is decidedly not fine. Wikipedians don't usually have the leeway to restate what a reliable source says with different units of measure, just because some people prefer that measurement. Apple (and publications who report on them) almost never use SI... as a result, neither should we.

Sarenne's edits have now been reverted by no less than five different established editors, and yet this single-purpose account still insists on pushing changes on a wide number of articles (though limited in scope almost exclusively to Apple consumer hardware articles). They're claiming "consensus" by pointing to a discussion from a year and a half ago, but if this many editors are reverting their changes, then this mission of theirs needs to be put on hold, and discussions need to happen BEFORE wide-ranging changes are made.

Sarenne's talk page is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. I've started a discussion on the issue of SI prefixes here, and I hope people with an interest will participate. -/- Warren 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Warren, that seems like a reasonable course of action. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: 70.134.225.98

he/she has vandelised the siamese cat page again after it was reverted last time, i though i should reported here.

You should probably post that on [83]. This is more for long-time troublemakers. HalfShadow 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked ip editing from other ips in same domain

An anonymous ip has been stalking my edits and warring across several articles. His vandalisms earned him a block. [84]. One issue also is that I have been attacked similarly before by another ip from what looks like the same domain system [85].

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.34.17 http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.49.93

This attack is similar in tone and content to that old one [86] for which he is blocked. Now, another ip from the same domain is making attacks against me of the exact same nature, evading the block [87]Rumpelstiltskin223 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of Hamsacharya dan redux

The user previously impersonating Hamsacharya dan as Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back, this time as Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He's also incompletely nominated Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. I think this article has survived AfD twice. Either the nomination should be reversed as done by an impersonator, or completed. Up to the admin answering this, I guess. A Ramachandran 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names as a problem username, which doesn't fully address the problems you've noted, but may jumpstart the process of getting the account blocked. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NoToFrauds, as there's a history behind this... A Ramachandran 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble on Uncyclopedia

Pardon my inexperience, but I don't know where to put this. It's a little more controversial than your standard page protection issue, so I'm putting it here. Uncyclopedia just went through two AFDs in one day. Both were speedy kept, and several people ahve been advocating a re-write due to poor sourcing (very little third-party references) and such. So I get started on it, and pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverts me twice without so much as an edit summary. When I revert back and ask her about it on her talk page, she protects it, then reverts to her preferred version again. Now she's saying I'm "vandalizing" - yeah right. Can someone unprotect the page, due to her protecting it over a content dispute, so editing can resume? Milto LOL pia 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp made one error, that much is clear. Protecting the page is inappropriate when simply blocking you stops you. I can't comment on the rest. --Deskana (request backup) 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, removing tongue in cheek humor from an encyclopedia article is VANDALISM all right. It's definitely worth a mention that the site's potato mascot did not found the website. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I never made any comment on anything you did. I simply said that really, pschemp should have blocked you rather than protected the page. Whether that block/page protection is appropriate is something I didn't comment on. I'm not well versed enough in the situation to understand it. --Deskana (request backup) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp will also be a bit tiffed when she sees some of your commentary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, my bad. Milto LOL pia 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I believe she protected it because you added {{unreferenced}} repeatedly, when there are nearly 3 dozen in-line citations, and a citation referencing the "content free" portion (from what I can see).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but we're currently discussing the validity of those cites, such as citing Uncyclopedia's "content-free" article as evidence of it being such, when it clearly says so on the Main Page; a link to an unhelpful Uncyclopedia page is not a good cite. Many other cites are self-references to Wikimedia or not third-party sources. ANd she was revert warring over other stuff too, without so much as a glance at the talk page, where all this was being discussed. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, my sex is irrelevent. Repeat insertions of tag that is false = vandalsim. I did you a favor Miltopia, by not allowing you to get to 3RR. pschemp | talk 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing me a favor by hindering me from improving a poorly sourced page, revert warring me with no edit summaries, calling me a vandal, ignroing the talk page, and wildly assuming bad faith? No, you are protecting a page that you are in a content dispute with after boorish edit warring. Milto LOL pia 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? O rly?

[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] I don't see any vandalism here. Just some cleaning up of highly unencyclopedic tongue-in-cheek humor and confusing templates, replacing them with links. Where is the vandalism? Milto LOL pia 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{unreferenced}} falsely = vandalsim (especially when previously asked to not do it by Sean Black). pschemp | talk 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, knock it off with the running around in circles. I've said several times that it was poorly sourced and that it was being discussed on the talk page, and every time you simply say "SORRY YOU WERE ASKED NOT TO ADD IT". There was a good deal of talk page discussion that you completely ignored. Clearly my edits were in good faith, and I don't need your or Sean Black's permission to point out that article's shortcomings. Milto LOL pia 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, that article does require a tag. It's not {{unreferenced}}, but it is either {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}}. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I found that out, but it ws already protected, so I added it to the talk page instead so the people who actually pay attention to that will see the problem. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we agree to unprotect the article? I don't see it as a sin to have been using the wrong tag by mistake, and the diffs I've seen from Miltopia are well in keeping with policies like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But I don't want anyone to spark a wheel war. Grandmasterka 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, users are requesting uprotection at Talk:Uncyclopedia already. I don't see the horrible harm that required protection to begin with either. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his edits first (which other users didn't agree with) sure. But repeated insertions of something people in the page didn't agree with is not cool. pschemp | talk 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think adding the wrong tag is vandalism. Should he have added the right tag to begin with? Sure. Does he have a point about the quality of the references? Yes. This isn't a content dispute either, so there isn't any point to the protection. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Miltopia agreeing to work to get consensus for his changes. If he wants to change from vandalism to adding content, he needs to do that. pschemp | talk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus for initial edits in the least - if that's your only problem, you have nothing to worry about. Your accusations of "vandalism" are starting to sound hysterical - clearly we have a consensus that the article needs to be unprotected and tagged, but you refuse because you want me to do it on your terms. Let's just cut the crap and get to work on the article already instead of playing out this foolish battle of wills. Milto LOL pia 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You do need consensus after people repeated revert you. Which is what happened. pschemp | talk 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Using administrative tools in a content dispute isn't cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect if Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his changes first. What you don't get is that I could care less about the content. I'm not involved in a content dispute, I reverted vandalism. pschemp | talk 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I had a number of good-faith, sensible edits that you were reverting without comment. Those were content edits. So far your only characterization of it as "vandalism" is because I was "asked not to add the tag". It's pretty obvious that you're the only one who thinks I was vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You made repeat insertions of something you didn't have consensus for. Get consensus first. I personally don't care what the content is, i care that you work with the other editors on the page. pschemp | talk 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing there was a disagreement on (as in, not blind "vandalism" reverts) is the tag. We now have a consensus for a different tag. There is no problem. Milto LOL pia 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where? pschemp | talk 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, right here. Milto LOL pia 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What, you and Tito? You need to discuss that on the talk page of the actual article. That's where we get consensus about articles. pschemp | talk 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"..I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally." - Newyorkbrad.[96] Sigh. Miltopia, don't do anything reckless, discuss changes beforehand. Pschemp, remove the protection, it is inappropriate. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I say again: Using admin tools in a content dispute is NOT cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. It wasn't a content dispute. pschemp | talk 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It might b e helpful if you could add something to the discussion other than "NO U". THe only people who "reverted me" used sysop tools to prevent my changes - Sean Blac via rollback, and you via protection. If it wasn't a content dispute, where's the "disagreement" coming from? No one else reverted me. Milto LOL pia 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) We shouldn't need "consensus" to include something that two editors disagree with and which resulted in full protection by an involved admin during a content dispute. This is a wiki. Nevertheless, I've voiced my opinion on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected. Now, how hard is it to get consensus about contested edits? pschemp | talk 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing to see here anymore, move on... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^ Milto LOL pia 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollback/Popups/Whatever

So, does the 3RR apply to blind reverts via popups or rollback? I just got another revert via popup with no edit summary. I think it's stupid that the only one of the four of us reverting who has managed to use the talk page and use edit summaries would be blocked for 3RR for re-reverting. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to everything but vandalism. Looks like someone else thinks your edits are controversial. Interesting. pschemp | talk 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they also weren't considerate enough to use an edit summary or the talk page, choosing instead to blindly edit war. Depressing. Milto LOL pia 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting policy violations. And even if it did, I would choose to Ignore All Rules in those cases. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia Gaming the system?

I'd like some feedback on this as I feel this is a case of a user walking a very fine line. Here I warned Miltopia about 3RRing on Uncyclopedia. And, he responded so obviously read my warning. His first three reversions 1 2 and 3 were the addition of the {{unsourced}} tag (and all within the space of 20 minutes). One hour after my warning he went back and added the {{reliablesources}} tag 4. Does this seem like a blatant case of gaming the system to anyone else? No action has been taken at this time Glen 04:00, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be the only one to think so [97]. Editors on the page have expressed that the tag should remain deleted, so I wouldn't block this time, but if he does it again after all this mess...pschemp | talk 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the rule and have stopped editing. We're done here. Milto LOL pia 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also wasn't the one to re-insert the tag. You have Tbeatty to thank for that. Milto LOL pia 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor update - pschemp is now continuing to revert on the page, despite "not caring about the content" and then refusing discussion on her talk page or the article's talk page. I wonder what else this could be than gaming the system to take advantage of my 3RR paralysis. Milto LOL pia 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate site administrators should not be tolerated

Why do we tolerate disruptive influences from Encyclopedia Dramatica like Badlydrawnjeff and Miltopia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, neither of us are sysops. Milto LOL pia 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He can ban me as an "ED sysop troll" if that'll satisfy his appetite...-DESU 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know. Why do we tolerate people randomly calling Badlydrawnjeff a disruptive influence? Maybe we should make everyone disclose their IP, and then infiltrate ED so we can checkuser the accounts there and then block everyone who also edits here. After all, being on ED automatically makes someone disruptive! -Amark moo! 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm no saint, but BDJ does more for Wikipedia than most of the people who harass him. Er, he also hasn't edited ED in almost a year.

Oh look, ED is being brought up again by the same people who claim ED editors are all here to troll... Milto LOL pia 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• At what point is someone going to step in here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When someone who can actually do something about it shows up. I'll continue making fun of the idea that all ED editors are trolls until that happens, if you don't mind me doing so.
  • Maybe we should trick people who we don't like into registering an ED account so that they automatically become a disruptive influence? -Amark moo! 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not. I'm having a hard enough time distancing myself as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a much easier way to cause disruption. Just keep nagging the administrators to ban some people. Oops. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As an uninvolved reader of these boards, I've rarely seen Hipocrite post something without bile in his throat. It's beginning to wear thin. - Merzbow 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but are his main space edits constructive? BenBurch 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It's starting to come to the point where it doesn't matter. Creating a negative atmosphere on any namespace in Wikipedia is a Bad Thing^TM. We really shouldn't encourage it. Deny recognition and move on, I'd say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Besides, are they? The vast majority of his edits are provoking fights and worsening disputes. Milto LOL pia 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hipocrite is a troll. We get it. Really, really. I don't care. Just ignore him, and he'll get bored or blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not helpful in the least.--MONGO 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And his statements are? I'm curious as to why you're defending him here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You assume bad faith on my part and all I am trying to do is put out a fire.--MONGO 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith at all, I simply don't understand why you're defending him. You're not putting out a fire when you're merely starting another one in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, some fo the fervor has died down. If he's so eager to get away from me that he'll bar communication on his talk page, maybe this can just blow over. Which would be best for everyone involved. Milto LOL pia 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I was getting at. This is, however, apparently "unhelpful". I wonder who this must be "unhelpful" to, since it seems like it would be pretty damn helpful to the Wiki to block and ignore a disruptive editor. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just so everyone is clear - if you had buttons, you would indef block me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It does not matter, as I do not. I would fully endorse someone blocking you for disruption, however. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent ill will should not be tolerated

Please review the following, which is like Sidaway+1: flagrant trolling, "totally fucking wrong", more incivility, "fucking SPAs", "Don't piss on me and tell it's raining",

Look beyond their regular contribs to filter by specific name space. Makes almost no positive contribution to the real encyclopedia, just tries to WP:OWN the Ref Desk and then trolls Wikipedia space and user talk pages incessently. Recommend community ban from Ref Desk which is what seems to work him into a lather all by itself to protect a once contributing editor who has devolved sadly :(. BobDjurdjevick 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, User:rootology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that Sir Nick has already blocked BobDjurdjevick as a single-purpose account created to harass Hipocrite; otherwise I would have done so myself.

That said, Hipocrite is frequently and gratuitously incivil in his interactions with other editors. This sort of comment about another good-faith contributor to Wikipedia is out of line. To be fair, Hipocrite has been less rude that usual recently, and he has also been the victim of persistent, obnoxious trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of the least of the verbal abuse he generally offers. He seems much more interested in just stirring up unpleasantry than really contributing. To be fair, I stir up a fair bit myself, but it's generally because of the controversial nature of my edits or people's unwillingness to put aside melodramatic prejudice, not because I hang around Wikipedia calling people names. Milto LOL pia 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked BobD-whateveritis. However, Hipocrite's comments have been incivil and disruptive. Be prepared for a block, if this kind of behaviour does not cease. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One wonderes what the purpose and goal of this emergent pile on is. If it was to tell me to me nicer to people, how does responding to a Rootology and Miltopia (Miltopia is the prime contributor to the Encyclopedia Dramatica attack page about me) generated hatefest in any way convince me that you have my best interests at heart? It dosen't. You haven't. Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a free tip - stop including me in your little attacks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, every time we've crossed paths, it's been you confronting/complaining me. This "emergent pile on" itself is a result of another such thread started by you. How can you label this as harassment? People are just replying to what you started. Milto LOL pia 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque, anyone? It's really a fallacy, you know. Not the best kind of argument to make. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawn, it would realy help if you didn't follow Hipocrite to AFDs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me!!

I tagged an article for a speedy delete. Mike_Gaun and an editor of the page. This wikipedian User:Ncole vandalized my talk page and removed ALL of my tags on the Mike_Gaun page. In my mind, this requires and immediate ban. The article Mike_Gaun is a memorial not wiki content. Admin needed! Thx --Zrulli 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Calmness, calmness. No, it doesn't require an immediate ban (although continuing behavior of the same type might result in a block, which is notably different from a ban). The page has been deleted. Don't worry. Yuser31415 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"United Front Against Deletion"

User:Criscokoenig seems to be quite intent on making a WP:POINT, after his autobiography was flagged for deletion. See [98], [99], and many other similar edits. Seraphimblade 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this user has just been blocked for 24 hours. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours only? I would have indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the block to indefinite. I was wondering that myself - 24 hours seems way too lenient in this case, especially as the user in question has no good-faith edits aside from creating the page that ended up getting deleted. --Coredesat 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 24h to stop his spree, but wanted to scroll through the contribs before an indef-block to make sure there weren't legit edits in there. If we're comfortable that this isn't a regular editor who just went off his rocker, I have no objection to the indef. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from the user claiming that his original intent was not to vandalize (but to edit Will & Grace-related and other articles), and he agrees with the 24-hour block and not the indefinite one. I'm going to AGF and reduce his block to the 24 hours. His edits should be monitored when he returns. --Coredesat 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not. But one chance only. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war and likely sockpuppetry at Shinigami (Bleach)

An edit war has been ongoing between 67.186.73.164 (talk · contribs · count) and Mekryd (talk · contribs · count), both of whom have reverted four times in today. I only chose not to report them at WP:AN3RR because neither had been warned. Now, TrueAnime (talk · contribs · count) is making the exact same reverts as the anonymous, which makes me suspect sockpuppetry. I have reported this here because I'm uncertain exactly what to do in this case: if this is worth taking to Checkuser or if it can be handled without this. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

At a request from an arbitrator, I've run a checkuser that has determined with a high degree of certainty that Ekajati (talk · contribs), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs), and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs) are all the same person. It is suggested based on behavior and the timing of the account creation that these are all the same as the "retired" Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), but that account is too old to check. Please take a look at this and take any necessary actions. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Ramachandran (talk · contribs) was created 12 hours after Hanuman_Das "retired". Here is an analysis from wannabe-kate's tool, of their editing patterns, with common articles edited, labelled in bold

A Ramachandran article edits:21 Mantra, 21 Bharatanatyam, 19 James Branch Cabell, 18 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 18 Shiva, 15 List of vacuum tubes, 15 Yoga, 15 Brian Cutillo, 10 Bön, 10 Tantra, 10 Spirituality, 9 Dr. MGR-Janaki College of Arts and Science for Women, 9 M. G. Ramachandran, 9 Lu Sheng-yen, 9 Sahaja Yoga

A Ramachandran article talk edits:13 Michael Roach, 6 Bharatanatyam, 2 Michael Roach (disambiguation), 2 Tibetan Buddhism, 2 Dharmic religions

Hanuman Das article edits: 144 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 100 Tantra, 100 Nath, 67 Thelema, 52 Gurunath, 47 Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, 44 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 39 Dattatreya ,38 Mahavatar Babaji, 32 Lu Sheng-yen ,29 Obligations in Freemasonry, 29 Haidakhan Babaji, 26 Neem Karoli Baba, 25 Barbelo, 25 Hermeticism

Hanuman Das article talk edits: 188 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 46 Gurunath, 38 Nath, 33 Mahavatar Babaji, 26 Jahbulon, 22 Michael Roach, 20 Thelema, 13 Hermeticism, 13 Tantra, 13 Stella Matutina, 13 Satguru, 13 Sidhoji Rao Shitole, 12 Starwood Festival, 12 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 11, Tantra/Archive 1

What sticks out, apart from from the general overlap, is the editing to Lu Sheng-yen. In the last year, only five registered users (excluding vandals, single purpose accounts, vandal reverts, and typo fixing) have edited this article. Of these, three of them are Hanuman_Das, Ekajati and 999, all parties to the Starwood case, all of whom are on one side of the fence. Similarly a look at Michael Roach shows the same thing, very few people edited this article, so both articles are likely to be obscure, and a new user appearing, immediately after the retirement of another, editing with the same viewpoint, editing on a similar set of articles, especially two common articles which are almost inactive. So all the socks have been blocked and the owner also blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramachandran, I have a hard time believing. I've had a few interactions with him, and he seemed like any other new user. He didn't have any people complaining to his talk page, other than one friviolous complaint about a NPA warning (which was most certainly deserved). How high is this degree of certainty? -Amark moo! 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they are related, but you might want to check Young Skywalker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as well. In reference to this AfD which was nominated by Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs). Contrib history shows this user submitting articles for deletion by the sixth edit and using proper wikipedia nomenclature. Seems kinda' strange, but maybe it is a coincidence. Even weirder is the overlap in the userpage content and theme of Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs) and Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs) - both of their userpages had primarily kaballah content, and edited occult articles. - WeniWidiWiki 05:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something not right here about Hanuman Das being a sock of Ekajati. A little poking around shows that:

1. Hanuman Das has been on Wikipedia quite a bit longer than Ekajati
2. Blnguyen is also one of the five regular editors of Lu Sheng-yen and it looks like he may have had a dispute with Hanuman Das
3. There are a number of notes from Hanuman Das on Ekajati's talk page asking her to help him with Buddhist topics. One is a note thanking her for helping with Lu Sheng-yen. I don't think their both editing that article can be taken to mean anything, if there is actually no confirming checkuser.

Just my 2 cents. 999 (Talk) 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. I don't see any report of abusive conduct on either of the other two socks. What did they do? The tag says they committed "abuse, libel, or ban evasion." It is my understanding that even if they are socks, they have to commit an abuse to warrant being blocked. My opinion is this: I don't believe that Tunnels of Set is Ekajati at all. The articles he edited are not at all the sort she edited. A Ramachandran is more believable, but I don't see any misbehavior on his part. And for the reasons I've given above, I don't think Hanuman Das and Ekajati are the same user at all. They collaborated, yes, and the evidence of that is on their talk pages. 999 (Talk) 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have had a long conflict with several parties mentioned above. 999 posted an ANI complaint against me on August 21.[100] . User:999 posted his first comment on my talk page the same day.[101].. Since then I have been consistently harassed and stalked by User:999, User:Ekajati, User:Hanuman Das. It was recently explained to me by User:Ars Scriptor that they were able to do this by using User Contributions. There was one day when Hanuman Das stalked me to 39 articles. Recently two new users posted on my page within their first several edits, neither having any connection with me other than each accidently ran across the Starwood Arbitration:: User: Tunnels of Set who removed edits from my user page in addition, and User:Jefferson Anderson who posted personal attacks on me on his user page (one was removed at the suggestion of another editor) and another was removed by another editor using an IP. This all may not be related. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - There were several instances when 999, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das left notes about me or my alleged sockpuppet Timmy12 on each other's pages alerting each other about information they aready knew about. Therefore I interpreted those posting about me and Timmy12 to be for appearance only. Mattisse 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Art Dominique (talk · contribs) sockpuppet

The latest Art Dominique (talk · contribs) sock, who is vandalizing RFCU requests. An RFCU was filed against some folks who AD doesn't like, and when they were proven to not be socks or puppetmasters, he began attempting to re-add more and more to the RFCU (in spite of Essjay telling him that the evidence had already been reviewed). [102].

The Art Dominique sock insists on trolling this RFCU, re-adding info that has already been checked. [103] [104].

• Virtual Realities (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.216.199.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The "Virtual Realities" is pretty clearly an Art Dominique sock, based on AD naming conventions, the consistency of huge, tedious piles of misinformation, and continuous trolling and stalking of Petri Krohn (talk · contribs), Whiskey (talk · contribs) and Illythr (talk · contribs). TheQuandry 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of WP:PAIN…

…I would like my fellow administrators' opinions as to the acceptability of the following edits. Am I being a bit too sensitive, or is this a tad over the line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jakew&curid=8980070&diff=102367812&oldid=102366949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TipPt&curid=4554553&diff=102366338&oldid=102245504

-- Avi 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He pretty much invited that by saying "So why is it bad that I am this person?" -Amark moo! 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, to answer the question, I think that's not really crossing the line. Rude, yes, but not really over the line. -Amark moo! 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll and a "circumfetishist" (learn something new every day) in their AfD isn't very cool in my book. Especially when it's being done based on Google results rather than on-wiki activity. I think it does cross the line into PA territory, but I can sorta see it being interpreted either way. Sorta. —bbatsell ¿? 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's highly questionable if the someone is spotless in terms of on-wiki record. But as some of the opposes on that RfA show, he is not. -Amark moo! 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to bring up off-wiki events; it's up to individual !voters to determine whether that holds any water with them. My main issue is with the uncivil tone with which it is written and the name-calling. —bbatsell ¿? 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert such edits on sight per policy WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments and warn the user suitably. Yuser31415 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say I look askance at critical mentions of the off-wiki activity of fellow editors unless it 1) violates WP:COI and/or WP:AUTO, or 2) involves off-wiki activity specifically designed to disrupt WP (and even there, caution would be advisable). I don't see evidence of Jakew disrupting WP, so the comments would seem to violate WP:CIV, at the very least. IronDuke 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkivar's unilateral deletion and salting of a draft article

Wow, I am amazed. I am working on a draft in user space, mention it by link Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rusty_trombone, and the next thing I know it is deleted and salted. This is completely uncalled for. Will someone kindly restore the page so I can continue my work on it, get it up to quality and policy, and post it? I'd appreciate it a lot. CyberAnth 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A full reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Muffins might be in order here. — coelacan talk — 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that once its deleted, recreation of it is forbidden per CSD:G4, particularly when its word for word identical with the page that was deleted from article space. Not to mention making a copy of a page thats about to be deleted via AFD in your userspace is frowned upon. You created the article in userspace on the 7th during the AFD cycle, and made no changes whatsoever until today. You also stated quite clearly you were going against the rules on DRV "Prairie Muffins (preserved here)" ... you dont preserve AFD'd articles in userspace.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have a life outside of WP and cannot work on things full-time. Sure, I used "preserved" there, but in its AfD page I said I was going to be working on it and please not to salt it. The fact is that what was deleted was a draft. CyberAnth 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBSPACE has nothing to do with it. Does this mean all my drafts, e.g., User:CyberAnth/Drafts/Bonny_Hicks, and my own Sandbox is to be deleted as well? Everyone's drafts? CyberAnth 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Sandbox is acceptable unless abused (hate speech, personal attacks, etc...) ... as for Bonny Hicks, she has a valid article in article space and has not faced a valid AFD and been deemed a delete. If she had failed an afd then no she wouldnt belong in your userspace, not until you'd gotten permission via WP:DRV to recreate it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. DRV doesn't give permission to recreate, it gives permission to undelete the prior version, or unsalt. If you're recreating a substantially different article, DRV is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the reason Bonny Hicks is there is because I saved it from an AfD.[105] As for Prairie Muffins, you deleted my draft article I was in process of working on. I'd like the information back. This is ridiculous. I'd like to continue working on it to make it a much better article. Moreover, you salted this unilaterally. Do you come along after the fact and salt every AfD'ed article? If not, then why this one? Can you point me to the policy that gives you the authority to do what you have done? If not, admit the mistake, undelete it, and let's all move on to actually building an encyclopedia instead of this ridiculous stuff. CyberAnth 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this the recreation of a deleted article, or an entirely new article? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither, it was a userfied version of a deleted article, something often done to help bring articles that fail policy up to snuff for possible reintroduction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When the possibility of improving the article actually exists, yes. Cyberanth actually voted for the deletion of the article, admitting it could not be reliably sourced. The userfication was just sitting around on Wikipedia, picking up google pigeonrank. Cyberanth admitted WP:COI during the AFD, so it is probably impossible for this user to write this article. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I voted it be deleted because it at the time did not meet WP policies but I did not say it could not be made meet them and I stated I was moving it to userspace where I could work on it. And - wow, oh, wow!! - when does writing a book on a subject, you know, expertise, equate to a conflict of interest??? Is that how WP really works? CyberAnth 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the AFD again. You said nothing about wanting to fix up the article. You just said you wanted it to be in userspace, and you did that marvelously well, having not touched it once yet. And yes, if you are writing a book on the subject, that's on a dangerous line with COI, and I'd watch out for WP:NOR too. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the evidence suggest I have ever even once done that, Badlydrawnjeff, or are you assuming bad faith here? In point of fact, the evidence says I place articles on user space, (e.g., another example here), get them up to par, and place them into WP as an article, and then continue to work on changes in my userspace. This was an article, like Bonny Hicks, that was in the middle of an AfD that I KNEW could make a good article given work. Please undelete it so I can work on it. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I feel this issue is not as cut and dry as either side would make it. Surely a version of an article userified by an admin so a user could improve it is a legitimate practice - many sysops do this as a compromise with CSDs. However, there are of course concerns that we are not a free webost. Some leniency can be given if the user is truly improving an article in such a way, however, I see no great reason for it not to be deleted. However, salting is completely unneccesary and should be undone. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In any event, I'd like the information back. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user intends to work on it and make a different version that meets the objections from the AfD I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Obviously, the user should be careful of COI and related concerns, but that shouldn't stop the user from working on a possible draft. JoshuaZ 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Article Drafts do not equate with free web hosting. CyberAnth 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, if they're just sitting there, largely unedited, consensus is that they do consitute a violation of Wikipedia not being free webhosting, and should be deleted. If you are editing it, but have some reason why you're not going to be actively editing it (vacation, health, et cetera), it would be wise to note that on the talk page of the draft. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That I am busy with real life right now doing an extra big load has been noted since Jan. 13 right at the top of my userpage.[106] It was true even sooner, believe me. CyberAnth 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Never mind, this is just not worth my time. CyberAnth 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  I do not believe the article will ever be notable or reliably sourced, and I do not believe it should be sitting around here on Wikipedia sponging up our PigeonRank. But as I told you before, CyberAnth, I have a copy of it on my hard drive, and if you request it, I will provide it to you in my userspace for whatever brief window of time it takes for you to copy it onto your hard drive. Then you can play with it all you like and if you ever think it's notable, make a request to an admin for the new version of the article to be created and listed at AFD to see if it survives. Let me know here if you want my copy, or on my talk page if I don't respond here promptly. — coelacan talk — 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, this is just not worth my time. That said, and with all due respect, if you ever wish to have a look at WP through the lens of people who wish it were a reliable source they could recommend but do not, have a look in the mirror.[107] CyberAnth 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An option that is sometimes useful is to copy what you wish to have a copy of onto a subpage in user space; then to blank the page so it is available via history when you want it, but is not subject to critisism such as "sponging up our PigeonRank". Copy then edit so the copy is in history is a general way of saving a copy without it being live. Sometimes useful in article space too. WAS 4.250 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial 3RR violation

This IP has violated WP:EW on article Ateneo School of Law. However, I'm not sure exactly what motives the user has for doing so; but since my attempt at conversation has been ignored, I'd be tempted to treat such edits as spam, blanking, or vandalism. I request third party input in this case. Yuser31415 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a fourth revert to the article; after both a 'spam4' and '3RR' warnings, followed by a legitimate request for civil conversation, I can only assume the editor is acting in bad faith. Yuser31415 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(S)he's just explained his/her reason in the ES. Wait a minute while I look into this ... Yuser31415 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbie admin needs a review

Claytonchilds89 (talk · contribs) was reported to AIV for vandalism based on his having removed speedy tags from a number of articles. Upon review, the generic vandalism warnings he had received did not specifically mention removing speedy tags, and I had intended to warn rather than block. However, when I reviewed the content of the articles themselves (listed on the userpage), they appeared to be vicious attack articles on members of an obscure band, and the user appeared to have usernamed himself after one of the people he was attacking. These were the user's only contributions and I therefore blocked for creation of attack articles, WP:LIVING violations, and bad username.

The user has posted an unblock request denying that anyone was attacked or that his username is an impersonation, not explaining further but referring to another user's page for verification. Upon reviewing that second page, it appears that the attacked individuals and the entire band may be fictional characters rather than real people, although the articles I deleted contained no indication to this effect. If that is the case, the articles were still properly speedied as nonsense but the block should be lifted forthwith. Inasmuch as I have made enough of a mess of this situation in my first night as an admin (sigh), I request that someone else take a look at this quickly and fix any mistakes I may have made. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attack pages argument still stands, so I would not withdraw the block even if your allegations of WP:LIVING and (possibly) WP:UN were incorrect. Attack pages are not tolerated.

Yuser31415 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that if the only people attacked were fictional characters, that would hardly be an attack worthy of blocking. The plot thickens with accusations against a previously uninvolved editor now appearing on the blocked user's page, so this does call for a quick review. Newyorkbrad 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the characters are indeed fictional, a block would be/would have been in order for time-wasting nonsense and disruption. However, if user promises to be good (and the pages were not referring to actual people), I would recommend lifting the block at some point in the reasonably near future. IronDuke 05:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These two users are not here to build an encyclopedia. 3 nonsense attack pages, accusing a good vandal-fighter of being "racist" all over the place. Block should stand and Clayzer should be blocked too. —bbatsell ¿? 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... Hmmm, WP:RFCU ??? Yuser31415 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No point to it, really. Teen-age friends, probably talking over AIM or some other sort, screwing around. Happens all the time and the potential for long-term disruption is minimal. Teke ^(talk) 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Decline the unblock request. I personally don't do an indef block if the user is responsive in any form, in hopes of rehabilitation (even the immature ones). I'm a bit naïve that way though. Anywho the articles the user created were seemingly based on his/her friends and were nothing but playing around with Wikipedia, followed by the usual "I wasn't doing anything wrong!". It's a preventative block for sure, I have no doubt that the recreations would continue. You did fine, Newyorkbrad, confidence comes with practice. Teke ^(talk) 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clerk note' • If you have suspicions regarding socks, for which you have evidence. please refer them to Requests for Checkuser. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the basis for requesting a checkuser here and I don't think they would consider the situation to call for one. The result here strikes me as a little harsh if there were no real band members being attacked, but I'm sitting here dwelling on this matter and probably can't think straight about it. I apologize to pretty much anyone I ever second-guessed for an admin decision before. I'm going to bed. Newyorkbrad 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll get used to it. This is nothing; wait until you get people declaring conflict of interest based on classifications of editors only they recognize. Or maybe having people randomly say you're incompetent. And don't forget the inevitable situation when you block someone like this guy. -Amark moo! 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Brad, get ready for new messages about things that you would have never gotten messages about before. Being an administrator isn't fun, it's a voluntary acceptance of extra responsibilities and with that comes demands for accountability. Conflicts will happen most every day, it's why I took three months off after having the bit for a month. I had to get my head together. You'll do fine. Teke ^(talk) 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NYB, it is best to make a case and leave discretion to whether or not it should be investigated to the presiding checkuser. They deal with these cases for large parts of the day, all day, and (no offense intended) better suited to make such a jdugement call. It is also beneficial in that, even if the case is declined, it puts the user "on the radar", and further cases of suspected sockpuppetry will be given much more gravity. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

this case doesn't follow wikipedia's blocking guidlines for isolated vandalism. if anything it needed a little rewording.--Clayzer 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith that Clayzer does not understand how things work, so I'll explain.

Clayzer, administrators have the ability to view deleted edits, including the last in which you called Newyorkbrad a racist who doesn't understand Canadian folklore. The bottom line is, these sorts of contributions are neither encouraged nor welcome, we are building an encyclopedia. Please edit constructively to the project. Teke ^(talk) 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Clayzer. How did you find this case? Yuser31415 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And may you please reword your statement, as I don't seem how it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

i stumbled upon it while trying to go to top gun the movie. but being from the southern ontario region i have heard the story. and i kinda got caught up in the whole hoopla.--Clayzer 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• That made no sense to me. At all. Please provide context. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is someone here thinking the same thing as myself? Yuser31415 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, Yuser, the case is clear without the extra work. Teke ^(talk) 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clayzer, your knowledge of Wikipedia policy regarding vandalism is based on your experience with your account that was created when, exactly? Newyorkbrad 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is someone here thinking the same thing as myself? Yuser31415 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's just go nuts, clearly we need to use all of our admin powers to deal with this mess. We should call in the FBI and the IRS and the CIA to catch this sneaking user.

I think it is undeniable that the block was in error, since it does not follow any of Wikipedia's blocking guidelines under the reasons given. However, the administrator in question has noted his mistake and seems to show remorse, so his admin priveleges should not be revoked. The Canadian traditional folklore of TopGun: Mach 2 is greatly respected by most Canadians, and will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of all those loyal to the fictional band members. 24.36.77.43 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Block quote

Stop evading your block. Yuser31415 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What kind of anti-climatic, un-sarcastic reply was that? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I was referring to WP:BLOCK (not "blockquote" :)). Whether or not I am in error, I am seeing telltale signs of at least three sockpuppets here. Pardon me if I am incorrect. Yuser31415 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deny recognition and move along folks, nothing to see here. Teke ^(talk) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are in error, unless sockpuppets involve logging out of my Claytonchilds89 account and making an edit with only my public IP showing. In that case, you are correct, I am sockpuppetting. Teke is far more intuitive and intelligent than yourself, he had myself and Clayzer nailed to the wall long before you started calling for an unwarranted and utterly idiotic sockpuppet investigation. You should listen to Teke more often, he appears to understand the online world of idiots better than you, likely through more firsthand experience. You will learn someday. 24.36.77.43 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolls don't indimidate me. An admin will be along to block you soon. Implying that I am an idiot is a nice juicy personal attack. Claiming that you are indeed a sockpuppet and then indeed evading a block will help too. Cheers. Good will overcome evil. Yuser31415 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, don't feed the trolls. Seriously. He admits that I called them out, it should end there. Don't even respond to this post- let the thread die. Teke ^(talk) 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a static IP, blocked for a week for the trolling and personal attacks, block evasion, blah blah blah. Message left on the talk page. Teke ^(talk) 07:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DSB Worldwide spam + vandalism on Meta (spam blacklist request)

24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is one of 6 accounts that have spammed links to domains owned by DSB Worldwide since September 2005.[108] These links have usually gotten reverted. Now the user has taken to vandalizing m:Talk:Spam blacklist using 24.119.101.26 plus a new Meta account, m:User:Spamhatred. Complete details on the spam and different accounts can be found at User talk:24.119.101.26. Meta vandalism diffs:[109][110][111][112][113][114][115] ... then later ... [116][117][118][119]

I don't know if Wikipedia admins can block IPs for Meta-Wiki as well, or if it needs a separate block. I think this is going to go on until a Meta admin blocks both the DSB Worldwide links[120] as well as those of DSB competitor, searchtexoma.[121]

Since this cuts across two projects and involves sockpuppetry, spamming, and vandalism, I wasn't sure where to take this, so I'm bringing it here. I'm not an admin, so there's not much more I can do at this point.

Thanks for your help, --A. B. ^(talk) 06:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Only meta admins can do admin stuff on meta, although there are a few that hang out here. I know User:Essjay and User:Naconkantari are meta admins, you could tell them. (I imagine Naconkantari will know about the problem already if it has to do with the spam blacklist.) Grandmasterka 07:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him on Meta. MaxSem 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

tony dungy

I reviewed your history of Tony Dungy. The piece blatantly referred to him as a "pure bread Negro". This is racism in its most guttural form. Shame on you Wikipedia! 70.153.135.113 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Kay Marsh

Don't worry about it; such edits are normally reverted within a very short space of time by dedicated RC patrollers and article watchers. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been addressed and the article has been semi-protected. Gab.popp 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

JuJube's annoyances

This user (Danny Lilithborne (now JuJube)) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of Street Fighter-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of my "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against JuJube and I'll be very happy. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• About my old username. Well worked under the username [122] and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. Sergeant Gerzi 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more like a personal issue with the user than an 'incident'. Gab.popp 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes but JuJube has to be stopped and that's why I added a commento to the administrators' noticeboard because I have a complaint against this user and he also harasses other users. Please help me out or give me a link where I can describe my problems. Sergeant Gerzi 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can learn how to resolve your disputes at WP:DISPUTE. --Yamla 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sniper

The page "sniper" linked to from royal marines has been removed and replaced with useless banter by a user. I apologise that I am unfortunately not able to replace this page due to a conciderable lack of knowledge, however i would like to report it, as if someone else is able, this page needs reviewing.

It's been fixed. Thanks! By the way, why don't you take five minutes and go here? yandman 10:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page appears to have been reverted 9 minutes after the vandalism occurred.

Could someone please have a chat to User:kostaki1 about vandalism?

[123]Gab.popp 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, while we're here, can anyone link me to a page that explains how to warn users and if the inevitable occurs, block them? I can't seem to find much, and it'd be a lot easier if I do it myself instead of reporting things for every incident. --Dayn 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How to warn users: WP:TT. Where to report users for blocking (if you're capable of blocking without a report, you'll know how): WP:AIV. General information about the vandalism cleanup process (including warnings): WP:CUV, 'What to do if you spot vandalism'. --ais523 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To warn a user, just go to their talk page and warn them. There are templates you can use but you don't have to and I personally raely use them.

If they need to be blocked you need to contact an admin. You should do that at WP:AIV. Note that admins will not usually block a user who hasn't been warned first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you all very much. --Dayn 10:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've reported the vandal at the Vandalism board. The Kinslayer 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Dispute, possible 3RR violation(s)

I'd appreciate it if an admin could take a look over at John McDonnell (politician) and sort out the situation. There seems to be a conflict between an IP user and a registered user over content on the page, i've left a note to the registered user to leave a comment on the page, but so far the talk page so no different from where I left it. Just want to get this dealed with before it becomes more of a problem -- feb^talk 10:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think they violated the 3RR there, but a load of unreferenced material is being pumped into that article. Looks like more of an advert than a wiki article. Gab.popp 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hahahihihoho

I would like a few administrators to look into this case right now, as the User:Alkalada is violating a ban because he is the notorious user:Hahahihihoho. Check the contributions, and block log. He has not changed his ways and is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Alkalada and all Hahahihihoho's socks should be banned, and the user shoudl try to get his main accoutn unbanned in the future if he wishes. —KingIvan 11:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am only putting sourced articles which you without any reason are taking away. I suggest to the modds to block Ivan Kricancic immediatly! Alkalada 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• These two users have been going at it for some time, it went on Elaragirl's talk page for no good reason, and now here. I'd suggest either some DR posthaste, or some strong blocks to both of them. Wikipedia is not a Battleground. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comet McNaught

Already requested semi-protect but this will hopefully get a faster response. Please Semi-Protect this article, it is getting vandalised almost every minute at the moment. Zunaid©® 11:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the faster reponse. I immediately took care of it. Grandmasterka 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

user 24.132.108.178

has left this comment on the discussion page of the article of hrant dink (who has been killed recently):

"Its good that this man is dead. Let it be clear to everyone that whoever insults turkey insults the deep rooted nationalism of turks. SO he went to far, and faced the consequences. I say we have 1 problem less now."

i think the comment is already deleted; but to cheer a murder of a journalist on wikipedia CAN'T be acceptable !

--Severino 12:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumpelstiltskin223

User:Hkelkar was banned for one year by the ArbCom as part of the Hkelar ArbCom case. I believe that Hkelkar is evading his ban using the account User:Rumpelstiltskin223. As I was party to the case, I will not take unilateral action against the user. I would like other admins to look at the evidence I have collected.

• If you look at the user creation log, the account was created on 15 November, around the time when the case was going on. The user started to edit on the same day with the first edit being a revert with the edit summary "rv".
• After some edits here and there, Rumpelstiltskin223 became completely active from 10th December (the day Hkelkar got banned).
• Since then, Rumpelstiltskin223 has made close to 1400 edits in the mainspace. He has already shown the same pro-hindu and anti-muslim bias that hkelkar had and has already been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. [124]
• Most of the articles edited by Rumpel were frequented by Hkelkar too.:
  1. 2002 Gujarat violence - This was Hkelkar's 2nd most edited article. Rumpel has 24 edits to it already. [125]
  2. Dalit Buddhist movement - Another article frequented by Hkelkar, and now frequented by Rumpel.
  3. Dalit - [126]
  4. Islam in India - [127]
  5. Hindutva - [128] (This one edited by Hkelkar in both his avatars - Shiva's trident and Hkelkar)
  6. Lashkar-e-Toiba - [129]
• Though Rumpelstiltskin223 hasn't uploaded many images yet, he shows the same style there too by uploading images from websites having a cc-by-sa license. His last upload is from flickr, from which Hkelkar used to upload a lot of pics. See [130] and [131]
• Also see [132] where it is said that Rumpelstiltskin223 is pursuing a PhD in physics. Hkelkar/Shiva's trident was also pursuing a PhD in physics.

Thus I feel that Rumpelstiltskin223 is no one but Hkelkar using a new name and probably editing from a different geographical location and I seek an indef-block on Rumpelstiltskin223 and a reset on Hkelkar's ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think this user is necessarily editing from a new location? Would a checkuser help? Grandmasterka 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We knew all the IPs that Hkelkar edited from and the college he went too. He is too clever to use an IP from the same town. I have a feeling that a checkuser on Rumpel will not prove (or disprove) anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. does that discount the use of proxies? ITAQALLAH 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkusers will note the use of proxies if they identify them as such at the time. Also, the checkuser was run over winter break, making it possible that Hkelkar was editing from another location but is now back at uni. Asking for a recheck couldn't hurt. Finally, checkuser can be defeated by a number of technical means both simple and complex, so sockpuppetry is always determined primarily by contributions and behavior. Thatcher131 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

IP User:24.47.79.127

I have just noticed that the above user has made a legal threat to RHaworth on his user talk page, could someone look into it? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to relate to a post RHaworth made here. While I agree with Roger's critical assessment of the writing style, it may be that such undiplomatic language invites trouble. None of this is meant to excuse the legal threat of course, which is unacceptable. --Guinnog 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Fire of Smyrna

On RC patrol, I reverted an edit on this page, with the edit summary "Modified previous version to include objective historical research and exclude recent postings by Turkish government agents.", then I got a message:

Instead of flouting your bias why dont you stop supporting Turkish propaganda and let other opinions be heard. What gives you the right to allow the Turkish user Mustafa to post three consecutive edits while deleting my previous additions? Are you aware of the concept of litigation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I ask for help in the matter, is it vandalism, content dispute, or paranoia? _→AzaToth 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for "paranoia", given the comment left me:

Yes thanks for your advise to "discuss" modifications with Wikipedia editors. Strange that most of them are Turkish and paid agents of the Turkish government.

Thanks for your objectivity Wikipedia! This story is bound to generate interest in newspapers in Britain and the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It appears this editor also signed out to duck 3RR [133], after receiving a 3RR warning [134]. Seraphimblade 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of WP:LEGAL there... I'll add the page to my watchlist and leave a note on the editor.--Isotope23 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a legal threat, and looking at his talk page, he seems to be quite the edit warrior. I don't see why he shouldn't be sternly warned. I've been bold and tagged his essay Option on the product of two asset prices for speedy deletion. I think bringing this to AfD would be a waste of everyone's time, and he's already removed someone's prod. yandman 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talk page, I'm watching the article, and I've also speedied that article as an original research essay (or more correctly a math problem) and apparent Neologism.--Isotope23 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Kindi#Article renaming

I'm not sure what the policy/guideline is with regard to renaming discussions on Talk pages, so I thought that I'd asked here.

I made a proposal to change the name of the article to what I take to be the most common form. Anas Salloum (talk · contribs) opposed the change, on the basis in large part of Internet searches. Once I'd demonstrated that Internet search engines present "Al-Kindī" as "Al-Kindi", and so can't be relied upon, another editor – hitherto uninvolved on the Talk page so far as I can tell – suddenly turned up to support Anas. When I checked, I found that Anas has been asking editors to join the discussion. That might not be in itself a bad thing, though there's a strong suspicion that he's been canvassing editors whom he takes to agree with him in such cases.

Is this acceptable in such cases? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no-one seems to know or be intersted, but Anas has said that he was merely approaching people whom he knew to be knowledgeable in Arabic. As that is irrelevant to the discussion, I still don't understand, but I'll assume good faith.

I'd still like to know the answer in principle, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline? Jkelly 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive self-tagging with warnings

King Lopez (talk · contribs) keeps tagging his own talk pages with warning templates, making it look very confusing as to what is real and what is fake. Also has problems with images being used without fair use, and also awards himself barnstars using two sockpuppets Dolphiner (talk · contribs) and Lioner (talk · contribs). Possibly related to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber Lopez. Currently changing various performers infoboxes and adding what appears to be unsubstantiated info, such as height.

--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've removed the confusion, with a request that he tests (if testing is necessary — I don't see why it is) in a sandbox. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User: 82.23.36.174

This user received a final warning for repeated vandalism on November 26, 2006. I noticed new vandalism in January 2007, removed it, reported it on the User's talk page, and am reporting this user now, recommending he/she be banned if possible.NYDCSP 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:AIV for reporting vandalism. Thanks for helping fight vandalism, by the way. yandman 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism from Special:Contributions/66.151.224.254

Continuing to vandalize despite warning. Short term block (so I can at least clean up the latest vandalism)? Nposs 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet?

I think HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

After I reverted some of his edits to Atlantis, HalfOfElement29 accused me of incivility in a rather bizarre thread on User:Dbachmann's talk page (see also User talk:HalfOfElement29). Despite several requests HOE29 hasn't explained why he thinks I've been uncivil, and has accused me of being part of "a deliberate attack campaign" against him.

At the risk of justifying HOE29's feelings of persecution, I looked at his user contribs. In GoodCop's third edit, he adds what could be called an "enemies list" to his user page, naming User:ScienceApologist as the leader of a "religious pseudoscience cult" that includes several editors/admins. In the next edit, he blanks his user page, with the summary "protection from the cultists". These edits occur on 31 May 2006; the account then remains inactive until 2 December 2006, after which it's in regular use. Anyone who puts up a list of allegedly-misbehaving editors on their third edit has probably edited under another account. In this case, I think it's the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop.

This Statement by GoodCop in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience asserts the existence of a "wikiclique" that includes several of the users on HOE29's "enemies list", with ScienceApologist as their leader. The similarity of these two lists is pretty conclusive, in my opinion, but it's also worth noting that several of GoodCop's edits exhibit what could be labeled paranoia--this oppose vote on Saxifrage's RFA, for example (and be sure to look at the discussion that kicks off), and two posts to WP:ANI (here and here). The misguided accusations of incivility in those posts seem similar to HOE29's present accusations of incivility (though at least in his ANI posts GoodCop was specific about what he thought the offenders had done wrong). In addition, GoodCop and HOE29 edit similar articles--they have a common interest in genetics and race, editing Haplogroup and related articles, and both have edited Iraq War.

By the way, if I have been uncivil during this incident, I will certainly apologize; but I would appreciate being told how I have been uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Birdie b23

This user is creating articles on numerous non-notable community colleges. I deleted one, which apparantly makes me an absolute idiot and nosey moron. I'd do something but obviously I'm involved in the dispute. Can someone do something? Here's a diff, anyway: [135] Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

143.254.63.xxx

3 or 4 ip's in the 143.254.63.xxx range have been vandalizing the Marisol Escobar page.--CWY2190^TC 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User:68.45.73.66

He has spammed the Asperger's Syndrome article inserting profanity and derisive comments into the article. Here is the link:

1. 10:34, January 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome
2. 10:30, January 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome

Please delete or block user please... Alex Jackl 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Scatter (Tennis) disruptions

A number of users, at least two of whom are the same person, are playing games with this article, which I nominated for deletion. They are User:Bobfuji, User:Qwerty12321, User:ScatterTennis, and User:69.118.112.119, the latter of whom posted a message on the talk page that was signed by User:Bobfuji, indicating they are the same person and that Bobfuji used the IP to edit while he was blocked. Given the pattern of edits, it seems likely there is sock/meat puppetry going on, but not certain. Can an admin keep an eye on this? Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)