Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus seems to be attacking the German people. Does this not go against official policy? Kingjeff 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs to demonstrate this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his user page. The link I provided goes right to the thing I'm talking about. Kingjeff 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, edit warring again

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

• 2007-07-03T07:53:25
• 2007-07-03T09:30:05
• 2007-07-03T09:52:47 (a .5 revert)
• 2007-07-03T09:54:13
• 2007-07-03T09:57:50.

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi ^Talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi ^Talk 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman unblocked

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock of Bakaman. Yes, Anwar's edits do violate WP's policies and guidelines but blocking him is not really an option here. Blocking users in this manner is a no-no and does more harm than good. Terence 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. Nick unblocked Bakasuprman, but apparently didn't unblock User:Anwar saadat. This reeks of special treatment, especially given Nick and Baka's involvement in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. And who exactly is the "we" that Nick refers to? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" is for the community. I will endorse an unblock of Anwar saadat if done by any other administrator. As for your misguided comments, it was I who highlighted the inappropriate block of Anwar saadat on the Evidence page. Please cease with this conspiratorial and partisan rhetoric. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that User:Moreschi is not a member of the community? As for Anwar, two different administrators have already denied his unblock requests, so I won't override them. I don't like to undo other administrators' actions. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin's judgment was clouded and if he would have cared to take a look at those pages where the alleged warring took place, these are effectively 0.66 RR blocks. We need dispute resolution for this and not blocks to escalate the situation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

O.66RR across six articles? Yep, that's disruption, and last I checked we block for that. And no, my judgment is not clouded: my reasoning abilities are perfectly intact, and I'm virtually uninvolved when it comes to these users. Moreschi ^Talk 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Clouded"? I think you should have initiated a discussion here before concluding that. Since Anwar had three unblock requests declined before FaysaalF unblocked him, I see a pretty robust consensus for Moreschi's block of Anwar. As for dispute resolution, from what I've seen, neither Anwar or Baka has shown great inclination to engage in discussion, mediation, or anything similar during their sporadic edit-war (except, as I noted, Baka made some talk page posts yesterday). For what it's worth, it looks to me as if Anwar is stalking and trolling Baka, but Baka's response is, for the most part, simply to revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus. Now is reverting (and making my best attempt to discuss) anything comparable to stalking? No it isnt.Bakaman 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, anyone? "Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake". That and the earlier "edit-warring duo" post have me confused as to where Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) ends and Akhilleus (talk · contribs) begins.Bakaman 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As civil as ever. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a banned anti-Buddhist troll and I took offense at your mis-characterization of evidence and your opprobrious facilitation of admin abuse. I find that is covered in policy, under WP:CIVIL. Your remarks are little more than "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Bakasuprman per Nearly Headless Nick.Dineshkannambadi 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was hasty and badly judged. I support the unblock. Sarvagnya 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. Do either of you have reasons? Do you wish to expand on this? Hornplease 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You masquerading as an [opinion] is absurd.Bakaman 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat unblocked

I've just unblocked User:Anwar saadat to cool this down. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts: It seems my unblock requests would not have been declined three times by admins if the diffs I provided were read through. I was not revert warring with Baka here (as Baka blanked entire section without discussion or even a note in the edit summary and here (as Baka removed the formatting for the filmography table without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here and here (as Baka inserted link to FU image, no FU rationale provided and introduced POV with links to a partisan blog) and here and here (as Baka reverted a tag to a FU image and blanked a whole section along with supporting links to the Guardian without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here (as Baka inserted a subscriber-only link). I hope the matter is clear now.Anwar 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing co-admins blocks

I am not a fan of undoing blocks. It just makes things worse as shown above. Both users have been edit warring since a long time and honestly the block of Moreschi was appropriate. My unblock of saadat tries to bring the balance back. I hope both users refrain from using the revert button excessively. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of blocks. They just make things worse as shown above. Was this really a situation so extreme that the blocks were necessary? Are the blocking admins aware of the psychological effects of blocks? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

Threads about both editors has been common here. It is not the first time Anwar and Baka's conflicts are brought here. There would be rather psychological effects of the blocks on admins i believe as shown above (i.e. Nick and Akhilleus). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things are brought up on ANI, not all of them are legitimate. It is our job as administrators to decide what is good for the project and what is not. Instead of seeking quick solutions like blocking users pronto, we must encourage them to seek dispute resolution; or perhaps take the prerogative ourselves and initiate one for them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These guys have been at it for over a month (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar). Despite plenty of warnings, and two sets of blocks (both undone rather quickly), they've shown no serious inclination to engage in dispute resolution. How do you suggest solving the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that this behaviour is endemic for these editors, as witnessed by the sheer number of unpleasant RfArbs in which they have been involved, I'd say ending a fairly lenient 24-hour block is strange, to say the least. That it is Sir Nicholas who's done it should alarm anyone who's read the Request for Arbitration in which he and Bakasuprman were involved. This is quite ridiculously unsubtle, really. Hornplease 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your motivations, as presented on arbcom and another argument are clear.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think admins must recuse themselves from taking any admin actions, in cases where allegations of Conflict of interest may occur. And also, requesting the blocking admin to reconsider the block is much better than taking any controversial admin action to undo a block. My $0.02. --Ragib 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ragib, and note that this principle from the ongoing Hkelkar 2 arbitration states more or less the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Answar is a vandalising Hindu articles for no reason. Seeing as he is a muslim, makes his actions extremely predujice.--D-Boy 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While no one disagrees with that, it seems .66 Reverts and attempts at talk page discussion are equal misdeeds.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We just trolled ourselves

First, I would like to reject the suggestion that my judgment was clouded. It was not. I'm not the one with a vendetta here. I'm not the one trying to push a POV. I'm neutral. Couldn't care less about Indian politics, or Wikipolitics.

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated this rule and the clause in this one, which states the disruptive edit-warriors should be blocked even if they have not violated 3RR. Fighting like across so many articles clearly falls under that clause. Both users violated the rules: they were being disruptive, and we block for disruption, don't we? The unblock was a joke. Politics are clearly being played here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, no Indian Wikipolitics for you. Thought I should remind you of the invectives you used for Bakasuprman and another gentleman over IRC a few days ago. You are obviously, an uninvolved party. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the specifics (and I incline to Moreschi's view of them), what happened to discussing a block with the blocking admin before undoing it? Am I missing something? Was the first notice that Moreschi's block had been overturned really a notice on AN/I stating, "We do not appreciate your administrative action; it has been undone"? MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that is the case. This brings on the question of conflict of interest, given that there is an ongoing arbitration case that specifically barred any admin actions among the parties. In the end, such admin actions just bring the adminship into disrepute. --Ragib 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still perplexed by that "we". Apparently Sir Nick believes he can unilaterally determine the will of the community, whereas Moreschi's judgement is "clouded". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too perplexed by the "we". Ragib and Akhilleus were a couple the original supporters of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) during the notorious meatpuppetry fiasco. What brings adminship into disrepute is willingly making hypocritical statements and equating stalking with legitimate knee-jerk reactions.Bakaman 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And so was Moreschi...oh, wait, he wasn't. And guess what, he's the blocking admin. Not me, not Rama's Arrow (who left, so why are we bringing him up, exactly?). And you know, if you're foolish enough to take the bait when you're being trolled, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. As for "hypocritical statements", I would expect that if you agree with the principle that administrators shouldn't block users on the opposite side of a dispute, you would also agree that administrators should not unblock users on their own side of a dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was never in any sort of edit dispute with Rama's Arrow. I had a spat with him maybe a week or two before the April 22 incident. I attempted to discuss after the second reverts. Anwar has a long history of this, as we can see in Rama's first RFA where he was censured by a number of users for attacks on religious beliefs. This isn't about one size fits all remedies. I have demonstrated on the talk pages how my edits were within policy. Anwar's inability to do that is not my problem. Facilitation of stalking and religious hatred are also not becoming of admins.Bakaman 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you're being trolled. Anwar's been trolling you for over a month. There have been numerous ANI posts about this, and it's played a role in the arbitration case. And you still haven't figured out a way to respond except pursue your "revert first" policy, even though you've already been warned, several times, that this is not a good idea. Anwar's behavior is worse than yours, but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted above, you made some posts to talk pages of some of these articles, after this note from User:Andrew c. You gracefully replied here, where you said, in part: 'I do not feel a need to discuss with a troll...That being said I "discussed" my edits now.' One might conclude that your efforts to discuss (sorry, "discuss") were in less than good faith; in fact, you explicitly said they weren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I should add that your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition consisted of "The link works." ([1]) Another one of your posts ended "I can remove this bs at whim." This was probably not the most constructive way to approach the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi referred to me as a bastard over IRC, I take strong offense at that, and his misuse of admin powers. He is obviously more than clouded. On the other argument, you still cannot refute that my edits were clearly sanctioned by policy. My use of BS is meaningless. Might I remind you Jimbo has said "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Referring to things as BS may not be nice, but there is nothing wrong with being blunt about things.Bakaman 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So ArbCom appears about to pass a decision, in Hkelkar 2, specifically barring actions such as Sir Nick's unblock of Bakasuprman as inappropriate uses of administrative powers. Perhaps this unblock was technically "legal", in the sense that the ArbCom case is not officially closed, but it still doesn't pass the smell test. Unless I'm missing something here? MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note Bishonen, morven and Flonight's comment on the talk page of Proposed decisions here – [2]. Some of those proposed principles are self-contradictory, and the Arbitrators are still reviewing them. They were originally meant for somebody else. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The principle in question is uncontroversial. Or do you disagree with the idea that "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in"? Note that the sentence starts "As always," implying that this is something that doesn't even need to be said. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nick has absolutely no experience with Anwar. The real issue is moreschi's cluouded judgment and his inability to differentiate differences in conduct.Bakaman 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Sir Nick's behaviour in the light of ArbCom rulings and precedent that is being discussed. Concerns with Moreschi's block are properly aired above. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who has seldom, if ever, edited 'Hindutva'-related articles, even I have been aware of Anwar's disruptive antics. Several admins are aware of this and none has the spine to do anything about it. If Bakaman(inspite of not being an admin) has taken it upon himself to fight it, he should be appreciated and supported. Not hounded and harrassed. Somebody here spoke about honouring not just the letter but also the spirit of the rules. If everyone could actually practise that, there wouldnt have been a need for Baka to take it upon himself in the first place! Also, considering that Baka did discuss his reverts on the talk page, blocking him by claiming that he was 'revert warring' is trying to pull a fast one.
• Also "six articles" is not such a whole lot for someone like Baka who's been here a long time, written dozens of articles, edited dozens more and whose watchlist justifiably should run into many hundreds. Nick is totally justified in undoing the block which actually was nothing short of harrassment. The question one should ask here is whether Moreschi and Akhilleus would have blocked an admin for 0.6R? Where were you guys when Rama was stomping up and down the Arbcom badmouthing everyone in sight or when he was revert warring with Paki editors? Where are you guys when several admins in all corners of wikipedia revert war on articles they edit? Where are you guys when an editor almost gets away with a 5RR?! Sarvagnya 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last and final time: Anwar's bad behaviour is no justification for Bakasuprman to follow suit. Indeed, it is not even the cause, since he edit wars continually. I discount all your other comments given this basic, flawed, premise. Hornplease 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just be friends?--D-Boy 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. User:Ed Fitzgerald has been relocating clean-up templates in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article.[3][4][5] Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page [6], 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page [7], and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations.[8] Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Wikipedia guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating here. María (críticame) 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page here, and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on my user page. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --Haemo 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page before they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --Haemo 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the opinion of an editor, and are not in any way definitive, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.

A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Wikipedia, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.

By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without any discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the taboo against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only moving them.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As you have moved {{unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that there is not "some of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus". The inclusion of maintenance tags, just like any other material added to or taken away from an article, is a matter of consensus among the editors who contribute toward it. As for disfigurement: I'd much prefer a disfigured article than one that incorrectly gives the a reader the incorrect impression that they're looking at well-refined material. There's been mention of "drive-by tagging," but what about the "drive-by readers"? An aesthetically dis-pleasing "Hey, this article is missing reliable sources or is short on citations" can effectively give pause to the folks who are trying to get info. on some nugget they just saw on CSI or are scrambling to write about for English class. I'd much rather "inconvenience" users by making them look at clashing colors and scrolling down a bit more if it also means they know to put a few more grains of salt next to their mouse. --EEMeltonIV 09:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the rule than the exception on Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Wikipedia projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Wikipedia.

I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —Kurykh 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Kurykh. I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; this isn't a play and we aren't stage hands. Everyone who reads Wikipedia is a potential editor, and therefore the templates are relevant to everyone. The reason why they are placed at the top of the page, as is said by the style guidelines, is visibility. María (críticame) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; What an absolutely extraordinary statement! I'm totally flabbergasted. What do imagine is the point of Wikipedia, to be a fun place to play around in? It exists to create a reference work to be used, and the people who use it are the "audience". Call them what you will -- user base, clientele, whatever, it is for they and them only that the project exists, and considerations about ease of use and functionality should be second only to considerations of factuality of content.

Obviously, this aspect of Wikipedia has been given short shrift for much too long, if an editor can make a statement like that in all sincerity. Everyone's all tied up in policy disputes, which serve (badly) to regulate editor behavior, to the exclusion of consideration of the needs of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "users of the encyclopedia [are] supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists." This is a misstatement: the encyclopedia exists for everyone. If any reader is a potential editor, than templates are useful for them, as well. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, very nice attempt to tie in my professional background! Bravo, points for research! But, unfortunately, stage hands don't cater to the audience, they do what other people (director, designers, stage manager) tell them to, so that rather messes up your metaphor. Besides, as a rather famous thespian once said "All the world's a stage." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, as you have shown you are capable of doing in the past. Not that it means much to delve into the personal, the stage hand comment was a metaphor I pulled not from your life, but my own (speaking as an ex-theatre major). I was not aware of your profession, nor do I think it pertinent to the discussion. Let's remain on topic. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a category error to treat the class of Wikipedia editors as being equivalent to the class of Wikipedia users. It's certainly (and obviously) true that all Wikipedia editors began as users, so that Editors is a subset of Users, but in actuality they have totally different relationships to Wikipedia, and should not be treated as equivalent. (I'll also say that many editors become so involved in internal Wikipedia matters they really cease to be, in any meaningful sense, users of the encyclopedia. Their concerns are no longer the concerns of the casual user, and it's this disfunction that I'm suggesting needs to be addressed.) It's my contention, which I think is obvious from even the most cursory examination of internal pages such as this one, or from a close look at Wikipedia policy, that ease of use and other user-function matters are not given their proper due, and need to be made more important.

Also, let me play the Wikipolicy card and cite WP:BB and WP:IAR as justifying my actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which work until and unless one meets with resistance, which you have - quite strong resistance. Please re-read the pages to which you have linked. IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Strong resistance"? I see here three people arguing against what I'm doing, and two people agreeing with it. I'd hardly categorize that as "strong resistance". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Wikipedia needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. alteripse 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. alteripse 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In many cases I strongly support the approach taken by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) – I've seen a very good expert editor infuriated and driven from the project by the row over a "TONE" tag placed at the top of an article as a quick and easy way of someone expressing the opinion that the writing was too interesting, without having to bother with explaining themselves on the talk page. There are occasions where, for example, an "Unreferenced" tag is important at the start, but I've seen that tag added to articles that clearly do have references – again, the tagger couldn't be bothered with checking the article or explaining themselves. Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. Oh, and we've probably all come across tag vandalism..... dave souza, talk 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this makes three of us. Anyone else out there? We could start our own cabal. alteripse 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

dave souza: Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. I agree with this, and wouldn't be undertaking my current windmill-tilting if tags were controlled and perhaps redesigned to be less visually disruptive. I'd also like to point out that I have not been in any way relocating or disturbing the vast majority of section tags, since moving them to the end of the section would not be in any way less disruptive than leaving them where they are, and moving them to the end of the article would make no sense. I'd still like to see section tags be redesigned to take up less real estate and be less annoying, and their use in some way regulated, but I don't see much point in disturbing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as conversant with Wikipedia's internal processes as others are, so I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of bringing this particular complaint here? A cursory look at the instructions on the page makes it appear to not be the correct venue for this, but, as I said, I'm not knowledgeable in this rather esoteric area. What is the administrative action that the editor who filed the complaint wishes to bring about? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the pointer I've been putting at the top of articles after moving tags to the bottom has said this:

This article has been tagged by one or more editors — please see the bottom of the page for more information.

This is perhaps too non-specific and presumes that the reader knows what a "tag" is, so I plan to replace it with this:

Note: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the tags at the bottom of this page.

Would this be more acceptable to those objecting to my actions? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am admittedly a newbie, but it strikes me that this sort of tag would only be well understood by Wikipedians who have some experience with editing. As a newbie, I find the large references at the point of infraction to be useful, even if only to teach me about what is considered to be good/bad writing. From this point of view, I would advocate a larger notice Jddphd 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification -- what I'm really trying to say is that Ed's proposal above seems a little too small. Jddphd 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jddphd: a little too small That's a very useful suggestion, thank you. I have no objection to increasing the size of the typeface of the pointer, and trying that, so I'll make that change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All tags aren't the same. A simple "cleanup" tag might benefit from shrinking and/or relocation. NPOV tags, totally-disputed, unsourced tags, and so on definitely need to be front and centre; they provide vital information to all readers. My apologies if this is obvious. Hornplease 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have a complaint: I have not made a massive project out of this, my "initiative" has extended only to articles that I come across in my everyday use of Wikipedia, my thought being that such a small semi-random sampling could be seen and evaluated by the users in context, and perhaps (forlorn hope) catch on. On the other hand, it seems that at least one of the people arguing here against my actions is following me around and reverting my changes (see: [9][10][11][12], for instance and the editor's contribution page[13]), thus subverting my attempt to allow people to see this and judge it, in context, for themselves and without prejudice. His action leaves me with no reasonable action besides reverting his reversion, the first step in an edit war that noone wants, least of all me, or meekly acquiescing in his mass reversions and doing nothing. This doesn't seem fair, especially when the issue is under discussion here.

I haven't been around Wikipedia for all that long, just over two years, but I guarantee that the way things are done here is not the way they were done when it was founded, or five years ago or three years ago, and at least one of the ways that evolutionary changes come about is by people trying things out and other people taking a look and giving the change a fair shake. The actions of this editor in undoing my changes take away that possibility and is not, I submit, at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. I think my suggested change has clear value, I think it deserves a chance from editors without an axe to grind to look at it and either leave it or revert it, so I ask that KillerChihuahua be asked to stop following my contribution trail and undoing my efforts. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated all the articles I changed so that they have the new pointer I listed above, and also added the pointer to a few articles where I moved the tags before I had come up with the idea of using a pointer to redirect attention to the tags' new location.

I have also found it interesting that in going through those articles, only a very few were reverted by everyday editors, the vast majority were reverted by three editors: KillerChihuahua,Maria and AxG -- so there has been, so far, no true picture of what the "grassroots" of the Wikipedia community thinks about this idea, because these three editors have not given them a chance to see it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS on the style manual to get a feel for what the community thinks. --Haemo 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there has never been consensus to put the tags at the top or at the bottom. For example, I've been placing unreferenced tags in the references section for some time now. Just recently, there was a message on Template talk:Cleanup by Rich Farmbrough who stated, "many of us support sending all/most of the cleanup-tags to the end of the page. They could also be mad more subtle once there." I support Rich and Ed in this endeavor as only one small baby step towards a better solution to a serious problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo: Perhaps you should start a discussion on WP:MOS Sure, that's a possible avenue, but my experience of Wikipedia is that it's generally such an open system that there are a number of valid ways to get things done. Despite (or perhaps because of) my propensity for long-windedness, I'm not a big fan of talking an idea to death as a means of getting something done. That's why I chose the route I've taken, which appears to me to be justifiable under Wikipedia's (admittedly crazy-quilt) policies. Also, and this may be a sore point, I'm much more interested in the response of the everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor to this then I am in the response of the editors who gets caught up in policy debates deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. I think the everyday editors have a relationship with Wikipedia which is closer to that of the user who is a non-editor, and their responses will be mnore indicative of whether the change is useful to the user, as opposed to upholding current Wikipedia practice (which it obviously is not). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a "everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor" and I believe it is a big mistake to hide what is perhaps critical information from the reader. If an article is potentially deficient, especially in terms of content as opposed to style, a reader should be forewarned in as bold a manner as feasible. A fine-print tag is something I associate with tobacco warnings, insurance ads and snake-oil salesmen, rather than an open honest system that wikipedia aims to be. Abecedare 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the tags were a reasonable guarantee that the problem they announce is actually true, but, in point of fact, anybody can slap a tag on an article at any time, without having to provide justification or proving their case. (I'd also want the tags to be redesigned to be less obstructive, but that's another matter.) If there was some kind of process or procedure in place to insure that tags were only placed in serious cases, after either extensive discussion or soul-searching on the part of the editor, that would be one thing, but, as I mentioned above, the vast majority of tags that I've found have not been justified or discussed in the article's talk pages, and it's clear that some editors do almost nothing except seek out articles that they disagree with, or which fit some preset conditions, and hitting them with tags. This kind of "drive-by" tagging is what's created the epidemic, and it's diluted the value of the tags to the point where having them up top is not justified. But, in any case, the tags are not "hidden", since the pointer to them is right there at the top of the page.

I will make an analogy I've made before: if we make an analogy between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia, opening an article with multiple tags at the top is equivalent to opening the reference book and finding that the article you want is covered in post-it notes containing messages from the book's editors: "I think this article needs some work," "The sourcing on this article is deficient", "Let's get a more global view on this" and so on. This does not increase the user's appreciation of the diligence of the editors, it serves to decrease their respect for the reference work.

Now, it's true that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, it's an online encyclopedia (one in the midst of discovering exactly what that means, if people would only let it find out), but the analogy still holds. Tags could be messages to the reader, if they were authoritative (as authoritative as the articles aspire to be) and well-regulated, but in the absence of those attributes, they are merely (at best!) post-it notes between editors, if they are not actually "opinion graffiti". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But, this is patently untrue; again, you appear only to object to "drive-by" tagging — a practice which is contrary to the purpose of tags. Tags, especially ones that go beyond simple clean-up requests, can be summarily reverted if they are not discussed. This has been repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages -- only uncontroversial tags should remain in place. If you feel a tag is not appropriate, then remove it, don't systematically undermine the purpose of tags by removing them out of sight, and thus, out of mind.

Your analogy to a print encyclopedia is perhaps apt. Print encyclopedias are edited, the published -- one would not expect to see "post-its" in a published work. But, Wikipedia is in the process of being edited. That is its very nature -- what you are looking at is a work in progress; and its readers are the editorial staff. The "published" versions of Wikipedia are the CDs the foundation publishes; and you won't see "post-its" in those. --Haemo 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair assessment, in my opinion. Editors in good faith feel they are improving Wikipedia by adding tags when they vaguely feel that improvement is needed. If they raised their concern on the talk page this would be useful, even if half the time the most appropriate response would be {{sofixit}}. However, tags provide a message to the world that "this article's rubbish", insulting editors who are doing their best and leading to arguments when the tag is deleted. Where an article is completely unreferenced at tag at the top can be a suitable caution to unwary readers, but when it has at least one reference a more detailed and nuanced criticism is needed: a tag under a "References" heading makes the suggestion, and adds the article to a category for anyone using such categories to find something to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, dave souza, but your example can be best fixed by common sense; the {{references}} tag states that the article has no references, so I would hope that any Joe or Jane editor would see that if the article contains even one references, it is not, in fact, entirely unreferenced. I am obviously one for putting necessary tags for overlong plots, trivia, and similar other section-specific templates in the section it belongs; that's also common sense, I should hope. I would also hope that templates that deal with POV or OR are placed in a corresponding section, unless it's an extreme case and it is obvious that the entire article needs help. My concern is mostly with visibility, and the mistaken belief that articles need to be cleaned-up for the sake of aesthetics. Tags are useful, they serve a purpose, both categorically and accessibly -- why hide them at the bottom of the page? The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Wikipedia's "readers." María (críticame) 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry for failing to sign. It's really a question of balance, and a lack of common sense from some taggers. Dr. Gene Scott desperately needs cleaned up, but the two tags are a bit iffy – "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." relates to a recent comment "There is not one mention of the man's controversial nature, and bizarre presentation" - there's a source for that in the talk, why didn't the tagger just add a mention? "This article has been tagged since July 2006" as not citing refs or sources, technically true, but the nine external links listed look very much like sources from the days when references which were external links were commonly put under "External links". So, the tagger couldn't be bothered checking to see if these were sources for the article as written, and for a year no one else has bothered either. Tags can tend to be a way of not doing anything. .. dave souza, talk 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here after finding the tags on Dr. Gene Scott at the bottom of the page. (Please don't ask me why I was looking up Dr. Gene Scott :) ) In any case, I disagree that editors and readers should be seen differently. Since all readers are potential editors, a tag at the top of the page encourages participation. I don't see good articles being tagged. Tagged articles that I see are usually tagged for a reason. Especially as a generation grows up with wikipedia, it is important for wikipedia to be honest about its limitations, to be seen as a first source of collective knowledge, and not the authortative source on anything. Tags at the top remind everyone of the limitations of what wikipedia is, and encourages deeper study of the subject, which also encourages better editing of articles. 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above statement, sorry for screwing up the wikicode XinJeisan 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, threats, etc.

I hope I'm posting about this in the right place, please let me know if not.

I'm not really a fan of Internet drama in general, but this user's conduct toward me is making me more and more uneasy. He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet with no real evidence (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), and has also accused me of being a pedophile. Recently, he has belittled me, called me a "wanker", a "pervert", a troll, a dick, and seemed to threaten legal action against me.

The guy seems to feel that I am out to get him, but I honestly have nothing against him and have tried to remain as civil as possible when talking with him and defending myself. Juding by his many contributions to Wikipedia, he seems to be a good editor who is simply letting his temper get the best of him regarding a certain topic. In addition to attacking me, he has also blanked and redirected pages without proper consensus, as has been reported on this Incident board.

Again, I have nothing personal against him, and I will only be around Wikipedia sporadically during the next few days, anyway. This report on this incident board may anger him further, but I don't know what else to do. His conduct regarding me is clearly against the rules and is starting to really trouble me, in addition to proving disruptive in general. Could someone please try to calm him down?

Thank you. -Mike D78 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any comments regarding this? Mike D78 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's something going on there with the sockpuppet accusations that is not being mentioned here. That said, SqueakBox is clearly out of line in repeatedly calling Mike D78 a wanker and threatening to call the police, whatever the hell that's supposed to do. I'm not going to touch this but someone more familiar with the history here should take a serious look at this.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike has now reported me in 4 different threads on this page in 3 days, the first 3 were labelled admin action not needed. Given the history of blocked users harrassing and trolling me on pedophile related articles in the past and Mike now doing it here I agree that some further investigation might be useful. Why is he so persistentluyy harrassing me if he doesnt hold a grudge from multiple previous blockings. I maybe went too far last night but Mike's campaign of harrassment againt me on this page needs to stop! 4 times and he still didnt get the message after 3 times. This is not acceptable as I didnt do anything wrong, as admin have already pointed out 3 times, SqueakBox 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The crux of your disagreement seems to be that you believe he's a sockpuppet of a long-since blocked user involved with pedophilia articles. Why not just request a check-user, and find out for sure? One way or another, it will end this spat. --Haemo 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If I believed that it would end things I would do so but what Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) does is gets banned on a new account and then disappear to resurface again, he has done it on a number of occasions after he got banned through check user (eg Nandaba Naota (talk · contribs), Revolt against the modern world (talk · contribs) and Kartikabalaji (talk · contribs) all confiirmed by arbcom) and I am getting tired of it so I dont think that is a real solution, I'd rather know where the user is and have his edits watched, SqueakBox 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I did not report you 4 times; the first time was someone else reporting your disruptive reverts. And I am not harrassing you; revert wars based on blanking without consensus and personal attacks and threats are certainly worthy of reporting. I'm not 100% familiar with the way things are supposed to be reported on Wikipedia yet, so excuse me if I reported these things at the wrong place, but your actions were against the rules every time, so fess up. And besides, admin action was taken each time; the articles you were reverting were locked and you were warned by others for your attacks and threats against me.

I have told you, I am not a sock. To be blunt, either get someone to run a checkuser on me or shut up about it, I'm really getting sick of this. If anyone's being harrassed, it's me.

Mike D78 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Equerer a sockpuppet, making reverts at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship

Equerer, registered today, seems to have an in-depth knoweledge of Wikipedia as evidenced by his talk page reply to me. The account is clearly a sock, and has also violated 3RR at the above page. Hence, should I be at AIV, Suspected sock puppets, 3RR violations, or here? I have my suspicions on who they may be a sock of, but I won't cast stones without evidence. Nonetheless this looks very much a disruptive WP:POINT. Pedro |  Chat  15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest check user first perhaps, then with that evidence to suspected sock puppets. Wildthing61476 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which I was tempted with, but the very first line at Checkuser is (to paraphrase)- obvious sockpuppets - block. And this is obvious puppetry. Unless we consider that we wish to possibly look at a preventative block of the puppet master too. ?

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You're all edit warring for one, without any attempt to get consensus. Equerer is clearly a sock of someone, but that doesn't change the fact that adding in "Bureaucrats need 9 out of 10 approvals to be promoted" without any sort of explanation to where that consensus is found is ridiculous.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know 90% is the magic number. My point is that it's not on the article's talk page...in fact the only single edit there was from 2006 by Picaroon. Neither of you were using the talk page. You need to show the new editor WHERE the consensus is that 90% is promotion, not edit war him into the ground. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In my defense SwatJester, I was just suggesting a remedy for the situation. Wildthing61476 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously except you Wildthing...I should have made that clear.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you use the talk page, then? Instead of pageprotecting us into the ground ;) Anyway, I think 'new editor' is probably not the best word here. Haukur 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine...new editor in quotes. With an eye roll and a wink. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I agree with Haukur and Pedro, almost all new users don't discover RFA so fast, and especially RFB, looks like a single-purpose account created to stur up trouble and a checkuser is in place. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester - why not actually bother to look at the logs before your gross and sweeping generalisation. I only came across this on RC Patrol. Your you should all be ashamed of yourselves comment is offensive. Please strike it. I care not one jot for the argument at this time. I care that a sock is being used on a contentious edit, hence my report. Pedro |  Chat  19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted him multiple times without assuming good faith.[14][15][16] You brought it to the wrong board, as you mention yourself in the first post.[17] You accuse him of being a sockpuppet (which he likely is) and intimate that you know who, but don't post any evidence to back yourself up.[18] And you edit warred.[19] Before I got protected the page, you, Equerer, and Haukurth made a combined total of ....12 or 13 reverts depending on how you count it.[20] 3RR does not entitle you to revert war....and you even counted your reverts to avoid hitting 4, in the edit summary.[21] You should have gone to WP:RFPP, or brought it up here in the first place instead of edit warring and WP:BITEing the newbie (who you accuse of being a sock without any proof). Even if he is a sock, which again, he likely is, there are other ways to deal with it. That's why you and Equerer should be ashamed of yourself....him for trolling, and you for allowing yourself to be trolled like that. Honestly...how much time would it have taken to point him at something that says "Crats need 90% support to be promoted"? There was NO usage of the talk page [22], not even one single edit since 2006. That's incredibly bad form. Yes, Equerer was considerably more wrong than you by breaking 3RR and arguably being a sock, but that does not excuse your editing either.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could view it this way. I see it at RC Patrol. I see a seasoned editor reverting edits by a brand new account that is clearly a sock by the nature of the page edited. That rules out WP:BITE straight away - no newbies here AGF or otherwise. 3RR does not apply to vandalism as you know, but I followed Haukurth's admirable lead on not pushing a 4th revert none the less. And do you honestly believe that a sock would use the talk page? I don't think so. And of course I'm not going to state who the puppet master may be - as I clearly stated I have a suspicion, but that is not a reason to then post it at ANI. And as for bringing it to the wrong board, I came and asked as it fitted multiple boards. If you are taking the attitude that asking where to go to with an issue clearly requiring an admin and ANI is not the place what the heck is it for??. The fact you protected the page is evidence alone that by bringing it here I did the right thing. I'm just trying to help out and admins swaying in with remarks like yours, when the very same admin acknowledges that it is very likely we are dealing with a sock and protects accordingly, hardly encourages other editors to ask questions or help out, IMHO. Anyway, it's over, so let's just move on. Pedro |  Chat  10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: vexatious litigation

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[23] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?Giovanni33 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[24] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[25] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[26] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable edit?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728

MONGO's summary: "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.". Note that the edit which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. 200.58.112.238 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has 4 edits and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--MONGO 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."

Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.Giovanni33 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you own the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--MONGO 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response. You say: "the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..." I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not our POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.

The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article provided it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.

It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.Giovanni33 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."

MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Wikipedia when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Wikipedia. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Wikipedia would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. H8 Buster 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Would...

...It be acceptable for users to go through CAT:UWT and replace all of the Image:Stop hand.png with Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg as even Template:Bv has been changed, the only ones I can see at first glance which havent been updated or Template:Test5, would people agree that its time for all of us to "take a step forward" and update these? ALl the best. Qst 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This would probably be a good thing to bring up at WikiProject user warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good gods, why? This is busy work. The stop hand is decoration, nothing more. Move forward with the new image and leave the old ones lie, unless there's some previously undiscovered copyright violation... -- nae'blis 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't, so just leave it alone. Nae'blis's suggestion is the best one to take. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving user page & user talk page to another name that doesn't have an account.

Resolved

 – Page moved back. Will ^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs) has moved her user page and her user talk page to User:A. Shakespeare which doesn't have an account assigned to it diff. The problem I have is that the usual user page links in the navigation column (such as user contributions) don't show up on the new page. I couldn't find a guideline/policy on this, so since I'm not sure if I'm dead wrong in thinking this isn't okay, I haven't yet informed the user of this post.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't someone tell her why it was moved back? I would myself, but like I said, I have no idea where under policy/guidelines this falls. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread "Odd behavior from Sarah Goldberg" below, where the behavior of the user is discussed more fully. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

User:Darkcurrent continuing bad behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked for 61 hours.

I reported Darkcurrent's earlier behavior a few days back and left a relatively polite message on his talk page: [27]. Basically, he edits pages and leaves insulting edit summaries making liberal use of slurs, swear words, and all-caps. Several days after I left my previous message, Darkcurrent thought it would be fun to leave the following message on my talk page: [28]. If you don't care to look, because it's mostly nonsense anyway, he calls me a "grammar nazi" (sic), a "gay fuck", and invites me to "suck (his) balls". This is subsequent to insulting . . . well, either me or User:Breed3011, it's hard to tell. on his talk page with similar language. This guy is a repeat offender, and if it were up to me, he'd be gone. He contributes little of value, has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, not just against me but against, you know, everybody. I would appreciate it if an admin could take some action. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Just as I clicked on the "block" button, I got an error message noting that User:WilyD had already blocked Darkcurrent for 61 hours. Sounds about right, though I had selected "1 week", so I guess he got off easier. As the prior blocks have had little effect on his behavior, I'm not optimistic, but perhaps he'll turn things around. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned to him something like "Shape up or face increasingly long blocks" - I'm always hopeful editors can reform ... but I won't hold my breath. Any more problems, just report him again. Cheers, WilyD 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For a supposed "tenured professor of theology", this editor doesn't show a lot of edumacationistic poise...and seems a touch overzealous regarding the ethnicities of Richmond Secondary School students. Seriously, though, this editor should get a permanent block if, after this one wears off, any further incivility occurs. The contributions list is a series of profanity, personal attacks & rabid POV-pushing. — Scientizzle 20:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "tenured professor of theology" claim is either a bad joke or a horrible irony. Of course, once people get tenure and can't easily be fired, they sometimes turn a bit immature or "overzealous"... wouldn't you? MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my goal! Er... — Scientizzle 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

various Sufism related articles

Ahmed Rida Khan, Naqshbandi, Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi, and Hisham Kabbani have been repeatedly hit by an IP-hopping POV vandal with the curious edit summary of "docg". A previous report of mine dated 21 June 2007 attracted little interest but some speculation as to what "docg" meant. Unfortunately Sufism is very little understood in the west and I have no idea how to begin cleaning up and properly sourcing these articles (nor would I like to spend my time educating myself on Sufism when I prefer to spend my time on image licensing issues). Any suggestions? -N 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just add these articles to your watch list and revert on sight. You may also consider just reporting a new IP to WP:AIV every time... Other than that, a range block would be rather massive and we tend only to use them for massive bot attacks and the such. Sorry, not much else I can think of here. Sasquatch t|c 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock puppet of repeatedly-banned individual

Resolved

User:66.130.22.16 is an obvious sock puppet of a POV-pushing, confirmed sock puppet-using, personal attack-making, repeatedly-banned (I think permanently) neo-Nazi from Montreal, User:Laderov. Spylab 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would've been quicker if you used AIV. And please, no need to insult the vandals. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd behavior from Sarah Goldberg

Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some strange additions to his/her userpage. This edit appears to violate this guideline about sharing accounts. I have a feeling it isn't true based on the fact that the rest of the userpage goes on to refer to the past history of that account. But I thought someone might want to take a look. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are several contradictions on that user's page. One being a gender contradiction. Another being the claim of born in Florida but coming from Germany.
  

However, I'm more concerned about this user's sudden appearance and very passionate support for a recently blocked user. Perhaps I have missed a prior history between them. If so, then my concerns may be unfounded. Some of the comments and SCREAMING traits are remarkably similar between the two editors. Peace.Lsi john 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Excluding dissociative identity disorder, one presumes the most likely explanation to be a compromised account ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a supposed "explanation" on the page now, but the fact remains that the material is inflammatory and bordering on the nonsensical. not only that, but the username is supposedly that of a real person, and not the person with the account. Probably should be blocked or username changed for unintentional impersonation after said inflammatory material is removed. MSJapan 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a choice of {{vandalblock}}, {{sockblock}}, {{usernameblock}} or {{speedy}} the userpage. Or do nothing. Consensus, please. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse indefblocking this account as a shared account which violates the username policy, and advice everyone to create their own accounts. I've taken the liberty to protect Tecmobowl's talk page. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did it go from being his mother's account to being his brother's account? IrishGuy ^talk 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I was just about to ask that. Apparently it was a "typo". Lets just block the account and get it over with. Michaelas¹⁰ 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note the images on the userpage were tagged for deletion and then reuploaded. Might be a good way to track said user if s/he (whichever) pops up again. MSJapan 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, note personally identifiable information given by a minor (email and photo), as well as multiple personal pictures (NOT free web host). MSJapan 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this adds up at all. He/She is now requesting a name change to "A. Shakespeare" claiming I took this account from my brother, who named it after his girlfriend. I'm want it named for the first letter of my first name and my last name. The problem is this earlier edit makes it clear the user was named "Sarah Goldberg" and the picture he/she continues to upload is a girl names "Adriana Shakespeare". So...yeah...none of these new claims make any sense. IrishGuy ^talk 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to apply a username hardblock, and she can argue the point at WP:UNBLOCK if she wishes. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, plus it looks like they were using their userpage like a Myspace profile. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped ISA image, again

Template talk:Access icon#Commons debate now closed

An admin, known on commons and here as User:White Cat has closed a commons debate about the International Symbol of Access (and those of you familiar with White Cat (aka Cool Cat), you can come to your own conclusion about how sound his judgement is). For those of you that remember the debates, it was clearly rejected that the ISA image could be used outside of WP:NONFREE on en.Wiki. Resolving the issue on Commons is unrelated to us here, but I am posting here so that we can restrict the icon's usage on en.wiki until this error is corrected on Commons. It has already been applied to Template:Access icon, where I've placed an editprotected notice to remove it. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion pertained to the idea of using a non-free symbol in templates. If this version of the symbol is free (as has been determined), there is no problem. Whether this determination is correct or incorrect is a separate issue (and I don't know the answer). —David Levy 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Commons wonks are more authoritative than we are on what counts as PD. If they think the symbol is in the PD (and I tend to agree, through sheer overuse and image simplicity the image is just not capable of being under copyright protection) then we don't have any need to "restrict our use" of it. -N 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Except the Commons admin that did this was User:White Cat. I'm sorry, but it's fair to say that a great deal of us do not trust his judgement or knowledge of copyright law. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the color does not make a copyrighted image a free image. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that it does, Ned. —David Levy 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that there was widespread support to use the ISA, "free" or not, until User:ed g2s ruled that it violated Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By what logic does it violate the Resolution? It says that individual projects can decide for themselves what types of non-free content they want to use. In this case, there is a clear consensus in favor of allowing this image. — Omegatron 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Commons affect all projects, so if we cannot host it on the Commons, then some projects cannot use the symbol at all (because they have local uploads disabled, like the Spanish or Swedish Wikipedia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, you are very much incorrect. The foundation policy clearly states (emphases mine): "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, ..." "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."

EDPs are very much limited, and can only be used when the image is specific to the article in question. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another ... but one thing that is probably worth pointing out is that if English Wikipedia comes to a different conclusion regarding the copyright status of that image than Commons does, we do have the ability to add it to the bad image list or block it by locally uploading an image with the same name (admins can do this). --BigΔT 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I still need to figure out what the Commons feels about it, but there are a lot of those images we need to sort out. Anyways, I posted at the Commons of a Japanese based website that these images can be used in publications, not nothing to the sort the Commons needs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Smac2020

Smac2020 (talk · contribs) has been adding what I believe to be inappropriate links to several articles including Suncor Energy and Talisman Energy. He is using the rationale, "The external links here are benefial to the general public as they are normally not available at zero cost." I believe these links violate WP:EL; one link provides no information which could not be incorporated into the article and the other link does not even mention the company described in the article. This user has previously been warned about external links. Now, I am an administrator and could revert and block this user but I am not absolutely sure these links are inappropriate. Could someone else give a look? --Yamla 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't think it would be appropriate to block the user at this time, just an indication to the user that the links are not appropriate and that if he continues to add them, he would be blocked. --Yamla 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

After a very quick look, those links look more like promoting Andrew Johns than provide useful information that cannot be incorporated in the article. That's my first impression, anyway.--Atlan (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla's assessment in labeling the external links as spam. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://spam.andrewjohns.ca and RaymondJames. Slambo (Speak) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that this URL be added to the spam blacklist. --Yamla 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned user

While I appreciate how much fun it is to cherry pick cases, this is a sock puppet that needs to be banned. The puppetmaster admitted to the sock puppetry and shows up every few months to make a series of crappy edits that usually User:Acalamari reverts. However, the sock puppet still need banned. The WP:Sock puppet page appears to be for discussing whether or not someone is a puppet master--if this is the wrong place would someone please tell me the correct place, because spending a year in Wiki-instructions without results is not particularly useful. This is a sock puppet of User:Leah01 and I would like the sock puppet blocked now, so the edits can be reverted--Leah01 has wasted a lot of editor time with shitty edits to the Daniel Rodriguez article that Acalamari and JeffPW have to spend hours cleaning up. It would be much nicer to get the socks routinely blocked as soon as the crop up so the crap can be swept out. A lot of editors worked long and hard on the Daniel Rodriguez article while being viciously attacked by Leah01 and his/her sock puppets--MrDarcy and JeffPW have left, it would be nice to get this sock blocked. Thank you. And again, it seems that the WP:Sock puppet board is for something else--if this isn't the right place, please just tell me what is. It's impossible to figure out with so many boards so dense with instructions.

[29] User:66.216.231.232

In the meantime I'll just undo all their edits. KP Botany 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UNTRUTH

Sorry but this previous entry above frm KP Botany, is again one admin (who many, who have tried to assist in the creation of this article in pure and good faith) feel should be up for review. You can go to talk page of Daniel Rodriguez where you will not find ONE incident of anything even nearly vicious or attaching, from those who origianlly brought this article to fruition. Admitidly we most all began, knowing not a thing about the correct way to work here, however on a worthly journey and determined to get a page started that rightly deserved it. The original creators of this, including myself, and family members have had it with just a few here at Wikipedia. Though we have some highly educated folks who could have much to contribute here, it's been a time to sour us from ever trying to do any worthwhile, professinal additions, as we have done many! Please don't just take the word on this project's history from one with a personal grudge. Fact is that Bob and Jeff had worked harmoniously togther for a long time, and even David Shankfield, photo graher giving us the thumbs up to continue to be a part of Wikipedia.. despite Botany's continual removal and insulting remarks of so much of what was done..a true and sorry CLEAR case one person with a personal grudge that overrides his care about the bigger picture here - Wikipedia! This is far more Damaging to the long term repuation of Wikipedia than it is to any of us, unfairly targeted and no longer using our valuable time here, but sometimes you have to try to right a wrong, on principle. I hope you'l do the right thing for all involved. We simply ask please to take the time to not simply ingore the facts, hopefully more newbies will be spared this awful treatment in the future. I bid you goodby. I SHALL NOT RETURN! 66.216.231.232 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C.

someone with the ip address 81.156.137.157 is constantly vandalising the article over the past couple of days could an admin please lock the topic to edits by newly registered and anonymous users please. AfTaDaRkCrU 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests such as thee should go to WP:RFPP. I went and protected it though. Wizardman 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

IP legal threat at J.D. Salinger

No idea what I'm supposed to do with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a wikimedia foundation person deputized to handle exactly this kind of thing? Post a reply at the notice that says something like: we have a procedure to handle this kind of issue. Please send an email to ____ at the wikimedia foundation with contact information to verify your identity. It is our policy not to respond to unverifiable legal threats in the articles and talk pages. alteripse 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently J.D. Salinger aka 205.166.218.35 (talk · contribs) is interested in John Leguizamo andThe Who Tour 2006-2007. I am sure his biographers will be intrigued. Abecedare 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I would have expected Mr. Salinger to have better spelling as well...and not be in the employ of State Farm Insurance. — Scientizzle 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I was about to comment about. Sounds more like someones trying to have fun at our expense than a genuine legal threat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

At least he was more polite than Harlan Ellison was. (No, I don't think it was Salinger. But I betcha the Ellison is genuine) Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you'd think an 88-year-old man would have better things to do.--Ispy1981 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, should the comment be reverted as vandalism, left there, or addressed so future editors won't ask the same question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with revert and give the anon a vandal warn. Some (other) editors may be fooled. And ask to see some ID. Also, find out how long it took to write Catcher in the Rye. :P--Ispy1981 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove, IMO. I went to do it but Chaser already did. Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed and left a message on the IP's talk. The gist of Wikipedia:No legal threats is that we don't allow real ones (without blocking the editor so they can pursue real legal action) because they handicap our free editing process. Fake legal threats left hovering about can have the same effect, but this was probably just nonsense, so it's just as well to remove it.--Chaser - T 03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all ... but did we find out how long it took to write Catcher in the Rye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the real J. D. Salinger wanted to complain about how he was covered, the official procedure for contacting the Foundation is explained at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). EdJohnston 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation's effort to squash public discussion of its legal obligations does not relieve a person from making a good faith effort to advise others involved of potential legal action. The only method the foundation provides for contacting anonymous editors who might become respondants to a legal action and subject to identification by court-ordered discovery is within the online pages the foundation provides. The official procedure for warning potential respondants to a legal action is not established anywhere in Wikipedia, or in Wikimedia Foundation publications; the official procedure for interacting with parties who might cause one an ongoing liability is established in court rules and case law of various jurisdictions. SandyGeorgia's strange claim that anonymous authors' attempts to prohibit discussion of legal obligations of authors was contrived "so they (complainants) can pursue real legal action" contradicts principles of civil law. A person is obligated to try to defend their interests in real life before they can seek relief in court. Telling a complainant not to warn a property owner that a crack in their sidewalk has repeatedly tripped people does not assist the complainant in pursuing legal action except that it helps the complainant's case because the complainant's efforts to resolve the matter out of court were thwarted by the liable party. H8 Buster 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your response does not seem to be applicable to this particular case (a seemingly bogus legal threat) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It also attributes some statements to me never made by me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd. According to their user contributions, H8 Buster has only made two edits, both to this page. Bizarre for a "newb" to know so much about the Foundation.--Ispy1981 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking, Edit Warring and Harassment

User:Abe Froman and I have been having a back and forth on Sandinista National Liberation Front for several months, with little progress. The article has been fairly stable, as far as our issues go, until Froman decides its time to start the edit war again: [30]. He has been arguing minutia over details in sources, claiming that they do not support statements, when they clearly do, arguing that an Oxford academic (clearly a WP:RS) is not reliable, because his information cannot be verified. He has been soliciting other editors to join in on me in the FSLN article [31], and has now harrassed me on my btalk page, intervened in another article he has never edited, making personal attacks, soliciting editors to war with me there as well!

This is not the first time he has behaved like this and I am getting quite sick of it. On the article he followed me to, he added no less that 53 Fact tags in one edit! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Akradecki reverts and threats

Akradecki has a history of wholesale reverts of my edits to fetus in fetu, and now threatens that I face being blocked because some of the text I moved to talk:fetus in fetu includes citations. I have tried discussing the problem with him, and I have tried a month-long cool down. All to no effect. I think Akradecki may need to be blocked for a while. --Una Smith 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts by him since June 5th. User is an Admin, so I highly doubt any wrongdoing in bad faith. trey^{Sex Me} 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re only 2 reverts since June 5th, in the interest of not warring, I did not revert his reverts. Akradecki has made other prior reverts of my contributions there. I have been very patient. I don't claim he acts in bad faith, but he does revert and now threaten reprisal. He insists on citing TV news stories as sources of scientific and medical data. That was bad enough. And he is an Admin, eh? Does that mean he threatens to personally block me? --Una Smith 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a conflict of interest if he did, I don't think he will. —trey^{is the sex}

Una Smith's "contributions" has been to repeatedly remove sourced (with non-trivial secondary sources) information from the article, despite being asked not to (some examples: this where he calls cited information "speculation"; this where he adds unverified tags to sourced information; this where he questions the credibility of MSNBC source). My reverts, as well as that of at least one other editor (here), have been to put this material back into the article. Smith is insisting that generally recognized independent secondary sources such as ABC News and MSNBC are not valid sources, despite the fact that they directly address the subject and are properly used as citations. Further he insists that only primary sources be used (here (where he demands a source that "does not simply repeat a claim made elsewhere", which is exactly the kind of secondary source we do want) and here), despite being told that our guidelines advise against use of primary sources. This user has been directed repeatedly to our guidelines which spell this out. Instead, this user insists on removing such sourced material. Further, it is apparent from his comments and edit summaries that this user is trying to push is POV regarding the subject in general and even questions the existence of this article on its talk page. As I have escalated the warnings, I have told him that removal of properly sourced information, if kept up, will indeed lead to a block. I did not, however, necessarily threaten to block him personally. It is my practice when issues like this come up, to include a second admin to avoid any appearance of COI. This would be especially the case, since I resurrected this article from a redirect, and used it to consolidate material from several other stubs, at least one of which was up for AfD and was closed as a merge to here, and thus it would be COI for me to block. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While removing sourced content should be done carefully, User:Una Smith has a point that referencing medicine and science articles from the popular news media is fraught with problems, and should be avoided or supplemented with more scientific sources (which may be primary or secondary sources themselves). The news media gets such detail wrong often enough that I am wary of a scientific or medical detail sourced only from the general news media. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with scientific sources, as long as they are secondary. But to say they should be avoided? That flies in the face of policy and guidelines. If you want to propose such changes at WP:RS and WP:V, have at it, but until then, existing policy and guidelines need to be respected, and removing sources without providing others is tantamount to vandalism. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki890 (talk · contribs)

The user in question has a history of ignoring style guidelines (not just the arbitrary WP:USRD, but common English language and Wikipedia-wide guidelines as well) despite being warned multiple times on his talk page. It seems that he has now resorted to copying text from the site Highways of Washington State to write articles. Washington State Route 123 has been tagged as {{copyvio}}; I am currently going through his other recent contributions to see if others need to be tagged. -- NORTH ^talk 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Update re campaign against a productive contributor

Re the campaign against a productive contributor reported here , what has happened since then is the creation of cancer bacteria, with WP:RS, and the refusal by domineering editors of cancer to link to cancer bacteria. Toward that end, they revert my edits. --Una Smith 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a content dispute still, given the information above. Please hack it out on the relevant talk pages. —Kurykh 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a case for Dispute resolution. As was the previous AN/I post on the same topic. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Red text and personal attacks on talk page

Duke53 (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks on other editors on his talk page, and also has quite a bit of red text there which could cause reactions in others. I took the liberty of refactoring it, as I understand is the right of any user, per WP:NPA and WP:USER ([32]) only to have Duke53 undo it ([33]) and dare me to report it. Well, I'm obliging--if an admin would kindly have a look, it would be appreciated. Blueboy96 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here we go again! Any admin who wants to get involved in this might want to check out this [34] first; apparently this guy's last ploy didn't work, so he is now going to start this attack on me. p.s. I would like to see proof of the 'reactions' the red typeface could cause. I guess this guy must be a physician, as well as a journalist.Duke53 | ^Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• p.p.s. this is a picture of his user page; maybe he should be concerned about 'reactions' because of it.

  

  colors on his page

• Somebody should tell the person in charge of the Administrators' noticeboard page that they are using some 'dangerous, reaction causing' type on this page:

Duke53 | ^Talk 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96, it looks rather petty to be complaining about a user's text colors on their userpage. Being so petty makes it more likely that other complaints from you will be ignored. Don't take disagreement with another user to this level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Komodo lover

Jet Animals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals adding that there was a mammoth in the game. User:Chocolate Rhino added the same info (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (2nd)). The user edits User:DietLimeCola's talk page, which looks suspicially looks similar to Chocolate Rhino's edit. Pants^(T) 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User Abecedare edit warring

User Abecedare is reverting cited article with improper explanation.

Check his explanations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=143046523&oldid=143046439

Check his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&action=history

BalanceRestored 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in May for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. His account was unblocked by admin Vassyana, assuming good faith, and under stringent conditions agreed to by the user, which are listed here
However the user has resumed his disruptive editing, most recently on the Veda article where he has added factually incorrect information based on two lines of sample text he saw in an journal article on Google books - a journal article for which he does not even know the title and author(s)!
He has been explained in detail (with reference to gold-standard sources) why his source and edits are incorrect (see Talk:Vedas#5 Vedas not 4 Vedas) but he does not seem to understand either the article content or the wikipedia policies. He has already reverted the article twice in the past hour [35], [36] and violated the conditions of his probation. It would help if an admin can look into his actions and take appropriate action. Thanks. Abecedare 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the earlier ANI thread on the user. Abecedare 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another instance a couple of days back in which User:BalanceRestored made edits violating NPOV and verifiability policies, and his 1-revert/day unblock condition [37], [38] Abecedare 07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've realised that I was probably edit warring and had immeadiately stopped the same. I did refer to a cited text the very next day and changed the text to keep that more appropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwabrahmin&diff=142644388&oldid=142637275 I did not continue with edits and stopped that immeadiately. I only edited the text the next day with all the required citations. BalanceRestored 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor is surprisingly ignoring the facts those I am presenting http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1 and is ignoring the presence of the citations in this book. Also is challenging the book that is clearly visible. BalanceRestored 08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It clearly appears that the editor is not trying to move the discussion in a healthy mood. Instead of trying to find the facts about the book is taking the discussion with negetive sense. BalanceRestored 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure wikipedia is a place where editors guide newbies and not ignore the edits the way it is being done. I understand Abecedare is a very experienced editor but it is very apparent from the recent edits that the editor is trying to take the edits more personally. BalanceRestored 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hour for violating his unblock conditions.[39][40] I encourage both parties to seek dispute resolution for the content disagreement. Vassyana 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Qst (talk · contribs)

Following this incident report and this SSP, I have blocked the account of Qst (talk · contribs) for 1 month for abusive sockpuppetry. Comments and reviews are welcomed. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Molag Bal in my opinion. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Daniel 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This checkuser proved wrong yesterday, so I don't see why this is still a subject of debate. I've removed the tag from his userpage. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is completely inappropriate behaviour from Daniel and Riana. Those blocks were way out of line. I'm very, very disappointed with this whole situation. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to completely agree that the block should not have been made. The checkuser made it very clear that the vandalising IP was Molag Bal and that Qst was completely unrelated. Rushing to block an established editor on the basis of dubious evidence is very disappointing and, as is now clear, was only ever going to inflame the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is the second time Qst/The Sunshine Man has been found adopting a Molag Bal sockpuppet (previously happened with Retionio Virginian. There's no checkuser evidence, but there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to show a bothersome connection between the two users, and considering Qst's behaviour yesterday following his aborted RfA, which likely culminated in vandalism on Moreschi's talk page, a block was completely in order. Nick 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Smells like meatpuppetry to me. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, the IP was not commented upon in the checkuser. My point is that continuing to accuse him of being a Molag Bal sockpuppet in spite of its results is unreasonable. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange reaction to AFD closure, assistance needed

Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II (talk · contribs), who is likely a single-purpose account, has reacted weirdly to my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generational secret with incivil edit summaries and postings on her user page, my user talk page, and on hers, accusing me of racism and hate. She left a strange comment on the AFD nominator's user talk, as well. She should probably be blocked as a SPA that has served its single purpose, but I probably shouldn't do it. --Coredesat 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Creepy. Anyway, can SPAs really be blocked for that reason? Carson 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like her activity has been dropping off; if she lets go, we should let her go and avoid anything that would provoke her. If she keeps going... eh. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Mok

User:Timothy Mok may have been vandalistically tagging good pages as {{db-vandalism}}; See [41] (an edit of User talk:Timothy Mok), and his edits [42], [43], [44]. Anthony Appleyard 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tags - but am running out of time to do more. Agathoclea 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• And this edit [45]. Anthony Appleyard 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely until a good explanation is given. Grandmasterka 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• And this edit [46]. Anthony Appleyard 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is from Singapore and born in 1997. So he's very young. Be careful and patient Don't bite him. --Kaypoh 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• At 11:05 on 22 June 2007 User:Timothy Mok moved User talk:Timothy Mok to User talk:Betsy Koh. Should I histmerge it back into User talk:Timothy Mok? Anthony Appleyard 08:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Everything's all fixed—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  And I protected the page against moving. Agathoclea 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New Molag Bal sockpuppet??

I noticed User:Kalebrigns while RC patrolling, and on his userpage he claims to be a self-confessed sockpuppet of Molag Bal. He's claiming to have apologised for his vandalism and says he wants to come back.

Should I take this to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to see if it is Molag Bal, or not??

I'm not too familiar with the Molag Bal situation, but I noticed it on his userpage and thought it was unusual to see a user tagging themselves as a sockpuppet. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it matters. As far as I can remember Molag Bal was notorious for creating good guy accounts and then trolling them and the rest of us with bad guy accounts. Not to be trusted. Moreschi ^Talk 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD R2

Although this is not an XfD discussion, could the discussion consensus of WT:CSD#CSD R2 be determined by an admin, because there are some opposing people, and I don't want to do it on my own since I'm not an admin. I've already put it on there once, and another user has reverted. Thanks, Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you started about this over at WT:CSD seems to be civil, proper, and in the right forum. Still, two editors have opposed your plan who seem to have experience at WP:RFD. One of them asserts that 'there is a giant list of [cross-namespace redirects] that mostly have consensus to be kept'. The other points our that RFD is not overworked, and could easily deal with the small number of cross-namespace redirects that your plan would allow to be speedied.

Consider finding examples and diffs that would help answer these arguments. Both sides need to supply more data. If there were 'many long discussions' about this at RfD and elsewhere, someone needs to find the pointers. There is no consensus yet, in my opinion. EdJohnston 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive page moves by User:Koavf

User:Koavf, in the past 3 days, decided that he was going to be very WP:BOLD and move hundreds of pages because they didn't comply with "naming conventions", yet in many cases, his moves have just left a big mess and many have to be reverted back. He moved all the pages with NFL in the title to pages with "National Football League" because it is the full name, despite it going against common practice. The NFL Drafts are referred to as such, not as the National Football League Draft. Similarly the NBA Finals - pretty much he moved every page that had an abbreviation in it. Looking at his move log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Koavf&page=), he has moved a couple thousand pages since June 30. And looking through the AN archives, he has done this sort of this in the past, prior to his recent reinstatment by ARBCOM. Pepsidrinka 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs) blocked for one week due to disruption, recurrence of previous behaviour. Significant work will be needed to undo any incorrect moves made.[47] Vassyana 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm undoing any of the moves I find involving collegiate athletic trademarks, because that's one point where he's clearly wrong, no processwonkery about it. I'm not sure what the best approach is for dealing with the rest of the backlog. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just undercut my argument supporting Pepsidrinka's complaints, heh. From WP:HOCKEY we have a list of moves we couldn't revert back ourselves at Talk:1968-69 Western Canada Hockey League season. I'm sure there are more, but it will take some time to find them all. Resolute 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

ResolvedThe RFA is closed

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AquaStreak. AquaStreak only has 77 edits and created a sockpuppet to !vote support, Thegreenblob. Check the logs. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Denial of vandalism

User:Jaasmeimer Zoosteraatz, who has vandalized two pages (see diffs [48] and [49]), is persistently denying that he/she has vandalized these pages, even though he/she is a registered user and therefore cannot use the shared IP defense. See my talk page and the user's talk page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Left a note. He hasn't made any mainspace edits since though, so we'll wait and see. Wizardman 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that this user should be blocked for disruption, because he/she is very persistent in denying that he/she is a vandal. Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, he shows no desire to contribute to the encyclopedia. Wizardman 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You got to the block page about two seconds before me. Good call; it's just a typical troll. Antandrus (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield

This is a bit difficult: the whole thing is essentially just speculation; nobody has any real information but the bare minimum and even the name is speculation. The thing is basically just turning into one big, messy edit war.

Suggestions? HalfShadow 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the page useful, going to it after I saw the trailer on the web. There has been press coverage, thus WP:RS is satisfied, so I don't see the problem. THF 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm posting here. Apparently there's just enough to satisfy requirements, but everything else sofar has been everything from unreliable to just plain guesses. I was just wondering what, if any, actions should be taken. HalfShadow 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove any&all content not supported with reliable sources and wait for more information to emerge. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:209.247.22.164/User:SFTVLGUY2

209.247.22.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP has been undoing my edits in bad faith. Suspect IP of User:SFTVLGUY2. IP has been previously warned. —  MusicMaker 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

MusicMaker is correct. It is clearly User:SFTVLGUY2. -- Ssilvers 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How come I've received no response at all? I raised this at WP:AIV, telling me that it was a valid issue, but I should raise it here. If you check the contribs of the IP, you'd see that he went through and systematically reversed everything I did for about a day. He seems to have some vendetta against Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. I think that some action should be taken. —  MusicMaker 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Covell/Diaz Pertini school raid... incident

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if a couple other users could help me out with a problem user Indynessuno (talk · contribs), who is insisting (he initially made a legal threat, against which I have given him a single (final) warning in my reply) that I help him post an article relating to events regarding the 27th G8 summit. He claims to be (and I assume that it is a valid claim) Mark Covell, a journalist who was, according to the article, put into a coma because of police brutality in the attack. His comments initially primarily concerned my deletion of Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid which I deleted under CSD G8 after deleting Diaz Pertini School Raid itself because of an expired prod, and additionally (having noted this in the deletion log) CSD A3 (which may have been borderline or A1). Administrators viewing these deleted pages will note that Covell (or rather, although he doesn't seem to be the same person at all, User:HResearcher) posted his essay on the talk page, rather than the article. I'll ask HResearcher about his post for Covell later.

The primary problem with this is that the user appears to want to completely disregard NPOV and COI, not to mention (although I haven't warned him yet of such) NOR. He's being a little difficult, so I'd appreciate it if some other users take a look at the thread on my talk page and perhaps make helpful comments.

I'd also like to note that some recent vandalism to my userspace has been made by 2 anon users, whose IPs both trace to the United Kingdom or even (one) London, where Covell claims to be located:

81.86.107.17 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism (not warned, page is a sandbox.)

82.2.224.210 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism diff of self revert (?!?) (not warned, self revert within 60 seconds)

Again, if you have some time, I'd appreciate more eyes on the incident, not least because I think that he won't appreciate my next reply - I have to clarify what I said and explain that his position really isn't supported by policy. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton

Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde

Resolved

Banned user Panairjdde presented himself here with his latest sock, Similaun, could you please consider blocking him? Thanks. --Angelo 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon (Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Blackdragon6 and Image:Bone Thugs.jpg

Resolved

This user, who was just blocked two days ago for 48 hours for uploading this file for the umpteenth time, has just uploaded it again. Someone please block him and delete this image: this is becoming ridiculous: [50]. The Evil Spartan 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I would be happy to have this block lifted if the editor undertakes not to upload said image. LessHeard vanU 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SIMONMAXIMOUNDS image copyright violations

Resolved

SIMONMAXIMOUNDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, for the past three weeks, uploaded copyrighted images of Maxi Mounds. SIMONMAXIMOUNDS was blocked on 4 July and told that if the image violations continued, the account would be blocked idefinately. I saw that there was a dispute on the license of Image:MAXIMOUNDS.jpg (which was uploaded on 6 July, after this warning), so I e-mailed the e-mail address given on the subject's web page. She replied; she says that the license is incorrect. SIMONMAXIMOUNDS has a history of image copyright violations, and if remains unblocked, will continue to upload images that violate policy. WODUP 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely. Appears incapable of understanding copyright law and only interested in one topic, unlikely to contribute usefully. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see any new blocks in the block log. WODUP 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - now you should. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_6#Template:Infobox_Towns_and_Cities_in_Guinea

User:Wikid77 has suggested that I am "Psychotic"...and should "seek psychiatric help" and that I should stop editing for several weeks because I have TfD'ed infoboxes in favor of a standard. I think it was uncalled for. —MJCdetroit 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, have you spoken with him about it? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative. —MJCdetroit 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the post. It was entirely out of line - he purposefully used a wikilink to psychotic on 4 different occasions. It's not like he didn't know better. I've plopped an {{npa3}} tag on his page. The Evil Spartan 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User TJ Spyke

User:TJ Spyke Wont quit trying to start a edit war on WWE One Night Stand. Keeps reverting and calling me names. I have tried to tell him he has to provide sources for information but he refuses to listen.BlueShrek 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? This new user (registere in late June) was the one who started the reverting, called me a vandal, and won't listen or take a look at the guidleline I pointed him too. He keeps removing who is on the promo poster by calling it OR (even though the poster is right there in the article). The source is the promo poster right in the article. People can also check Bobby Lashley's article to see a picture of him. TJ Spyke 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, an extremely WP:LAME edit war, with both sides assuming bad faith and falsely claiming vandalism. In any case, TJ is reported to AN/3RR for 3RR violation. The Evil Spartan 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said Lashley wasnt in the picture. TJ keeps trying to say its two guys instead of one. The fact that Im kinda new to Wiki doesnt mean Im gonna let someone push me around when I know Im right. You can check our discussion pages and the ONS history and youll see he is in the wrong. Thank you for youre time.BlueShrek 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? I have given BlueShrek proof of what he wanted. TJ Spyke 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Running through the Diffs (for the 6th and 7th of July) they both violated 3RR, if TJ is blocked then BlueShrek needs to be blocked as well. I think that both should apologise, as neither being blocked would be helpful. Darrenhusted 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:4.240.237.191

This anon appears to be placing a large number of spam links on various WP articles. I placed a warning on his talk page at 20:42 on July 7, 2007.--Filll 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request longer block on 205.251.30.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Per finding of fact 16) and enforcement 1) of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO. Specifically, vandalising my about page with a very offensive cutpaste of ED's article on me. Will ^(talk) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex sockpuppetry case

I've been dealing with sockpuppetry by multiple users across projects over the past few months (if it were not obvious from my requests across projects for checkuser), however, there is one user in question that I am unsure about dealing with right now.

In one of the checkusers, a specific account's name came up in the search that was divulged to me in a private correspondence. Within the past couple of weeks, an account with that same name was established here at the English Wikipedia. The user has not done anything wrong with this or the other account at the other project, but I am well aware that the user is in question a good hand sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer.

What should be done in this situation?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the puppeteer blocked or banned? If so, the sock is de facto abusive ("Circumventing policy", from WP:SOCK) and should be blocked, assuming you are confident that it is indeed a sock and not a naming coincidence. That's what I'd do, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The puppeteer is indeed blocked. And I am confident that the user is a sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a page deleted quickly (userspace)

Resolved

Can someone delete User talk:L for me? I want to move my old User talk/Archive pages, but as long as that exists I can't. Shouldn't take but 20 seconds, thanks --L^augh! 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the redirect? —Kurykh 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Given no immediate response, I assume it was a yes and have deleted the redirect. —Kurykh 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In future, tag your page with {{db-userreq}}. Strangely, I did this twice to some of my pages and they got deleted very soon after. Sebi _[talk] 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --L^augh! 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

69.142.43.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption. Just64helpin 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Francis_Tyers using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers

Hi everyone. Could someone take a look at the following quotes by User:Francis_Tyers? To my knowledge, he is an administrator, and he has been acting abusively, using intimidation, personal attacks, and an attitude of owning an article. Such behaviour is unacceptable, and I suggest appropriate sanctions against him, including removal of his admin privileges.

Here are the diffs:

[51] [52]

In the first one, I wrote that I do not edit much any more, and Francis' response was:

"Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. "

Not only it's a personal attack, it's directed to prevent an editor from editting in general.

In the second one, I voiced my concerns over his neutrality, and his response was:

"And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you."

I am not sure calling editors absurd is acceptable for an editor, let alone of an adminstrator.

Furthermore, User:Francis_Tyers behaves on the Khojaly_Massacre article as if he owns it, which violates the Wikipedia rules of WP:OWN. After I added a sourced information, he simply reverted it with the simple explanation "rv, irrelevant." [53]

His comment on the talk page was "drop it, it isn't going in": [54]

Clearly, using a language of intimidation to exclude sourced information from an article is unacceptable. I don't think this user should be allowed to edit on this particular article.

Please note that this user has previously relinquished his administrative privileges due to violating 3RR. --TigranTheGreat 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an administrator, thus no administrator abuse is possible. — Moe ε 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It doesn't excuse him from using personal attacks and intimidation, or from *owning* an article. He acts abusively as an editor.--TigranTheGreat 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just judging from your own account I tend to agree. Perhapses a user conduct request for comment would be in order? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that one needs a more in-depth study of this issue than a few differences provided above. Anyway, TigranTheGreat, what administrative action do you expect will be taken? If you want Francis Tyers blocked, then it's unlikely to happen based only on your diffs. Beit Or 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of any of the three accusations in when reviewing the talkpage. I do see a great deal of POV pushing, from contributors editing in accordance with the views of one side or the other. I note that Francis Tyers participates in a great many of the discussions, and it appears that he is attempting to keep as much a NPOV (un)bias as possible in the article. His perceived summary removal of edits which might appear to go against that standard is not WP:OWN.

In a contentious subject involving nationalistic perceptions over recent conflicts I think the best option is to continue good faith discussions on the article talkpage, and not attempt to influence the editing of an article by cherry picking from the comments of persons with different views in an attempt to have them blocked or otherwise sanctioned. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)