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

Personal attack User:Vintagekits

[1] Also WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Action requested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle etc. All part of a bitter ongoing feud between what Kittybrewster calls "Irish nationalists" and himself regarding articles about Kittybrewster's family. Nick 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions to breach of policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Incivility, sure, but not personal attacks. —Kyриx 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let let me say, I don't think I have ever edited a page remotely connected with Ireland and definitely nothing politically with Ireland. So I have no axe to grind anywhere, and I am far from ani-aristocracy. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster have given each other the same treatment. In fact Vintagekits observations on Kittybrewster's work does now seem to being proved correct. However now, Kittybrewster's edits and insults to other editors concerning their political beliefs are going beyond what can be tolerated, the most recent example is towards the end of this page here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arbuthnot_family - He seems to have a pathological hatred of the Irish and anyone who does not venerate his ancestors in the same way he does. Several have recently been deleted for non-notability after heavy and almost unanimous voting - yet still he cannot se any fault on his part and continues to blame the Irish and bad faith editors. This is plain rubbish.

I think he needs a severe warning regarding the consequences of such comments. He claims all those do no not agree with him and his views are either acting in bad faith or from ulterior political motives. I think he either needs to put his money where his mouth is, apologise or be banned. Giano 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster apparently maintsains a genealogy website and has created articles for many of his ancestors and relatives. This also relates to disagreements about whether simply being in a peerage book because of having a notable ancestor grants inherent notability. Some of the articles nominated in AFD have been deleted, and some have been kept, because in fact the individuals were in the Dictionary of National Biography and other reliable sources. Some have been deleted because they were only cited to such sources as a family history book by his grandmother or some such relative and his own website. None of the articles I have seen were about individuals of no notability whatever. Passions can clearly rise to a high level when it is one's ancestors or relatives up for deletion, which is one reason for avoiding such WP:COI situations by not creating articvles about oneself or one's own relatives. Nonetheless, it should be possible to keep the discourse on an objective level, without hurling accusations of bad faith nominations or impugning the nominator's motivations as rampant nationalism. Edison 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He is now resorting to his usual tactics of reverting warnings from his user page unarchived [2], I expect it will all end in an arb com case, it would be nice though if that could be avoided, but unless his non-notable pages are alowed to remain I don't see how that can be avoided. Giano 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict, but comment posted anyway> Note that User:Kittybrewster has just blanked his user page to remove a final warning which I issued about Kittybrewster's latest personal attack. KB has also blanked his archive pages, to make it more difficult to find locate his previous warnings on this and other subjects, including as a previous final warning about personal attacks of a similar nature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave them blanked (no use getting all hyped up reverting the blankings). The warnings still exist in talk page history. —Kyриx 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True! I'm certainly not getting into a revert war. It's just a pity that it's a little more difficult for other editors and admins to spot the history of previous warnings. There is a risk that editors may miss previous warnings, and issue a level-1 warning when a final notice has already been given. In those circumstances, is it appropriate to block anyway? In the case of KB, I would have to declare too much of an involvement to implement a block, so I'm asking the question as a general policy issue which would be relevant to other admins monitoring this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanked warnings remain valid as long as they were issued recently. Blocks may be and have been applied in a future incident based on recently blanked warnings. —Kyриx 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I notice that nobody has informed User:Vintagekits about this accusation here. It would have been the decent thing to do to inform them that they're today's 'feature' here. Notified ... - Alison ☺ 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think most people can see that since this discussion instigated by BrowHairedGirl 10 days ago that I have backed off these issues and also I have not !voted in any of the numerous AfD's on members of the "Arthbutnot family" despite the fact that those who are seen by some to be on the "other side" have continued. My issue earlier was to highlight the "lockstep voting" and AfD abuse of a small cabal - I am sure I did this is an overly aggresive way but that was because I had witnessed months of this. Any I have stopped !voting on the AfD's for now as I hoped both sides would have backed off and allowed the rest of the community to make there own minds up on these articles. Sorry that was a bit rambling but I hope you got my point.--Vintagekits 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) 33 minutes after writing the above. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest from User:Kittybrewster is this edit, altering other users' comments on my talk page. Minor, but out of order, and he's been warned about that before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to put on record that I am very unhappy with the research of all the Arbuthnot pages and their sources. Yes those people existed, but whether they existed in the form portrayed on Wikipedia I am less sure - something is not adding up - probably nothing more that assumptions being made from poor 18th and 19th century records as to birth places, by modern day Arbuthnots anxious for some ancestors and credence - but frankly none of it is up to Wikipedia standards -it all seems to be assumption bases on supposition - and I think these pages need to be viewed with extreme caution unless they have been heavily edited by established and trusted editors Giano 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should be looking for sources yourself, to see what additional ones exist. In looking for sources about Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) (AfD discussion) I came across several 20th century sources that discussed Alexander John Arbuthnot. I see that no-one has added any such sources to that article. This rather implies that despite the expressed unhappiness, no-one has actually done anything about it. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Alexander John Arbuthnot is a completely different person to Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), and no-one's proposing him for deletion - he's clearly N as a colonial governor. I don't think anyone's saying all the Arbuthnots should be deleted - the problem is that User:Kittybrewster is adding every member of his family whether or not they meet WP:BIO, and accusing anyone who questions this as being part of "the Irish Republican cabal" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You are the first person to mention deletion of that article here. Please go back and re-read what Giano II and I wrote to see what we were actually discussing. Uncle G 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to second Giano above; while I do generally try to keep anything nominated for deletion that's salvageable, Kittybrewster's articles generally seem to be sourced from a single family history, and from websites mirroring that family history giving the illusion of multiple sources when none exist. Whilst some of the Arbuthnot articles are of notable individuals which can be expanded, a lot more are of extremely minor figures (see the lengthy discussion here which I don't propose to rehash), and, as Giano points out, that family history does appear to make some dubious claims, throwing it into doubt as a source. As someone who's never made a single contribution to any article on Irish politics - and, as far as I can remember, no Irish article at all other than some minor formatting standardisation of the articles on Northern Irish railway stations - I have no political axe to grind at all, but I think that, since Kittybrewster is ignoring all warnings and attempts at discussion of the matter, this is going to continue to escalate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are really two separate issues here. One is the conflict between Kittybrewster and Vintagekits. The other is the quality and quantity of Arbuthnot biographies. We have adequate resolution mechanisms to handle each issue, but it becomes more difficult when they are combined. It would greatly help matters if Kittybrewster would stop engaging with Vintagekits on Irish Republican topics and if Vintagekits would likewise avoid everything to do with Arbuthnots. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

...and if Kittybrewster would avoid anything to do with Arbuthnots as well (due to clear WP:COI problems). Fram 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with Kittybrewster's edits and pages is going to have to be properly addressed sooner rather than later. Several pages have recently been deleted, this page here [3] gives a flavour of the problem. Kittybrewster takes a relation of his who did in fact exist - he then enhances their notability - as in the page cited an army officer is exaggerated in rank to give further credence to the glory of the Arbuthnots - most of the references of the Arbuthnot pages are written by family members who also fail to cite their sources. Family houses are exaggerated to castles and so on, and estates in Northamptonshire are placed in Essex and Ireland at whim with no checking for accuracy. All the pages have (probably a grain of truth) but it is where truth ends and fact begins that is the problem. I'm not sure what the answer is but the present Arbuthnot pages (there are many of them) are all in the same vein and have the potential to make the project look ridiculous. He needs to be firmmly warned or preferably banned, and I do mean banned not blocked. Giano 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to respond to this edit by User:Vintagekits, in which he writes, "More Arbuthnot lies!"

In my opinion this is one of those issues that comes up when a Wikipedia editor is also a source. It is not generally permissible for an editor to call another editor a liar. However it is permissible for an editor to call the author of a source a liar. In this instance "user:Kittybrewster" is not being addressed but rather the author "William Arbuthnot". So long as the distinction is maintained it is permissible. An author can't expect to be exempt from criticism of his reference material just because he is a Wikipedia editor. That said, I again call upon Vintagekits and Kittybrewster to disengage from this unhelpful dispute. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vk didn't directly call anyone a liar, but he is sailing close to the WP:BLP wind, nevertheless. Tyrenius 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are too issues here and Vintagekits calling Kittybrewster a liar is secondary to Kittybrewster adding 60 odd pages of unverifiable rubbish to Wikipedia and no one lifting a finger to stop him. Giano 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this Arbuthnot stuff is out of hand. Wikipedia is not a family tree. Krimpet (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the present block of Vintagekits going to solve the problem - the block is outrageous, that an editor can add God knows how many pages of uncited rubbish drivel and trivia to Wikipedia, refuse to acknowledge flaws in facts until they are almost rammed down his throat is ridiculous. Where were you when Kittybrewster and his friends were inferring Vintagekits was a member of terrorist organizations etc? I think Mr D'Arcy should apologise to Vintagekits and unblock immediately. Giano 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• So it seems Kittybrewster can email an admin [4] and have instant gratification. Shame the same rule does not apply to Vintagekits. Giano 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked MrDarcy to participate in this discussion. He may not have been aware of it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Mr Darcy has in the past blocked Kittybrewster ([5]) and we should assume good faith here. --kingboyk 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disgraceful block. Not well considered at all. Kittybrewster is violating WP:COI (editing articles about family members anyone?) and "enhancing their notability" (hmm.. sounds like the word that got Kittybrewster to email an admin to block Vintagekits, there, doesn't it?) and slandering Vintagekits left and right, and yet Vintagekits is the one blocked? I'll say it again, absolutely disgraceful block. SirFozzie 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and campaigns against an editor on political grounds are rather worse than COI breaches, imho. The first is totally unacceptable behaviour, the second an editorial issue that can be dealt with through the usual channels. That said, Kittybrewster would probably be well advised to focus his considerable energies on articles not about his family. --kingboyk 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Campaigns against an editor on political grounds"? I see a campaign against the writing of bad articles by an editor, not against his (Kittybrewster's) political ideas. Or am I missing something? A "campaign" against a pattern of bad articles may be absolutely justified. Sometimes it does take a lot of shouting for a long time until the community reacts and rectifies such a pattern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually got arownd to unblocking Vintagekits yet? Giano 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked. MrDarcy says he is on wikibreak (although that banner has been there since March). The blocking itself should be warning enough to Vintagekits to mind our policies. There are widespread concerns about the Arbuthnot articles, given the paucity of verifiable information in them. I would not call them "lies" but they have a strong smell of unfiltered family history. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be better if Kittybrewster was blocked fo calling Vintagekits's a terorist sympathiser and member of a paramilitary organization becuase he happens to write pages concerned with the IRA - Mr Darcy had better come here and explain himself. Giano 12:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't unblock without a discussion with the blocking admin. This was a blatant and very personal attack against Kittybrewster, one in a long series of attacks by Vintagekits against Kittybrewster (and part of a larger conflict between the two editors). I will be re-blocking, since the unblock seems to have been based on the assumption that I was on wikibreak, and the block was fully justified by VK's prior behavior towards Kittybrewster. It seems to me that many of you are confusing the issue of Kittybrewster's edits (which may be worthy of action) with Vintagekits' reactions to those edits (completely out of line and incompatible with the environment of civility we try to maintain here). Frankly, I think a long-term block of Vintagekits is in order, since he has been blocked three times for personal attacks, and yet continues to issue them. | Mr. Darcy talk 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And just let me reiterate that all of you who are arguing that the block was unjustified should take five freaking seconds to look at the history. Vintagekits has been blocked three times for this behavior previously, and warned additional times, yet he persists. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits has a problematic edit history, but I must agree with ALoan that a block is simply not helping matters at this point. I would strongly urge formal dispute resolution at this point–an RfC if there hasn't been one yet; arbitration if there has. I'm prepared to unblock VK on the understanding that he will participate in good faith in such an activity. While I understand Mr Darcy's frustration with the situation a block will not unravel the notable problems with IRA-related articles and the Arbuthnot family articles. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the block will not solve the problems with those two sets of articles, but I also feel that allowing a user who has exhibited both a clear pattern of strong incivility and a complete unwillingness to moderate his language or even admit that his language is problematic to continue to edit here unfettered is a bad idea. Vintagekits has an agenda against Kittybrewster that goes beyond a content dispute; if that's all this was, I wouldn't have considered a block. I won't re-block if VK is unblocked, but I think that folks here are reacting to the current incident rather than considering the long history of inappropriate behavior by VK. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous blocks have no bearing on this block. Further, unblocking seems to have strong support; not gaining input from MrDarcy notwithstanding (and given that there is a wikibreak notice on MrDarcy's talk page, understandable); reblocking would be wheel warring, which I sincerely hope this will not turn into. There is a discussion now; discuss, do not simply wheel war. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I find MrDarcy has already re-blocked, the reason given that unblock was out of process. I ask MrDarcy to explain this re-block. I have not seen convincing evidence that Vintagekits has even committed attacks or incivilities sufficient to earn a block; I have indeed taken "five freaking seconds" and even more, to look at the histories; and I see MrDarcy failing to do due diligence and wheel warring to block an editor on the prompting of an email from an editor with whom the blocked editor was in dispute; with virtually all parties agreeing the emailing editor was very much in the wrong from the editing point of view; and with incivilities on both sides. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Vintagekits with the hope that all sides will move towards formal dispute resolution and refrain from baiting each other too much. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support the unblock, especially as MrDarcy has stated he has no intention of discussing why he reblocked[6] and has also stated, above, he will not continue to wheel war. I share Mackensen's hope this situation will now move to a more calm dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I never said any such thing. I already explained why I re-blocked, and further justified the original block. There is nothing left to discuss because I have already explained myself fully. I'll thank you not to speak for me. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I have not spoken "for" you, you are in error. When I requested you discuss the reblock, you stated on your talk page "There's nothing left to discuss. What I did was right, and it's being undone by users who don't have the full history and don't seem to want to take the time to learn it. " as linked above. Further up in this discussion, you stated "I won't re-block if VK is unblocked" which is a clear statement that you do not intend to wheel war, which is laudable. Where do you feel I misrepresented anything you have yourself stated? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• me too. Support unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support unblock for the reasons given above. I trust User:Vintagekits will ease up just a bit in the future so as not to waste everyone's time on matters like this? Frankly, same with Vintagekits' "adversaries" here. ... Kenosis 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• I too support the unblock, although I would endorse the use of moderate language on all sides. I am also saddened that according to User talk:MrDarcy, he is considering retiring from Wikipedia, presumably as a result of this fuss; that isn't a desirable outcome either. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing comment regarding a solution to this problem has now moved further down the page to here [7] Giano 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey, again

Despite allegedly being on "wikibreak", user Jeff Merkey continues to be disruptive. See this diff, where he vandalizes a talk page based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry against other users. *Dan T.* 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Jeff attempted to revert User:RhodiumMiner who was shuffling other peoples comments around the page. Given the name and edit history there isn't much doubt this is a single purpose trolling account. I'm reverting RhodiumMiner's edits and blocking him. --Duk 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user was copying the comments. The comments stayed in their original locations, and a copy was placed in the Straw Poll, and only where they were germane to the poll. There were plenty of other comments that were against the removal of all the tribes, but did not specifically answer the poll, and they weren't copied. The first one copied supported Jeff's case, so it can hardly be seen to be trolling (apparent trollish username aside). The comments that were clogging up the poll were then moved to the bottom of the poll, and they were labelled where they came from. A note at the bottom explaining exactly what had been done was included.

Pretty useful all around, it was certainly much easier to see what was going on. If an individual user had a problem with their comments being copied, then that would be fair enough, and they could pull them out.

It doesn't take much to see that Jeff's wholesale removals aren't popular, and his arguments regarding WP:V are not convincing. His complete dismissal of the validity of anthropoligical evidence and insistance on a single criteria makes it difficult for any consensus with him.

The sensible approach would be to admit his valid point regarding federal recognition, and note those that have it, and include the other tribes where there is other sufficient evidence. SeparateReality 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is another sockpuppet of vigilant -- the name is from personal attacks "Merkey lives in a separate reality" used by vigilant on SCOX -- another single purpose troll account. These people have access to botnets so checkuser may not reveal much. Their editing patterns give them away. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seemed from looking at the diff that Merkey was deleting several users' comments, and made the edit summary "Remove edits of banned user Vigilant", implying that he was being judge, jury, and executioner on an alleged sockpuppet (without actually going through proper channels of requesting a checkuser). *Dan T.* 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the removal was unintentional. The RhodiumMiner name comes from the SCOX message board. --Duk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And your proof is???... I see nothing disruptive in the editing and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak and admins are around to support him. Jeff has no idea who the editor is and neither do you without a usercheck. --Jerry (Talk) 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't needed for a single purpose trolling account with an inflammatory name that is brought in from an off-site conflict. I note that you are active on the SCOX message board so you should understand how this account name is inflammatory - and yet here you are saying that you see nothing disruptive by that particular username tinkering with a conflict that Jeff is engaged in? Jerryg, you might want to think about this. The only problem I see here is identifying the account as a specific sockpuppet, I'll remove that note. But the block is perfectly acceptable.

...and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak' Jeff may edit whenever he wants. He's not blocked or banned. Do you know what a wikibreak is Jerryg? It's when an editor takes a break and puts a wikibreak note up to let people know that they might take a while to respond to any notes left for them. --Duk 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I post on Yahoo! SCOX board. I post on a lot of boards. Jeff posts on a lot of boards, including SCOX, LKML and Wikireview. Jeff tends to make the assumption that *anyone* who disagrees with him is a troll and somehow connected with the SCOX board. Whatever you and Jeff have read while perusing that board means nothing, really. You *really* don't know where and who made the edits. If the name wasn't what it was, would the edits have been disruptive? Jeff's claims of owning a Rhodium Mine are fairly well known within a fairly large group of people, a large number of which have nothing to do with Yahoo! SCOX. In the end, of course, wikipedia admins will have the last say. I hope, for all involved, we don't go down the same path we went down the last time Jeff was here. I've had my say and am done with this --Jerry (Talk) 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not RhodiumMiner is a sockpuppet is one question, but it's not just him/her/it that Mr Merkey has been busily labelling. My account got a "sockpuppet" tag (I'm a sock of "Talks_to_birds", apparently). It's not the first time Mr Merkey has labelled me as such, my initial questions regarding his tagging everyone as trolls were instantaneously reverted out of his talk page. here and here. I have since explained my motivations (on Talk:Cherokee) in direct response to a question from Mr Merkey, but he still labels me as a sockpuppet. It would be nice if there was a reason for this other than "Mr Merkey thinks so".Teseaside 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is a single purpose troll account. The edit history speaks for itself. Also, talks_to_birds, based upon his claims to be the proprieter of finchhaven and his public statements on Wikipedia he lives on Vason Island in Washington, "next to T(h)e sea side". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Teseaside (talk · contribs) has emailed me in private using his ISP-based email address and I can tell you from the headers that his claims of residing in France are indeed true. I think you're jumping to conclusions with this one. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of these folks intent

I am going to take a moment to explain these folks from SCOX and their behavior. They have only one intention, and that's to "ambush" me here at Wikipedia and make life so miserable that 1) I leave or 2) I flip out to te point I get blocked. All one need do is review their posts at SCOX (thousands upon thousands) to realize these people are stalking. Their motiviations are blackmail, jealousy, and tortious interference. Several of them have sent letters, called me on the phone, posted demands in online forums, etc. demanding money or jobs or some other garbage to stop their stalking conduct. These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. The most recent incident occurred two weeks ago when one of the more phychotic of the lot sent letters to the attorneys handling the lawsuit over Natural Selection Foods and the E Coli poisoning of my 2 year old son libelling me. This psycho then sent a letter to Randall Spencer demanding money from me or they would keep sending out hate mail. Most of these folks smell the money and that's what they are after. The rest of them appear to be bent on just destroying any enterprise I try to start. They send letters and anonymous emails to business partners, associates, customers, etc. Bottom line, its jealousy, greed, and hate directed at someone who succeeds as opposed to a bunch of has beens, fired employees, and jilted business associates from the Linux movement who tried to stick their hands in my pockets to take money out and got sent on their way. Hope this gives folks an idea. You cannot reason with them, you cannot teach them, most of them are over 40, you can only block them. Don't waste your time with them. Were I am admin here, they would not dare set foot on this site for the purpose of this conduct -- they know I would block them on sight. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. Really? Then why did you say at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/501632 "The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over as possible to another open source operating system project which is sponsored at www.gadugi.org. This project is hosted by the Cherokee Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws. This project is merging the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing the operating system. The site is operational and the full code repository will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation Public License is published in January." Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it's a good thing you're not an admin then... it's never a good idea for somebody with a personal involvement in a conflict to be exercising admin powers over people in it... that's too much of a conflict of interest. Can you actually prove such assertions as that people are demanding money from you to stop hassling you? I seem to recall that you made such assertions in the course of some of your legal cases, and never did back them up then either. *Dan T.* 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's ok. As for your other question, yes, Randall Spencer has copies of two letters, one sent to Mordeci, the firm representing Natural Selections Foods, and another letter from this person sent to him, and he represents my son (not me). This person also called Randall Spencer on the phone. My wife and I are no longer involved in the case since its about our son. The first letter was a smearing attack on me and offer to "help" nsfoods "defeat" "my evil claims" about my baby boy being hospitalized for a month, nearly dying, and my wife in a state that is indescribable. The second letter demanded money from me for this person stopping "use of free speech" to continue these attacks. He then followed it up with a phone call the Randall Spencer making more forceful demands for money. All of this was reported to me about a week after it happened -- I did not witness it directly. My son has some permanent health issues from all this. For an individual, group, or community like SCOX to do such a thing over issues with an innocent 2 year old just to demand money from me is beyond evil. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who are interested in seeing what type of a person Merkey is, and what degree of credibility any claims of his should be given, should read his complaint in a past lawsuit, where he goes on and on about how the open source community is supporting Al Qaida and other terrorism (while also noting that he tried, and failed, to launch an open source project himself), and makes bizarre accusations of conspiracies to murder him (apparently one such case actually consisted of somebody saying in an online forum that Merkey should be put in an e-mail killfile, which he interpreted as a "list of people to be killed" physically). Thus, nobody should put the slightest scintilla of credibility in any assertion this guy makes. *Dan T.* 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan T. your last edit to this section doesn't belong here. Do you understand why that is? --Duk 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it might be seen as a personal attack... though it's only a link to his own legal filing, not anybody's attack on it. *Dan T.* 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The reason it doesn't belong here is that it's unrelated crap that you are dredging up to run down another editor. It doesn't have anything to do with the post that started this section. --Duk 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If Merkey can bring in stuff from other places, forums, and situations to justify his own attacks on other editors, why is it wrong when I do it? Are you going to give Merkey a warning for his "Explanation of these folks intent" section? *Dan T.* 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Merkey isn't stalking people who are honestly trying to do work here, it's the other way around. He's defending himself. He didn't open this door. And most of the stuff Merkey brings up is relevant to the stalking. Dan, I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out. --Duk 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)--Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Merkey is accusing ANYONE who disagrees with him of trolling, sock puppetry. It is irrelevant if the corrections are true or not they are removed. It is irrelevant is one has proof of sock puppetry, it is irrelevant that no check user has been done, Merkey is right. Sorry, this premise is unacceptable. According to a sitting judge, "Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality."

[8] This is from a court document. A judge said this in an open court room. Merkey has been banned before for behavior similar to this. I fail to understand why now that he begins again EXACTLY as before, why it is NOW acceptable. --Kebron 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That document is a preliminary ruling in a case that was settled and never went to trial and that happened 11 years ago. Its also the work of a Judge who was removed from the case by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for conducting secret meetings with Novell and its attorneys. It was also written by attorneys at parsons, behle, and latimer and not the court (hence his removal). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kebron, Merkey was reverting a single purpose trolling account that was shuffling talk page comments around. What does some unrelated lawsuit have to do with that? Your last post doesn't belong here either, Kebron. I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out.--Duk 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, why is HE allowed to accuse everyone and puppetry and of trolling without proof. --Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kebron, are you honestly disputing that RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose trolling account? --Duk 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet I was accused, where is the proof? DTobias was accused... once again... where is proof? I stepped away... watching the madness continue and it just gets worse and worse. It would not surprise me if HE would be doing it himself... has someone actually done a checkuser... on ANY account? --Kebron 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, Kebron. This section is about RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's also now about your trolling. Tell me, Kebron, what does some court document from more than a decade ago have to do with Jeff reverting a blatant troll.--Duk 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the people demanding that checkuser be run are often people who know how to circumvent it. --Duk 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... I agree... he is one troll.... but has anyone checked THE IP address of said troll, against the others or against Merkey. Court documents also give a personality of the person concerned. Merkey has been banned before as well. This has no relation at on on him? My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. It was irrelevant if my edits were correct or not. I gave up. I stopped. Now... DTobias is the next. As an admin could you do a checkuser on all the users concerned please? What are the results?--Kebron 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have check user authority, but you can request one at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. ... Well, you've been following him around on this website for a year and a half. --Duk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Best method to ascertain who is who is to use ocams razor. Accounts which are dormant for months then all of sudden become active again simply to follow me from article to article and revert, argue, straw poll, etc. are single purpose accounts here to harrass. Kebron is one of these. You can simply review their utter lack of useful contributions. As I stated previously, trying to reason with these people is pointless. If you block them they just come back with a plaethera of sockpuppets. They also have insiders in the Community to act the same way they do. If they appear to be stalking, they they probably are. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of my taking the time here is for the benefit of the admin community. I mean, just look at it! Jeff reverts a simple troll and it brings down a hailstorm of indignant chest thumping that goes on and on and on -- by a never ending stream of sister trolls! Utterly amazing. --Duk 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was acting like Merkey, I could accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Merkey. But, I won't... Now, comments from Merkey like : "...I will remove any content about them placed into this article under WP:V. They are not indians, they are not Cherokee, and they make false claims they are Federally recognized. They may have their own article titled "Southern Cherokee Wannabees" or "Southern Cherokee Fake Tribe who claim they are Federally Recognized are are not" or some other title that drops the Federal BIA desgination "Nation" as unverified. Wikiality does not work with unverified materials. Sorry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" [9] A debate the continues in the "real" world. It is not resolved in the "real" world. Yet... in comes Mr Merkey stating THIS is the authority, end of story. Unacceptable. Like I said before, I have had it. Y'all decide what you want. I am done. I have said my piece. Wikipedia and Merkey. A match made in purgatory. Enjoy each other. --Kebron 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Merkey reverting a simple troll. Did you miss that part, Kebron? -- Duk 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more think Kebron. This is at least the second time you've promised to be done with Merkey. here is you previous promise. Please try to be as good as your word this time. --Duk

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll in the manner that the User:RhodiumMiner etc are, or even the manner that I supposedly am (i.e. someone who watches this mess with interest and therefore is subject to the wrath of Jeff from time to time) . You have to seperate the very few people here (maybe just one) solely for the purpose of taunting Merkey, such as User:RhodiumMiner or User:SeperateReality, with people who are genuinely worried about some of his more pisspoor and self-aggrandising edits[10], his agenda-pushing, ignoring of consensus[11], his habitual assumptions of bad faith[12], his ridiculous accusations of vandalism[13], trolling and even spambotting[14] and use of bizarre legal sort-of-threats[15] to get his way. Jeff is just one big ball of Wikipedia disruption, even if you do disregard the actions of the one or two bona fide trolls deliberately goading Jeff (Jeff's vanity does make that an endlessly entertaining sport, alas). Kebron is a good faith editor who just happens to be embroiled in this saga. --Aim Here 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll... Hmmm ... Jeff properly reverts a troll; Kebron responds with seething personal attacks and - you just can't make this stuff up - dredging up old court documents from some lawsuit. And you guys think Jeff is a little odd? As for the rest of your post, there are some grains of truth there, rolled up in trolling, personal attacks and intentional disruption. --Duk 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, since someone suggested a CheckUser, RhodiumMiner = SeparateReality = ThreeVryl, which was pretty obvious already. Dmcdevit·t 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the others? Merkey seems to be happily throwing accusations of "botting", "sockpuppeting" and "trolling" all over the place with blatant disregard for WP policy, and nobody is picking him up on this. His latest set of accusations are over on the Mountain_Meadows_Massacre page where he appears to be trying to get the mormons all riled up. Honestly, the biggest troll of the lot is none other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

Mountain Meadows massacre

Mountain Meadows massacre is again facing protection because Merkey is perpetuating an edit war there, re-adding disputed edits almost immediately after the article was un-protected yesterday, and labeling the subsequent reverts as vandalism. He is also attacking editors (mostly via edit summary) who dispute his edits. I can provide diffs if requested. I personally feel that his behavior is disruptive, and I invite admins here to take a look and judge for themselves. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of editors failing to observe WP:OWN on that article. They roost on it and revert edits with a remote spambot based at BYU. Anyone who edits the article gets accussed of being an anti-mormon (they are all LDS church members) and accussed of disruption. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These are extraordinary claims. (A remote spambot based at BYU???) They should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support them; else they are simply baseless attacks. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I live 20 minutes from BYU. How many times have you been in the LDS Church data center? I've been there several times. I sold tons of equipment into there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-sequitur translates to "I have no evidence". alanyst ^/talk/ 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit history on the article is the evidence. Rotating IP addresses accross wide IP ranges and proxy servers with the same statement "remove anti-mormon POV" at regular time intervals, like a timer is going off. Excuse me, but I know LDS culture and the term "anti-mormon" is a vulgar stereotype and inappropriate personal attack. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which diffs in the history? What is the regular time interval? Which proxy servers are involved? I see no edits like the ones you describe, so I need your help in identifying them. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

alan, lets move on to discuss the content. The article should remain semi-protected IMHO. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I see no reason to pursue this further on this page, for my part. If you are not going to acknowledge that your attacks were unfounded and apologize for them, then I leave this conversation for others to judge and take action, if any is warranted. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan, Here are some diffs for you.

• 07:06, 21 May 2007 207.179.28.20 (Talk) (42,254 bytes) (rv anti-mormon POV changes. Please discuss these changes on the talk page before making them again)
• 06:37, 21 May 2007 65.54.155.43 (Talk) (42,254 bytes) (enough "anti" POV -- revert to earlier version on 20th May. Take all future changes to the talk page.)

Two accusations of "anti-mormon" edits. How about "pro-truth" and "pro-WP:V" instead. At 30 minutes appart no less. I believe a person posted them, after getting alerts from a monitoring system (like the ones we build). The IP Addresses of one of these comes from a known spam proxy in CO that appears to edit predominantly LDS Church articles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are "Pro Mormon", they do not back up your wild accusations of coming from BYU, or being remote spambots. 65.54.155.43 is located in Ocala, Florida, and 207.179.28.20 is owned by Virtela Communications, Inc, and may well be located in Colorado. Neither are at BYU.

Now, as to whether they are spambots or not, I would suspect they are, in fact, merely people who disagreed with your somewhat radical edits. The diffs, which I note you didn't link to, support this hypothesis. [16] and [17]. These edits merely form part of an ongoing edit war, the combatants in which seem to be you vs everyone else. Again, what we see is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey not getting his way and flinging mud at all who stand in his way. If you think someone is a troll or a sockpuppet, report it. If you think an IP address is a spambot, report it. There are procedures for this. You're not making any friends here with your current behaviour. But you knew that.

Diyarbakır - Capital of Kurdistan

There is a revert war going on on Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several parties are insisting on putting in material which third parties identified as propaganda from non-verifiable sources. -- Cat ^chi? 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution or WP:3RR.--Doc^g 13:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I decline to revert war to the point of warranting a 3rr intervention. Such disruption (revert wars) should be discouraged.

I strongly believe a dispute resolution would be fruitless since all past discussion attempts were utterly ignored. A notable example is this mediation case. I am observing Image:Consensus new and old.svg and people reverting are not.

In addition, I feel this is a clear WP:NOT#SOAPBOX/WP:V/WP:AWT violation not warranting dispute resolution.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "rv: these edits go a long way beyond what has been discussed, which implies bad faith"
• sysop only protection - "undiscussed, controversial editing"

Garzo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reverted the article to his version and protected it. Garzo is using his admin tools to take advantage in the discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Just to put a few diffs in here to flesh this out for Cool Cat. I don't want to wade into the Kurdistan issue, but Admin's using tools when involved is a pretty bad idea, and Garzo was involved more then it appears from a revert and protect as shown above.

• Revert back to 'capital' version [18]
• 2 hours later, revert again to capital version [19]
• Day later, revert to same information as last time [20]
• Protection a minute later [21]

All seems inappropriate to me. -M^ask? 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like it unprotected. -- Cat ^chi? 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon this (no notification was received). User:Makalp made what I belive is an ethnically biased edit to the article. I reverted the edit and directed the user to read the article's discussion page, which had previously discussed this issue. User:Cool Cat re-reverted and threw the alphabet at me ("rv, as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:V, and WP:AWT"). I have demonstrated that the wording is not soapboxing, unverifiable or weasely on the article's discussion page. I locked the article to prevent an edit war, and to encourage the parties to discuss their edits first. I am accused of locking The Wrong Version. I locked the old version of the page that had been agreed in the previous discussion. The version I locked is not 'mine', but the version that existed before Makalp's edit. I have opened a line of compromise on the talk page, but have been met with stonewalling. Having been an admin since October 2005, I have occaisionally come across Cool Cat. The user has a demonstrable history of edit warring on issues of ethnicity and of not working well with other users. My experience tells me that I was not wrong to lock the article and insist on dialogue. — Gareth Hughes 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree with AKMask. Whether or not the old version you reverted to was "yours" or not, by actively defending it and reverting to it several times you made yourself a party in the dispute. This doesn't look too good. I think I'll unprotect just so that normal editing can resume. That said, I too would clearly prefer a version that mentions the "capital" appellation at least somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Pattern of Behavior by AKliman

The same editor, Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) - who just a few days ago demanded that another editor place $10,000 in an escrow account as a precondition for him re-filing a request for mediation (which was discussed in this forum) - has continued his pattern of disruptive behavior. More recently, he deleted the RFCs posted on RFC/ECON posted by another editor. He did this to 3 different RFCs, one of them twice. RFCs are an important part of the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia and their deletion was a very serious offense as it was an attack on the entire Wikipedia community. The same editor then altered the content of WP:SHUN so that it now allows for the questioning of "disruptive" editors in an effort to get those editors to "reveal" their "motives" and as a "behavior modification technique"! The same editor then used that changed guideline on the TSSI talk page as a rationalization to ask aggressive and disruptive questions and thereby harass WP:HARASS another editor. Watchdog07 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) suggested writing a 'user conduct RFC'. What's the point? He has already repeatedly deleted RFCs which I have authored and no administrator has done anything about that. Why should I - or any Wikipedian - continue to author RFCs if other editors can simply delete them? If no action is taken against Andrew Kliman then you will be sending a message to Wikipedians that the RFC process no longer means anything. If that's the case, why have it as a part of the dispute resolution process? Watchdog07 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, long story short, Andrew Kliman did not "demand" any money. I discussed this with him and I will attest to this in detail if necessary, but it's a dead horse now so let's stop beating it if we could, please. On the current matter, User:Akliman is not an admin so he can't "delete" anything. What exactly do you mean? Did he blank RFC requests somewhere? If you could provide diffs that would be a big help. It's very difficult to follow up on your statement without diffs. Finally, his edits to WP:SHUN were allowed; in general, anyone may modify a Wikipedia page according to editorial discretion. Other users disagreed with him and reverted his changes.[22] [23] No big deal. Separate from that is any questioning, itself. If you feel that Akliman was disruptive in questioning you or other editors, diffs would help. ··coelacan 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, he did demand that money be placed in an escrow account of his attorney as a pre-condition for his re-filing a RFM. I have read all of what transpired. Have you? In blanking the offensive paragraph, this is what he wrote: "blanked para because I was compelled to, under threat of being blocked". He was referring to what you allegedly had written when he wrote "compelled" and "threat". I, of course, did not view what wrote as a "threat". You can call it a "dead horse" if you want to - I will continue to cite it as evidence of a pattern of disruption and bad faith. Next, the editing of WP:SHUN was also part of that pattern of disruption as the other editors of the essay clearly saw. Lastly, as I wrote previously, he blanked three different RFCs which I sent (one he blanked twice) to the RFC/ECON page. It's all there in the history of that page. Watchdog07 11:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have checked on his latest messages before replying: there is yet another example of disruption by Andrew Kliman: he demanded that Giano II Giano_II (talk · contribs), who may or may not also go by the user name of Bishonen Bishonen (talk · contribs), blank a part of his user talk page and implied that if he didn't do so Kliman has a right to blank, i.e. vandalize, a section of his talk page. Watchdog07 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano and Bishonen, a pair of socks? Snort. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While I have been patiently awaiting responses from others, Andrew Kliman's harassment and disruptive behavior continues: he actually had the audacity to remove the 'neutrality disputed' tage from the TSSI article. When are you going to do something to stop his abuse of Wikipedia? Watchdog07 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the level of misrepresentation or abuse present in a message, blanking it from someone else's talk page is not inherently vandalism. Again, for pretty much everything you want admins to look at, you need to provide diffs. It is not obvious to me which edits to which pages you are talking about, without diffs. As to the "demand" you claim happened, it was not a demand. Kliman said he was not interested in taking the time to file another request for mediation if you were going to back out of it again, and he wanted to be assured that you wouldn't do that. He completely left open the option for you to file the request for mediation instead. A "demand" that leaves a person completely free to pursue another option entirely, or no option at all, is simply not a demand under most people's understanding of the word. I suggest you drop this one, because it doesn't imply what you seem to think it implies: disruption. Kliman removed this language entirely when I pointed out that per WP:NLT, we prefer that there be no mention of lawyers 'round these parts. Quick compliance with reasonable request = no disruption. For your other complaints, please provide diffs. ··coelacan 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone awake on this board? Andrew Kliman - yes, him again! - continues his abuse of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. New references include his comments on his own user talk page and the comments he made on the talk pages of Giano II and Bishonen. Then, there's the TSSI article which he reverted once again. He claims that he can revert the article as many times as he wants to and not violate the 3RR rule. The reason he gives is that the article supposedly violates WP:BLP and he has the right to unilaterally blank out anything he thinks is in violation of that rule. What he claims to be in violation of BLP is the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" which he himself introduced into the article and properly sourced! Then, he has the audacity to claim that "New Orthodox Marxists" is the "N-word equivalent" (yes, you read that right) - despite the fact that he introduced what he now calls the "N-word equivalent" into the article to begin with! While he was reverting the TSSI page he also (repeatedly) took out all of the tags, including the NEUTRALITY tag, and removed links without justification. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP HIS ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA? Watchdog07 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you tried to sound less like a pundit, maybe someone would pay attention. JuJube 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be about whether proponents of the Temporal single-system interpretation of Marxism can/should be described as "New Orthodox Marxists" (whatever that means) or not.

I do not care two figs (one fig) for the argument - I am slightly surprise that people bother arguing about it today; whatever - but the article's recent edit history is just plain shocking. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not feeling very good about Wikipedia today. Your inactivity is disheartening to say the least. I have invested a lot of time and effort in Wikipedia - and have edited far more articles than Andrew Kliman and his 3 meatpuppets combined - but I will have to reevaluate my participation in this project. This would make at least one person very happy since it would allow him to succeed in his effort to get away with his laughably one-sided edits. Watchdog07 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Akliman claims he's entitled to revert ad libitum because everything's a BLP violation according to him. I hope you have also read my replies to him on that score.[24] [25] [26] [27]I have now blocked him for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

To the people who reply to Watchdog here, by the way: he's a new user (Akliman is fairly new too). It seems a little bitey to me to keep complaining about his style, lack of diffs, etc. Dear reader, how long had you been here before you knew how to make diffs? Me, about six months. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I am sorry, but for most of these complaints, I do not even know which pages Watchdog is talking about. I linked to help:diff. I don't want to bite, but most of us are unfamiliar with these users. I have had only very minimal interaction with them, and I can't follow the issue without diffs. ··coelacan 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I bet you know how unhelpful help:diff actually is. I'll go offer him a simple diff tutorial. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I thought it was more coherent than most of the Help namespace. If you write a simpler page, let me know so I can add it to user:coelacan/useful. ··coelacan 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. It's in process. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

A quick look at the contributions of these two editors is enough to indicate the locus of this dispute, diffs or no. I posted a link to the edit history of the article in question above.

A more troubling question than the blatant edit warring on that page (which is bad enough) is the constant refrain of WP:BLP from an editor who seems to think that the labels attached to an esoteric branch of modern Marxist thinking, and criticism of his own behaviour as an editor, is a BLP issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this discussion very disturbing because unsubstantiated charges have been leveled against me here. This may affect my reputation. Unsubstantiated charges have seriously affected my reputation in the past. I use my own name on Wikipedia and, in case people can't figure out what "Akliman" is short for, "Watchdog07" tells us at the top of this entry. So I definitely think there is a WP:BLP issue here.

The only reason I am not more upset is that coelacan has told the truth, setting the record straight, about some things s/he knows about, for which I am quite grateful.

WP:BLP says that controversial material about a living figure must be properly sourced. I simply don't see how "Disruptive Pattern of Behavior" can be properly sourced: this phrase draws a very negative conclusion about a living person. It goes well beyond a recitation of facts.

I respectfully ask that action promptly be taken to protect me from damage or potential damage to my reputation. Thank you.

andrew-the-k 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You think there's a BLP issue because he uses your real name, which is listed on your user page, and accuses you of disruptive behavior? This isn't biographical material. Phony Saint 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you use your real name on Wikipedia, plus you edit in a controversial and high-profile manner. Don't do that then. Ceasing to do either of the two would fix the problem. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia isn't for everyone... thats all I got to say about this whole bloody quagmire. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I examined the phrase "Disruptive Pattern of Behavior" to illustrate that claims are being made that cannot be properly sourced. In terms of the damage to my reputation, however, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Watchdog07 has repeatedly charged that I have committed fraud in a professional capacity by claiming to co-edit a journal that is non-existent. This could potentially jeopardize my job and thus my livelihood. The journal's website is [28]. For Watchdog07's repeated charges of fraud, see [29], entries 15, 26, 45, 49, 52, 54, 55, and 67, and [30], entries 14 and 21. (This is not the first time I am notifying the Wikipedia administration of this.)

At [31], Watchdog07 refers to my "efforts to subvert and undermine Wikipedia for [my] own personal benefit."

Watchdog07 placed a comment on the talk page of someone with whom I have never had any contact whatsoever, claiming that I made an "anti-pluralist, logically inconsistent and duplicitous proposal to suppress the YER [Yale Economic Review] article." See [32]. (I placed a tag that said the article read like an ad; JoshuaZ evidently agreed, since he removed the promotional language in the article.)

At [33], Watchdog07 alleged that an article contains an "external link whose only purpose is to sell a book written by one of the two editors of the article." Readers can easily verify that it is my book. The external link is to a page on my website which contains short reviews of the book and its Table of Contents, and which links to pages that allow readers to read the start of the Preface and the Index. The book is not sold at my website.

At [34], Watchdog07 charged that I am a suppressor of ideas and an opponent of pluralism. At [35], he charged that I am "opposed to pluralism in economics" (I am a co-organizer of an organization, and co-editor of a journal, that are dedicated to pluralism), and he implies that I am "duplicitous," "self-serving," "petty," and "vindictive."

These charges, too--and there are more--could potentially jeopardize my job and thus my livelihood. Moreover, all of them are certainly harmful to my professional reputation; this can have financial and other implications.

The controversy in which I am embroiled is not one I chose. I was compelled to overhaul the TSSI article because the original version contained many biased, harmful, untrue, and unsourced statements, such as "TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct ... and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value"; "supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side"; "Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy." "[A forthcoming journal consists of] an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters." See [36] The reason I can speak about these statements being biased, harmful, and untrue is that I am a reliable source for purposes of that article and some related ones. See [37].

If I request an anonymous replacement username, how will I be able to verify that I am a reliable source with respect to some articles I am editing?

Also, requesting a new username takes time and is not granted automatically. My professional reputation needs to be protected in the meantime. Damage has already been done. There are most definitely WP:BLP issues here. WP:BLP doesn’t pertain just to biographical articles. It states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I ask that the material cited above and similar material be removed immediately, or that it be agreed that my removal of it will not be interfered with.

In my capacity as a reliable source with respect to the TSSI article, let me note again that the phrase "N___ O___ M___," in the particular context and manner in which Watchdog07 inserted it, is also a WP:BLP issue. Specialized knowledge of the implications of the term makes it easier to understand this, but the very fact that proponents of the TSSI object to the phrase as vociferously as we do should suggest that we don't do so for the hell of it. We vociferously object to it because it is indeed exceedingly non-neutral and detrimental to the professional reputations of living persons. For an analogy that requires no specialized knowledge, take the word "pervert." In the body of an article, it is noted and properly cited that X was charged with being a pervert, and X's denial of the charge is also noted and properly cited. Then, near the top of the article, W changes "X" to "X, also called a pervert." W claims that this is ok, given that the word "pervert" is used and sourced elsewhere in the article! X protests, says it’s a BLP issue, and reverts. So then W changes "X, also called a pervert," to "X, known to others as a pervert". X continues to protest, continues to say it is a BLP issue, and continues to revert. That's what took place. andrew-the-k 03:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is yet another instance of the WP:WL that I have been subjected to for an extended period of time. As noted by another editor, Andrew Kliman chose to use his real name here. It is not a violation of WP:BLP to refer to someone by their chosen user name(s). This was perhaps an unfortunate choice by Kliman but it was his choice. What is done is done. If he thought that there were violations of Wiki policies then he should have acted in a timely manner and followed the Wikipedia procedures for registering complaints. To change what has been written would be to re-write the history of our discussions, a form of revisionist history which would suppress the content of those discussions.

At the risk of being repetitive, the claim that the expression New Orthodox Marxists is the "N-word equivalent" is both absurd and self-contradictory. It is self-contradictory because Kliman introduced it into the article and sourced it. His rationale is similarly absurd - he claims that he as an individual is a "reliable source" on this question and therefore he has the right to have his own wildly silly and contradictory interpretation of the meaning of the expression accepted by others. This is simply not acceptable ... or logical.

Everything else that he comments on has been discussed previously. Don't even think of asking me for diffs - see my comment on that on my user talk page. I should not have to devote my entire life to answering - over and over again - the same absurd claims of Andrew Kliman and/or spend it filing out forms for you. Watchdog07 07:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think of asking you for useful information for people who might actually want to help? Do you know how impossible to read those talk pages are? 3/4's of it are accusations and the rest is incoherent to outsiders. Read my opinion and review below. MrMacMan ^Talk 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You know -- when both started this (or whenever I saw the huge mess you guys got into) you guys actually wanted to find a middle ground. Now you just want to be 'the winner'. As a request for mediation has failed and since you yourself brought this WP:ANI report here yourself you actually have to provide specific examples so people can understand what is going on instead of PUTTING EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERING AND BOLDFACE TYPE.

This is what you have to do, you have to show specific changes to the articles in question that were bad or against policy. You can't ask people to read some 90+ KB of talk page that doesn't even include the even bigger archives -- its just not feasible. You have to show specific things so people can clearly understand what you are saying. My personal feeling is that neither of you are anywhere near 'clean' when it comes to WP:CIVIL so don't even try to point the finger -- just bring up content disputes against policy. MrMacMan ^Talk 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that Kliman et al ever wanted to find "middle ground". Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs), M.posner (talk · contribs), and Annejaclard (talk · contribs) have all been determined by J.smith "infact" to be meatpuppets who have single-purpose accounts which intervened on behalf of Andrew Kliman in an edit dispute. This was not the action of people who wanted to find a "middle ground". From the very beginning, Andrew Kliman has acted like he owned WP:OWN the article. Watchdog07 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for PalestineRemembered block

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

Unblocked. For further information refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked by FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) an the 14th of May, apparently as a result of this CSN debate. The CSN was referred to the ArbCom without consensus being reached. He was unblocked by Zscout370 for the sole purpose of participating in his RfArb, but I can't work out why he was blocked in the first place. Can anyone point me to the reason for PR not being allowed to edit? I've tried a number of avenues, but am met with complete silence each time. Mark Chovain 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing that the problem is that this is now an arbcom issue, and people don't want to be involved before arbcom issues a preliminary decision about whether or not he should be unblocked. I am, however, surprised that this taking a while, since basically no one disputes that the CSN discussion closed without consensus to ban him. nadav (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than that - now that PR is preparing evidence against Jayjg, editors are suggesting that he'll get rid of his block faster if he lets the case fall through. Is there somewhere that such behaviour can be reported? Mark Chovain 09:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, he wasn't blocked by ArbCom - he was blocked by an admin before arbitration started. Mark Chovain 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it this way. Without prejudice to anyone's view of what he may or may not have done in the past, is there any objection to PalestineRemembered's being unblocked (for all purposes) as of now? Newyorkbrad 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I fully support an unblock, there was no consensus for a ban - and now it seams extremely punitive to keep PR blocked. Let him edit where he wants to edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Although I believe that there have been issues with this user in the past, and that a debate on a long-term block may yet be required, at this point, since ArbCom will be hearing this case, I will support a full unblock, pending the RfAR results with no prejudice to re-blocking for standard reasons (for which any one of us would be blocked). -- Avi 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • He was unblocked at 05:13, 20 May 2007 by Phaedriel! I am confused. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that was a partial unblock and that he was restricted to a small subset of pages relating to his case. This is a request for a full unblock. -- Avi 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I see. Well, whatever is the case, the ArbCom has taken more time than necessary to sort out this issue. The guy has been wrongly accused and everyone is aware of that but still we are talking about him instead of talking about the accuser. I've had questions regarding his blocklog which seems full of unjustified long blocks but no one dared to answer them or to investigate them. It's a total shame. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi: from what I saw he couldn't manage to restrict himself to those pages either. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread above discussing this issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a statement by Felonious Monk on this matter, as he issued the block. However, I am on record elsewhere as saying that the block should be lifted, and that I was prepared to lift it based on the CSN discussion (while preferring that ArbComm sort it out instead of acting myself). If FM lifts the block, then the block and a significant portion of the ArbComm case will drop away. If he stands by the block, then we have a different discussion in both places. GRBerry 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that FM has been inactive for around 2 days. If he/she is taking a break (no evidence visible), he may not be available to comment. I'd give at least a day, as I don't consider this matter overwhelmingly urgent. GRBerry 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've just lifted all restristions to PR's editing, by that it means he's free to edit as he desires [38]. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Potential violations of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it at Khmelnytsky Uprising

I'm having some difficulty dealing with a couple of editors at Khmelnytsky Uprising regarding the number of Jewish casualties in the uprising. In the past there have been serious issues with these editors of insertion of unsourced original research, a generally belligerent refusal to provide citations, and in some cases blatantly false attributions (for example this sentence: Paul Robert Magocsi estimates that the casualty rate was 50%, out of a total Jewish population of 60,000. - I checked the source, and could find no such claims). In the past few hours one of the editors there, User:Galassi, has inserted claims based on a series of articles he has listed in the article itself.[39] Aside from being extremely poorly written (we don't list sources like that in the body of an article), it is quite clear from the Talk: page that this is merely a list of "better" sources that a "professional historian" has sent him, with no indication that Galassi himself has actually read what they say. I've asked him to provide specific page numbers in the text backing up his claims, and to quote them, but he has refused several times. His latest statement is that he can provide citations after he gets "home", an 11 hour plane flight. He's been saying the same for several days, but it's unclear when he will actually ever get "home" and read the sources he insists on citing anyway.

I myself have provided citations for casualties from approximately two dozen different sources, and I've quoted every one of them. He's been quite belligerent about the sources I've used, describing people like Sir Martin Gilbert as "unscrupulous journalists".[40] Now, Galassi has decided to separate the information I have provided from the information he prefers, insisting "his" sources must go in a "Modern estimates" section , and mine in an "Earlier estimates" section he has created. I've pointed out that many of my sources are from 2002-2004, while one of his major sources is from 1988, but this has had no impact on him. In addition, he has made it clear that any work I do must go in "my" section, and that only he and User:Piotrus are allowed to add information to his "Modern" section.[41]

The discussion can be found here: Talk:Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Numbers_.28section_break_3.29 Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's summary of the situation completely. In fact, not only are they inserting their OR and poor sources, Piotrus and Galassi are tag-teaming him order to do it. I can anticipate the objection that WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it isn't too serious because it's "just a guideline" but I consider it to be a serious violation of WP:V, and I've never see it "broken" for anything other than pov-pushing and/or original research. <<-armon->> 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Jayjg’s summary accurate, it is modest. He has repeatedly requested the editors conform to WP policy and guidelines, only to be met by repeated failings to do so. -Doright 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the page, and I agree as well. Musical Linguist 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted, the continuing saga

Banned user Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back with more sock puppets (67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and WhispersofWisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I filed a case with checkuser, but this edit and the edit the IP address made at the checkuser case seem to me to definitively establish that they are the same person. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the letter sent to isotope23 and Yamla. It was also sent to Obiterdicta. It was also sent to the Wikipedia office. Mr. Nysted hopes this will end it.

If it does not, the letter will be posted from Aruba; on Mr. Wales' talk page. 67.163.7.227 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, May 22, 2007

My user page has been altered to reflect a charge of being a Puppet Master. Although the user that has chosen to make this a crusade may be well within his rights to slap the badge on me, I suspect, he could have left the other information about me on said page.

I am hereby requesting, per Wikipedia policy, that my said account and all information about said account, be deleted. I have mailed an appropriate number of people (herein) who can bear witness to this request.

I have been the subject of vandalism, harassment, as well as, slander and libel, on Wikipedia. My good name, Lee Nysted, and my business associates have been wrongly accused of being puppets of various sorts, shapes and sizes.

I admitted last year to having been involved with Wikipedia and in order to use my real name, I attempted to have my name unprotected and unblocked. That happened, only to have the whole thing start again.

It is obvious that vandals and various cabals of administrators are intent on making a mockery of the project so I will not attempt to use my real name or likeness on Wikipedia at this time.

Re: Wikipedia and Lee Nysted:

I think what started last year as a swarm of vandals from MySpace attacking an attempt by someone to write an article about me, has now taken on a decidedly different tone.

People have been accused of puppetry that have stayed at the same hotel or live in the same community in Beaver Creek Colorado as I do. "Billy Bob Steakhouse." ??? Come on people. People from radio stations and web sites have been accused of being my puppets. The whole thing is really quite insane. It appears that even teens from a local college are involved with this mess. My drummer even took down his web site because someone is harassing him and his team on Wikipedia. I suspect there are people in my community (Illinois) that feel a need to tamper with things on Wikipedia. I have daughters in Illinois. I am quite sure my daughters and their friends have been active in all of this.

I have been in Aruba and will return to the U.S. for a brief time May 30, 2007. One of my firms has been accused of being a sock puppet? How can 20,000 people be accused of being a sock puppet? (Please see IP addresses of accused puppets.) Am I in St. Louis at the same time I am in Aruba? How was that proven? It was not. You are advertising that it is established.

Please end this. I am working on finishing a new album project and I do not want to have this whole Wikipedia issue involved with that, in any way.

Truly yours,

Lee Nysted

Courtesy Copies:

Lee Nysted Senior Vice President, Investments A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, Illinois U.S.A. Established 1887 Over 700 U.S.A. Offices Offices in London and Worldwide Member N.Y.S.E.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC. Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin (U.S.A.)

Tierra Del Sol, Aruba Dutch Caribbean

www.NystedMusic.com<http://www.nystedmusic.com/> Lee@NystedMusic.com<mailto:Lee@NystedMusic.com> www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted<http://www.myspace.com/LeeNysted> www.isound.com/lee_nysted<http://www.isound.com/lee_nysted>

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com<http://www.musiclaw1.com/>

Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, Illinois U.S.A.

S.D. 5-22-07

For the OTRS volunteer who has to handle this, some explanation of the above may be useful. Nysted has some idea that "MySpace vandals" participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Nysted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music, even though the sigs on the deletes there are mostly (in some cases almost entirely) from the usual xfD crowd.

His charge that his drummer (I assume he means Matt Walker.) was harrassed on-wiki is simply bizarre. Walker's site has been down for some time, but AFAIK, this has nothing to do with anything that happened on Wikipedia. I do not know of Matt Walker editing Wikipedia, nor do I know of any editor from Wikipedia who has contacted Walker.

Checkuser has established a number of sockpuppets that were used by Lee Nysted. Pretending to be a family member when confronted with a charge of sockpuppetry is fairly common, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone actually blaming his child before. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most of these "sockpuppets" are probably meatpuppets. WP:BEANS I don't really want to say too much more about it here... but suffice to say there is a strong likelihood that most of the Nysted stuff is not actually being done by Nysted himself.--Isotope23 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your account can't be deleted. However, you do have a Right to vanish. Sean William 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this be construed as a legal threat? Corvus cornix 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tell him to send it to OTRS if he has a problem. Until then, he needs to be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we perhaps delete the links in there that serve nothing more than to promote his music? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I got most of them yesterday. I would have thought that Nysted and his sock/meat puppets would have given up by now, but they tried to readd them less than an hour later. I'm simply fed up with dealing with this, hence the "crusade" (tagging a few accounts, filing a checkuser). He was banned months ago, but just won't go away. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, please? I am just the messenger. Mr. Nysted sent this via e-mail. He is in Aruba. He does not want an article and wants nothing to do with Wikipedia. Please delete the account per his request. That is my final statement on this issue. 67.163.7.227 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming. End of problem. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed. I indef blocked WhispersofWisdom and blocked the IP for a week; the IP appears to be static and thus safe to block for a longer time, but I'd like input from other editors before extending the block--I don't want to cause undue collateral damage. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try blocking it for a month at a time. The problematic edits are pretty easy to spot. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Per Wikimedia and Wikipedia

If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. They are:

• If you have made fewer than 200,000 edits, change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you (see Changing username).

• Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself).

• Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator). (1)

• Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name.

You should note that while these measures afford a degree of practical obscurity, they will not stand up to assault from a persistent investigator, and Wikimedia projects has no control over its sublicensees, or over archiving services such as the Internet Archive or Google. Further, these actions require a degree of co-operation from the other users of the project, so Wikimedia cannot make guarantees on this matter. However, a few users have taken advantage of these kinds of measures in the past, and appear content with the results, which is enough reason for us to continue to offer this service.

See right to vanish (meatballwiki)

(1) This is the right Mr. Nysted is expecting to have accomplished per his letter.67.163.7.227 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No administrator is required to take administrative action. Nobody is REQUIRED to delete said page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know something? Our Lee Nysted Experience has really, really sucked. We are not just dots in a computer screen. Given this, extra demands are not really clever. Moreschi ^Talk 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, I hadn't heard the name Lee Nysted before this saga, but you can guarantee lthought I now know it, the mention brings a displeasurable taste to the mouth. Viridae^Talk 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just saw the email this morning (I have extremely limited connectivity right now) & sent it along to the foundation for their consideration because I will quite likely be almost completely offline for then next couple of weeks and the copies to his legal council would denote at least an implied legal threat.--Isotope23 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From Aruba: May 23, 2007

Mr. Nysted has asked politely to have his user name, user: Lee Nysted removed/deleted

He has also asked that his user talk page be deleted. That is all that should be required, per policy. Anything short of allowing Mr. Nysted the right that Wikimedia and Wikipedia state above, is a violation of normal policy. 204.212.123.221 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He can have his username changed to something obscure, but his edits nor his account can be deleted, due to GFDL issues. In addition, everyone else is correct, administrative action is never an obligation. Administrators can choose not to take certain action if they wish. --Deskana (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not obligated to delete user pages. Reread our policies; nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it state that we must delete userpages upon request. Continuing to assert so is absurd, ridiculous, and wrong. Further requests or demands will be denied and/or removed. —Kyриx 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted his userpage and talk page per his (above) request. I see no reason to deny his request to vanish. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

John, that wasn't the best move to do. The account, to what is presented here, is engaged in spamming Wikipedia and by using multiple accounts. On the page you cited, there is a clause at m:Right_to_vanish#Exceptions that says the following: "The right to vanish does not extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting the website against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories." The user is disrupting Wikipedia and doing so by using many accounts. Due to this, the pages are going back up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping these pages benefits no one and only serves to glorify a banned user. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if it makes him go away, deleting them is probably for the best. A number of editors have the usual targets of his promo attempts watchlisted, so if he comes back, it shouldn't be too difficult to spot. The RFCU pages et al that were associated with him are still here and not likely to be going away any time soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the right to vanish is to permit troublesome users to leave with some dignity and Nysted is the perfect example of a troublesome user who embarrassed himself on-wiki. I would be in favor of honoring his request to the extent of deleting his user and talk pages. Of course, it would be a good idea for the OTRS volunteer who handles this to make it clear to him that "vanish" means you go away, not that you come back to spam and then blame your sockpuppetry on your daughters. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I've finally had a bit of time to look at this and IMO, deleting the User/Talkpage history, {{banned}} tagging the userpage, then protecting both would seem to be a good middle ground. Tony has it right... this is on quite a few editor's watchlists so I don't think we are doing much admin hinderance by deleting this. I was going to go ahead and boldly implement this, but then I noticed that the pages were deleted and restored. I'm going to go ahead and be bold here and implement this.--Isotope23 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted both the userpage and talkpage. I did so after I saw discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales but before noticing this thread. Nonetheless, I strongly believe deletion is the correct course here. The deleted content will remain accessible to administrators, and yet by advising this individual that the pages will remain deleted if and only if he stays away from Wikipedia, we increase the chances that he will do so. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That works too.--Isotope23 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice: User:Badlydrawnjeff blocked, unblocked

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

No specific action to be taken. The issue is being discussed and dealt w/ (part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Badlydrawnjeff). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

See: [42]; Jeff was blocked by admin User:Zsinj with the stated explanation (on User talk:Tony Sidaway) of:

Per approximately two hours of IRC discussion, it had been determined that the disruption caused by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The amount of drama and all around chaos that has come as a result of his actions and the resulting actions of others caused is a disruption and an exhaustion of the community's time, as noted in the block reason. As one of many administrators, others have been in contact with the user and have taken actions that you described, such as warning the user. This issue is no longer a single admin's responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of the community as a whole. While I am not suggesting that this is elitist, it is the responsibility of all administrators, of which there has been consensus, to act when events like this occur to prevent any further damage to the project. Zsinj 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaillimh unblocked shortly afterwards.

Also this comment by User:Mackensen: [43].

Let's not do that again, shall we? Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This block was a very bad idea. Mackensen said it all, really. --Deskana (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This "explanation" was the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read. Don't play with your buttons when you're drunk, kids! --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If we throw a stick, will irc go away? Friday (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC is a brutal double-edged sword. Sean William 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give in to the temptation just this once: What. The. Fuck? Johnleemk | Talk 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lolz, so between bots flooding and people talking about Shrek 3 and the Spur's game, this decision was made. Two hours of discussion, wonderful. It would be nice if those others involved would step forward. — MichaelLinnear 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Not that it matters in the end anyway. This is an example of why decision making on IRC is bad- it is not representative of the community's wishes. --Deskana (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem fair to have one person take the blame for a bad group decision. — MichaelLinnear 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the block rationale neglected to address the potential disruption of the block itself. Gasoline on the fire. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that this was horribly, horribly out of line. I don't like BDJ myself, but this was, as Johnleemk said, a real "WTF" moment. Something of this magnitude should not be done without on-wiki discussion, no matter how long the IRC discussion is.

On the other hand, #wikipedia-en-admins is a genuinely useful tool. I know that I've used it to get quick advice from other admins on what to do in situations where I don't feel a whole AN post is necessary. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This chills me considerably. I have no doubts whatsoever that Badlydrawnjeff is acting in good faith, and that any percieved disruption by him could be viewed by other editors as attempting to improve the encyclopedia. It greatly disturbs me that a block can be a result of a discussion on IRC, where not all editors have access to and which is not a valid means of gauging community support. Without being committed to either side of the ongoing dispute at the RFC, I feel compelled to comment here because of the potential far reaching effects of this action on any editor on Wikipedia who may espouse an unpopular or contentious viewpoint and attempt to use the established channels to try to resolve a dispute.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks of this nature aren't normally decided on IRC; this is the exception more than the rule. I wouldn't worry about it too much, Xnuala. BDJ is now unblocked and no harm was done in the end. --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm? Utterly ridiculous. --Irpen 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking another user in the middle of being involved with a dispute with them is a HUGE no-no. If it comes out that involved parties in the dispute were responsible for this, someone ought to lose a sysop bit. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is rich. Absolutely friggin' rich. And people wonder why other people bitch about cabalism? There you have it. If anyone tells me to back off of this one, you may as well hold your breath. This will not stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stand? It's already been undone. It's over. Friday (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some accountability, though. Zsinj was obviously not the only one behind this decision, but IRC doesn't have public logs to tell us who else was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bull shit it's over. Who are the guilty parties? When are they stepping down? This is unacceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflictrs galore) Johnleemk said it all. The only explanation that makes the slightest bit of sense is that somehow Zsinj confused BDJ with User:Gordon Watts. Not being privy to IRC, this is only a wild guess. Raymond Arritt 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That had better be the issue. The timelines don't add up, though, because I was around when the Watts stuff went down. This was over a 90 minute period I wasn't at my computer - how convenient. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this is very annoying for you Jeff, I can understand why you're pissed, but I think you need to cool off a bit. Adding that note to WP:RfAr was a good call; just wait and see what ArbCom have to say. --Deskana (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So many edit conflicts, this one comes late, but I fully support Deskana. BDJ, you are furious, but let the formal dispute resolution channels to work. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as it works, I'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel is a way for admins to communicate with some other admins. It is sometimes used to bring attention to vandals who should be blocked, pages needing attention, etc. In this way, it is used by some admins to help decide what their own individual actions to things should be. IRC discussions should never be said to result in a "consensus of admins" or anything of that sort, though. If you do something based upon discussions on IRC, you're doing so as an individual admin. - Mark 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is utterly disturbing to me. I see no specific misconduct being alleged, not even the hint of a warning on badlydrawnjeff's talk page. Somebody should get a warning themselves. I may be concerned that Jeff's getting a tad overzealous, but there is no call for the response of a block at all. I hope whoever is involved is deeply ashamed of this behavior. And while I hope Jeff is strong enough to just accept an apology for this misconduct, I can completely understand that he's probably going to be justifiably pissed at this kind of behavior. Mister.Manticore 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, nothing better than agreeing to block someone through IRC: nobody can defend the user, the logs can't be made public, and it makes you feel better. Mwhahaha! Now, my ear is itching... Unblock should have stated something more than "inappropriate", though. -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, having pulled my periodically confounded senses together, I am really tempted to suggest that Zsinj is intentionally trolling to pour gasoline on the flames, but I'll AGF for the moment. Seriously, what the hell was he thinking? That explanation is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and it shows a major lack of sanity on the admin's part. How the hell could anyone not see that blocking Jeff, even (especially?) for only two hours, would just cause this disruptive chaos to continue for even longer? (And as an aside, I would really like to know what on earth possessed anyone to think this is causing permanent damage to the encyclopaedia, or how they calculated the costs and benefits of Jeff's actions. Not to mention that they seriously overestimated the portion of the community which has been wasting its time on this tripe.) Johnleemk | Talk 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm holding my tongue very firmly right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad decisions happen folks, no need to cry out for blood. ^(H) 02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if blood is your goal, then I don't know what advice to give you. ^(H) 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the IRC channel where this was discussed right now, and I would like to say that, even before the discussion, there were multiple people saying that this is a really bad idea. Right now, the general feeling seems to be one of contrition, not aggression. We're not a bunch of dicks. Therefore, Jeff, I suggest that you not immediately go for the jugular, but just think it out. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

no, the jugular's about the right place. This has been dealt with before through Arbcom. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Do mistakes happen after two hours of discussion in an unaccountable place by a bunch of people I'm not allowed to identify? No, they do not. This was not a mistake. I can forgive mistakes. I can forget mistakes. This was not a mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that any sort of reaction that involves getting rid of the admin IRC channel is probably a bad idea. Because do you know what else is an unaccountable, unloggable place with a bunch of people you can't identify? Real life discussions. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

as a matter policy WP:BLOCK doesnt exclude discussion prior to a block whether it takes place here, or off site. While the discussion reached a conclusion its the responsibility of the editor who takes the action. Gnangarra 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, he's been roundly yelled at in public, told by Tony Sidaway not to "play with his buttons while drunk", and is unlikely to make such a mistake ever again, as is anybody else who's watching. What more do you want? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a very bad decision. I'm not sure I know what should be done, and perhaps those who are saying that nothing should be done are right, but I don't think so. There are some really scarily naive admins. IRC isn't much use for sanity checking if the only people watching the scrolling text at the time aren't thinking straight. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, doing "nothing" stopped being an option about an hour ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the person responsible acknowledge their misconduct, not just get yelled at by everybody else. Mister.Manticore 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I want names. At most, I was full accountability through Arbcom. Who knows if I'll get either, but i won't say I didn't see this coming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of whom? —Kyриx 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of who's responsible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who? The people who discussed the possibility of the block? Only the guy who pushed the button is responsible. ^(H) 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, not buying that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, a good general rule is that when you try to seek "justice" at Wikipedia, things don't go your way. I've seen it happen again and again; please learn from the mistakes of others. I value your presence here too much to watch you shoot yourself in the foot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing everything properly, don't you worry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We fucked up very badly today. I fucked up badly by not doing anything except nod my head absentmindedly. We all feel bad, and we're all sorry. Sean William 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are "we?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The people for whom I cannot speak for. Sean William 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I accept your apology on the matter, although it's still a problematic situation. Since you can't speak for the collective "we," I'll assume otherwise on the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling for blood won't be very productive at the moment, and I think we need to take a breather. I really want to know what possessed Zsinj and the IRCers who supported this move so we can determine whether this was a really bad example of a mistake made by groupthink, or whether there was an actual intent to detonate a nuke in the flaming wreck of this controversy. Then we can start determining whether we should accept an apology or call for stronger sanctions. Johnleemk | Talk 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No no no no! Told you shouldn't do it, Zsinj, that it was a bad bad idea. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just need to make my view celar: this block was outragous. i trust that other admins will remember this. It seems as if the use of IRC to determine blocks of established editors is probably a mistke. But wheter IRC is sued or not, a block defense of "it had been determined that the disruption caused

by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia." when the "disruptuion" consists of legitmate compaints (whether anyone agrees with their substance or not) in legitimate fora for rasing such issues, is simply unaceptable. Thsi is doubly true when it is know that a number of other establisehd editors have joined in soem or all of the complaints, and that a RFC and an arbcomn case is in process. Even bans users are often unblocked during arbcom cases, to block someone for this sort of "disruption" during one shows very poor judgement on the part of the block, on the part of anyone who seriously advocated the balock, adn anywho who now defends the balock as 'not unreasonable" or the like. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Move it to ArbCom

I think it is too obvious and needs to be moved to the arbcom page where this surely belongs. Zsinj is not the sole perpetrator of course. Those who advised him to block through IRC instead of bluntly referring him to post his thoughts here for public review are responsible. Channel's sysops under whose watch this happened are responsible. This whole mess smells so familiar. It also shows vividly that the measures undertaken by ArbCom early in the year to prevent #en-admins IRC from causing further harm to this project utterly failed. --Irpen 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While a bad decision, let's not make this into more than it has to be. In the end, Jeff was blocked for less time that Zsinj will take just to read all the criticism he is getting. Let's get a sense of proportion. I'll be glad to add more criticism... :-) ... but don't think stronger action is called for unless the situation repeats. The best of us screw up, much as we try to avoid it. You know, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley". Hopefully we learn each time, but we are remarkably inventive in finding new ways. As long as we do learn, and it is meant in good faith, we shouldn't be flambeed for it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A longtime contributor is blocked per a discussion off Wikipedia - I don't think people are taking this out of proportion, frankly. – Riana ⁂ 03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is for when dispute resolution fails, I don't think it is even close to that. ^(H) 03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is not going to create consensus, and anyone who thinks it can patch up the disagreement between Jeff and the others is living in a dream world. This discussion here is only creating more calls for blood. I don't think mediation would be more than a temporary stanching of the wounds. No, the Arbcom has to step in now - as I already stated on RfAr, they have to clarify whether there was disruptive wheel warring, and whether the BLP policy was used correctly. I think the Arbcom is also best placed to investigate the Zsinj incident. Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The community process failed as the user was hit by a grievous block implemented by the members of a certain segment of this community. When a bad edit is undone, it's over. When another IRC concocted block hits us the harm cannot be undone by merely unblocking. Too obvious to even explain why. Thankfully we are getting less and less of IRC influence lately but its outcome I am sure will reduce that influence further. Jeff I am sorry this hit you. --Irpen 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: the block was in force for a short time, has been undone, and the user in question is able to edit. The user in question is not unaware of the controvbersy his actions and attitudes attract. The user in question does not have a clean block log, which some people prize and would be disappointed to lose. Right now I find it hard to see what irreperable damage has been done. This is no different to a block "concocted" on ANI, other than that the log is not publicly visible. There are blocks "concocted" on irc all the time, most of them are comletely uncontroversial and nobody ever knows they were "concocted" on irc - and there are blocks which are averted by irc as well. The irc channel is not some monstrous entity, it is just folks. I have only very recently subscribed to the irc channel, I find that, far from there being a cabal of some sort, there is a lot of sense. David Gerard, for example, is usually about and far from reluctant to point out when one is being an idiot, which helps save face and reduce controversy in the public forums. As with any place where groups of people gather together, sometimes there can be misunderstanding, sometimes there can be a mob, sometimes there can be a collective bad call, but mostly - really, mostly - what you get is a better and more reasoned result than an admin relying solely on their own judgement. Try it some time. I was sceptical, but I am a convert. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get what IRC has to do with it. I was there the whole time while this was going down. Guess what, in the end it came to Zsinj's actions, nobody elses. Calling for everyone else's blood is completely irresponsible and shows that anger and emotions rather than reason and rational thinking are in use here. There were ....something like 60 users there. Gonna desysop them all? That's ridiculous. Take your anger out on Zsinj, keep it away from the rest of us. And honestly Jeff, one of the reasons that Zsinj blocked you was due to threats. While I can understand your anger, threatening statements like "If anyone tells me to back off of this one, you may as well hold your breath. This will not stand." are not helpful at all. This will be my only statement on this, if you want an answer from me ask me on my talk, I'm not going to check this here, this page is going to get too long. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

Clarify: Out of the 60 or so users, maybe 10 of them were active. Don't condemn the rest of them for simply being there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If a statement of commitment to an issue is taken as a threat, I'd say that's the problem of the person reading it. Jeff's entitled to the same righteous zeal as anybody else. Given that there's no threat of explicit disruptive action or harm to another user, the best thing to do is not to overreact to it. The worst thing to do is something like a block. That will guarantee the issue will continue to be a concern, and if anything get worse. I feel (and I worry), that Jeff's probably taken this ill-guided act as vindication. Mister.Manticore 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and IRC is an issue because that's where the blocking admin said he decided to make the block. That's a problem, and reflects a bad decision making process on the part of the blocking admin, who I hope owns up to the mistake. Mister.Manticore 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. When someone presses an admin button, the responsibility is primarily theirs. That ensures that admin actions are done with the most contemplation. Future blockers should not be able to claim "I did it because X, Y, and Z told me too", because that's a lame cop-out. If an admin can't properly decide whether other people's advice is good or bad, then adminship may not be the best thing for them. --Interiot 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Veinor nailed it: many of us told Zsinj that it was a bad idea, I didn't believe however he would go and actually do it. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to second this, I specifically warned against group think. There were a few, not many in support of his actions. In any case I will say I never supported a block. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am having a hard time resisting the urge to revoke Zsinj's access to the admin's channel; his actions indicate that he lacks the necessary judgment to be a participant in that forum. Might not be a bad idea to revoke it for a time, or something, but then again, I don't really care that much. (Not to mention I haven't been in the admin's channel in weeks.) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This WTF moment is brought to you by: IRC. Internet Relay Chat: The cabal's playground for over two years. Internet Relay Chat. Expect less. Grandmasterka 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... am I missing something here? We didn't accidentally execute BDJ. Instead, he was blocked. Wrongfully. He was unblocked. Rightfully. Zsinj was wrong. Okay... duly noted. There's no need to prepare a report to bring before the UN. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue people are bringing up is that it's part of a larger problem with admins deciding things badly on IRC. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but that's the concern. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that (and, just for the record, I don't use IRC). However, there's no need for the same Zsinj was a dum-dum argument to be repeated over and over again. That is, unless we're trying to make WP:400 (in which case: fire away). I have no idea how to punctuate that last sentence. -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand how Zsinj thought this was not going to be immediately undone, and end up biting him in the ass. How often does blocking an established contributor help a situation like this? How did (allegedly) several people lose their minds like this? Grandmasterka 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Did several people block him? Or did Zsinj? We report. You decide.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Zsinj blocked him, others were (allegedly) dumb enough to think he might be able to get away with it. Without the logs, I can't fault anyone but Zsinj (and maybe not even after reviewing the logs.) Grandmasterka 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the logs, I can't fault anyone but Zsinj. It's okay; BDJ is going to bring everyone responsible to justice Jack Bauer style. Soon enough. -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Superman wears badlydrawnjeff pajamas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ArbCom case include those in IRC? And there was only one notification reported. (SEWilco 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Depends. I'd expect anybody who has the logs to at least provide them so they can look through them and observe anybody's misconduct. As far as I'm concerned, this is hopefully just one person's mistake, and while they should account for it, from what I know right now, I'd be satisfied with just an acknowledgment of the mistake. I sincerely hope no more than that is needed. Mister.Manticore 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearly 50% of the users in IRC channels are idling at any given time. I can say that I was in the channel, but I was not actively participating in the discussion at the time. There is no reason to include 50 people in any sort of arbitration case (if one gets accepted) when maybe 2 or 3 are at fault.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing logs is a violation of freenode.net policy, Wikipedia IRC channels policy, and that specific IRC channels policy. There may be even bigger restrictions on the disclosure of recorded material from a private IRC channel. There was a big stink about someone leaking logs a few days ago. Releasing logs is out of the question. I should know, I got in big trouble over IRC logs, so big it sunk my first RFA. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing logs to the public is a violation of various policies. Logs have been mailed privately to the arbcom in the past, and in all likelihood, that'll happen again in the future. --Interiot 08:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I am not going to say too much here because I don't think it will help, but here goes anyway. Jeff is not evil. I repeat: Jeff is not evil. He is a likeable guy who actually does want to help build the encyclopaedia, and has done a lot of work to that end. Blocking him should be a matter of long deliberation, however vexatious he may occasionally be, and that deliberation should take place here. There are other ways of halting a problem Jeff is causing, he is not (completely) immune to reason even when in the grip of one of his occasional crusades. I don't mind the cabal (TINC) getting together on irc to get together a posse to run a bandit out of town, and I'll likely be right at the front, but not for Jeff, I really do think he's earned better than that. Having said which, as my comments on the RFAR make clear, I do think Jeff has a problem right now. Quite a serious one. His vision of Wikipedia is distinctly off the community's midpoint, and he seems to be trying to change this in the wrong way, with the result that he has made many enemies and lost some friends. Time to take a deep breath, see if the RFAR case is accepted and if not then start an RfC. I think that Jeff may be persuaded, with patience, to adopt a different and more helpful approach. I don't think we need to run him out of town just yet. But we do need to at least start the process before things get any worse. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for f(*beep*)k's sake, you don't block people just because a cabal of 5 or whatever are whinging on IRC. When will various people get in into their heads that IDONTLIKEHIM is not a fu(*bleep!*)ng well valid reason to block anyone, especially not established contributors, especially not just because some people are in a bad mood and taking their frustrations out on IRC. Will the block stick? No. Will wikidrama be prevented? No. Will it cause more? Yes? Will the encyclopedia benefit? No. We've all been here before.

Some people seriously need to start thinking with their brains and not with their fu(*beep*)ng d(*bleep!*)cks. Please do not confuse your admin tools with your penis. Moreschi ^Talk 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All that hostility, and whose dicks? What cabal was there? Where you actually there to see what happened? Of course you weren't because if you were, you'd know that there was no "cabal of 5 or whatever", it was a handful of people for, a handful of people against, and more than 75% of the channel not even paying attention. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, have you not been reading the various discussions regarding Jeff lately? See WP:RFAR, where one arb. opiones as follows: If, indeed, he's announced his contempt for community and consensus and policy as stated above ("meteors" and "heaven"), the community can provide those meteors. I think blocking Jeff was wrong, and I think the irc cabal should have said no, but there is no doubt that Jeff has been, and promises to continue being, disruptive. So: a bad call by one admin, but not an indefensibly bad call, and not capricious, just ill-judged. I suspect he has learned his lesson. If the bogeyman of irc had not been named then we'd probably not even have this thread. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? No, I wasn't there at the time, and agreed it's one admin's call, and what I said still stands, even if you do remove my profanity. Jeff is not a troll. As such, we can talk to him, not block him. IRC or no, this is so stupid. We probably don't need to desysop anyone, but some people need to consider what they're doing here. This is not a power game. IRC maybe irrelevant here, maybe not. Jeff probably is being disruptive: talk to him, don't block him. The two are mutually exclusive. We need to act in an adult manner, not one based on playground notions of eyes for eyes. This block reeks of puerility.

Oh, I'm frustrated, but we've effing been here before. When will people learn? The lessons are not difficult ones. Block the trolls and talk to the regulars. How hard is that? Moreschi ^Talk 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Community sentiment re IRC blocks is starkly clear, and has been for some time. The trouble is that this has not been heeded. Clue: it will never be heeded, and frankly doesn't deserve to be heeded, if it is not accompanied by action at some point or another.Proabivouac 10:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an irc block. Clear? Everybody who hangs out on irc and has ventured an opinion here, has expressed the view that this was misguided, a bad call. And that's all it was: one bad call by one admin. That, and nothing else. If you want to use this as an excuse to prevent admins from using irc to blow off steam, feel free, but all you will do is (a) move it elsewhere or (b) icrease the burnout rate. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I or anyone else be clear on that, when the logs are not released? Zsinj claimed it was based on consensus on IRC, you say it's not. That's all the rest of us know. Are you saying that Zsinj completely fabricated this claim? I doubt it.Proabivouac 11:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So what happened to AGF? Is there any evidence that Zsinj et al acted in bad faith? No? Then why assume bad faith? You have to also bear in mind that how people perceive things is very different. Zsinj may have thought there was consensus when there was none; it's not an impossible or even unlikely mistake. Johnleemk | Talk 12:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG, try to get your hands on the logs. Seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Let's stick a fork in this once and for all - I have not been disruptive. Disruptive is not attempting to get an article undeleted. Disruptive is not reversing the improper closure of a deletion discussion. Disruptive is not "well, a bunch of people who don't like BDJ for a variety of reasons think so." This is a classic case of "keep repeating it, and it becomes true," and it's not. so, unless you have some good evidence that I've been disruptive, because I'm very careful not to be, I suggest people stop saying as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been disruptive - Since the issue isn't a question of what's going on inside your head but rather its effect on other people and interactions outside of it, allow me to say that "because I said so" is less than convincing.

This is a classic case of "keep repeating it, and it becomes true,"..."" - speaking of which. Also which, it's a pretty good pocket description of your general plans of action -- keep pounding away trying to get your way -- especially in the present case.

...unless you have some good evidence that I've been disruptive... - I'd say that multiple AFDs and DRVs, two runs at ArbCom, multiple insults aimed at people who have the temerity to oppose you, attempted end-runs around policy and the process you say you value so much -- and spare me the spin as to why it's justified or it's really different for you -- is prima facie evidence of disruption, however much of whatever point you seem to be trying make. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, Calton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since your "point" bears not the slightest resemblance to anything I wrote -- or that much of a resemblance to "consensus reality", as they used to say in the 70s -- that particular rhetorical disconnect is even less convincing than your previous "because I said so" rationale. --Calton | Talk 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is completely unacceptable. While I disagree with the direction in which Badlydrawnjeff would like to take Wikipedia, at this point IRC > block is just about all I need to know. Blocks should not be discussed and decided on IRC. Per JzG's comments above, the point isn't that the culture of IRC is reasonable or unreasonable, but that it is by design immune to scrutiny. There is strong community consensus for this principle, and strong action is warranted to uphold it.Proabivouac 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

please see JzG's comments⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict, you obviously have.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a particular variety of foolishness that is expressly unwelcome on -admins, per rules on WP:WEA and past problems - it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it here afterwards! I'll try to have a word with the guy and see what on Earth he was thinking. My apologies to all, and especially Jeff - David Gerard 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Anyway, we have a range of choices:

1. ignore this as water under the bridge
2. give Zsinj a stern talking too - i.e. do NOT do this again
3. move to get him/her sanctioned by ArbCom - i.e. some sort of official censure, probation or desysopping

I don't know any of the parties involved here, but this seems like such a horrendously bad decision that I am well beyond #1 into #2 (the discussion above will pass for "stern talking to" already) and tending to #3. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye" is inappropriate here: there is no need for any particular sanction on Zsinj, or a block as he'd blocked BDJ, but merely the preventative measure of desysoping, to ensure that he will not do this again. I propose a motion to desysop on WP:CSN. If we the community can ban an editor (presumably this at least in principle includes administrators?), then why can we not desysop? If adminship is truly no big deal, then taking it away isn't a big deal either.Proabivouac 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom should be for problems that the community fails to solve after exhustive discussion, are we really that feeble that we have to run off crying to arbcom at this stage? --Fredrick day 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And are we really so unforgiving that we can't let an admin make a tit of himself even once without calling for the tar and feathers? Guy (Help!) 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, JzG, I'm not calling for tar and feathers, I'm calling for desysopping. Not a block, not a censure, not a ban. I'm not an administrator: am I tarred and feathered? Most editors aren't admins: are we in a state of disgrace? Following the premises underlying your sympathetic post, so one must conclude. A non-adminstrator is an editor in good standing, and that is exactly what Zsinj has every right to be. He's abused the block tool at another's expense, so it should be (at least for now) taken away. No punishment, no hard feelings, just prevention.Proabivouac 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes unless this is part of an established pattern of behaviour - then a single block in error is frankly not a big deal (I'll qualify that by saying conversations on IRC should not be the basis of blocks). --Fredrick day 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't play it down too much: this is a big deal, as it shows a serious error in judgement from an administrator. I'm not saying a desysopping is necessary, but this was an incredibly bad idea. Jeff's net effect on the project is (in my eyes) overwhelmingly positive. Trebor 10:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't block you if you fuck up once, so there's no real point to desysoping if you fuck up once. It only creates a huge incentive to refrain from doing anything lest it be wrong and you end up losing the tools. Some people would obviously prefer this situation, but since the rest of us are humans and do make mistakes, I find a "one strike, you're out" policy quite disturbing. Oh yeah, and community desysopings generally do not occur because of the risk of lynch mobbery; desysopings normally occur under an Arbcom order or via a steward decision based on some extraordinary incident (e.g. real rougery). Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It was an incredibly bone-headed move, but as long as there's no damage -- temporary or permanent -- and Zsinj recognizes it as flat wrong, the whacking he's been getting here from everyone should be punishment enough. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Badlydrawnjeff blocked, unblocked: arbitrary section break

When I cussed out Zsinji on the channel last night (after waking up from my nap), I warned him that this was the exact sequence of events that would take place, although the virulence of the some of the comments above still staggers me. You'd never know from reading above that everybody commenting agrees that the block was a bad idea. You're not going to get Zsinji's head on a pike for one bad block. You all know better than that. I would hope he's learned from the experience, and per Kelly Martin revocation of access to the admin channel might be a sensible step. It has said at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, and has said for some time, "Important: The channel is useful for double-checking yourself, but don't decide things based solely on an IRC discussion." This came about after last January's unpleasantness, and it's not for show, nor is the outrage from regulars at this daft idiocy. Ultimately, the question of who thought Jeff ought to be blocked doesn't matter. Really, it doesn't. We don't punish people for thinking (or saying) somebody ought to blocked, or desysopped, or hung from a streetlamp. We address things that actually happen. Zsinji blocked Jeff and asserted a consensus on IRC--there's no such thing. Either you believe in the correctness of your own action, or have substantial on-wiki support, but murmurmings in a chatroom is not consensus. It's his mistake and he'll have to answer for it. For my part, I shouldn't have snoozed off else I would have been there to scream "No, don't do it!" For that, I do apologize to all involved. Mackensen (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were to make an apology to Jeff and to the rest of the community, where would be the best place for it? I am willing to throw myself to the mercy of the community and I recognize I made a hasty decision without knowing all the facts. Thanks. Zsinj^Talk 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, does it? Here's as good as anywhere. Trebor 11:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some of the stuff said here - by me not least, even with Phaedriel adding bleeps - will serve as admonition enough. A pointless desysopping will serve no purpose. Just this once, we can say "Never again" and forgive and forget, and maybe kick from #wikipedia-en-admins (note: that channel is not Requests for Blocking). Clemency is the virtue of the great. Moreschi ^Talk 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Zsinj. What I would like to see is your and everyone else's support for the notion that any admin who in the future blocks based upon an IRC discussion or encourages others to block on IRC should be immediately desysoped. The clearer we make this, the less likely it is that another well-meaning admin will find him or herself in your position: it is ultimately the community's responsibility for not making this crystal clear. Obviously you weren't aware of how much controversy this would engender, which is proof that the message wasn't clear. So let's make it clear now and call it a day.Proabivouac 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is stupid. IRC can be used to doublecheck whether an account should be blocked indefinitely as troll-only, for example, or to discuss whether a user looks like a sock. There can be useful and good blocks based on IRC discussion. Blocking long-term contributors for disruption is likely not going to help no matter where it is debated. Kusma (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I were to delete an image as "replacable fairuse" when it was in fact not replaceable, should I be desysoped too? Your rationale sounds more like a personal vendetta than a solution to this one incident. Zsinj^Talk 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight...admins are not human and should not be given any leeway to be human and make mistakes? And you believe the encyclopaedia can run smoothly like this? If this were the case, I'd stop making decisions on anything remotely possibly controversial, and so would many other admins. It's one thing to hold admins to a higher standard than editors - that's only sensible because they have more tools. But it's a completely different thing to hold them to an inhuman standard. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the feedback this suggestion has received, I have to think that I overreacted. Nothing personal here at all, Zsinj.Proabivouac 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. :-) Zsinj^Talk 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the right thing for this is an RFC. I'd also recommend it be focused. There really are 3 issues (IMHO) that are being addressed:

1. What are the facts of the case. That is what specifically happened that led to the mistake and how can it be avoided in the future? -- It appears that is getting resolved.
2. What should happen to Zsinj? There seem to be a few people who feel that the act was stupid enough to carry serious consequences in and of itself (like the old policy regarding legal threats). Others people feel that getting insulted 2 dozen times on AN/I plus an apology is probably enough punishment for what was a momentary lapse of judgment.
3. What is the appropriate role of IRC?

-- This issue is very serious. I think its time to open this 3rd question up fully. People on a regular basis are being attacked based on IRC. It has become a very destructive influence (it may always have been so). A broad IRC guideline should be created which indicates what sorts of activities are acceptable. For example

• getting advice on how to handle issues seems to be useful.
• Instant moderation on IRC has had a positive effect (though people should never be pressured into using IRC)
• Coordination against vandals seems to be useful
• Coordinating attacks off wiki against long time users because of policy / content disagreements should be banned absolutely and completely. And this has been regular behavior of many long standing administrators. And that is what IMHO is generating the anger at Zsinj (who AFAIK has never done this before).

jbolden1517^Talk 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This will be crossposted to the RFAR as my comment on the matter:

To Badlydrawnjeff, members of -admins, fellow administrators, and to the community as a whole:

My actions last night are the result of trying to play the devil's advocate which resulted in an administrative action. For approximately two hours, I asked questions about the issue with the Jeff and in responce I received the impression that Jeff was doing more harm than good. Some voiced frustration about how the situation was becoming lenghty and filled with drama. However, realizing that this all took place in an internet chat room, and a private one no less, that those individuals have nothing to do with the action that only I committed.

I recognize that the decision to block the user was a relatively hasty and uninformed one. Part of the decision was based upon ending the frustration of my peers and trying to get the involved parties to calm down. Through two RFARs and an RFC, I did not see the discussion reaching any compromises and by myself decided to take the action I did. While I did ask for assistance in wording, the block length and reason are my original thinking. 60 hours would have been Friday and I would have hoped people would have been able to think rationally without Jeff breathing down their necks (figuratively) during that time.

In my opinion, last night I made one block that was clearly not in the community's interest. I have seen proposed consequences of my actions range from nothing and a "stern talking to" to desysopping via CSN. While my opinion on the consequences would be clearly biased, I would like to make it known that there are people out there who are asking for blood, while others are being more rational and realizing that I am not the person to go on an inappropriate blocking spree. Up until the block last night, I stuck mainly to CSD backlogs and the occasional blocking fo vandals (which I noticed on *gasp IRC). If my efforts are not welcome by the community, I will acknowledge that. If it can be seen that I cannot improve, I will disagree, but I am at the mercy of the community and the decisions they make. Zsinj^Talk 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that you would do the block. Most, if not all, of my comments to the discussion on IRC were in jest, or only partially serious. It up the community to decide if those in the channel are responsible as well, though; I could have stopped it if I was thinking. Sean William 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I will gladly release everything I said into the channel last night. Regarding privacy concerns, I said I would release what I said. If others feel like doing the same, that is up to them. Zsinj^Talk 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• We need the names and logs of all involved in the shameful episode. No "ifs and buts" just the names and the logs. Now. The need to be published openly on WP ANI for everyone to see what is going on. Giano 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be against established protocol. I will not make any more potentially controversial actions as a result of this. Zsinj^Talk 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and how do you plan to get this information? with a time machine? or by breaching the T&Cs of service on freenode and the channel ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs)

• You've got the name of the person who blocked. He has taken responsibility for his actions, as he should. What you're really asking for is a list of persons who muttered, at some point, that they thought Badlydrawnjeff ought to be blocked. What, exactly, do you intend to do with this list? Of what value could it possibly be? If there's something worth arbitrating the arbs will get the logs privately, as with all private communications. We've been over this before. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyone who actually believes that IRC (unencrypted, untrusted server-web arcitecture) communications are "private communications," is wrong. I noticed that the channel's documentation page here gave poor information regarding this alleged "privacy." I have corrected this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Obviously it's insecure, but then so is email. It's private in the sense that it is not a communication meant for public consumption, that's all (and, furthermore, one whose publication is prohibited by the host). Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The prohibitions against logging / publication are neither legally nor morally enforcable in this case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see, the argument is that people on IRC have a right to privacy. If anything, that lack of transparency makes the idea of using IRC for anything of this nature even more disturbing. Secret courts and hidden evidence are the sort of thing that makes for trouble and conflict. Certainly there are things which should be kept private. This is not one of them. I admonish *anybody* thinking of using IRC for dealing with problems of anything but the most routine and unambiguous nature to not do so. It's unhealthy for Wikipedia. And yes, I know it's fundamentally impossible to stop people from talking off Wiki about whatever they want. I do not suggest any proscriptive action. I merely advise all admins that the best way to do things is upfront and open to the public. To do otherwise risks creating an atmosphere that causes problems, not solves them. Mister.Manticore 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why people are encouraged to justify blocks on-wiki. You'll notice the chorus of administrators denouncing what happened. This kind of screw-up makes everybody look bad. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of people who were aware of block but did not take action to correct it would be easily determined from a log. I missed the part in our privacy policy that allowed any-given-adminstrator access to non-public information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. The policy is freenode's, not ours, and applies to all channels, not just that one. This isn't a question of administrators vs. non-administrators. As to your first point, I'm not sure what action could be taken prior to the block, other than stated disagreement, and afterwards there was indignation followed by a prompt unblock. You seem to wish to penalize people for thinking a block was a good idea. What about people who voiced support on-wiki? Do we punish them to? Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no obligation to assist in freenodes enforcement of their policies. Specifically, the posting of such logs to wikipedia where appropriate is appropriate, and (currently) is not prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all those who were present on the freenode channel, do have an obligation to conform to freenode's policies. If this means no public dissemination of channel logs, then they must not publicly disseminate channel logs. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Freenode's policies are located at this page and do not mention any prohibition on logging whatsoever. Beyond that, a user of the irc network is not required at any time to affix a signature, digital or otherwise, to said policies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Jeff seems to have already seen the logs, my point may be moot, but whatever the policies are of freenode or WP, doing the right thing should take precedent. daveh4h 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's agreeing with a block, and then there's egging someone on to do the block, up to and including assisting with the wording of the blocking statement. The former is simply opinion, and you can't go after someone for uneducated or ignorant opinion, but the latter is just as bad as pulling the trigger, if not worse if you're trying to get someone else to do the dirty work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that to a point, but ultimately we have to expect that our adminstrators are capable of independent judgement. I can't speak to the direct circumstances--I wasn't active, nor was the conversation in my scrollback. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite your (Jeff's) own opinion, I was not forced to take out the laundry or to do another person's dirty work or anything like that. I asked questions. I made my own opinion (here's where it started) and took action (here's where it ended). Please do not join the crowd of people who are assuming without first having evidence to back up your claim. Asking for more than one bird to be hit with your stone is simply trying to do as much damage as possible before the ArbCom case is concluded. Zsinj^Talk 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is that I have the evidence. Yes, you asked questions, and yes, you made your own opinion based on those questions. I'm also convinced, seeing the flow of the discussion, that you were played very, very hard. Which is unfortunate. You don't need to try and be the fall guy here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your seemingly sympathetic concerns are making me go back and look at the conversation myself. Perhaps my opinion will change once I have reread it. Thank you. Zsinj^Talk 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given I haven't set up mIRC to log since I got my new computer, can someone email the log to me? Thanks. :( Zsinj^Talk 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a matter of me getting home later than usual from class and seeing what was up on IRC. There was no secret evidence. There was no secret court. There is no cabal (seriously) and even if there were, I wouldn't be a part of it. IRC is a place I go to see how people are doing and to have lively discussions about whatever. When people make IRC a mystical secret court with secret rules and evidence, they are creating a dream world for the justification of their attack. I had decided I was not going to return to the channel before Mackensen removed my ability to do so. Zsinj^Talk 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was wrong. The unblock was right. Zsinj has already apologized. This is w/o precedent. The case is already being discussed and dealt w/ at the related ArbCom case. Can we please close this thread and if you like open [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Decisions and blocks based on IRC discussions are BAD and should be immediately be reverted and sanctioned]? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this can be closed. The only comments still coming in are from people just piling on the "This block was bad! Zsinj is bad!" comments. Put a link to the ArbCom case up at the top and let this get archived. Zsinj^Talk 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again the community (that's you) has proven that it is incapable of doing anything productive, but is instead willing to take a shit on other people whenever something "bad" happens. Nice job, guys. Conservapedia could use few more idiots like yourselves. -Pilotguy hold short 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And where is Giano when you need him? He digs stuff like this. Oh well, he's brianwashed and told you enough bedtime stories about IRC enough as it is already. Kudos. -Pilotguy hold short 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil, even when discussing difficult issues. Thank you. --BigDT 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Reverting at Jerusalem

Today's featured article is Jerusalem. Unsurprisingly, we have quite a few people changing parts of the text to erase the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The same goes for other overtly controversial changes. In some ways, these are content disputes, but since this has been discussed for such a long time and since these edits are removing supported statements, does it cross into the territory of vandalism? Another editor asked me whether reverting edits such as these will count against him in regards to the three-revert rule. -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooo, that's a very tricky article to have as the main-page featured article. I certainly wouldn't block someone for 3rr for reverting back to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. (It IS. Right now.) Grandmasterka 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also left a message earlier on Raul's talk page asking him to reconsider protection for this reason. If people have real content disputes, can't they wait till tomorrow? nadav (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The featured article of the day isn't supposed to be protected, because it's our showcase piece, intended to display the best aspects of Wikipedia, which includes that it can be edited. I don't think anyone should be subject to 3RR for reverting to keep the article at the same quality level it was at when it became a featured article. As Nadav says, anyone with a genuine content dispute can wait until it's off the main page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks for the latest revert, which I was afraid to do myself. nadav (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope everybody is now wide awake and ready to help with reverting. The vandalism is getting worse now. nadav (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

can't they wait till tomorrow? How would that be possible? Are we going to put a tag on top of the article or leaving a note for each edit warrior? Simply that would not be possible. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been leaving notes on most of the their talk pages asking them to discuss the issue first. But it's a moot point now, since the page is currently semiprotected due to the excessively high vandalism level (which I understand has been making it difficult for regular users to edit the article). nadav (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I don't know what's going on with that. nadav (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, featured articles of this nature have to have a fully protected exceptional clause. People have worked hard (tons of discussions, conflicts, ArbCom cases, etc) to get it featured. I understand that the wiki-philosophy is against protecting featured articles but we also know that massive edit warring → full-protection and we got the dscussion page if someone has to add something encyclopedic or sort out the EW. We do that all the time, why not now? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Wisamzaqoot has committed a 3RR violation. I am putting this complaint here for context. nadav (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Crayon Shinchan

I have blocked Crayon Shinchan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely because of his claims that he is the copyright owner of the anime and manga series in his image uploads. I have also told the user to contact OTRS if he truly is the copyright owner.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Would have been a {{usernameblock}} on the way, regardless. The copyright claims are unlikely, and I agree with indef until OTRS says otherwise. ··coelacan 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I requested a checkuser, and it came back that the IP resolves to a North American ISP. That solves one problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism POV edits at dinosaur articles

Recent vandalism and Christian fundamentalist POV-pushing on dinosaur articles has gone way up in the last week or so, perhaps due in part to a recent news item which compared Wikipedia's article on Dinosaurs with Conservapedia's. I've never seen my dinosaur watchlist this active. I would have posted this at WP:AIAV, but many of the edits aren't vandalism per se, though some come close. List of dinosaurs gives an idea of the number of articles which are getting hit, and which itself has come under some attacks. Velociraptor, Parasaurolophus, Deinonychus, Dinosaur, Gorgosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Sinornithosaurus‎, Alwalkeria, Ankylosaurus, Argentinosaurus, others have been vandalized during the past couple of days. Mostly, the stuff is easy to fix, but these incidents seem to be increasing. Might some nice folks add some dinosaur articles to their watchlists? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)‎

I've watchlisted all the ones you mention specifically, and I'll add several more from the List of dinosaurs. Thanks for bringing this up; it could use a lot more eyes. Doc Tropics 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know this is like the fourth time this week you've saved my bacon, Doc. I think some award is in order... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also watchlisting. Protecting our dinos! :) --Ashenai 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Save them from extinction. ;-) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you let me know on my talk page of any articles you want me to check monitor after the initial surge dies out that the above aren't taking care of I'll be happy to help. jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you run into persistent problems with any specific editors, I would be glad to have a little chat with them and see if we can bring them around to NPOV editing - I have had some success with similar situations in the past (and don't know enough about dinos to really help with the watchlist). Just drop me a note to point me in the right direction. Pastordavid 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Much appreciated! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The interest by creationists in changing Wikipedia articles may have been recently stimulated by this [44] new museum which shows animatronic friendly dinosaurs interacting with early humans, and which explains how the Grand Canyon could have been created in a few days by the Noah's Ark flood in Genesis. There is a very well funded effort in the U.S devoted to "refuting evolution and expanding the flock of believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible". Expect much more of the same in any articles which disagree with fundamentalist creationism. Edison 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User copy-pasting boilerplate fair-use rationales

Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took issue to an image I tagged with {{nrd}}, and has started going around to all sorts of fair use images and tagging them with his own boilerplate fair-use rationale. See the diffs at [45], [46], [47], [48] for examples. I have tried to explain to him that if it were enough to just copy-and-paste that rationale on EVERY fair-use image, there would be no need for rationales at all. I don't want to be alone tilting at windmills here - could a couple other admins have a look at the situation and throw us your opinion? (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind them doing that, as long as the rationales are good and convincing. There are many instances of supposedly fair-use images that are parallel and subject to identical rationales, there's nothing wrong with having boilerplate for those. But what does "it provides an immediate relevance to the reader" mean? Is it even English? It seems to be a convoluted way of saying "every book/CD/movie ought to have a picture because it's nice to have a picture." If that's a valid fair-use rationale, then fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I had some discussions with Eastmain (talk) yesterday as well. I too am fine with him adding rationales to images in CAT:NR, but he needs coaching on what makes a reasonable rationale. I probably do too.

The new WP:CSD has stressed out a bunch of users. It seems like there are some editors that have the ability to separate clearly good rationales from obviously bad - but when asked to explain I always end up hearing that they know them when they see them. Which ends up with users like Eastmain throwing weird constructs at the wall hoping that somewhere in their rationale there will be a gem that sparkles and 'saves' this image.

I'm going to post more of my thoughts on this at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline, since I think that WP:FURG needs to be cleaned up to explain better. ~ BigrTex 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anything at User:ESkog/Rationales useful in this discussion? I've been tinkering with this a little bit, trying to make it clearer what we expect of a fair-use rationale. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at that a couple of times. Both your page and FURG talk about a separate rationale for each use - which makes sense to me, using an album cover on the album article is almost obvious (I think), but on the page for the record company would need more explaination. However, everywhere says that the rationale needs to include the source/copyright information - except all images require that, and it isn't included on each rationale in your album cover example. It seems to me that only the purpose of the image needs to be included for each page.

The second problem is {{Non-free media rationale}}, which I thought was a great idea and have been using and advising others to use until today when I read User:Iamunknown's comment here that he's "not seen an adequate non-free use rationale composed with this template."

Further, any example of a good rationale for x (album cover, book cover, etc) is going to be used copy/paste by editors who don't want to take the time to understand rationales. But I don't think that many of us who are trying to understand fair use rationales are getting what's needed either.

The final problem is that there is the impression, at least for me, that while hand-crafting a rationale for a historic photograph, screenshot, or magazine cover makes sense because they require critical commentary in the article and justification, a rationale for Image:KLOS-FM.png's use on KLOS or Image:Faithinthepoweroflove.jpg on Faith (In the Power of Love) should be covered by a reasonably simple (almost boilerplate) rationale. ~ BigrTex 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the fair use rationales that I have provided have been entirely appropriate. A logo may be used to illustrate an article about the logo's owner. An album cover or book cover image may be used to illustrate an article about the album, book, artist or author. There is nothing unique about individual book articles or individual author articles that requires any variation in wording. If this is not the case, the issue is not one of tagging, but rather one of removing every logo used only to illustrate an article about a company or sports team, and every book, album or poster image except for that comparative handful of articles that discuss the history and esthetics of the logo or cover design more than the logo's owner. Let me make this clear: This is not about tagging, but rather about use. If you consider that logos without unique fair use rationales ought to be deleted, then you are making a policy decision to eliminate virtually every logo on Wikipedia. And in my view, that would be a mistake. --Eastmain 15:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Daviiid & Landev operating as Sockpuppets of blocked user Davnel03 (aka Neldav)

Daviid and Landev are sockpuppets of the block user Davnel03 (also operated the now blocked sockpuppet account Neldav. He has admitted these are his accounts here and is using at least one of them to make disruptive edits. Can an administrator block both these accounts asap. AlexJ 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand tagging images for speedy deletion

User:Betacommand used a bot to tag hundreds of fair use images for speedy deletion last night, because they didn't have fair use rationales. While it would be preferable for all fair use images to have rationales, this heavyhanded approach caught many images which clearly qualify for fair use. In these cases it would be far less stressful and uncivil for a human to simply add the rationale, rather than pasting hundreds of threatening messages on talk pages. In addition, the bot's edits broke several articles including here and here. If Betacommand does this for another round, a discussion of blocking him and rolling back the contributions seems to be appropriate. Rhobite 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been discussed to death already. All fair use images require a specific justification in addition to the boilerplate templates, its not just "preferable." It is neither the duty nor obligation of any user to write these justifications; presumably the people most interested in the articles will be in the best position to do so. Feel free to add specific rationales to the images you want kept, according to Wiipedia and Foundation policy. Thatcher131 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the point of adding more text to the description page of images like Image:DickMorris RewritingHistory Cover.jpg? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a specific fair use rational for each page it is being used on. See WP:FUC. ^(H) 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this badly-written bot is breaking links when it tries to leave a template inside infoboxes, potentially leaving disputed images as orphaned and liable to being deleted by Orphanbot. This is completely unacceptable, which is why I have hit the bot shutoff button. -- Arwel (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hay stupid unblock the bot. I made those edits. I dont want to screem ADMIN abuse but that is what your doing. CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING. look at who made the edits, It was me and not a bot. /me sighs yet another person who doesnt know policy, and doesnt check their facts before acting and is an admin Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked your bot. Please remember to be civil, even in difficult circumstances. Thank you. --BigDT 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you actually saw that your edits were damaging the articles, and yet continued editing? Words fail me - we can understand a bot messing things up, but human beings are supposed to have the ability to use common sense. If you saw the articles were being damaged, there is nothing so pressing that articles and images have to be tagged now -- the world will not end if you wait a few days and found a non-damaging way to mark disputed images. -- Arwel (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite; tagging valid images that can be used under fair use only because now they need a rationale is really disruptive. You can't expect to have all the fair-use images uploaded since Wikipedia's creation to get a rationale in one week. Many users that uploaded those images don't contribute to the Wikipedia anymore, and can't place the rationale to those images. I think a bot-tagging for such images is necessary, but not marking them for deletion. A team of volunteers should try to place a rationale on the reationale-needing tagged images whenever possible, or place a deletion tag otherwise.

Anyhow, Betacommand's edits are far from the ideal way of handling this, and the user has proved not to be open to contructive critic. My 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

we have let these images slide for over 3 years, that is way too long. we need to take action and fast. its not my responsibility for FUR. its the uploader. tagging for deletion gets people off their butts and gets them going. All im doing is enforcing policy. the tagging and letting others come back later is a bad idea. we do the same for pages lacking source with {{nosource}} we have pages tagged that date back to 2005. for copyright violations such backlogs cannot be created. they need to be dealt with quickly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you still don't get it. Nobody is arguing with you about policy. It's you method at addressing the problem that irks people. Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody with the technical knowledge to actually write a good, functioning bot to automatically add rationale to established fair use images like album covers and sports team logos? Where should I ask for this bot? Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could write it if were possible but per policy a bot cannot fill in the details needed for a valid FUR. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a bot that automatically fills rationale for every image without a fair use rationale. The person who runs the bot should be discriminate. I don't know how to run a bot, but the bot user obviously only runs the bot for images that share the same, yet specific, rationale. Like album covers or sports team logos. Blueshirts 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even then a bot cannot do that. bots are not smart enough to write a valid FUR as EACH must be unique and specific to the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is this? Also, yes, bots are smart enough to write a valid FUR for certain kinds of acceptable fair use. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff bots cannot be that smart. Trust me Ive been trying to make a smart bot for a very long time. see WP:FURG we need a detailed explanation of why me must use the image every time we do use it. A bot cannot be programmed to be human. Also read WP:NONFREE Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several types of images that could have a highly generic fair use rationale (chiefly: album and book covers). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Betacommand. I've been working on images for the last few months, as have others. The best things that have happened to the image situation in that time have been BJBot and Betacommand's tool. And the reason why is that they wake people up by moving large quantities of non-conforming images into deletion categories so that they are noticed.

I would oppose any attempt at creating a bot to automatically fill in fair use rationales. If a bot were going to do that, what's the point in requiring a fair use rationale for each use? Just put it in the template. Corvus cornix 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that he has chosen to improve his tool so that it notifies the uploaders when he tags the images, since technically that is not required. There seem to be some users working hard at WP:NR to address this issue, but it isn't clear to me that they were doing much before Betacommand got his tool working.

It's not like these images are gone forever. If 6 weeks from now, you come across an album page and you think 'This used to have an image on it': check the history, find the deleted image, prepare a rationale for it, and take it to Deletion review.

I expect and hope that the volume of image tagging that Betacommand is doing will drop off in the next couple of weeks because the backlog of images get fixed or removed. After that hopefully the folks working on rationales now continue to monitor new images to help less experienced users bring their images into compliance with our guidelines when they are uploaded. ~ BigrTex 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you can provide a valid rationale for an image, I don't see why you'd need to send it to DRV. Just restore and add the rationale. We're not a bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, in fact please don't take them to deletion review. (Deletion review requires you attempt to resolve it with the deleting admin first...) --pgk 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been something that has annoyed me for a while. Orginally, WP:CSD said that an image could be speedied for having no rationale only if it had a generic tag {{fairuse}} or {{fairusein}}. That statement was removed without discussion and for the stated intention that {{fairusein2}}, {{fairusein3}}, etc, should also apply. It was never intended to apply to all fair use images, only to those with a generic tag.

The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.

If the image obviously qualifies for fair use and is only missing a pro forma rationale, please, just FIX IT rather than having it deleted. Creating extra busy work serves no purpose. By all means, if it is a promo photo or so-called historic photo or something like that, kill it dead and if lack of a rationale is the excuse, that's fine. But we don't need to go around killing logos, screenshots, or other things where there is nothing meaningful to say beyond what is on the tag. --BigDT 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, the issue is we cant just have the images because it makes the page look better. the images are copyright and we need to explain why me must inculude the image. Does the article HAVE to have that image? if not remove it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no Wikipedia policy, standard, or guideline which states that all articles need an image. Free images? Sure. But if the article has a non-free image just so it can be there, or just to show a picture of the thing which is already obviously the subject of the article (and yes, I'm looking at you too, album and book covers) is outside of current policy. The fair-use rationale explicitly requires critical commentary about the image in the article in every case excepting logos. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, every case excepting logos. If any logo can be found to be fair use for the article on the organization that the logo is representation of, then all logos are fair use. It's pretty simple, really: a logo is fair use because it's a logo; a logo is an important visual representation of an organization that serves to immediately identify that organization in the real world and it serves exactly the same purpose on Wikipedia. If we can write up a fair use rationale for one logo, then the exact same rationale will apply to all other logos as well. Betacommand, however, is indiscriminately tagging logos along with all the other things he's tagging (actually, he said he decided to start with logos, which plenty of people have explained are the least troublesome fair use images we have). Lexicon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but for right now, the standard is that in basically every article about a company or school, we have the logo of the institution in the upper right corner of the article. Do we have to do it that way? No, not really. But still, that's the standard. As long as it remains the standard, removing logos piecemeal is silly. For anything uploaded prior to the last six months, at the time they were uploaded, WP:CSD said that only {{fairusein}} had to have a rationale. So deleting these things instead of fixing them is bad. If we want to change our policy and use NO logos unless the logo itself is a source of controversy and we are offering commentary on it, I'm all for that. I think infoboxes would look nicer with photographs anyway. But that isn't how we do things right now, and tagging these things is just creating busy work.--BigDT 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place where we really, truly differ is on the amount of time it takes to "fix" an image. I believe, and I think Betacommand does as well, that the current system of tagging an image and notifying the uploader is most likely to see results within the first seven days; if it does not, then it is better to delete the image so that someone can start over. We all seem to agree that non-free images need a fair-use rationale, and that we should do something about making sure that happens. This isn't as big a dispute as it would appear, on the whole. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's something you are not considering. Take for instance image Image:Cybersix.jpg; from {{comicpanel}}, Cydebot changed it into {{Non-free comic}}, and then Betacommand into {{non-free use disputed}}. The problem here is that we lost the info that this is a comics image without proper fair use rationale. Wasn't it a lot easier and useful to chenge the {{Non-free comic}} template to reflect the new policies, instead of replacing the tag for god-knows how many low-res comic images?

This makes life harder for anyone trying to add rationales to a kind of images of a topic he knows best. --Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits reblocked

Someone need to attend to this [49] where an admin is acticing out of a fit of pique! and ignoring discussion above. Giano 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Personal attack blocks never work; I thought we'd learned that. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunately not everyone with an admin bit has learned it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then they should have the bit taken away from them. There is a very ugly situation developing over the Kittybrewster business, tens of pages many with uncited (or worse deceptively cited) gross exaggerations, a constant stream of deletions is not the answer, especially as there is a practised team supporting these pages, refusing to believe proven inaccuracies. I suggest some responsible and reputable admin concerns himself with it before it gets completely out of hand. He has been warned but blanks his page. I do not say he is a liar, but he certainly is retentive with the truth. I understand Vintagekit's anger, others are equally angry at this charade. I strongly suggest someone like Mackensen with experience of the peerage deals with it. Finally, for what it is worth, no European titled person, of ancient lineage, would ever dream of editing of an internet page concerning their own relations - they leave that to others - it is considered vulgar. That is as it may Kittybrewster only claims to be a second baronet - so I suppose the behaviour of those in the Libro d'Oro does not apply. Anyway - whatever - it needs sorting before it becomes completely out of hand. Giano 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Kittybrewster is put on a parole of having to cite page numbers and ISBNs of almost every verb he writes. He will not be allowed to cite his own web-sites or books published by his own relatives unless they follow the same guideline. Short of banning Kittybrewster completely I can see no alternative to restore trust in anything he writes, perhaps we need an arb com case to enforce this, it would be more pleasant to all if a guiding admin could just act as a mentor to him - to see if that helps - Mackensen? Giano 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to lend a hand here, particularly with the sourcing issues. I would think that self-published sources may only be used if they can be corrorborated by secondary works–and if they can, why use the self-published source? If we can reliably source these articles, we can also resolve lingering notability questions. I'm also willing to play the role of unofficial mediator between parties as proves necessary. We should probably start with a thorough review of the articles in question--Giano, I know you've done a lot of these leg-work already. Adjourn to my talk page? Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Resolved

 – Unless Fut.Perf. didn't email Mangojuice, I'm assuming this is resolved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Will an admin with an established non-admin account please email me? I want to test something. I'm afraid it might be very important. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Ashley (businessman)

Resolved

 – Now protected. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The wiki entry for Mike Ashley (businessman)is being vandalised quite heavily : you may want to lock it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.110.12 (talk • contribs).

The page has been protected by Alphachimp; thanks for bringing it up for attention. Doc Tropics 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Large scale scandal: Group of admins abuse authority to protect ciber criminals

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

Group of admins closed this disruption and trolling mixed w/ WP:LEGAL nonsense w/ authority to protect wikipedia from ciber stalkers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Trojan Horse Virus stealing passwords and codes launched from WP Sandbox – WP Users safety compromised – Wikipedia security concept flawed

Complicity of left wing Bullies: allowed to monopolise economics pages – Thousands of tilels vandalised – WP neutrality compromised.

Extreme left users like User:El_C... openly claim discretion over the WP blocking policy on the administrators notice board.

False accusations spread over tens of talk pages. Abuse of Wikipedia credability to damage reputation of adversaries in google searches - WP trustworthiness compromised

Qualified intimidation of disliked newcomers – Users privacy disclosed – Hundreds of bona fide contributors scared away

Large scale cover-up operations – systhematic vandalism on talk pages.

User:Advocates-For-Free-Speech unveil scandal, get silenced and indefinately blocked

-

Call on bona fide admins to intervene and stop criminal gang taking over key admin positions and WP content

--Advocates Defending Free Speech 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this just isn't convincing without more capital letters. Friday (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the board. Is this a kind of trolling? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this user constitute some sort of legal threat? There are official advocacies that users can use. I would think that this user, and any users they are "defending" in a "legal case" should be blocked per WP:LEGAL. Wikipedia is not a "free speech zone", it's an encyclopedia. Want free speech? Go start your own blog. They're free. - Crockspot 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a group account and banned-user sockpuppet [50]. --Dynaflow babble 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd have speedily archived this, but it is so funny I decided to leave it for a bit :-) Guy (Help!) 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed a chuckle today. This is just the thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The parrot is particularly entertaining. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ROFL at title of this thread. WjBscribe 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, can all bone fide admins line up over here, please? Rouge admins will have to leave the room while we talk ;) - Alison ☺ 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• His links return error messages. They've obviously been oversighted by the Cabal. ;-) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)

Right guys, I closed the above AfD discussion yesterday as redirect to Monarchy in Canada, and the creator of the article (G2bambino (talk · contribs)) is continuously recreating the article in a slightly different name (Royal family of Canada), he’s basically doing a cut and paste move of the orignal article. Can someone else go and have a nice word with them, because every time I try and redirect the new page – he reverts. Cheers. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was for an article titled Canadian Royal Family. The result was a redirect, with no decision reached on what should happen to the cited and verifiable content of that article that wasn't, and still isn't, repeated anywhere else. The information cannot simply be deleted, so without other option, it goes in a new article. The title Royal family of Canada corresponds to the topic therein. --G2bambino 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect, not merge, or copy and paste into a new article, the consensus was that the content wasn't needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited, verifiable and relevant content cannot be simply deleted. --G2bambino 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can, it was the result of the AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if that is the consensus of the AfD, then that is the consensus of the AfD. Pastordavid 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's censorship, and against WP:DEL. --G2bambino 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't care. The consenus is wrong. If anyone has any suggestions as to where else the content should go, I'm all ears. But there's patently no reason to delete it, what-so-ever. --G2bambino 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• You do realise that the above is usually step one on the road to a ban, don't you? Guy (Help!) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so now we're resorting to threats. I can see how the co-operation Wikipedia is built on is coming into full effect here. I'll repeat myself, so it's clear: the content is cited, verifiable and relevant information; no part of WP:DL justifies its deletion. If everyone's adamant that there will be no article called Canadian Royal Family, then so be it, but I'm at a loss as to where else to put the contents that aren't currently anywhere else. Got suggestions or questions, please raise them, but don't blindly resort to bullying. --G2bambino 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people believe here, what matters is the consensus of the AfD, in essence, the content isn't required here so you don't have to put it anywhere else, and that includes creating pages with slightly different names. since the history of Canadian Royal Family isn't deleted, you could put content in Monarchy in Canada if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: it's not a threat, it's a statement of fact. Asserting that you are right and consensus is wrong, and continuing to go against consensus on that basis, is an absolutely certain route to a ban. Do not ignore consensus, or those who have told you that you must respect it, engage on the talk page of the redirect target and see if there is a way your content can be acommodated. And if it can't, then learn to live with it. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family was re-established precicely because a plethora of content was moved out of Monarchy in Canada after the latter grew to an immense size. Putting it back there - ie. making Monarchy in Canada longer again - is against WP guidelines. Regardless, I'll move it back, for a second time, and start a discussion about it, but nobody besides me really makes major edits to that article. --G2bambino 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This was briefly discussed at DRV today. The only reason there was a case to consider was that a merge occurred last year, and we needed the history back. As I commented in the DRV, the consensus of the AFD is blazingly obvious, and any changes to it need to be the result of the formation of a different consensus in the appropriate place. Ignoring the AFD consensus is disruptive editing. My initial opinion was that the redirect should be protected, but others at DRV disagreed. I see that the edit war over the redirect is continuing, so I reiterate the call for a protection. Normally, we would always protect at the wrong version, but since one version has a consensus and the other doesn't, one is more wrong than the other. GRBerry 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and have ion fact already protected the redirects. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, G2bambino please respect the consensus in this matter. ^(H) 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is wrong? Even if it is, you still have to wait for it to change G2bambino. Sancho 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. A number of people involved in the AfD (obviously the majority, but certainly not everyone) operated under the clearly mistaken belief that almost all the content of Canadian Royal Family was already covered at Monarchy in Canada; it was, and still is, not. Poor research before casting a vote, it seems. The consensus can indeed change, but there needs to be a forum where that can happen. Completely obliterating the content under question doesn't allow for that. --G2bambino 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct forum is Wikipedia:Deletion review. You can raise your objections to the outcome of the AfD, especially the one you just mentioned (poor research, etc.) and hopefully a more informed consensus will result. Sancho 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV, and if that does not work, then the community has spoken. ^(H) 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While DRV often rejects disputes over redirecting and merging, instead referring them to a consensus to be formed on the article's talk page, per the discussion here I've opened a new review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Canadian Royal Family to discuss the redirection issue. I didn't reopen the earlier review as the GFDL history issue should be kept separate. GRBerry 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was mulling over whether this would be necessary/useful as I'm not particularly driven to have the particular article reinstated, just to ensure that the valid content goes somewhere appropriate. --G2bambino 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but what I do when something is going to be deleted that I don't think the world can live without is I save a snapshot of the page into the edit history of my own sandbox. Then it can always be retrieved down the road. If it's already gone, you can request a copy of it in your user space, save the content into your sandbox, then have it deleted. - Crockspot 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem that all of this leaves is that editors at Monarchy in Canada are more or less compelled to keep doing what Gbambino is doing - it is the right editorial decision. Content gets merged per AfD - article is way too big, so it needs to be split out again, et cetera.... WilyD 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

66.99.250.130 attempting to harass a third party

This edit to Charles contains a supposed phone number. It might be best to remove this from the database.--Ray Chason 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask over at Requests for Oversight. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Quinnling & Ahmoi

• Quinnling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JimmyLeeChunToi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) likely sock of Quinnling only edit was to vandalize Ahmoi using the exact text that Quinnling had been using.

Quinnling was involved in a 3 month long content dispute that degenerated into a vandalism spree on Ahmoi. I attempted to engage him in a dialog to create a useful article, but he ignored me & continued with his vandalism. Eventually, the page was deleted, as it was about an unremarkable website. (log entries below). Prior to today, I had warned this user up to uw-vandalism4. Today, this user recreated the page with the content he had been using to vandalize the page. I'm not sure what, if anything should be done here, all but one of Quinnling's edits have been to Ahmoi, and based on information in the article history & the username of the other party, I believe the whole situation started out as a content dispute with an individual who had a COI as one of the site owners. I leave this in your capable hands :)

• 03:52, 21 May 2007 Mark (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ahmoi" (Speedy deletion CSD A7 - Unremarkable website. Article does not does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.)
• (diff) (hist) . . N Ahmoi?; 15:33 . . (+782) . . Quinnling (Talk | contribs) (?Created page with '{Orphan|date=August 2006} http://www.Fuck_ahmoi.com Ahmoi is an Online Adult Community in Malaysia. It is the first online adult friends portal ...')
• (diff) (hist) . . m Ahmoi?; 15:40 . . (+12) . . HeirloomGardener (Talk | contribs) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD g11). using TW)
• 15:43, 23 May 2007 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ahmoi" (content was: '{db-spam}{Orphan|date=August 2006} http://www.Fuck_ahmoi.com Ahmoi is an Online Adult Community in Malaysia. It is the first on...')

--Versageek 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article has been re-created in its promotional state and speedily deleted twice in the past week, I've salted it to prevent its re-re-recreation. Since all of the accounts' edits have been to that article, I think that will solve the problem. If not, let me know. Thoughts on the appropriateness of this solution? MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John Brown (abolitionist)

Resolved

 – IP range blocked

Could we get, perhaps, a several hour block or so on the 167.135.48.x IP range? Someone is constantly IP hopping on this range to vandalize John Brown (abolitionist). Either that, or a short semi-protection for that page. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I rangeblocked User:167.135.0.0/16 for 3 months: apparently that entire range is registered to Salem-Keizer public schools. The article was semiprotected but I wouldn't want the vandals to move on to another target. Mangojuice^talk 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that school will be letting out soon (at least here in the states), three months will probably overshoot when the vandals will still be using it. That said, it doesn't hurt anything, either. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX/Suicide at WP:DRV

Resolved

Can someone please close this? It's been open since the 17th and I think a consensus can be read from the debate. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though I've withdrawn my opinion, I've participated in the discussion enough that I shouldn't close it. I agree that it is ready for close, but the relisting earlier today has probably moved it off Xoloz's radar, and the other regular DRV closers have almost all opined in the discussion. GRBerry 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got to learn to do it sometime. I think the consensus is pretty clear, especially weighing the strength of the arguments. If somebody decides I've done it wrongly, either in substance or in form, please do correct it; I won't be upset. William Pietri 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mechanically correct. I also believe the right decision was made. The amount of explanation is a matter of individual judgement; which I make on a case by case basis myself. GRBerry 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed a little wordy to me, but I wanted to make sure everybody felt heard, and to allow people to check my newbie-closer thinking. I'm sure if I do a bunch of these I'll become much more terse. :-) -- William Pietri 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Warren Allen Smith and Philosopedia

The above-mentioned User is egregiously spamming Wikipedia with his website, Philosopedia. On many pages he uses this Wiki site he founded in external links, or as a primary source. Another issue is he is linking words in articles like "secular humanism" not to Wikipedia, but to Philosopedia with an external redirect. A search for Philosopedia comes up with many articles where this has transpired. He is also spamming project pages asking for help with Philosopedia. --David Shankbone 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked a few examples. He provides links to his site as "External links". These links seem to be completely appropriate and convenient for reader since they provide some helpful information not included in the corresponding WP article. I think he is not spamming but improves WP articles. Biophys 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Philosopedia is a Wiki site, meaning that it's information may or may not be accurate; it is not a peer-reviewed or journalistic site. Also, linking terms found inside Wikipedia, secular humanism for example, and taking them outside to his own website is certainly spam. Third, asking for help on his website to project pages, such as he has done twice. Here are some examples of Mr. Smith's "improvements":

1. • Sulzberger Jr. is an agnostic, according to Philosopedia.
2. "A June 1969 Stonewall riots veteran, I have practiced what the present WikiProject preaches. Some entries have already been added as "external links" to Wikipedia. But with no staff, I've made errors and welcome volunteers who can help by correctly Wikifying entries such as the following, as well as suggesting new ones:"diff
3. Asked about philosophy in 1951, when he was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, he responded that he was a secular humanist and naturalist. (from Van Wyck Brooks)

These sorts of examples go on and on. Aside from Conflict of Interest issues, Wikifying links to redirect to one's own website is the very definition of SPAM. --David Shankbone 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Garden-variety spam. I have warned Smith that if he continues the site will be blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that this [51] is advertisement, but his external links in the articles did not seem to advertise his site, but provided some additional information. So, the redirection to "one's own website is the very definition of SPAM". I did not realize that.Biophys 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The link summaries made it pretty clear that he is promoting himself, his website and his agenda. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• See also Wasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), WASmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Warren Allen Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I spy vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. There is no questions that he trying to make self-promotion in WP. But he also seems to be a notable and intelligent person, who might actually help to improve WP. So, may be one should not consider all his activities as entirely destructive and antagonize him by deleting all his links? Biophys 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the strangest reasons I've seen to allow someone to SPAM Wikipedia (using three User names) for his own website that competes with Wikipedia (which explains why he doesn't particularly add content, just links). --David Shankbone 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clear and straight forward case of linkspam coupled with a clear COI - he should suggest his links on the talkpages and then leave it to other editors. --Fredrick day 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a one-man band site anyway and therefore is not the sort of high-quality link we want to be adding. --Fredrick day 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He may seem to be a notable person, but there is a fair bit of self-promotion among the sources which say so. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a confusing issue. He is published, but a 2,000 printing by a small press. He has about 330 Google hits for his name (once repeats are factored out). Right now his Wikipedia page, Warren Allen Smith, written by himself, is a resume of everything he has written, contributed to, or appeared in. It would be worthwhile to get some input from other editors on that page. --David Shankbone 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

Resolved

 – BigDT protected the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone recreated this as a redirect after deletion. Please protect it while discussion is ongoing [52]. The way, the truth, and the light 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done ... I'm surprised that it wasn't turned into a protected title. But anyway, I have protected the redirect. If someone has any severe heartburn about whether it should be a protected deleted title or salted instead, feel free to change it - I don't really care one way or the other. --BigDT 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A redirect with no history seems right to me, people will probably be searching on the name. Thatcher131 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:64.251.54.66

Resolved

 – IP blocked.

64.251.54.66 has been vandalizing numerous pages. For instance, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Pig,Moctezuma I, and so forth. he has been warned several times. jwadeo 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked --BigDT 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

YAFN

Resolved

 – neo-nazi userpage deleted. Editor indefblocked - Alison ☺ 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone see any reason to keep User:Sixth Reich around? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please nuke him asap, thanks, --Tom 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious sign that they might be here to do something other than push POV. Would that be unfair conclusion-jumping on my part? --YFB ¿ 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With the possible exception of some deleted edits, his only edit other than his userpage is this claim at Talk:The Holocaust. It does not appear that he is here to contribute to the encyclopedia. GRBerry 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely, trolling. Someone else already got the userpage. Newyorkbrad 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've deleted it. Far as I can see, it fails WP:USER for a number of reasons; soapboxing / Polemical content, not to mention WP:DICK. Apart from the fact that it's offensive in the extreme - Alison ☺ 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • School kids. I did a CU and to no surprise it turned out he's from a school with almost nothing but vandalistic contributions from a dozen or so differently named editors. I've hardblocked the school until next fall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should also be known that User talk:207.193.115.183 is also operated by Judson High School. Right after I gave User:William Henry Harrison a Barnstar for helping me out big time I saw that he was blocked, I thought that was kind of strange. His username is not a vandal account I looked at his contribs and they were all good.--Uga Man 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, a great editor. Let's see: "Let's ask Monica what the shit tasted like"[53], something about George Washington and crop circles[54]... think it over. That's why I said "almost" nothing but vandalistic edits; only some of this editor's contributions were vandalism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to look at his recent edits especially to Commons and see that his most recent edits were not vandalism. All he did was put a dirty word on a Talk Page. The edits to George Washington look like a Test Edit to me because it was this editor's first edit. It doesn't really seem like this is a candidate to be blocked indefinitely because other editors have done far worse and gotten away with it.--Uga Man 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He's not blocked from Commons. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:67.87.69.5

67.87.69.5 (talk · contribs) needs poked with a stick (preferably a banstick). Once I determined the first five games he added "released for PS3, PSP" to were not true, I had to go through and revert pretty much all of his edits starting from last week-ish (as all of his edits from before then were already reverted). Nifboy 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkcurrent

I'm fairly new to Wiki, but have noticed that this user Darkcurrent (talk · contribs) constantly berates and belittles users. If you look what he mentions on people's userpages and in the edit summary, it's really childing and immature. Isn't there something anyone can do? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing some diffs of these statements would help. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about User:Darkcurrent and not User:Betacommand... in which case even a cursory glance at the contributions makes it pretty obvious. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

whoops, yes i'm so sorry, talking about DarkCurrent --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! Friday (talk · contribs) has blocked them for 31 hours, and I've placed the talk page on my watchlist. If I spot another edit summary like that, I'll indefinitely block them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cendyn

This user has already been associated with the Hotel Internet Marketing SEO scheme using Wikipedia, and has been warned about spamming, but is now back and creating more hotel ads disguised as articles. Corvus cornix 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just deleted their blatant hotel advert. However, there seems to be a multiple accounts thing going on here. Who's User:Cendyn.marriottharborbeach? - Alison ☺ 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've added "cendyn\.com" to Shadowbot's blacklist in case they move to article space again. Shadow1 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Benfeing

Could somebody take a look at Benfeing (talk · contribs)'s image uploads? He's listing all of these movie poster thumbnails as PD-Self, which I find highly unlikely. Corvus cornix 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding speedy delete tags to the images, with links to the sources. Pastordavid 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged a number of the images, but there are more. Perhaps someone with more experience could do this a little faster? I won't be able to get after any more until tomorrow. It does raise the larger question of at what point this stops being mis-labeled images and unintentional copyright violations, and starts being intentional and disruptive vandalism. Pastordavid 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism after the user has the situation explained at least briefly, is given links to WP:NONFREE and whatever else is relevant, is warned they can be blocked for it, and then keeps doing it. Copyright is a big enough problem that we have to block when someone refuses to understand. 48 hours is usually enough time to read the policies. ··coelacan 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad sources being kept in on University High School (Los Angeles, California)

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.

Take it to article talk, this seems to be nothing which requires admin intervention. --pgk 06:19, 24 May 2007

Ok, so the majority of the page is fine, but the part about the filming is highly negative, and highly critical of the high school. I have been removing the sections that either had no source, or were sourced unreliably. 100% of the negative information comes from a single source: "my.highschooljournalism.org" which is where the high school student newspaper is hosted online.

Student newspapers are not reliable sources. They are not required to be fact checked. They do not educate their writers about the dangers of libel and defamation. They are written by students, by minors. This is clearly an unacceptable source. If this information is such a big deal, where are the other sources? Google shows nothing.

User:Badagnani and User:Miss Mondegreen continue to insist on including the negative information. If this article were about a person, I would have deleted it immediately, but it's not. If this article wants to contain that material, it needs to have a REAL source from it. I'd appreciate it if some other admins looked into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Student newspapers, like commercial newspapers, strive to be fair and accurate, and stories by student journalists are copyedited by other student journalists. Whether their writers are old enough to drink is irrelevant. The reason a high school newspaper is the best source of information in this case is that the news item happened in its backyard, in the same way that the best source of information about a murder is likely to be a newspaper published in the city where the murder took place. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does this require admin attention? What steps in dispute resolution have been tried? --ElKevbo 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Because users are locked in an edit war - And the participants are rather adamant about reverting. That's why. WhisperToMe 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And the dispute resolution steps that have been employed are...? --ElKevbo 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note that I just reverted swatjester (my second revert). The edit I reverted is swatjester's fourth revert. The other reason this is here is because we had a hard time getting people to the talk page--swatjester didn't comment on the talk page until his second or third revert (though he left comments on user talks some of which I found insulting). I've been asking people to use the talk page for days, because in an effort to get rid of sources that they don't like we've had numerous blatantly incorrect edits followed by a revert war where too many parties refused to come to the talk page. The revert war also happened while I was actually writing parts of the section which made actually doing anything (like adding the other sources people wanted so badly) very difficult.

You reverted people other than me. And we HAVE been using the talk page, you are refusing to listen there. Please stop misrepresenting yourself. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, additional source include the latimes, the christian scince moniter and the daily news Miss Mondegreen talk  22:23, May 23 2007 (UTC)

And note they weren't deleted. Only the student newspaper was. Note that none of those sources you provided were alleging the negative material, only the student newspaper. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps discussion on the talk page counts? Talk:University_High_School_(Los_Angeles,_California)#filming_on_campus_.28attn:_whisper.29

This began as a debate over how to properly word a sentence. It veered into a new direction when a third party deleted the section, stating that the source was improper. Just read the talk page sections. WhisperToMe 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you've engaged in the first step of the WP:DR process. I fail to see why this was so quickly placed on ANI by experienced editors. If additional DR steps have been taken and I have missed them, please let me know. --ElKevbo 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed it here for two reasons: a) because Miss Mondegreen was revert warring to include negative, defamatory information without a reliable source. That clearly belongs here. Secondly, b) it was in response to her threat that if we didn't "stop" it at her preferred version she'd report us at AN/I. So I did it first. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New people entered the debate, but I cannot tell if it ever really stopped. But, the reason why this was listed has to do with accusations of 3RR made by the parties. WhisperToMe 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whisper and I had been semi-seccesssfully being bold, reverting and discussing when swatjester came in and decided that a large portion of the sources in question were unusable. I replied to him on the talk page about the validity of his argument, and overnight, rewrote the section adding in more outside sources and hopefully, dealing with the wording issues whisper had raised. without replying to any on the comments on the talk page, swatjester reverted again, starting an revert war, during which I continued to work on the section--because no comments were left on the talk page and because i happened to be editing in between the warring, I wasn't even aware of the war until the second or third round of reverting when swatjester left a comment on my talk page. at this point i tried again to bring people to the talk page and really, i failed. swatjester only came to the talk page after his fourth revert, after i'd threatened ani if he didn't come to the talk page and after this was filed here. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:44, May 23 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/University_High_School_(Los_Angeles,_California) WhisperToMe 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While that's a fine theoretical idea, the current version of the page is well, very different than what you're asking for comments about so I don't know why you're asking for comments about those two versions unless you're simply trying to prove that you were correct. First, I've found more recent sources, and the older version is inaccurate, and second, I rewrote the section and I believe that it takes care of your complaint. Your complaint was that it was that small words like "only" made the language not neutral, and that it was not clear who the complaints were attributed to. I believe that both of those issues should be cleared up. If they are not, let me know what areas you think need work, specifically. On the talk page, not here because this page takes forever to load. This issue now, is that some editors are saying that the high school newspaper can't be used as a source--if it's being critical of the school. That's a completely seperate issue from the one you raised. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:50, May 23 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Badagnani#university_high_school This was one of the comments swatjester left that I found insulting. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:52, May 23 2007 (UTC)

You found "if she wants to include the information, fine, but she needs to have a real source for it." insulting? Either you need to assume good faith, or stop trolling. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've protected the page due to edit warring. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR allegations

14:55, 22 May 2007 SwatJester removed almost the entire section (because student newspaper is not an adequate source for negative information), including parts with additional sources

I rewrote the section: adding more outside references and reorganizing the section so that it was clearer and more neutral per whisper's concerns

13:18, 23 May 2007 13:23, 23 May 2007 In two edits, SwatJester removed all negative information about the school that used the student newspaper as a source

13:34, 23 May 2007 swatjester reverts and removes move of the same

15:00, 23 May 2007 standard revert

15:43, 22 May 2007 Swatjester's first comment on the talk page, 12 minutes before his first edit to the article

15:01, 23 May 2007 Swatjester's next, and as of now, only other comment on the talk page, four reverts later. In the comment he warns other editors to be wary of 3RR

In the time he didn't comment on the talk page, I had four page touches, Bagani had 2, WhisperToMe had 1 and 66.253.139.45 had 2

Technically, swatjester is five minutes away from violation of 3rr. However his complete unwillingness to comment once on the talk page during that time, and then his warning other users about violating 3rr leads me to believe that he knew exactly what he was doing. He single handedly started an edit war where their hadn't been one before, by raising an issue and then refusing to discuss it. It's not like he wasn't online or watching the page--he was, and he was doing something about it, forcing his opinions on everyone else because he didn't want to be bothered to answer the questions we posed about the fallacy of his arguements or lay out any real arguements. This has locked an article in a version with enormous chunks missing, and fact tags everywhere, and taken a lot of time from a lot of editors. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:32, May 23 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so you came here to tell me how I didn't violate the 3RR? As if I wasn't aware of it? Perhaps you should have attempted to work towards finding alternate sources, instead of unreliable ones. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's real close. You purposefully minute counted and didn't go to the talk page until you were out of reverts--until you'd reverted four times in 24 hours and 5 minutes. Tell me that's not a violation of 3RR. You realize that without the high school newspaper sources the entire ficus tree section is gone and that I don't even have a source for the mascot changing so whoops, there goes that section too? and the filming list of course. Of course, you didn't remove any of that in your edits. do you have a problem with a high school newspaper as your source or with parts of the article mentioning critisms of the school? ~~

Yes, we do have a problem with a high school newspaper. The problem is, any freshman can walk in and write something. Since the Supreme Court says the school can't censor it, they're able to say whatever the heck they want. High school newspapers do not have to tell the truth, especially when they have no competition. Now, find a reliable source, or don't put the information in. Period. Sean William 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the ficus tree section. The ficus tree doesn't potentially affect someone's career. I only care about how the high school section criticizes the school......criticism needs to be from a RELIABLE source. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of public school administrators to censor high school newspapers. But this discussion, like everything else in this section, belongs on the article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was alluding to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. I have a counterargument, but I'm not going to bring it up here; we're already plenty off topic. Sean William 00:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Inapplicable in California. From the link you included "An important caveat goes along with all of this information about the Hazelwood decision: the Supreme Court was only ruling on the protections the First Amendment to the United States Constitution offers to public high school students. They left open the possibility that other avenues of protection, including everything from state constitutional provisions or state laws to school board regulations, might still prevent school officials from censoring. Arkansas, California, Colorado , Iowa , Kansas and Massachusetts have state laws that protect the free expression rights of students" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Faculty oversees the paper. And, administration at the school has censored the paper before. Anyway, all my version said was that an editorial accused x. It had both the editorial as a source and the reply from the administration. I can easily change it so it that the reply from the administration is mentioned and not just a source. Anyway--it's pure WP:V. We're reporting that an editorial accused x--we're not agreeing with it or saying that they were correct. Just that it happened. Besides, if that's swatjester's only issue, why did he remove so many other sources as well? Miss Mondegreen talk  00:17, May 24 2007 (UTC)

That one quote is not my sole issue. My issue is the continual use of bad sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Talk page, please. No need to continue cluttering up ANI. --ElKevbo 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevbo, it's involving an edit war, a subsequent protection, and the use of unreliable sources to allege negative material. If that were a person, we'd be calling it.....BLP. It most certainly belongs here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not involving a person so drop the BLP comparisons. Edit wars and even protected articles don't routinely belong on ANI - that's why the various dispute resolution procedures and WP:RFP exist. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department and you, an experienced and respected editor, should know that. --ElKevbo 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the ridiculousness of this allegation: From the times up there: the first edit was a removal, not a revert. The second (two-part) was my first revert., the next was my second revert. The next revert after that was WELL after 24 hours, as was the one after that. Wow, I wasn't even CLOSE to violating the 3RR! You know what they say about numbers......⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors"

By definition, your first edit was a revert. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:23, May 24 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that the IP on the talk page, that was me while logged out. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

attn:swatjester - not a content dispute

This is not a content dispute.

Miss Mondegreen's version

Swatjester's version

diff between versions

Swatjester keeps claiming that he removed unsourced text and removed the student newspaper sources as non-reliable and placed fact tags where necessary.

But really, he took out all criticism of the school no matter how well it was sourced.

This is his first tagging:

"The administration, which allows filming during school hours,^{[citation needed]} moves classes as needed^{[citation needed]} and allows productions to make minor changes to the campus^{[citation needed]}, has a long history of bringing in filming (and the money that goes with it) to the school."

There had been two references at the end of that sentence, he removed the school newspaper one, leaving the latimes one.

Let's quote from the Latimes article, shall we?

Galedary said administrators allow crews to work during school hours and are willing to move teachers or students out of classrooms and other areas to make way for cameras.

Those showy birds of paradise blooms out front spoil the Ivy League effect. Not for long. The tropical-looking plants with their spiky orange- and-blue blossoms are about to be torn up.

Of course, the school newspaper had additional instances of changes to the campus, but let's move on.

---

He removed: "These disruptions are a cause for students complaints." and "The usage of the school for filming is a controversial one. "

Why, I'm not sure. Because the only controversy is sourced in the high school newspaper? Because the complaints are only sourced in the student newspaper? Well, even that's controversy and complaints, and, it's sourced elsewhere:

latimes:

"Although some students and teachers complain that filming is disruptive and messy, administrators say they are as welcoming as possible because they need the money."

CSM:

"But not everyone agrees that auditioning for movie and TV roles is the right way for public schools to recoup such losses. Filming sometimes disrupts class time, and the revenue stream it creates is uncertain at best."

more CSM, particularly in regards to complaints about money at UNI:

But not everybody is thrilled with the production companies' recurring role at University High. In December, a student opinion piece in the campus newspaper, complained that administrators didn't keep students and teachers informed about how the money was being spent.
School officials at University High have said that students would be welcome to attend budget meetings and see for themselves, but skepticism persists. One teacher says the money would be better spread among departments, not just allotted to the groups or classes who might have been displaced during filming.

---

He removed:

University High charges the standard district fee for each day of filming (currently $2,500). 12 percent of the monies earned goes to the EIDC (Entertainment Industry Development Corp.), which acts as the middleman between the LAUSD and the entertainment industry. Of the remaining funds, the school receives 75 percent, and the district recieves 25 percent which goes into a fund that benefits schools that do not generate film revenues of their own. Of the money that the school recieves, the first $12,000 made each year is distributed amoung the departments. The Budget Committee makes spending recommendations for any additional monies.

Almost all of that was sourced through the daily news--not reliable enough? How about education week on the web? One line came from the high school newspaper--only it was not something published by a student, but by an administrator. It was a response to a student editorial.

He removed:

In 2005, LAUSD officials revised the district's fee structure for the first time since 1992. The revision included extending a full day of shooting from 14 to 15 hours, and a daily rate increase from $1,700 to $2,500.

Again, daily news.

Then he removed a section on drillbit taylor at the end and he removed a section in the middle that refered to student complaints in articles and editorials.

He may or may not actually have a serious concern about the reliablity of a high school newspaper as a source. But, I don't buy it. If that was his concern, Swatjester shouldn't have focused on removing stuff that was supported by other sources, and should have instead turned his attention to the rest of the article removing the rest of the school newspaper sources from ther. He didn't even remove all of the ones in that section--he jusr removed what made the school look bad.

I think that the discussion we're having on the Rfc is an important one, though I don't think it will affect any of the sources we use, but I'm very upset by swatjester's actions and his continuing accusations when his edits don't reflect a word he's saying. Miss Mondegreen talk  03:04, May 24 2007 (UTC)

"He may or may not actually have a serious concern about the reliablity of a high school newspaper as a source. But, I don't buy it."....Good job assuming good faith. I especially like the part where in the same paragraph you say: "But really, he took out all criticism of the school no matter how well it was sourced." and then seconds later "he removed the school newspaper one, leaving the latimes one." See this edit: I've had it, the trolls win. You can criticize this article all you want, source it from the national enquirer, source it from Daniel Brandt. I don't care. I have no interest in this article, and I have no interest in my blood pressure raising to astronomical levels, from a hypocritical troll who misrepresents my position over and over again. You did it all over the talk page, you did it all over here. You insinuated I violated 3RR, when I came nowhere close. You then claimed I never was on the talk page, when I clearly was. You refuse to work with me, or listen, you refuse to even consider for a second that this might violate the WP:RS policy, or that people at the school could get hurt over this. So you know what, fine. You want to own the article so bad, have at it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You left the source in, but put fact tags around the statements, as though they were unsourced. I still am so confused by your position. First it's on the editorials in the school newspaper, which have been referenced in a major news article, and, regardless of whether they're right or not or whether or not the school newspaper is a piece of !!!, it's verifiable that there have been editorials in the newspaper saying x. We don't avoid WP:V because it might hurt people's feelings or be bad for their careers.

And, I provided several other sources, not just school articles, and as I've continued working on the section in my sandbox, I've added additional sources still and cleaned up a few spelling mistakes etc.

If the issue that will hurt the school is anything that is in their newspaper--any fact whatsoever, I don't buy that. First, you didn't remove school newspaper stuff that didn't reflect badly--the school newspaper gets the facts right when it's good for the school but not the rest of the time? And second I've yet to see you join in a meaningful debate on the quality of the source in question. You say one thing, do another and then shift to another position and that's very frustrating, especially for someone who was interrupted from writing and researching early this morning by an edit war. I don't know what your positions or your motives are. I do know that you removed information as unsourced that was sourced reliably and not contentiously (i.e. not the school newspaper) and you put up fact tags for stuff that there was still sources there for (latimes etc). I don't get it and I've been asking you to explain it to me since the edit war started and you haven't bothered. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:06, May 24 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.

129.133.124.195 and related IPs

An anonymous editor at 129.133.124.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other IPs in the same range (129.133.124.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.133.124.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been occasionally edit-warring at Wesleyan University and a few other articles, with incivility and intransigence almost rising to the level of a full-on troll. Since the user has shown no inclination to become more civil when cautioned or to familiarize him/herself with Wikipedia guidelines, I'd like to ask an admin to have a word, apply a brief block, and/or keep an eye on the account. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are example diffs for problem behavior, incivility: [55] [56] and revert warring: [57] [58] etc. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wendel67 requesting lift of autoblock

Resolved

 – Dealt with. Sean William 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wendel67 (talk · contribs) has been requesting a lift of an autoblock on his talk page and through {{helpme}} for several hours now. Could someone answer him please, as he seems pretty frustrated. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lifted. Sean William 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bobby Sands man

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked, and there was much rejoicing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Can someone review the above editor's edit history? He's just come off a previous block, which I imposed due to incivility and harassment. He was previously this anon & had exactly the same problem. Right now, he's posting comments on my talk page and that of another admin, User:Fire Star. Frankly, it doesn't look like he's here to assist the project and my instinct here suggests indefblocking the guy as a troll. Comments? - Alison ☺ 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment. His consistently agenda-driven editing and not-even-subtly abusive comments to those whom he disagrees with are at a disconnect with his own stated perceptions of his behaviour, IMO. That seems anomalous enough to me that I also request another admin review the histories. --Fire Star 火星 00:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He might be a troll, but I've run into users before who have been utterly convinced that their strictly-defined versions of logic are utterly necessary for the encyclopedia to continue functioning without ... I dunno ... creating a singularity and collapsing the universe or something. While they might be trying to be helpful, they do not know the meaning of compromise and thus cannot be helpful to a consensus-based, massively-distributed project. --Dynaflow babble 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy doesn't edit mainspace, other than to remove categories from articles to make a point. He's only interested in the Bobby Sands article. - Alison ☺ 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

His edits in Talk space are revealing, though, as he also has an apparent interest in the logical categorizations of Seung-Hui Cho, Woody Allen, and John Edwards. I can sort of see how his thinking works. He's taking prominent figures who are [fill in the blank], but not known for being so and removing the "irrelevant" categories, or at least lobbying for their removal. --Dynaflow babble 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been lurking at Alison's talk page and have seen some of his posts there. I think she has been very patient. ElinorD (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It almost looks like an autistic-type thing, or perhaps someone imitating that behavior pattern rather well. From this post, though, the user starts to smell a lot more like troll. --Dynaflow babble 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even with my minor interactions with this user he has not been very civil and has made near to or just outright attacks on other editors (all depending on interpretation). Anyway, thanks that is what I have seen of his conduct on a very minor issue he dealt with with me. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Spelling error... gah. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's latest words to Alison are borderline open threats: "Alison, I know how you think, don't try to cover anything up and expect me not to catch it, it makes you look foolish. You are like a little child and I am your mother, I know what you are doing and what you are thinking. You can't sneak anything past me." [59] The only reason why I'm not issuing a block here is because my friendship with Alison, that can be openly seen at our talk pages, might cast suspicion on the motives of the block, warranted as it is in my eyes. Phaedriel - 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indef, we don't need users like this around. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexie Kaye

This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 208.250.55.163 (Talk) at 01:06, 23 May 2007. It may differ significantly from the current version.

Lexie Kaye is an American on-air personality at WSRV-FM in Atlanta, GA. As you can see by this detailed Wikipedia listing, Lexie is a relentless self promoter.

I respect that Wikipedia exists as a free enclyopedia enabling anyone to make edits. However, when it's abused to cause insult or inflict harm on someone or something it should not be tolerated. The last line of the above paragraph was added to my wikipedia entry and I would like to user to be banned from accessing my entry so that further more hinderous comments are not allowed. I have deleted the entry, but I know this will only be the beginning of something and I'd like to put an end to it here and now. "69.180.19.234 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"

• Much as I understand the discomfort this can cause, there's not really much we can do here. The edit was by an anonymous editor (that is, not logged in), and was the only edit ever from that IP address (or, for that matter, from the hotel that editor appeared to be staying at.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye on your article, for you. --Haemo 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, under certain conditions (such as potentially libellous information), problematic revisions can be permanently removed from the visible history - even to admins. This can be done using Oversight - see here for details. Od Mishehu 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gene Wojciechowski

I'm having trouble with a couple of IP addresses that keep changing the Gene Wojciechowski to make half the substance of the article consist of an allegation of racism. The edits are quite clearly agenda-driven and disproportionately slant the article. I could use some help in perhaps warning these IP addresses or reverting the page. Chicken Wing 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit contentious - I do feel it should be mentioned, though I do think there is a little too much information that the IP is adding. The sources appear to be emails but I don't think those are verifiable in that case. Also, they ask users to buy the complete document, making this a not-so-reliable source, in my opinion. Personally, I would like that paragraph to be trimmed down and some more solid sources to be used rather than things that ask you to buy the full article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this a few months ago and it's all reliable sources cited... it just seems like undue weight. I think this version [60] is about right. I'd say this is a WP:BLP issue but that would probably get the article instantly deleted without discussion... --W.marsh 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jsw50

After User:Jsw48 and his sockpuppet were blocked the other day for vandalizing, he changed his username to User:Jsw46 and made threatening comments on my talk page. He was then blocked again as User:Jsw46. He's now back as User:Jsw50. See this. He also uses the IP 24.34.119.22. Can someone help me out again? Thanks. --Evb-wiki 02:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jsw50 indef blocked, IP blocked for a week. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be the same guy using User:Evx-wiki. He has again attacked me on my talk page. --Evb-wiki 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He has again evaded his block. This time with User:Jsw45. See this. --Evb-wiki 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And User:Jsw51. See his edit to Cynthia Ozick. --Evb-wiki 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and blocked ... *sigh* - Alison ☺ 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And I got 47 and 49. That's all I could turn up. William Pietri 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - "Jonathan Worthington" <jsw45@yahoo.ca> has sent me a real-world e-mail to continue his attacks. (yawn.) --Evb-wiki 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Vandal- User:NavalPower

Resolved

- In closing: Revert, block, ignore. Teke^talk 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:NavalPower is moving pages. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, reverting all those edits is going to take a long time... -N 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest everybody stop what they're doing and let the admins do their job. Any more page moving around just adds to the confusion. Sean William 03:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest anyone who knows where the Seattle article went to post it on this page. —Kyриx 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Teke^talk 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job Sean, I'll help with the redirects. Teke^talk 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy freaking crap, it looks like a lot of them haven't been fixed. Use the last 500 contributions list... Grandmasterka 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything fixed...finally. —Kyриx 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, everyone. Sean William 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they're all done & the redirs deleted. Geez - Alison ☺ 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew. I think my deletion count just went up +150 :). Sean William 03:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped :). WjBscribe 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal is back

See [61]. Help in reverting appreciated. WjBscribe 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the move logs, all. This should stop being fun for the vandal since it has been had. WP:RBI and let's have them lose interest. Teke^talk 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All done, I think. Nice of them to tip you off, hm? - Alison ☺ 04:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edits relating to Binary Economics

I am concerned about a number of edits made to pages such as Riba, Monetary reform, Geothermal power, Solar cell and others regarding Binary economics. The problem is that the edits typically add very POV pitches for Binary Economics to only marginally related topics, and often include those pitches in prominent positions such as the introduction. The edits in question were made by user:Rodney Shakespeare (see Special:Contributions/Rodney_Shakespeare).

There are too many affected articles for me to deal with tonight, and I am not comfortable stepping in potential edit war territory (not that there is anything like that yet). So if someone more experienced could look over a few of them and maybe leave a message on the user's talk page, that would be helpful. marginoferror 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good sweet mike - those articles are disaster areas. I'm trying to fix this up, but holy cow. Especially Binary Economics, which needs a total re-write. --Haemo 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose we've got a {{What were you smoking?}} template? --Carnildo 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm been spending my evening, before Law and Order trying to re-write this mess. In addition, from my reading in the course of this editing, user:Rodney Shakespeare has a serious conflict of interest editing articles about this topic - given that his entirely livelihood centers around it, and he's sourced no fewer than 20 times in the article in question --Haemo

My word - almost of all of his edits had to be removed, or seriously edited down. This is basically just self-promotional canvassing to promote his pet theory. --Haemo 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Haemo. I noticed the conflict of interest too. I think it would be best to notify the user on his talk page about these issues; honestly, I expect a fight or at least a long discussion, and I'd rather it happen there than on the articles. I'm on my way out the door, but if no-one has notified him by the time I get back from work, I will try to do it myself. marginoferror 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai RfC

Somebody filed a user-conduct RfC against User:Mikkalai. I think it's invalid and am considering to delete it. Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mikkalai. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - if it wasn't listed at WP:RFC/U, then how did the second editor even find it? I know I only found it when it was listed there. --Haemo 08:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet

Resolved

Right after Juro was blocked indef (for the second time, after some probation), up pops Koonjo28, starts to edit the same pages as Juro used to, including Juro's userpage, and vandalises the userpage of the admin who blocked Juro. Please block. Thanks, KissL 09:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Attended to. -- Hoary 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

Marylee Gupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

13:54, 24 May 2007 Alison (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Marylee Gupta (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Sock of RMS) --Zsinj^Talk 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hinngonowbenny

Resolved

Keeps vandalising the Benny Hinn page with idiotic comments. Gareth E Kegg 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ifdef blocked by The Anome -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sacrumi

Apparently, newbie user Sacrumi is a troll, who has taken hostage of the "diplom" article. User engages in edit warring and makes unfounded and awkward contributions in horrible English while removing credible/cited information. When approached with the issue, user makes personal attacks. Please see the series of recent edits by user. InfoAgent 14:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see trolling; I see a newbie editor who's a little rough around the edges and a garden-variety content dispute. There's been incivility on both sides; the best approach is for both of you to step back from editing the article, and discuss concrete proposed changes on the talk page. If you can extend a little patience, things may smooth over. If not, it would be best handled via dispute resolution, through a third opinion or request for comment on the content issue at hand. I don't see any cause for administrative intervention at this point, nor do I see a "good guy" and "bad guy" - just two editors with different ideas on how to improve the article who are getting a little hot under the collar. Other thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Spam

Resolved

There is nonsense on the talk page of Spam, which for obvious reasons is a target for such things. The user who posted part of it keeps trying to revert it [62] on the grounds that the talk page policy doesn't allow removing information posted by others. It doesn't seem to me that that part of the policy should apply to vandalism, but can an administrator please look at this? Ken Arromdee 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally offtopic (the topic is improvement of the article) remarks and vandalism can be removed from article talk pages by any editor. I've made a note of this on the editor's talk page. Kusma (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Block Evasion by User:Matrix17

See also [archived discussion].

• Matrix17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.225.121.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Matrix17's previous block expired. She returned and created Ebba von Sydow . She was immediately re-blocked for creating a non-notable biography. Unfortunately, the biography wasn't non-notable and survived AfD as a strong keep. This would seem to invalidate the reason for the most recent block. Matrix17 therefore requested to be unblocked. The admin rejecting the unblock stated as a reason, "Yawn." I asked this admin for a further explanation and learned that Matrix17 has a long and sordid history. Unfortunately, this user hasn't been formally banned, so she has a right to return when her block expires, and we can't just block her again until she actually does something wrong. Matrix17 then started using the IP listed to repeatedly post to WP:AN out of frustration at what seems to be on it's face an unfair situation. [63] That's block evasion, yet another issue.

I am not nearly smart enough to figure out how to resolve all this, but hopefully some of you are. Perhaps this user should be banned or unblocked, but the current position seems half-assed not well planned or executed. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 3 months as well. Given Matrix17's history, I see no reason to refactor either block. If Matrix17 comes back and demonstrates that he/she has learned from his/her past mistakes, great. If not, he/she will likely be blocked again.--Isotope23 15:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to advocate here, but would like to understand better. Presumably, the user was blocked for 6 months for creating a nn-bio. The bio was then decided to meet the criteria for inclusion via a keep decision at AFD. Were there other bio's which were created which did not survive deletion which I don't see in the logs? Wouldn't you conclude that the 6 month block should be rescinded based on this? If not, presumably there is additional reason for the block which was not expressed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Steel359#Matrix17. – Steel 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to request an unblock or refactor from Yamla (talk · contribs), or if Matrix17 (talk · contribs) wants to request an unblock, he/she is free to do so. I don't want to speak for Yamla in any way here, but I suspect that the block was influenced by Matrix17's history here (i.e. creating low quality poorly sourced content about marginal subjects and then responding to any requests by other editors that he follow the Manual of Style and our guidelines/policies with wikilawyering and argumentative claims that everyone is against him/her. Given that Matrix17 has routinely returned from blocks and gone right back to this behavior, I personally don't see a compelling reason to unblock. Creating a large number of substandard articles that need extensive cleanup and sourcing to demonstrate notability doesn't help the project and Matrix17's tendentious editing practices just make it worse. It's about more than just the Ebba von Sydow article, it's a pattern of behavior that doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way.--Isotope23 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. – Steel 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The bio did indeed survive an AfD. However, the article as initially created by Matrix17 most certainly was not sufficient. Now, if someone else wishes to unblock Matrix17 and will monitor to make sure future articles meet WP:BIO, I would not object and would not consider it wheel-warring. However, it seems clear to me that this user does not yet understand the notability requirements (shown by continued creation of substandard articles) and so I am not intending on unblocking. Especially if the user is violating WP:SOCK. --Yamla 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Give the current request spamming by Matrix17 (talk · contribs) at Unblock-en-l with rather silly name calling directed at Yamla (talk · contribs) and Steel359 (talk · contribs) I think it is safe to say that as of right now Matrix17 does not deserve to be unblocked.--Isotope23 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm fine with all the explanations above. I knew there had to be something more, thanks for your responses. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange account

Resolved

I've just come across the userpage of User:Mscomic and I am wondering what is the stance to adopt (beside looking away) with that kind of users. He didn't do anything wrong that I know of, beside writing a weird message on my talk page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mscomic's userpage reflects a declared intention to edit for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. ("Wikipedia is a place for people like me to talk absoloute rubbish and spread mischievous rumours and falsehoods. Join me in my goal to annoy the moderators....") Accordingly, I have blocked this account indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, the "don't preventively protect a page" rule was making me wonder :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam and COI from CBS

So I noticed this unblock request. It identified an IP address that is registered to CBS. A quick look at the originally blocked user's contributions clearly demonstrates a pattern of spam promotoing WCBS' website. I declined the unblock, but I'm not sure what to do next. --Selket ^Talk 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been reverted. --Selket ^Talk 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of 143.231.249.141--US House of Representatives IP

I have blocked the IP belonging to the United States House of Representatives for a period of twenty-four hours for vandalism despite being issued multiple warnings. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail ComCom. If you've already done that, there's not much else to do but wait :). Sean William 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Administrator David Gerard recommended to leave the material here (see [64]). Here it is:

User:Northmeister seems to be identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW. I cannot assume good faith any more. These are the facts:

• A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page) such as Wilkes, Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material from Elvis Presley (see [65], [66], [67]), Graceland (see [68], [69], [70]) and Memphis Mafia (see [71]) that was not in line with his personal view of the megastar Elvis Presley. Similar material was frequently removed by Wilkes in former edit wars.
• Northmeister has copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass user Onefortyone. See [72]. This is exactly the same material that multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [73], [74]. Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit wars at that time?
• Northmeister falsely claims that user Onefortyone is identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of edit wars with Wilkes. See [75].
• The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [76]. This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes alias User:DW and his IPs and other sockpuppets.
• Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with user Onefortyone on the same topics. See [77].
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed Onefortyone in this heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg. The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• In the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. See also these comments: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

• Some excerpts from comments by others:

... is it possible that this could be more efficiently resolved at WP:SSP? ... -- Seed 2.0 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

... I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be further added that Onefortyone was on heavy fire by Ted Wilkes and his sockpuppets from 2005 on, and it was Wilkes who requested this arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter (see this case of December 2005 and this newer arbcom decision) which proved that Onefortyone's edits are O.K. Consequently, Wilkes was banned from the topics in question. For instance, in the case of 2006 the arbcom said that Ted Wilkes has "repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Wilkes was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and he was placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Wikipedia for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley."

• IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes. Wilkes repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. IP 209.247.5.139 is also talking about "outright hateful fiction" and "lies" about Elvis. See [99]. Like Wilkes, IP 209.247.5.139 denigrates sources he doesn't like (see [100], [101]) and applauds Northmeister's deleting tactics. See [102]. Like Wilkes, he attacks user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's" [103]
• Interestingly, User:Steve Pastor also repeatedly removes sourced content he doesn't like from the Elvis page. See [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]. And he places hyperlinks to fan sites in the text of the Wikipedia article. See [117].
• Part of the Elvis fan group endeavoring to whitewash the Elvis article may also be one-topic editor User:Nigel77 who frequently includes hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles. See [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130].
• Northmeister now continues to whitewash Elvis-related topics removing well-sourced material from the Memphis Mafia article. See [131]. The same material was frequently removed by Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, [132], [133], [134], [135]. Northmeister even removed the same external links that Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted in the past in favor of two websites of Joe Esposito and Jerry Scheff. See [136], [137], [138]. Significantly, Northmeister now put exactly the same two external links in first place that Ted Wilkes preferred. See [139] and [140].
• Northmeister put material about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place on Graceland which was formerly included by banned user Lochdale (alias IPs 192.136.45.2 and 200.30.130.19), who also frequently removed contributions by Onefortyone from Elvis-related topics. See [141] and [142], [143], [144], [145], [146].

All this is certainly not a coincidence. To my mind, there can be no doubt that Northmeister and presumably some other IPs and sockpuppets are identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW. Northmeister, as a sockpuppet of Wilkes, clearly placed material related to Elvis Presley'a alleged homo- or bisexuality in Talk:Elvis Presley (see [147] and removed a well-sourced quote dealing with Natalie Wood's remark that Presley and the Memphis Mafia members might be homosexual (see [148]). This means that he has clearly violated Ted Wilkes's probation. The arbcom says that Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See [149]. May I ask some administrators to put a stop to the disruptive behavior of this user. 80.141.228.157 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Roswalt44

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked. Sean William 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has engaged in vandalism past warnings. His/her first vandalism was [150], and shortly after vandalized the same page [151], and vandalized said page with the previous vandalism after it was reverted at [152]. They vandalized it one more time at[153], which I reverted and added a warning. Only then I realized he had numerous past warnings from vandalizing KFC, Scott Goodman, and added gibberish nonsense to Zimbabwe. His warnings can be found here at [154]. This user is very disruptive to Wikipedia, has attacked Wiki multiple times past warnings and must be stopped ASAP. Deletion Quality 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this person hasn't vandalized in a day, it's abundantly clear that they aren't here to help. In the future, please report things like these to WP:AIV. Cheers, Sean William 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Deletion Quality 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)