Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

homophobia and vandalism

unresolved He's back (16 June 2007)

(hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance he also goes by Chunda18 (talk · contribs), as the topics and approach to submissions is identical, and Chunda18 stopped "contributing" at almost the same time that DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) started. It's always similar: certain major stars (primarily John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart) are right-wing Republicans and therefore any positive thing about them should be removed or so qualified as to eliminate the positive aspect, or they are homosexuals and should be exposed to the world. This morning someone on his talk space politely suggested some help for him if he needed it on the matter of proper citing. DaveyJones1968 replied "Fuck you." Doesn't seem resolved to me.

I've blocked DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) for now. From the looks of it he has devolved from just adding unsourced additions into articles and now is engaged in trolling. I don't see much reason to unblock unless he commits to following WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) responded to his being blocked by taking on a new identity and immediately reinstating -- verbatim -- the POV material I had reverted from the John Wayne article yesterday. His new name is InLikeErrol (talk · contribs).

I endorse the block of DJ and have blocked the new account. This guy is clearly trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back again, a day later, as BreckColeman (talk · contribs). He put back all his trash again. Monkeyzpop 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And again, June 17, 2007, as LinkJones (talk · contribs). Monkeyzpop 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future you can just alert me or another admin directly about future socks that need blocking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started out a RFCU case, and could use help- User:Nwwaew/Sandbox. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Killer Poet indef block

I have to take issue with JzG's recent indefinite block of Killer Poet for having "single-purpose disruptive account." Poet had registered back in last December and made a few minor tweaks, then returned this July, when he restored spoiler warnings to a couple of dozen articles. He was promptly blocked. I believe that there are several factors that, if they do not justify his behavior, at least go toward explaining it. This is proof of edit warring, not of inability to act constructively.

There's been a continuous debate about the use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia for nigh on a month now, and the topic is the poster child of inciting edit wars. A total of maybe half a dozen anti-spoiler editors have declared the matter closed and removed all 45'000 spoiler warnings on the encyclopedia, most using semi-automated editing tools that would be impossible to match even if efforts to the contrary weren't promptly also removed. There's no small amount of resentment about this in an already inflamed topic, especially since this started before the now rewritten relevant guideline (currently locked down in m:The Wrong Version) sanctioned it and used tools that are forbidden to be used for "controversial edits." He was not the first, second or third editor that this goaded into trying to fix things the way removers do, and those who were, myself included, were punished lightly.

Moreover, Tony Sidaway, anti-spoiler hardliner and the most visible member of that position has stated repeatedly that he considers the lack of reversions proof of the removals' validity; that anything less than a large-scale revolt constitutes the implicit agreement of the quiet majority. A member of this majority could feel that he'd have to act in order to show his dissent.

Poet had no warning from an admin, only one from his opposing number in that edit war. We don't ban vandals for long periods that easily, or if we do, please tell me so that I can join in.

Also note that this was done during a time when the guideline used as the reason for the tags' removal was under heavy dispute.

In the name of full disclosure I'm very definitely an involved party. I've been arguing against denying our users an option which polls definitely say they use ever since this whole mess started. I do not know Killer Poet, and have had no contact with him beyond leaving a message where I offered a new userbox and asked for constructive suggestions.

The block wasn't exactly by an uninvolved party, either. Killer Poet's user page, along with perhaps eight other ones, displays said recently created (by me, yes) userbox:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

This inspired JzG to create his own:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd.

("Server resources", minimalistic blocks of at most eight words, presently five? Never mind.)

In the circumstances, I believe that an indefinite block is much too harsh and should be changed to one of a few days, at most, with credit for time already served. He should be clearly cautioned on unblocking to avoid future undoing sprees. If he ignores that, then consider longer-term measures. --Kizor 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This whole Spoiler mess is boiling faster and faster. The whole 'no one reverts so we must be right' gets enforced by blocking those who revert, so that the 'no one reverts' meme can expand? Come on. That's like 1984 logic. Intimidation moves like these have been implied in this mess since the anti-spoiler side started their mass removals, and it's part of why there are so few reversions. If you revert, you will be punished, because there's consensus and the policies we edited to say so now say so, so no reverts. A bad block. ThuranX 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• A dormant account which reactivates solely to participate in a battle which had pretty much ended? And we need that in what way, precisely? I woudl say that we need spoiler tag warriors about as much as we need spoiler tags in A Clockwork Orange - i.e. not at all. The point is not the sppoiler tags, it's what looks like a sleeper account reactivated solely to restart the war. And I only creatd the humorous userbox after the block and seeing the foolish "we lost the debate but we still think we are right" userbox on the user's page. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guy, a little bit of good faith and some proof of your assertions would be good before you indefblocked someone for something as menial as disagreeing with you. This is hardly an indef blockable offence without checkuser evidence that this account is a sockpuppet being used by someone involved in the debate. Just because someone doesn't edit for a few months doesn't mean they haven't noticed the changes and disagree with them, compelling them to revert a few. (nothing near the scale of potential disruption that the mass removal caused). Unless your provide good evidence that this is actually a sock account and not just conjecture, I am inclined to shorten the block to 24 hours from time imposed (if that hasn't already been reached). In doing so I am waiting for the Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law to be called upon, with the winner being the first person to accuse me of wheel warring. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block them for disagreeing, I blocked them for pitching in and restarting a battle which was over, something which was clearly disruptive. I don't care if they are unblocked as long as they don't resume the disruption, the block was to stop the disruption. I storngly suspect that this is someone's alternate account anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Viridae^Talk 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to start restoring spoiler tags, would I get blocked as well? If so, why is the 'there's a consensus because hardly anyone is restoring them' argument being used?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd had no edits since December then suddenly piled into reinserting spoiler tags a couple of weeks after the brief battle had died down, as this person did, then yes. Like I said, the account had been dormant for some time and then resurfaced solely to make contentious edits in a war that had otherwise pretty much died out. They did not discuss any of these reversions, merely piled in and reverted the removals using the Undo tool, which suggests a degree of familiarity with Wikipedia not entirely consistent with a user with so very few edits. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But anyone that tries to restore spoiler warnings gets threatened or banned, regardless of their edit history.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps because all the examples thus far have been blind reversions based on philosophical objection to the pretty solid consensus that most of the spoilers we had were either redundant or downright absurd; has anybody been threatened with a block after giving a sound rationale on the talk page and achieving consensus for inserting a spoiler tag in a specific article? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus you are talking about does not exist in any way, shape or form. We've been over this repeatedly with Tony. All your arguments revolve around you insisting that a consensus exists by using phrases of the form 'there wasn't any substantial/significant/meaningful opposition'. I have given an example where one of you overruled about twenty different people in just eighteen hours. From that, we can infer that hundreds, if not thousands, of individual editors have attempted to replace spoiler tags, only to be reverted unthinkingly. The 'debate' was totally irregular, with the TfD and MfD closed for arbitary reasons at arbitary times, straw polls starting and stopping at random, the mass removals and guideline rewrites two days into the debate, and the threats and bannings that followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• And since the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify it and if disputed to seek consensus, the spoiler tags stay out. But actually I think you may be missing something: the deafening silence from the wider community may well be interpreted as consensus. It took some bold actions to remove the thousands of often ludicrous spoiler tags (nursery rhymes, ffs!) but in the end there is very very little opposition to their removal. A tiny number of holdouts still arguing long after the argument ended, whatever floats your boat really. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are just rehashes of the beliefs expressed earlier by Tony. You view the consensus as self-evident, despite the improper debate, the threats and the mass overriding of ordinary editors. The 'tiny number of holdouts' greatly outnumber the miniscule number of admins who implemented this policy and continue to argue that it was justified.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nydas, you would. When the removals started, there were some reverts. I can recall seeing (but not where, or by who) Re-reverts by the removing editors declaring wide consensus had been reached, and that going against consensus was to go against policy. Going against policy, of course, means getting blocked. It's why I never reverted. It was clear to me that the anti-spoiler folks, who include a number of admins, were enforcing their cabal consensus at the end of Teddy Roosevelt's big stick. You would've been blocked. that's why there's no widespread reversions going on. ThuranX 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alternative hypothesis: nobody cares. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And any further debate will result in a block, right guy? ThuranX 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Debate? Of course not. Edit-warring, yes, but not debate. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, and reversions woul have been seen as edit warring, and blocked. game, set, match. Reverting to demonstrate lack of consensus would've been called edit warring, and blocked for. Thus, no opposition can be voiced. ThuranX 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably an unacceptable risk to unblock this single purpose account that had been blocked for disruption. As it happens the owner has not chosen to go back to the account yet, but it was clearly bent on mischief and there's no reason to believe that unblocking will do anything but encourage his misbehavior. . --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do quiet down, Tony. He has been repeatedly cautioned not to do it again, and your 'unacceptable risk' would be undone in moments. --Kizor 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edit-warring duo

I bring to the attention of administrators, 2 edit-warring ideological trolls - Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat. For more than one month, these 2 have been revert-warring with each other (without any earnest effort at discussion or dispute resolution) and with other editors - violating WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:POINT and gaming WP:3RR by conveniently spacing out their reverting over 24 hours. As a result, they have converted the following articles into battlefields:

• Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
• The Goa Inquisition (book): [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
• Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg: history is filled with blanket reverts without any reasoning; just personal attacks
• Idolatry: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
• Persecution of Christians: [25], [26], [27], [28]

I request administrators to take definitive action, as both Anwar saadat and Bakasuprman have a long history of disruptive edit-warring. The latter is an involved party in the on-going Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 with me, which is why I can't take action myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I already warned both of them last time this was on ANI two weeks ago (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar, for example). I admit I haven't really kept an eye on the conflict since that night, but the amount of continued warring since then is unacceptable. It's probably time for a block. Dmcdevit·t 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection on a couple of the articles. Perhaps this will encourage use of the article talk page. Regards, Navou 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(lol) I have already protected Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham, Idolatry and Persecution of Christians. The result on the latter two has been the immediate resumption of hostilities after protection expired. No, I agree with Dmcdevit that a strong block needs to be imposed - both these editors are experienced, disruptive trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement also, however, I lack the technical ability. Navou 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of problems, and given Dmcdevit's warning, I'm going to block both for a week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did. Circeus 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. Still, problem resolved! Let's hope they calm down a bit on return. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. For heavens' sakes Baka made the same reverts that Rama's Arrow made on one of those articles! How convenient of Rama to incite admins here with gratuitous use of labels to brand these users! If we cut out the motivated high pitch that Rama uses to present the case and examine the issue, this is what we find with regards to reverting...

• TNMMK - 5 in 20 days
• Idolatry - one revert by Baka in a week.. Anwar keeps going against consensus of three other editors..
• Persecution of Christians - 3 reverts in three days

This is nothing!

Compare this to RA's three per day on Iqbal in January and then goes on to block his opponent! With regards to civility, this is nothing. The incivility that RA has displayed on arbcom and elsewhere is far far far worse than this. And RA is an admin!! Shameful. If Baka can be blocked for a week for this, by that same yardstick, RA ought to be blocked for a month atleast! Sarvagnya 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RA noted that they didn't break 3RR. They just reverted each other a number of times on various pages without discussion their revert on talk or user-talk pages over a long period of time. Don't you think it would have been better if they had at least notified each other about their ongoing reverts? They are both experience Wiki-users and should have known what they were doing was futile. And apart from some of the parties involved, I don't see this isn't really to the arbcom case. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You also rolled back Anwar on those pages without saying anything. You have solicited others to revert what you are unwilling to do. Are you going to block RA or any other admin for reverting? Are you going to block anyone. You know full well that you would never have done those indefinite blocks in April (since you have only ever blocked vandals and seem unwilling to do any nontrivial blocks)...Why did you incite RA to do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Four of those six reverts were a different matter. Anwar was adding false speedy tags on various India-related pages. Instead of reverting, I could have said "Rm speedy tag, doesn't qualify for CSD A3 criteria." But yes two of those reverts were on the "controversial" pages and I did blindly forget to notify Anwar, Baka et al. I admit I'm a hypocrite and deserve to be punished for being an admin but stooping to the level of trolls. You can block me if you like (I going to take a break anyway).

As for never blocking them but endorsing, I had known their cabal for a long time. Hkelkar (post-block) had sent me emails about setting up RFARBs on "Anti-Hindus" Zora and Dbachmann, telling me to revert various Hindutva/Islamist organisations that I've never heard of in my life. I told him to bugger off but he didn't so I quickly listed his email address as junk/spam. Alongside with me, guys like Baka, Ambroodey, D-Boy and a few others were sent the emails. The problem was that though I knew these guys had their links but didn't know of how to successfully explain the problem to Wiki. So I deleted those emails. Once Nirav discovered it, I naively thought that he would have ability to expose their activities but I was in that part. Having witnessed it myself, of course I would endorse the blocks. The problem is proving it. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the blocks. One revert every four days is hardly anything, and if we blocked people for that, heaps and heaps of people would be blocked, including many admins like RA and many many other people including some arbitrators I would bet. As for the "troll" edit summary, what is happening here? See what has gone on the arb case by RA calling other people criminals etc etc. This block is useless and inflammatory. The Persecution article where Baka does three reverts in three days, he discussed them on the talk page. RA himself did three reverts per day back in January without discussing and with a machine revert on Iqbal for consecutive days and went on to block his opponent. Here is a clear case where admins are subject to different rules than ordinary users. RA took umbrage when Nearly Headless Nick noted that admins are subject to different rules.....well here is RA getting a benefit which Baka and Anwar did not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can remove blocks if you want to Blnguyen but the edit-warring will start again sooner or later. January was a quite a long time ago and while that doesn't justify his reverts at all, it is very likely that many users here have edit-warred since then. Can you please clarify your exact reason for unblocking them. The main reason seems to be that RA has also been involved in edit-warring. From that reasoning, it appears that if the person who notified the war on ANI was uninvolved, "neutral" etc. your opinion may be different. The other reason is that their reverts were spaced out over long period of time. May I ask, wouldn't it have been embarrassing if in a couple of months time the Goa Inquisition History page had "rvv"s and "Undo"s from Anwar and Baka, but of course not on the same day. There was a good chance they were not going to stop because neither of them has posted a message on a talk page even once. If I misunderstood anything, please tell me. Thank you Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. DaGizza has once again made us privy to his duplicitous nature by choosing to forget that I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can read. I said that two reverts per week is hardly anything.....I just pointed out if this was going to be applied to everyone, then a lot of people would be blocked. We're supposed to be even handed aren't we? The edit-warring is always going to be there. It's a fact of life on religious and ethnic articles. If you are going to be strict, then be strict to everyone. There'll be nobody left. And everybody knows what you have been doing Gizza. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Does your sentence refer to my reverts. If it does, I replied to that above. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the unblock by Blnguyen. It is also interesting to note that Rama's Arrow is referring to them as "trolls", and vilifies them for doing the same thing which he has done in the past – "edit warring". In any case, there are only two reverts in a week, the block was not justifiable, and heavy handed in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above thread. But this is my opinion. I suspect Rama's Arrow is still sulking over my oppose vote on his RfA. I noticed him regularly adding fake charges on edit summary in the event of a block. Anyway, it is not my concern if this is the quality of admins Wikipedia is forced to put up with.

As I explained earlier in my unblock request on my talk page, the reverts in TMMK and the Goa Inquisition image pages were spaced out over several days to avoid a ugly exchange. I appreciate Baka's patience in this regard. The only reason I did not engage with him was I was busy with mapping resources on other pages. I believe Baka will be made a scapegoat and his past history may be used as an excuse to implicate him in the ongoing ArbCom case. Rama's Arrow has once again proved that he does not understand Wikipedia policies and quite able and willing to game them for his ends. This is a encyclopaedia first and foremost. Anwar 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(LOL) it is infinitely amusing how the "defenders of Baka" were absent for almost 2 days; the issue was resolved by un-involved admins; and then comes the joint tirade attacking me, DaGizza and un-blocked 2 trolls with a known track record and undeniable evidence. Excuse? Some alleged offense I supposedly committed went un-punished. Above all - arbitrator Blnguyen directly involved himself by attacking me and un-blocking the 2 trolls without any respect for the admins who had taken the decision. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry. You set yourself up to be attacked by acting like a puissant super-admin, a person misusing knowledge and power, a Ravana if you will.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What Rama did was notify it on ANI. The blocks was endorsed by three uninvolved admins. The most I guess you could say was that Rama was twisting the facts, but admins of high integrity should be able to see through the fact-twisting if there was any. I'm suprised that User:Circeus, the admin who blocked them, hasn't even been told of their unblockings, nor have the other involved admins that participated in the earlier part of this discussion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins of high integrity are of course needed to make up for the integrity Rama and DaGizza lack. I'm surprised that Gizza justifies a block made by ignoring the discussions present. However, I suppose that being a yes-man for Rama's Arrow entails this sort of blatant sycophancy. And yes, I will not turn the other cheek when insults come my way.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not discussed anything - especially on TMMK. Plus, you ignored user:Dmcdevit's warning. And what makes you think that revert-warring is justifiable even with discussion? Bakasuprman's behavior is consistent with the endless edit-warring he undertakes on Babri Mosque, Godhra Train Burning and almost every Hindutva-related article. Also, Baka, I don't care what you think is right or wrong, Wikipedia expects everyone to abide by WP:NPA/WP:CIV. Your "monkey see, monkey do" is not a recognized policy here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source on the page. Here's the quote,

“ Several Islamist fundamentalist organisations in India are allegedly controlled by former SIMI cadres. Prominent among them are the Kerala-based National Democratic Front and Islamic Youth Centre (IYC), and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu. ”

Thank you for again displaying hilarious obstinacy and blatant ignorance. Rama is again displaying his hypocrisy by telling me to abide by WP:CIV/WP:NPA. Referring to substantive discussion as "bitchin" and death threats are not civil either, incase you were confused as to the definition of civility.Bakaman 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What else can you expect from this shameless troll on Arbcom who is cosying up to his payers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.215.3.44 (talk • contribs).

If I'm understanding what went on correctly, Blnguyen unilaterally overturned blocks that had the support of two impartial admins (three if you count Dmcdevit), without discussion with the blocking admin, and in spite of the fact that he seems to have some prior involvement with at least one of the blocked editors. This doesn't seem like the ideal way to do things. In any case I think the 1-week blocks were perfectly justifiable: both editors have been chronically edit warring, were already warned not to do so by Dmcdeit, and kept on doing it anyway. In addition, both editors were uncivil to each other and to other editors (some examples can be found in this very thread). This kind of behavior isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

La Parka Your Car

I have blocked La Parka Your Car (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From an email I received today:

The account has made over 2,000 edits so far, and there's plenty that make it pretty clear it's him. However there's two cast-iron examples.

http://www.socaluncensored.com/board/showpost.php3?p=99228&postcount=48

Read that forum post where he admits adding fake championships to articles, which he did with many previous throwaway socks. Now look at these edits from his current sock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hero&diff=136450086&oldid=136277261

They won no such title.

• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/chris-hero.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/claudio-castagnoli.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/k/kings-of-wrestling.html
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Eastern+Wrestling+Federation%22+%22chris+hero%22+%22Claudio+Castagnoli%22&btnG=Search&meta=
  

Ditto for this edit.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Evans&diff=136458105&oldid=135506953
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22jack+evans%22+%22Canadian+Wrestling+Alliance%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= }}

I believe this. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to check all his contributions to make sure things like this are taken out? Because if you need someone to check out subtle vandalism in professional wrestling articles, look no furthur :) — Moe ε 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a much more iron clad example: Kevin Steen

Sequence of events:

• JB196 sock Madman Entertaiment adds fake titles
• La Parka Your Car adds a CWA history
• I remove both as even after looking up Kevin Steen I can find no evidence of either
• La Parka reverts me
• I reverted back again followed by this edit

I left the situation after that but this, along with early edits to Kevin Kleinrock, a major part of JB196's playing ground XPW pretty much confirmed this to me. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone may want to get ahold of his publisher (if he has one). I believe the phrase "moral turpitude" applies here. No book, no reason to vandalize. Blueboy96 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly his vanity is that bad that he doesn't get that nobody will want to read a book written by a wrestling fan about a promotion that very few people even watched when it was going. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's even sadder as long before he got here the internet hated him. He just doesn't get it. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through all his contributions now and reverting any of the blanking or vanity he inserted. I suggest another CheckUser be run to see if more established accounts are being created. His game seems to be adding the reference tag and later with another account removing the information stating it has been "unreferenced for such and such period, cite it", thus blanking the article. I already caught a few articles that had extensive histories, maybe 16,000 kb worth of article (reduced down to a single sentence by a first sock) that were being proded by this account. Luckly I caught that. — Moe ε 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What accounts were adding the reference tags? –– Lid^(Talk) 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember the exact page, give me a few minutes. But I saw a few examples where either a ref tag was added (this was rare, mostly this account was adding the tag) or various polices were added in edit summaries (mostly this from older accounts) decieving whoever came to the article into thinking this was a normal activity. He would then repeat the action with multiple accounts stating policies in the edit summaries removing more and more information until an article about a professional wrestler read nothing but "Whomever is a professional wrestler", and then he proded them hoping they would be deleted (I just removed a couple now). — Moe ε 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A first checkuser only found one account, User:Guidejo, whose only action was to db-bio a wrestler's entry (after a BLP-related blanking), and no signs of proxyitude. I'm going to slap a block on that account, it's pretty obvious that it's another JB sock (first and only edit being a speedy delete?) SirFozzie 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can that article be restored with all revisions? –– Lid^(Talk) 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can swing that, since banned users should be reverted. Just the article should be cleaned up asap. SirFozzie 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I spent a long time yesterday checking through the contribs of La Parka Your Car, and I must say I did find many similarities in editing, a checkuser has previously been inconclusive, but I believe the user is a sock. It's sad, but it seems the user was trying to rack up the edits to run for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the same feeling and was thinking up drafts for an oppose essay. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just given both Venkat47 and Jordan brice 24 hour vandalism blocks for altering information in wrestling articles. Do you think they are connected to the above situation? IrishGuy ^talk 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a look at them. SirFozzie 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit the mold of JB196, but I would be honestly shocked if the two are not the same person. SirFozzie 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

News flash

It seems that La Parka Your Car is Burntsauce part two. Already, JB196 is gloating at Wikipedia Review ([removed url to attack site]). He really loves me now, doesn't he? Anyway, I've unprotected La Parka Your Car's user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since Barber is by now dedicated to causing trouble here, and apparently proud of the trouble he causes, there is no particular reason why we should believe a word he says in any context about anything to do with Wikipedia. And in any case it is not relevant: La Parka inserted misinformation into articles quite deliberately and over a period of time, so he can get lost. Let Barber crow about the fact that we banned the "wrong" vandal, the list of people who care is probably fairly small. And let's not forget the reason JB196 started his vandalism spree in the first place: we removed his blatant self-promotion. Seems to me he bears us malice simply for refusing to allow him to abuse the project for his own personal vanity - there is a limit to how much I care about his opinion. Some people on WR make thougthful and insightful comments. JB196 is not one of them, he's just a frustrated vanispamcruftisement merchant. Hey, maybe we should send Gastrich an invite to WR! Guy (Help!) 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde is harassing me again

Now it's Routesteep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Somebody please rangeblock this troll ... I don't want to have to semi-protect my talk page, but if it's to keep this guy from trolling I may have to. Blueboy96 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just asked him to avoid writing lies about me. Is writing false statements a good thing here? The fact thath he calls me "troll" and "vandal" means he is showing no good faith.--Routesteep 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you filed a checkuser? -N 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this fellow is boring. Yes, get a checkuser to find and block the IP, anything to end this silliness. Moreschi ^Talk 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. *sigh* Here's another one: SouthernStock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Blueboy96 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Working on the IP block. Moreschi ^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply answer my questions? You said I was banned for "POV pushing and incivility", but there is no reference to such allegation in my banning. Are you extempted by writing the truth?--Poetry is legal 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you're blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Repression wins over truth, right?--Drama of range 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, what do you expect? Yes, you're blocked as well. Moreschi ^Talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is your Wikipedia. Mine had good faith an trusted truth.--GrarTrees 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and a whopping amount of revert-warring, 3RR blocks, and incivility. Moreschi ^Talk 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ACB, anyone? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"ACB", what is it?--GrarTrees 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Somebody's persistent. Marskell 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent, but at least they're polite enough to announce their sockpuppetry. Natalie 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim continues uncivil behaviour

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) As I previously pointed out this user feels no one is allowed to disagree with him, and he should be allowed to threaten users and attack them if its for a really good reason, like getting his way in an article. He owns his talk page, and removes reminders not to make personal attacks with personal attacks. Most recently he's now Made a comment like this [29]. On his talk page, which is neither appropriate or civil. Here is the pre-archive version which you can compare to my talk page for the conversation that takes place [30]. Where he admits that he thinks he should be allowed to attack people to defend his view point. His threat against another user [31] as well as an article talk page where he's had some civility issues Talk:Bose (company). While passionate he refuses to acknowledge that he's bound by the policies and guidelines here and thinks he can act however he wants as long as he's doing the "right" thing. This is a situation which is just going to result in more personal attacks and threats unless its dealt with.--Crossmr 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the editor been warned about the perceived or actual WP:NPA violations prior to this AN/I report? Regards, Navou 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I warned him a year ago when he was involved in some similar tension of an Apprentice Season 4 article. He continually sanitizes his talk page so you have to dig for it. I will dig it up, but also bear in mind I had that long conversation with him about his behaviour and he's still making uncivil comments and attempting to own his talk page which shows an unwillingness to change his behaviour.--Crossmr 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous warnings and behaviour:

• Here he was previously warned for making threats against other users and trying to control content he put on wikipedia (the same behaviour which bore the recent personal attacks) [32].
• here is a previous warning over another article he got too passionate about [33].
• Even a year ago he was demonstrating this behaviour of taking every comment on his behaviour as a personal and painful insult.
• Here radiokirk reminds him to assume good faith, and its again suggested he shouldn't act so abrasively.[34] by theresa.

There is quite a bit more in there as far as warnings and previous examples of behaviour go. Plenty of examples of him ignoring policy and acting uncivily towards others.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Further examples of behaviour and warnings, I did some more looking and this is just from what is picked up on his talk page. He's had numerous examples of this behaviour, and in fact several individuals have spoken to him about it previously. This is a recap up to 1 year ago. There should be a very clear pattern established.

• [35] - Makes statement close to owning article
• [36] - Attempts to own talk page
• [37] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned about WP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
• Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta [38].
• Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult" [39].
• Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him [40].
• He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour [41].
• Which he dismisses by again calling it an insult [42].
• Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred [43].
• Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia [44].
• He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like [45].
• Here his reminded to assume good faith [46].
• He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[47].
• modifies his control message of his talk page, and in process of those edits, removes theresa's previous reminder as an "insult" [48].
• Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable [49].
• This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely. [50]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat.

--Crossmr 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, this user appears to be significantly uncivil when provoked, but is otherwise not a disruptive presence. Blocking him at this point would do more harm to Wikipedia than good, but someone might want to help him understand why stalwart civility in the face of provocation is necessary. He is otherwise a productive contributor.
As for his "threats" and "attacks", in all cases I've seen they be be construed as good faith warnings or simply more uncivil smack talk. –Gunslinger47 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay I'm not sure how that could be seen as anything other than a threat? People have been trying for a very long time to help him understand why his behaviour is inappropriate. He dismisses any such conversation as a personal insult of the highest kind and wipes it from his talk page. He's been doing that almost since his arrival here back in 2005 if you go back through his contrib and talk page history. Any good faith assumptions are long gone on this. Several editors made a heroic effort to try and get through to him a year ago, and he's gotten bent out of shape for far less than what he's hurled at other users. Good edits don't give you license to stomp all over other users and treat them like garbage because you think you're right. Wikipedia doesn't and will never need that kind of editor.--Crossmr 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two problems at work here. The user seems to believe that any disagreement with his positions is a personal attack or "abrasive criticism". This makes it difficult for him to engage in any kind of content dispute without it quickly degenerating into a unilateral broadside of warnings and threats.

Second, I think the user's skills in English are at a somewhat less-than-native speaking level, at least in formal writing. In order to get a message across to him, one must repeat it over and over and over again, each time attempting to make it clearer and simpler. This is exasperating, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the user to find a Wikipedia that more closely matches his formal writing skills. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, that does make sense. If you notice the discussion I had with him (using my provided link and my talk page) I noticed once or twice he seemed to clearly miss the point. I wasn't sure if he was doing it intentionally, or if he was lacking complete comprehension. Even after several exchanges of my explaining his behaviour was inappropriate, he then draws the conclusion that I was taking some stance on the article dispute, which I had never brought up other than to say that he shouldn't have behaved as he did in that dispute. Either way, if you edit on wikipedia, you're going to eventually (and usually frequently) not see eye to eye with someone and this user clearly cannot handle that type of situation.--Crossmr 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

His user page states he's from Illinois and that English is his native language, so that's not the issue. Maybe his comprehensive reading ability is somewhat lacking, or he reads all the messages with a "he's against me" mindset and therefore misinterprets what is being said.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is another possibility. However I don't know if finding the reason he behaves as such is really key here. There is no obvious trigger other than the fact that if he does something wrong and someone corrects him, he lashes out and holds a permanent grudge. The two articles I've seen him lash out over are completely unrelated (apprentice season 4 and bose) so its not like there is a specific subject that we could have him avoid editing. From what I've seen so far, no one is being unfair to him when they correct his behaviour.--Crossmr 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not a coincidence his archived "heated debates" were deleted shortly after you filed this report. That tells me he's well aware of the fact his behavior is sometimes unacceptable, since he would rather delete evidence of it than refute your claims. Anyway, I've asked on his talk page if he (and some other guy that was there) would like to tell his side of the story.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that he's told me exactly how he feels and why he acts like he does on my talk page. The diffs show that this is a long term issuing going back 2 years, and that plenty of effort has been made to correct it. There needs to be some serious adjustment and turn around here. because there is no evidence this is going to stop, and after 2 years, its just too well established to assume it will just pass on its own.--Crossmr 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That Dude 07

Someone might want to look into That Dude 07's contributions and roll them back. He or she has come off of a 24 hour block for trolling and has upped the ante. Just check his or her contribs - it's blatant. --ElKevbo 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for page move vandalism. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm [51] [52] and [53]. ---SakotGrimshine 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

good faith vandalism

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=138800335 Is this good faith vandalism to my talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=124685002 Cool Cosmos sent me the welcome message.

The real question. Is there such a thing as good faith vandalism? Any thoughts. I have a right to remove old discussions from my talk page or what I feel is harrassment or what I believe is vandalism. My talk page should not be turned into a battleground. Other editors should not undo my edits or change the name of who welcomed me on my talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to Fyslee about this? Metros 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to my e-mail. Nevertheless, I want my talk page properly restored to the correct name of Cool Cosmos. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back. I see the problem. Sorry about that. It was an honest mistake and an AGF would not call it vandalism. My apologies. -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline can be found at WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings. You might want to peruse all of WP:USER and WP:TALK. Everything removed from User:talk is archived in the page history.

• As far as the first diff, it would at first glance appear that you have signed a post as [[User:Cool Cosmos|Cool Cosmos]] here and that the other editor corrected it here. More investigation is required.

• As I read more, and review the page history in depth, I realize that you did not post the original welcome message and was only restoring it to the original poster, which is why I had originally assumed good faith, while I investigated it. Seems like a misunderstanding to me. I have none the less restored your user page to its original welcome message according to your wishes, and the fact the Cool Cat had originally posted this message. I'll also direct User:Fyslee to this discussion. Navou 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my mistaken edit. I misunderstood things, all the deleting of warnings and such. I made a false assumption. Good to see it's fixed and that the current comments and warnings on the talk page have not been removed. Collaboration here is based on openness and communication and talk pages are there for a purpose. I would gladly have fixed it myself if I had gotten a message on my talk page, which I would have noticed before getting an email. Sometimes an email gets me first, sometimes my talk page....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the so-called warnings on my talk page (not by one but two editors jumping all over me). As per guidelines, I will remove the warnings and take a deep breath (and possibly a wikibreak too). The wikidrama is getting tiresome. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you would be permitted to remove the warnings. Removals are taken as you have read them. Navou 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reading" and "heeding" are two different things. Regardless of the current (it has been different in the past) guideline, your current pattern of editing and dealing with criticism will cause involved editors to see your deletions as devious attempts to avoid discussion and bad faith attempts to ignore warnings and to hide them from others. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here (that's another guideline), and refusal to discuss problems violates our obligation to edit collaboratively. Ownership of articles is not allowed, hence cooperation is a must. -- Fyslee/talk 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no authority to enforce Mr.Gurü carrying a scarlet letter just because it makes your life easier. The page history exists as a record of actions; if you feel a stronger record needs to exist, make sure your edit summaries reference the behavior in question. Persisting in the replacement of warnings on a user's talk page is incivil at best and disruptive at worst. -- nae'blis 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. This user needs all the allies he can get, and he isn't making life easier for himself by being uncooperative with his own allies, of which I have been one. Not very smart, but that's his problem now. He's already been (and currently is) the subject of several RFCs and this is going to end badly for him, which I'd like to prevent. I have never seen a user start so many articles and lists that have been successfully AFDed (I'm sure there are others, but this is the user I'm familiar with), and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. -- Fyslee/talk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee went against policy with his warning (because editors are permitted to delete warnings)

[54] [55] He undid my edit on my talk page and gave me a warning: You will be reported if you continue. Actually, I allowed to remove warnings from my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: Not very smart, but that's his problem now. I did not do anything for you to call me not very smart. No, it is not my problem now. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is your responsibility to comply with policy and stop breaking policy with strange warnings against policy on my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. ...and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. After Fyslee broke policy he is now saying he will leave me to my own fate. No, I have not tried the patience of the community for a long time. Fyslee, please try to remain civil. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This complaint involves old actions, not new ones. I immediately stopped interactions with QuackGuru when I was informed of the new way of doing things (as I have mentioned below). -- Fyslee/talk 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not break policy, he went against a guideline, which is entirely different. He still shouldn't have readded the warning, though. — Moe ε 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

.... and I didn't re-add anything after the explanations above. At the time I wasn't aware that things had been changed. There was a time when deletions of warnings on personal talk pages was strongly frowned upon and such deletions could call down the wrath of multiple admins. Apparently things have changed and non-cooperative editors can whitewash their talk pages, hiding the evidence of their run-ins with other editors. I'm not getting involved in this matter anymore. -- Fyslee/talk 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=138908108&oldid=138829593 This editor reverted my edits on my talk page. Also read the edit summary. Very disruptive. This is blockworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not blockworthy QuackGuru. But it is your talk page, so I have reverted to your last revision. Removal of warnings is acceptable, and an indication that the editor has read it. It's when the editor is still engaging in the activity that is when they need the warning. Plus, it's always going to be in the history that you were warned. — Moe ε 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Ned Scott wasn't aware of this discussion and was reacting the way many editors would, by following earlier procedure. Even though removal of warnings is possibly an indication that the editor has read them, it is just as likely (when it's a contentious editor who is the subject of multiple RFCs) that they have read them but may not heed them. There is a difference, and whitewashing the talk page to make it look like they have been behaving themselves can be a part of the contentious behavior. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, and editors who are involved in the editing of that person will look at matters differently than outside persons who don't know the context and get involved here at the noticeboard. They may still be right and I'm abiding by the advice I have received here.

I hope that those here who advise QuackGuru will also advise him to archive things instead of deleting them. What he has a right to do, and what is wise to do, are two different things. -- Fyslee/talk 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded from User talk:Unconscious by YechielMan

Help

Hey, I need a bit of assitance here. What is Wikipedia's policy on rude users? A few days ago I had removed irrelevant information from the Gerard Way article, and requested fullprotection due to a edit war, and irrelevant vandalism from other users. The edit war was performed between Abrant01 and myself about a irrelevant 'Interviews' section. It had been voted that this information should be removed in the talk page, therefore, it was removed. Abrant01 had replaced the removed information. I issued him a warning (to which I recieved a rude reply), and then I had removed the information again. He had kept adding it back, and I kept removing it, to which point I requested a lock on the article.

Following the warnings on his talk page, he appears to be getting quite rude and uncooperative. What would be the best course of action?

I think I might have been a bit too harsh with the warning, however. Unconscious 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've written on Abrant01's talkpage. If you and him are able to work together that would be great, but I have made clear that we only put in stuff that is verifiable. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU 23:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Unconscious 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

This article has been arbitrarily full-protected, cleared, and redirected by JzG without any form of discussion or consensus. In the edit summary, the protecting admin had claimed that the article was original research and "crap." However, the article had numerous reliable sources to back up the information and notability of the article - and I believe the admin's actions were unjustified. Ali ^(t)_(c) 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources to the article were Wired blogs and the like. I agree that the lolcat phenomenon would be better covered under Image macro SirFozzie 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were also references to the Houston Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Austin American-Statesman. What's more, the article had survived an AfD already. I suppose DRV is the correct place to handle this? JavaTenor 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this has been somewhat corrected already by Viridae (see below), but since I already typed this out: Sources from the reference section include Akron Beacon Journal, Star Tribune, Slate Magazine, Tampa Bay Times, Creative Loafing Atlanta, Austin American-Statesman, New York Times, and two links to Wired blog. The AFD discussion (with overwhelming number of 'keeps' btw) is here. Comments by JzG on talk page prior to using admin tools = 0. Seems like if this article is to be deleted and redirected, it should be deleted after at least a discussion and probably another AFD. Why does this need to go to DRV? This deletion and redirect should be reverted, it goes against the consensus result of the AFD on April 23, 2007. R. Baley 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and protection. Protection policy explicitly forbids the use of protection to support your actions in an editing dispute. Guy is well within his rights to redirect it (and merge if he wants) but stopping anyone reversing his decision is a misuse of his admin tools. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse, more like abuse. --MichaelLinnear 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But when one acts consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living felines the rules simply don't apply... Joe 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article. The thing that has been studiously ignored throughout is that the cited content exists at the merge target, image macro, all that was lost was the crap. Reversion fomr redirect was by a single purpose account with no edit summary. I diagnose process wonkery but I am in a bad mood so who cares what I think. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And once again you are abusing your admin tools to enforce your opinion? Must be nice to be able to lock other editors out when you don't like that consensus is running against you. Resolute 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not so much the redirection to which I am opposed but (a) the manner in which it was performed and (b) the incivility and rudeness with which JzG has interacted with fellow editors in this discussion. Neither the use of admin tools to prevent other editors from undoing an editorial decision nor the hostility that followed when that action was challenged are becoming of an admin. --ElKevbo 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect all you like, but the use of protection to force your argument is extremely bad form. If your definition of process wonkery includes abusing your admin privelages in such a manner, then you had better hand back your bit now. I would be very interested to see if you could pass a recall given your recent spate of misuse of your tools. Viridae^Talk 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic needs covering but I agree that image macro would be a better place. However, Guy's actions and comments are simply not appropriate. "Be bold" does not allow you to totally go against an overwhelming AfD result which was keep and not merge, and then to protect it - that's bad. violet/riga (t) 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, the action needed doing, doing things boldly is fine -- but Guy shouldn't be doing the action? Sounds like you skip a logical step along the way. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing things boldly is fine, and undoubtably Guy believes he is acting in the better interest of the project. However, attempts to redirect it have been reverted by three or four different editors now, indicating that there is no consensus to merge/redirect at this point. Rather than dicuss the issue to reach consensus, Guy simply protected the article at the state he preferred. Resolute 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy is quite welcome to attempt the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. He is not welcome to enforce the Bold part by protecting it - the use of protection to enforce editorial decisions is specifically forbidden by the protection policy and well Guy knows it. Viridae^Talk 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Controversial content changes should not be done without discussion first; this is no exception. I don't care how bad the content is, as long as it doesn't violate BLP or a similarly strict policy, discussion and debate is more important than speed of action. And using admin tools in a content dispute is very, very bad form. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bold, revert, discuss is fine, but if you get reverted, is shows a lack of respect to other editors to go on redirecting, especially when the page has previously survived an AfD. Whatever JzG's problems with the page, since there is clearly not consensus at present to merge. He should discuss it before redirecting again. —dgies^t_c 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.

This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism, and I was asked as a fellow admin by User:IrishGuy to help to defend it.

We have both found that when we attempt to access the history of this page, we experience browser-failure with the standard Microsoft message "this page has to close. Sorry for the inconvenience" or words to that effect. If it were just me. or just him, we might think it a problem with a particular PC. But as it is both of us, it would appear that there is some malicious coding in the article text. The problem is a consistent one. Neither User:IrishGuy nor I can figure out what is happening here. Help.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the page using Firefox and IE6 (Win2000, work computer). Worked fine, I did catch that IP address changing the capacity again and reverted it. SirFozzie 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. As I say, it is not just me. Check out User:IrishGuy's talk page. Obviously I accept that it works for you. But why does it not work for us?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it again...it still crashed my browser. I'm using IE7 maybe that is the difference. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using IE7 and it also crashes for me. --Fredrick day 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am using explorer. But I would like a sensible answer as to why this page, like no other, crashes IE, while accepting that it does not crash Firefox (which I have not got).--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an IE7 problem? There might be more information if you search the exact build of your Internet Explorer (like my IE6 is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300). Works for me on Internet Explorer 6 and Mozilla Firefox (the most recent one), and the history page is fully XHTML 1.0 transitional compliant, so it's not a XHTML bug - more like a Microsoft one (where have we heard that before?). x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup - crashes IE7, works fine with Firefox and Opera. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: For the "crashers", does [56] crash your browser? If so, it's not a Wikipedia problem ([57]), but you can try the idea given to copy it into Firefox and then paste it into Internet Explorer 7. Bizarre. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't crash my browser. IrishGuy ^talk 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We can probably narrow it down to edit summaries by doing this: Go to [58] and keep going to newer and newer diffs. If any crash, it's probably an edit summary or something. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some stupid bug in Internet Explorer that causes crashes for trivial reasons. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems viewing all of the diffs in that manner. I can even view the older 50 edits in the history, just not the current 50 (or 100 or 250). --ElKevbo 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you just looking at the edit history, or a particular diff? I use IE7 and it isn't crashing my browser. Corvus cornix 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit history crashes IE for me. Version 7.0.5730.11. No problem in Firefox, though. Puzzling. --ElKevbo 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the exact same version. Very puzzling. Corvus cornix 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm using IE 6.0.x and it's not crashing on the last 50 or last 100 version of the history page. 64.126.24.11 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edit history also crashes on my IE7 - same version as above... curious!? - Purples 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it generates such an error it should be logged in the Event Viewer. Log in as an Administrator and then show the Administrative Tools on the Start Menu ([59]). Then go to the Event Viewer. Generate the crash again and then go to the newest System Error event in the Event Viewer. Might reveal a bit more. Though I am more inclined to think it's some freak Internet Explorer bug that crashes because of something stupid like too many consecutive vowels. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

App log does have an entry logging the crash as an Event ID 1000 stating "Faulting application iexplore.exe, version 7.0.6000.16414, faulting module urlmon.dll, version 7.0.6000.16414, fault address 0x00003d85." Next step to troubleshoot this? File bug report with the devs? --ElKevbo 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:BEANS, could this discussion somehow be taken elsewhere? Email, maybe? If you folks figure out exactly what is happening, I could see this being used maliciously if the discovery is done publically. - TexasAndroid 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a more specific recommendation? Who would one e-mail with this sort of problem? --ElKevbo 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Each other, for trouble-shooting it. Bugzilla when you figure it out. I just don't like the thought of vandals having the ability to deliberately crash other user's browsers at will if the other users happen to be using a particular flavor of browser. - TexasAndroid 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more of an Internet Explorer problem rather than a Mediawiki one. Anyway, I found this, not tested, not verified, or whatever. Give it a shot - if it doesn't work, then revert the change. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

Closed - ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, as I've pointed out below you have prior involvement in issues related to this post. Please don't close this discussion because you disapprove of it. (There wasn't even a clear answer given to my question.) Anynobody 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to post this here, but neither WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA cover the situation exclusively. I didn't want to post it on the Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks then have them refer me to Wikipedia talk:Civility. I realize issues like this are unpopular here, so I'll try to keep things as brief and concise as possible.

Background User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3

A few months ago Orsini created a a sandbox page for editors to plan a WP:RFC/U about Justanother's tendancy to violate WP:CIVIL when he encounters editors who disagree with him, often in the form of WP:ICA statements. (Other policies and guidelines have been infringed as well.)

Situation

Orsini, myself, and the other editors who have contributed to it are more interested in contributing/improving Wikipedia than we are pursuing action against Justanother. However if his attitude does not change it could impact the ability of several editors to make productive contributions. If this occurs the information gathered would be used to show a pattern of disruptive behavior going back a long time.

Summary

Since additions are made to document the ongoing negative actions and statements of Justanother they are a record of his attacks against others and are not an attack against him. I don't mention it as a threat to him, in fact I don't even discuss it with him unless he wants to talk about it. To my knowledge none of the others involved have either. Anynobody 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a no-no. If you want to do a user RfC, do so. But these type of pages are not acceptable. Please copy the text of that page to a local document as I it will be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that option as well, Jossi, however I was unable to locate anywhere in the policies and guidelines where it says that it is indeed against either. Would you please link me to where it says that? (If I had seen a policy/guideline that forbade the practice I would not have posted here having already known what the situation is with these cases.) Anynobody 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines can't exhaustively enumerate everything you shouldn't do; some common sense is needed. WP:NPA does state, though, that "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process." The important thing to note in the dispute resolution process is that every step of the process is supposed to be focused on either encouraging discussion or cooling down the dispute. Making a page to "get" a user and plan out your strategy to "beat" them in the RfC misses the point entirely. Yes, maybe you feel the user is totally impossible to negotiate with, but part of the point of early conflict resolution is to get people to put their cards on the table... if the other person is plainly dragging their feet and impossible to talk to, it'll become clear to everyone pretty quickly. RfC, in particular, is supposed to in part attract outside views that could help cool things down, not just serve as a stepping-stone to ArbCom. By approaching RfC like a courtroom, you're shooting yourself in the foot. --Aquillion 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are frequently not written down.WP:DICK is the only important one w.r.t. user conduct. RFC's were designed to help resolve disputes. Keeping a sandbox of alleged abuse tend not to resolve anything. Just start the rfc now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Anynobody. The way your question is formulated is itself a thinly veiled personal attack. It shouldn't have been posted here. My advice to you is to try reading policies for their spirit and intent, rather than in order to "locate" loopholes for attacking other editors. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Furthermore, you're supposed to inform the person you discuss about it. If common sense doesn't tell you so, please see page instructions above. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

It is always the case that given enough rope, the proverbial knot will be placed around our necks by our own doing. I would argue that by creating these type of pages, the possibility of conducting a user conduct RFC has been forfeited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I'm having a hard time accepting good faith with your post.

1. Your first words are: "I'm sorry to post here". That's clearly untrue, given that you did post here and nobody forced you to. And, you posted with such ellaborate detail.
2. You could have asked a very simple, short, and neutral question: "Is it appropriate to keep a bad conduct list about another editor, on a sandbox page." Instead, you went into elaborate details about how naughty Justanother has been, and how important it was for you to document this behavior. You biased the entire question, attempted to justify your conduct, and provided details to involve Justanother here, instead of asking a completely neutral question.
3. You went out of your way to include Justanother, but you decided Smee could be left anonymous. Why? If you wanted an opinion, and it was important enough to justify your actions by detailing the problem with Justanother, why isn't Smee's involvement significant enough to mention, given that almost 1/3 of the edits are his?
4. You failed to mention that there two full one month gaps with no entries on that page, from April 9 - May 11, and again from May 14 - June 17. I think that those gaps are significant, given that you are trying to establish a pattern of bad behavior.
5. Your claim that you are more interested in improving wikipedia than pursuing action is .. well..a load of bovine excrement. The existence of the page itself belies your statement. You are clearly pursuing action against Justanother. You simply don't have enough evidence yet, so you are collecting it IN ADVANCE, in anticipation of pursuing action in the future.
6. It's clear that you want to get him, as you aren't simply collecting information about encouters you have with him, but are watching what he does and are documenting anything he does wrong.
7. You claim to need the list to establish a pattern. That is also absurd. If there is a pattern of bad behavior, it will be obvious and easy to document at the time of an RfC.

• The fact that the page exists and has been updated by multiple users, indicates that editors were watching and monitoring Justanother.
• Justanother's request that it be deleted, to Orsini (not Anynobody), indicates that Justanother has known about the page for some time and did not raise an objection (though he could have).
• There was no activity on the page, twice, for a full month each time. This indicates that even editors who were "out to get him" could not find anything significant and shows there is no "long term pattern of abusive conduct" on the part of Justanother. It does, however, show a long term pattern of Bad Faith on the part of Anynobody, Orsini, and Smee's.

Justanother tried to handle this situation quietly and privately with Orsini. It's unfortunate that Anynobody insists on keeping things stirred up at AN/I.

Anynobody you owe Justanother, and the editors/admins who read this AN/I board, an apology. Lsi john 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior? I've seen many non-admins banned for it and some admins scolded for making lists documenting it. But some people can just do it all the time and actually get praised for it. SakotGrimshine 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Bishonen, Lsi john, and Justanother I mean no offense, but I'm actually much more interested in the opinions of editors who are uninvolved with our past. I'm not saying you can't post here, of course, but just as you have difficulty assuming my neutrality I must unfortunately reciprocate those feelings.

Aquillion, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn, and SakotGrimshine I appreciate your taking the time to comment on this issue. Your posts all reflect the general idea I understand WP:RFC/U to be, in fact with the info I've provided so far were I in your situation(s) I would probably have said something similar. I should explain there is a bit more to the history of this issue you should know. I did set up a RFC/U on Justanother's behavior around March 8th. I don't want to editorialize, so I'll just say the following diffs give an idea of what occured:

WP:RFC/U diffs

RFC/U 1

RFC/U 1 approved

RFC/U 1 deleted by Bishonen

Bishonen's background

1.1 --- ::1.2

2

3.1 --- 3.2

Jossi's background

(I'm not trying to be rude by not including his signature as I did Bishonen's, he's asked me not to do so.)

Anything I can do to assist... ... you with in relation to your dispute with User:Anynobody?

Lsi john's background

Most recent interactions listed first:
1.1 --- 1.2

2.1 --- 2.2 --- 2.3

Anynobody 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve here? Do you want the editors you regard as uninvolved to repeat the advice they gave you above? The last RFC seems to have been deleted on the grounds that insufficient attempts had been made to settle the dispute before the RFC was started; if you still have a problem with Justanother, then that would look to be a good place to start. Yomangani^talk 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really hoping to effect actual WP:DR here if that is what you are asking. I'm looking to find out if it's inappropriate to list behavior perceived to be un-Wikipedian by another editor. I don't know if you had a chance to actually see what was on the page, but it wasn't an attack page because we didn't editorialize or put down anyone. (How can a collection of diffs showing WP:CIVIL and WP:PA violations by an editor against several other editors an attack on the editor committing the infractions?)

I was forced to mention the past WP:RFC/U situation because I was pretty sure the other involved editors would add their opinions and wanted anyone involved to know the history. If I hadn't mentioned anything about what happened, it might look like I had something to hide which I don't. Did you see the attempts made to come to an understanding with Justanother? If you haven't I can provide diffs too, but the point is the attempts were sufficient for an uninvolved admin to approve the page: Approved by admin and be active for over two days before it was deleted.

You should have taken the hint and accept the advise given to you. Instead, you are just digging a bigger hole for yourself. I would advise you to stop using this board to make these type of remarks as it is disruptive. If you want to pursue an user conduct RfC, do so. I am closing this discussion as of now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion is to either escalate the issue or go for an informal resolution? How does that answer the question I posed in the heading? Anynobody 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's (only) reply

I will not bore you'all with the counter-attacks, especially as I promised Bish that I would not be a party to such use of this board. Suffice it to say that Sandbox3 is a collection of out-of-context remarks on my part, many of them after considerable provocation and, the most important thing, I vowed months ago to not rise to bait in that fashion any longer and posted a public apology for doing so in the past on my user page and on my talk page and left it up for one month. In the rare instance that I have slipped since that vow, I have promptly apologized to involved parties. --Justanother 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Classic deletion review

The wiki page on Zelda Classic was deleted earlier this week for lack of notability; to address this complaint, one of my fellow developers (Dark Nation) edited the article, and added citations to third party sources, including at least one in the media (TechTV). He also started a deletion review of the page.

That deletion review is now listed as "closed," with no real explanation given: the requester having "no other edits" strikes me as a highly spurious reason to ignore a review request.

Is it possible to start a calm discussion of the page's deletion and review? I believe that it is possible to create a page on this topic which meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and would like to find out what I need to do to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talk • contribs)

Do you have any links, or diffs? It's kind of hard for me to hunt down what you're talking about without some direction. --Haemo 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links:

• Zelda Classic's deletion log: [60]
• The original AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda Classic
• A discussion on the subject can be found at Talk:Zelda Classic

–Gunslinger47 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - it looks to me like the closing admin's rationale was just a little terse, and his actual justification was that the re-created article did not substantially differ from the original content. Perhaps he could stop by and comment? --Haemo 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a wikipedia newbie and am not sure how to post diffs or even access the old page; when I go to the Zelda Classic wiki page I just get a "deleted and protected" page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talk • contribs)

That's okay, another editor helped you on this one. I left Guy a message on his talk, so hopefully he will show up soon. Also, please sign your posts so they are easier to read. --Haemo 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I would like to request that the old Zelda Classic page be undeleted and unprotected, to allow for revision leading to the article meeting the notability guidelines. According to Wikipedia's notability policy, an article should be deleted "if appropriate sources cannot be found"; in this case such a claim is absurd, since after a few minutes of searching I found:

TechTV http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3637/Rick_Thorne_5MP_Digital_Cams_WiFi_Dog_Backpack.html
Gaming Today http://news.filefront.com/zelda-classic-free-tribute-to-the-classic-game/
Slashdot http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/146238
Electronic Gaming Monthly: In the Zelda 2005 article (not available online; I could find a print citation given time)

In short, I do not understand why this article was deleted (and then had its undeletion review summarily closed without discussion) when the only problem with the article was lack of secondary source citations - which could be easily added if editors are given the chance.
Evouga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion ran for five days, which is the appropriate length of time for such discussions, and once a deletion discussion is closed, it should not be added to. If you disagree with the deletion, you can list the deleted article at WP:DRV, but you need to come up with new reasons for why you think the deletion was incorrect, as there was a strong consensus for deletion, and DRV is to discuss improper closures, not to re-debate the notability of the subject matter. Corvus cornix 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I do believe deletion was incorrect. The notability guidelines say that articles should be deleted if sufficient secondary sources cannot be found. Though perhaps the original author, and the people who voted in the deletion discussion, were not willing to do so, I am and have done so. I now wish to clean up the article so that its adherence to Wikipedia policy may be reconsidered. What should I do?

Evouga 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. Present your sources. Corvus cornix 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so. I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate, since the first deletion review was closed for the requester having no other edits, and I am in the same situation. Evouga 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by Ryulong

Yesterday I was indef blocked by Ryulong with the 3-word summary in the block log "Abusing multiple accounts", despite the fact that I had engaged in no disruptive or abusive behavior. Apparently he objected to my tagging of an image as needing a fair use rationale when it actually didn't. (This was my mistake and I would gladly have corrected it myself, given the opportunity.) No message was left on my talk page regarding the reason for the indefinite block.

I spent the day, on and off, attempting to resolve the issue by e-mail and IRC. The indefinite block was endorsed by SlimVirgin; I finally contacted Ryulong on #wikipedia-en-unblock; his behavior there toward me was incivil and he terminated the conversation after a brief time. That said, shortly afterward he unblocked me.

I twice attempted to post the log of our IRC conversation in my userspace as a temporary reference for this report (per the unblock channel notices, those logs may be published); but Ryulong deleted them as quickly as I could upload them.

I have no desire to beat a dead horse, or to get into a long discussion here. I just felt that Ryulong's behavior should be called to the attention of someone. Videmus Omnia 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though you may not be able to post the logs, could you explain what transpired in the channel, to the best of your recollection, and let Ryulong reply to it, and explain himself? --Haemo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, he wouldn't tell me how I deserved an indef block, and when I requested a review here at WP:ANI or at WP:AN, he said my request was "irrelevant", then said "I'm done with this" and terminated the conversation. Videmus Omnia 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound very civil; people who have problems with a block deserve to be treated with respect, especially when their concerns surround the block rationale being incorrect. However, let's wait for Ryulong's reponse. --Haemo 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a case of mistaken identity, for which Ryūlóng appologized.[61]

As for the the heavy-handed treatment Videmus endured in the IRC channel, I'm unclear on if Wikipedia policies extend to cover off-site conduct. –Gunslinger47 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the user in question was a sockpuppet of someone due to his immediate edits concerning {{nrd}} on various images. I blocked, and sought out a checkuser to see if this sort of sockpuppet was permitted. I was not able to procure one until this evening. Anyway, when Videmus Omnia made contact with Slim Virgin through unblock-en-l, he had said that he changed accounts as per his right to vanish. When I asked him if he could give me the name of his former account through a private message so I can confirm that the account did not violate policy, he did not comply, and simply continued to ask why I had blocked him. I left the channel at that point. Based on some of the information my IRC client gave me, I did some digging on Wikipedia, found what I believed was the account he was talking about, and unblocked him and removed the autoblock on his IP. His only actions in the past two hours have been posting the log in that subpage, and then making various complaints about my actions in the deletion, and the tone I had in the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a case of mistaken identity, coupled with some raised hackles all around. However, SlimVirgin's comments are odd; they claim he admitted to using multiple accounts. I guess this is just another part of the misunderstanding going on here. Videmus, I think Ryulong understands that you were upset by what happened, and he apologized. You've also brought it up here, and I understand where you're coming from -- being accidentally blocked can be a real heart-stopper. However, as NewYorkBrad said on your talk page, it's probably best if you move on. In my opinion, I think it was borderline incivil what went on there, but it's understandable given what he explained. This is a real gray area, and I think you would do well to just put it behind you -- I don't think you're really going to get a lot more out of this process than the account you just got. Just remember that we're all friends here, and no one's out to get anyone - just smile, and move on. --Haemo 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHy can't IRC chats be publishd here like Videmus tried? That smacks of the IRC elitism often brought up (and quashed) here on AN/I. What's the deal? ThuranX 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freenode doesn't let anyone publish logs, for privacy reasons. We try to keep up our end of that bargain. --Haemo 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then move to another IRC provider, problem solved. Hypnosadist 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm sorry, but that just sounds like 'hey all, let's go talk in this place where no one can prove we ever said anything' and smacks of cabalism. Now that I understand this, count me among the masses opposed to IRC use by Admins to create 'consensus' for things on Wiki. Without transparency, there's no accountability. ThuranX 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Wikimedia Freenode channels do not permit the posting of logs publically. Now, #wikipedia-en-unblock is a grey area, in that public logging is permitted, but discouraged. Administrators can see the content of the discussion at Special:Undelete/User:Videmus Omnia/Ryulong. #wikipedia-en-unblock is a public channel, and anyone that was in there knew what went on, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an attempt to create "consensus" - it is a useful service, to help contact admins in real-time. It's a service. And if you've ever spent time on IRC, you know there is no cabal. --Haemo 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that there is 'no cabal', however, the secrecy protecting IRC from review doesn't help to dissuade those who feel that Admins gang up on them from having those feelings. My point is that IRC decisions cannot be reviewed like a Wikipedia Talk apge can, nor like a WP: page can, like this one. That's it. There are a few areas in which IRC has merit, but it's not universally great. ThuranX 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the problem here, this was the unblock channel, the editor in question joined that channel and discussed with the blocking admin, and the logs aren't published. That is no different to the normal practice of encouraging users to email the blocking admin (Indeed it's only a couple of years back that this was your only option), we don't allow publishing of private email correspondance either. --pgk 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, #wikipedia-en-unblock channel expressly permits public logging of what transpires in the channel. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may post IRC logs if you wish, James F's "IRC rules" (what you may (and may not) do) don't apply to Wikipedia. I'd also advise that you may start a request for comment into Ryulong's misuse of administrative powers, due to the nature of this being an on-going habbit (but, of course, Ryulong has cascade protected his RfC already -- irony, or what). Matthew 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like how we constantly get told that IRC is nothing to do with wikipedia and thus any problems with admins using it are nothing to do with Wikipedia. However if someone wants to publish logs, well that's against the rules of Freenode and should be removed. So what if it's against freenodes regs? That's freenodes business to enforce not wikipedia because (as we keep being told) the two are unconnected. --Fredrick day 10:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Public logging of Wikimedia channels is expressly prohibited on Meta and should not be done. Regular posting of logs is a blockable offence. There are legal issues with this as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps on meta it's prohibited... let us be thankful their policy doesn't extend here. Matthew 10:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It extends to each and every project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy on Meta seems to consist of "logging is prohibited because we've said that logging is prohibited". --Fredrick day 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then challenge policy, we have already have had these discussions a lot many times before on this very page. One of the major reasons of prohibiting public logging is that material becomes libel once published, and that is not one of the conditions with which users engage in multi-partite discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh so we need IRC channels to help protect admins from the libel they are spouting, very interesting. Hypnosadist 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to a page that says Meta policy trumps (local) wikipedia policy - because I cannot find such a thing either here or there - our own policy page doesn't even seem to mention Meta's involvement in the development of policy. --Fredrick day 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further checking seems to reveal that there is infact no policy against logging on META - there is 1) a guideline page which states that maybe it's not a good idea and 2) Because the Wikimedia IRC channels are not officially WMF material, this page could never be deemed any form of official policy. However, those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels have stated that they are official, and so, within #wikipedia at least, these rules are binding :-) - so as far as I can see - the state that "Meta prohibits logging" does not seem to be true or is badly worded - unless there is another policy page there I cannot find? --Fredrick day 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the no-public-logging rule comes from; it's in the topic of every Wikipedia-related IRC channel I've visited, but I'm not sure about the original source. I feel the lack of logging interferes with my ability to do anthing substantive on IRC (which I hardly ever use, by the way); if something isn't logged and you can't see where a decision was made, the decision may as well not have been made at all because you'll have to make it again to demonstrate where the consensus is (although this is preferable in my view to a situation in which private decisions could sensibly be binding, except in OFFICE and similar cases). Other channels on Freenode are logged; for instance, sometimes something on Esolang (another wiki) is discussed on #esoteric on Freenode, but there are two logging bots there constantly so that something can be referred to if necessary (Esolang doesn't get enough traffic for this to have been necessary, yet, and discussing the wiki isn't the prime purpose of the channel). I would like a logged channel to be available, possibly as an alternative to the current unlogged channel, but I'd be interested to hear where the no-public-logging rule (which I respect; I don't even have private logs of Wikipedia channels) comes from, and I'm interested as to what its rationale is. (Presumably it was discussed in an unlogged channel somewhere, so nobody can now find the original discussion...) --ais523 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow vandalism

Something really needs to be sorted out about Drake2u (talk) as he/she insists on constantly deleting parts of the "Make-up and costumes" section. Alientraveller 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You want intervention against vandalism. Just keep giving him warning tags for content removal, then report him. --Haemo 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ripoff and re-copyright of a WP article

CAIS, the epitome of rotten copyrights and false representation, has done it again. This time, they've taken my article on Anahita (originally created as Aredvi Sura Anahita), stuck it onto their own webpage, and given it their own copyright.
The mirror is at www.*.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/anahita.htm (Replace '*' with "cais-soas"). It is a word-for-word copy except for minor changes to the lede and the integration of endnotes into the text itself.

Now, I don't really care what someone might do with my WP contributions, but I don't want the WP article (which took me weeks!) to be tossed because someone erroneously concludes that the CAIS page is prior-art. What can I do to ensure that this doesn't happen? -- Fullstop 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea... give me a bit to poke around and I'll get back to you.--Isotope23 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act/History draft subpage moved

Hi all. I'm back to working on the Patriot Act after about 6 months leave due to marriage, life etc. As the Patriot Act is such a controversial article, I created a draft subpage USA PATRIOT Act/History and announced it on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act. However, imagine my surprise when it got moved to History of the USA PATRIOT Act. There is absolutely no need for such an article (at least not at the present time), and I had intended to merge the article into the main article USA PATRIOT Act. Obviously it was a work-in-progress.

Anyway, more than a touch annoyed, I spouted off to the one who moved it, User:Mkdw. Probably my bad, I'll have to apologise (I lost about 20 minutes worth of research and work - stupid me for not press submit). Then I moved it back to the old subpage.

The I got a warning saying I'd violated policy from Mkdw. I informed him that OK, I'll move it to a subpage and work on it there, then add it to History of the USA PATRIOT Act (which I'm going to add to AFD, as not required). Imagine my surprise when I got the following edit [62]. An NPOV tag, a NOR tag and a Wikify tag! Why?!? Can someone please look into this? It's ridiculous, and looks to be a violation of WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to this quickly. I think this was easily a misunderstanding that most likely does not require the attention of this board. Initially I was responding to vandalism on the article Wikipedia by User:Ta bu shi da yu. See diff; you will see several stylistic errors introduced. I reverted those changes and did not leave a warning as I was trying to assume good faith. I looked at the user's contributions to see if any other stylistic errors had been introduced to other articles and to see if this was a one time event or a recurring one. I notcied the article USA PATRIOT Act/History and refering to Wikipedia:Namespace I assumed he had made a naming error and mean 'History of USA PATRIOT Act' or 'USA PATRIOT Act history'. So I went ahead and moved the article. I then received the message: Yeah, thanks for moving USA PATRIOT Act/History. I just lost an amazing amount of work. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC). See User_talk:Mkdw#Great.. The user moved the page back to USA PATRIOT Act/History with the following edit summaries.

(cur) (last) 01:40, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) (11,849 bytes) (→September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - try to add back the massive amount of work that I lost when the page move was done. Bloody hell that was annoying!!!!)

(cur) (last) 01:30, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act history to USA PATRIOT Act/History over redirect: moving back - this is not an article in its own right)

(cur) (last) 01:28, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act history to USA PATRIOT Act history over redirect)

(cur) (last) 01:25, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act history to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act history: bloody hell.)

(cur) (last) 01:11, June 18, 2007 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act/History to USA PATRIOT Act history: Wikipedia Naming Convention)

Originally when looking at the article I was worried about it being original research as many of the statements such as:

COINTELPRO was a program of the FBI aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States, and the operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The Church Committee found that most of the surveillance was illegal.

Considering the page only had four quotes and was in the article namespace, rather than adding {{fact}} to many of the errors, I added a few maintance templates to the top and hoped someone else would look at them. He moved page to his user namespace and removed the templates under WP:POINT. Considering where the article was at the time I can probably point out many cases where in my own opinion would have justified having those tags. Afterall, it was a draft of an article; the problem being it was in the article namespace and not labeled a draft.

I then received the message: "No probs. I'm going to move to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act/History (as I am the sole editor) then I'll make a copy of that article to History of the USA PATRIOT Act. Then I'll stop working on that article and work on the one in my user page, which you aren't allowed to touch. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who works on articles about this topic, I hope you'll understand my frustration with this sort of response. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)". You can see how it escalates from here on both my talk page and his. Thanks for your time and patience. Mkdw^talk 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed boilerplate warning template used on Ta bu's talk page. You don't warn established users and administrators with such templates. It is humiliating and demeaning. Pursue dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sir Nick. I made a mistake in the edit of Wikipedia, but I had absolutely no idea what was being referred to! I thought he was talking about the above mentioned article. What happened at Wikipedia was completely inadvertent: I was trying to fix a ref tag, so I copied all the wikitext to notepad, used the search function of notepad to find the ref tag (ever tried to do this in Firefox or Internet Explorer? ew!) then copied it all back.

However, I must admit that I got pretty annoyed about the Patriot Act article move. I have to fully and freely admin I'm totally in the wrong here, and I shouldn't have been so aggressive to User:Mkdw. I publicly apologise to him/her about this. My bad, I don't particularly feel very proud of that. As I think I've said more than a dozen times (well, maybe not that much), but I'm going to half to calm down. I don't know why, but I'm getting very emotional about stuff too quickly.

That said, does anyone have any objections to moving it back to USA PATRIOT Act/History? That's a better spot for draft editing. I'd prefer not to have the article in my namespace. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu, I think it was necessary to move it from USA PATRIOT Act/History because you can't create subpages in the mainspace per Wikipedia:Subpages"Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia..." If you try to create a subpage in the mainspace, it acts as an independent article and will show up on searches and special:randompage. But as a draft page, it should have been moved to Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/History, rather than to another mainspace location at History of the USA PATRIOT Act. I agree that adding maintenance tags to a work in progress is unnecessary and provocative but this seems to be resolved now the page is in your userspace and I don't think stirring it up on ANI would be good for anyone. I also agree completely with Nick's comments about using boilerpates on established editors. But what was with that edit to the Wikipedia article?[63] Sarah 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An accident. I was trying to fix a ref tag. See above. I'm going to move the article to the Talk namespace, you make a good point. Darn it, all I'm trying to do is get USA PATRIOT Act up to speed, and I swore off participating in the Wikipedia: namespace because it was causing me too much stress! Some days I don't feel I can win :-( - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:UNIL_MATHUR

I want to draw the attention to this user. This user has been uploading many, many files without any copyright tags. The warnings have been posted, but this user has not responded to them, and no one is quite able to communicate with this user. To get to the bottom line, this user has a lot of copyright violation notices (35 at last count) in the entire month of June in eight days, which is becoming quite distruptive. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's too many copyvios for any one editor. Blocked for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RS sources from Massacre at Thandikulam

Number of editors are removing RS sources such as

• BBC
• Daily Mirror

and even to a degraded version of

• Reuters Alertnet

from the above article. The concerted action are making this article to go from this version to this version. Thanks Taprobanus 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is over here. Corvus cornix 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cverlo threats to edit war

It may be a bit premature to bring this up, but Cverlo (talk · contribs) has been adding a "notice" to the top of AnimeIowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that the convention's website is down.[64] The announcement was removed by MikeWazowski (talk · contribs), but the removal was reverted[65] by Cverlo with a threat to edit war over the notice[66]. MikeWazowski removed the notice again[67] and Cverlo restored the notice [68] with an additional threat to edit war.

See also Talk:AnimeIowa#Emergency Domain Announcement.

--Farix (Talk) 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's should be removed - we are not a newssite and the article is not an extension of the conference or a site to be used for the runners of the conference to use as part of PR/Management efforts on behalf of the conference. --Fredrick day 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP#Articles_about_Edward_Gibbon

Resolved

 – Pages semi-protected.

Could someone adjudicate this? An anon with a floating IP is continuing Stevewk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 's revert war against standard formatting and infoboxes on these four articles. The section title does not contain a {{la}} tag, but that's because these are four articles with the same problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And incivility continues, as here. Edit summary: continuing to revert defacements by braindead busybodies.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done... sorry it took so long to get this taken care of. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal moving pages - help needed to undo

I've reported Brainboxj at AIV for his antics in moving pages, but I think someone with more experience of undoing page moves, particularly cross-namespace (e.g. undoing his move of Wanker to a user page), needs to take a look and fix his handiwork. Thanks, Bencherlite 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've undone all of it, I think. --Deskana (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin Rettetast started work on the task whilst I was posting here, by the look of it. Bencherlite 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to stop User:DavidYork71 and others

He continues to create new user accounts after three edits in an article (see contributions of Progressoriser, Llangowen, Dyspareunia, User:RealismIncorporated) . Hence I cannot file a WP:3RR report. Filing checkuser report is useless because, he leave his old accounts after some edits. For example see Islam and children histroy [69]. I know check user will confirm my allegation but what the use when he will create another account in a second. Do we have some more useful and long-term solution? I suggest make creating account difficult may be? --- A. L. M. 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't make account creation any more difficult, there's nothing in the software to let us. I suggest you file a checkuser request, and also ask the checkuser to block and underlying IP addresses ACB. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it has been not done before. There is a long list of user banned, see his old check user log Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DavidYork71. We can make it neccessary to specify a valid email address. Hence each time he (and others like him) has to create a new email address. --- A. L. M. 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we can't make account creation any more difficult. If you want new features, ask the developers at Bugzilla. None of us can make creating accounts more difficult. You need to try to relax a bit and not be so confrontational; I suggested checkuser because you never mentioned it had already been done. Make sure you state the situation clearly to get the best feedback, otherwise people will just suggest things you've done before. --Deskana (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with ALM's frustration - it seems he's been stalked by DY71 socks, as have I on obscure articles I'm working on. There's nothing that can be done really, but to just revert, revert and revert - one day he will get bored, and he's already had bored patches. The point is, that his edits are actually not on wikipedia that long at all before they get removed. Perhaps we can get a list together of people who are aware of DY71 and notify everyone when he comes on. The systems worked reasonably well tonight. There is also a suggestion on WP:3RR of an exemption to the rule of 3RR if it is to revert a banned user, but it is not clear. I suggest we seek to have that clarified for continuous reverts of DY71. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions too. There are some good admins who have been great in keeping him in check. It's like some illnesses you can't eradicate, you just need to manage.

It's a sad and pathetic case, i really wonder what motivates him to do it. Something is sadly wrong.Merbabu 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign - this about 15 mins late).

For the record, reverting edits of banned users is not covered under 3RR. You can revert edits of banned users as often as you want and not get blocked for 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? OK, I will give it a go. :) Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to a standard checkuser, you can go to the bottom of WP:RFCU and file a "Request for IP check" - this is an attempt to identify and block the underlying IP's DavidYork is using. Maybe this has also already been done - these IP checks are not archiving for the long-term - but if not, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, you could consider semi-protection of the target pages, rapid reporting of the socks, reverting their edits, and denying them the satisfaction of getting everyone worked up. Many, if not all, of these strategies are probably already being used here. Eventually, the torrent will subside. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

rapid reporting of socks? Where too? Normally, it takes a while to wait for a checkuser or an admin who knows the situation. Is there a place you can suggest to rapid report? thanks. --Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, ask that these pages be semi-protected. That will stop both IPs and newly-generated throwaway accounts from editing. - Merzbow 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record (although it sounds like this goes beyond simply WP:3RR), the three-revert rule applies to users, not accounts. If you can credibly show that two accounts belong to the same user, their edits count together for the 3RR, and, as noted above, edits made by a blocked user may then be reverted freely. A checkuser isn't necessary when it is trivially clear to any observer that someone is using a series of socks. --Aquillion 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps is needed is a place like WP:AIV to report ongoing transparent sockpuppetry of known sockpuppeteers. The system now is only (vaguely) effective against puppeteers who have trouble accessing another IP or who invest in their new usernames. For a case like this, RfCU isn't the right venue - we already know it's DavidYork71, why wait a day and waste checkuser time confirming it - and it would be bothersome to post every new puppet on this board. Yet it seems that some administrators now see the existence of RfCU as an excuse not to block obvious socks on sight, despite the clear language of RfCU: "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet: Block. No checkuser is necessary."Proabivouac 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Aquillion 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Several reports there appear to be several days old, and unlike AIV, they are often treated as matters requiring the careful investigation of an administrator.Proabivouac 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i like your suggestions, which let editors take on the issue themselves. Combined with the earlier suggestion above that reverting obvious disruptive socks exempts good faith editors from WP:3RR, this should see us getting around our tiresome and frustrating hamstringing in red tape that has been playing into DY71's hands. Thanks all. Merbabu 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Probable sock looking for a block

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet account blocked.

Fredguy III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has labelled various users as sockpuppets, including the user him/herself. This edit suggests that another editor (former admin?) recognises the sockpuppetry. Could someone please check this out? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That's what I get from checking in from work. I forgot to bypass the cache. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack edits

Resolved

 – Vandalism-only account blocked.

Could someone please have a look at this editor please- numerous offensive comments [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is quite shocking is that noone even warned him despite most of the edits being reverted. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Level three vandalism warning posted. HalfShadow 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't those edits warrant something a little stronger than that? I strongly think the person should be blocked.

"Irish are filthy Germanic/Romanic scum." [76]

Naming a living boxer "The Disgusting Nigger" [77].

Naming a living actress "The Prostitute" right in the top of the article[78] which stayed there for over a day.

and worse. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and at least half of his edits seem on the level. A three seemed appropriate. Anything above a two is basically the equivalent of 'Stop screwing about or we'll lock you' anyway. HalfShadow 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not "on the level" at all- they are all either rambling nonsense about red hair and apart from that adding derogatory racially and sexually offensive material to biographies of living people. Oh and I just found this one to add to it [79]. This person is contributing nothing of value to this project. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen enough, between the above cited diffs and this one, this one, and this one, which I found by randomly picking from the contrib history. To make matters worse, these diffs deal with living people. I've indefinitely blocked the account to prevent more such edits; comments? MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Those were awful edits. We will not miss contributions like these. --John 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. What I find hard to understand is why noone posted a message warning him for his behaviour before in which case he might well have been blocked much earlier. Would it be possible in the future to automatically warn or "mark" an account when reverting then we might avoid something like this happening? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen anything before now, or he'd have been warned by me (and possibly banned already). And my point was that they weren't derogatory trash like what got him banned, not necessarily that they were anything of value. HalfShadow 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying as long as an editor doesn't make edits that are solely offensive you then will then allow that editor to "get away" with edits such as those above? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody 'gets away' with anything here. If an admin decides a warning isn't enough, they are free to do what needs to be done. I will remind you again that I am not an admin and that I have to follow procedure as I see it. To me that means warning and then reporting. If that isn't good enough for you, you'd be surprised how little that bothers me. HalfShadow 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lay off and leave User:HalfShadow alone. He's a volunteer, like we all are, and he's doing his best. It's not his fault that it took a few days to catch this particular vandal, and his warning was erring on the side of assuming good faith, which is hard to criticize. Situation's resolved, we'll all keep our eyes peeled in the future, and no hard feelings, right? MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think we should make it clear to people that make edits like this person did above that they are not welcome to edit here- I don't think the message that HalfShadow left really reflected the seriousness of those edits- and yes it does matter because if HalfShadow think like that then other people who come to this site will think it's OK and just post a little minor warning and most other people will just forget anyway (remember no one actually posted ANY warnings till I brought this up). I assume (or hope) that "assuming good faith" doesn't extend to encouraging editors that call people "disgusting niggers" and call women who dare to show their faces "prostitutes"- if we do encourage them, they will only make improving the encyclopedia harder. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin protects POV version

Admin User:CBM declines to insert new updates or news links to this article [80] [81] citing this is a Wikipedia policy. Can someone explain if its a correct interpretation? He refused to move the protection to last known stable version until consensus is arrived... effectively endorsing a POV version. More importantly, he refuses to update the page with even minor edits until the ArbCom case of Bakasuprman is resolved (which is totally irrelevant to this article). Let us suppose Bakasuprman is indefinitely blocked as a result of the ArbCom. Does that imply this article too would be indefinitely protected? I am more worried that the article would reach rigor mortis if minor edits are refused. Anwar 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought page protection was explicitly not an endorsement of the version that happens to coincidentally be protected. Sancho 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed and User:CBM even says as much in one of the provided diffs. --Fredrick day 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review m:The_wrong_version. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, are you suggesting he make a point? (inside joke) Lsi john 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Remarks stricken, so they won't be misunderstood further. Lsi john 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CBM wasn't even the one who protected that page. Not only that, but User:Rama's Arrow protected it after a ten-hour lull in the edit-warring, without making any change (it looks like it was a slow-burn edit war, so it's not so odd.) It doesn't make any sense to allege that it was deliberately protected on a particular POV under such circumstances. Now, granted, {{editprotected}} can be used to request changes, and it would be a little odd if CBM was refusing to make minor typo or spelling corrections... but controversial edits aren't usually made via that, since it would defeat the purpose of protection. Protection in a content dispute is supposed to be blind, not endorsing any version; you're asking CBM to endorse your favored one, which is exactly what the protection policy is supposed to prevent. Finally, protection doesn't usually last that long. Does it really matter if the page says one thing or the other for the next 24 hours? You should be using this time to try and hammer out an agreement on what it will say after that... even if CBM edited it to your favored version, it wouldn't stay protected for ever, so you'll still have to negotiate eventually. --Aquillion 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

[82] - could someone please deal with User:Cstanfie? Corvus cornix 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with a note about legal threats and how our blocking policy relates to them. -- Merope 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[83] - Sock puppet Rellis0415 (talk · contribs) is continuing the legal threats. Corvus cornix 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked by User:Ryulong. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands location map

Quizimodo (talk · contribs) insists on keeping his disputed new map on the page. Summarized, the disruptive editing I have noticed on this issue by this user is:

• Pressing his newly created map onto several articles, knowing that the last consensus took months to establish and was hotly debated. He participated in that discussion.
• Delaying more input on the issue, citing lack of time, while responding to each and every argument.
• Not adhering to WP:EQ and WP:BRD, which are guidelines for a good discussion, by insisting to keep the disputed version, instead of discussing his change before implementing it.

Myself, I have just violated WP:3RR because of this, and I should probably receive whatever the appropriate sanction is. On a related point, is it intended that the 3RR policy means that any disputed edit stays in place, because the editor restoring a prior version will always reach the threshold of three first? If so, why? --User:Krator (t c) 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this editor even commenting here? This is a smokescreen, and I gather one intended to support edit warring or making a point. This is my first attempt to update these maps; Krator is the only editor who has stridently and so vocally expressed opinions opposing this map on Netherlands. Elsewhere, little feedback has been offered or is being addressed. Throughout, since Krator asked if he can revert me, I have been discussing this on the Talk:Netherlands page, and I will initiate wider discussions elsewhere when time permits (I can't respond to this editor and initiate deliberations elsewhere simultaneously; I will also enhance the maps as needed. However, this doesn't justify edit warring, particularly reversions which pre-empt my responses to them and behaviour which seems to ignore good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. After all, it's just a locator map (though better than its predecessor). Quizimodo 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Krator: the purpose of 3RR is to prevent edit warring. Period. Talk pages exist for a reason; use them. Whether or not you think your participating in a revert war is justifiable, it is not, except in the case of vandalism. If a disputed edit is so bad it needs to be immediately removed, and yet is not vandalism, then it will be easy enough to get another pair of eyes to help discuss the issue on the talk page. Just don't edit war. Period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An article recreated for the fifth time in a row

Resolved

Page Salted for time being SirFozzie 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Julian Dobrowolski article has just been recreated for the fifth time in a row. See also the AfD. Jogers (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. SirFozzie 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Venetian albania-montenegro

An article by User:Brunodam has been made that is known as Venetian albania-montenegro, however the article is highly controversial as it both failed WP:N and violated (and still violates) WP:NOR. The article seemed to be research of a University Professor (who's the Wikipedian that created this). We have managed to find a sourced name for the article, moving it to Venetian Albania. However the problems regarding the fact that over 70% of the article's content have absolutely no relevance to the article remains. The whole situation can be observed here. The author accuses me and User:Sideshow Bob, who are opposing the majority of this article's content, for nationalism, and considers that we as Montenegrins/Yugoslavs/whatever-from-former-Yugoslavia are not capable to judge the facts properly, demanding/insisting I REQUEST AN IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR TO STOP THE VANDALISMS ! for quite several times. Here, at the article's talk page the current discussion can be observed.

As per this user's demands for an administrator that does not originate from former Yugoslavia and refusal to discuss with Wikipedians who do, I am asking anyone free to oversee the situation and put his opinion on the talk page. Thanks in advance and sorry for the buggin'. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

212.219.203.115

On following up a Help Desk post, I reviewed the contributions of 212.219.203.115 (talk · contribs). This IP first posted on December 16, 2005, last posted on January 24, 2007, and only made five posts total. However, those five posts all were reverted, for a variety of reasons. The Golspie post seemed to raise some tension. (See Golspie Help Desk post.) 212.219.203.115 does not seem to be using 212.219.203.115’s account for proper purposes. Please review. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHOIS says it's registered to Highland Council Education Department, Scotland. With that in mind, it's possible it's a shared IP address. If we could safely assume it was all the same user, a string of disruptive edits over a long period might be worth a block -- I'm not sure if we can make that assumption in this case, though, so I'd hesitate to block at this point in time. If problems persist, we could revisit that. Happily invite another opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth getting too worked up about. Yes, it's probably safe to assume it's a proxy, but you're also pretty much guaranteed it's the same person. A block is pointless unless it's going to be of sufficient time to still be in force the next time they're sufficiently bored. They need to get some real news up the Highlands! Ta/wangi 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Parsecboy

User:Parsecboy is showing a double-standard. He removed some of the talk page text here, yet keeps reverting the page when others remove talk page text. [84] [85]

What gives? Should this be reported as a violation?

161.55.204.157 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... it's considered bad form to remove other people's comments. Even if User:Parsecboy went a bit too far there, though, there's a difference between removing extensive off-topic arguments, like he did in the link you provided, and removing relevant discussions related to an ongoing content dispute, as happened in the other links you provided. I probably would've speedy-archived the off-topic argument myself, rather than just delete it, but User:Parsecboy can hardly be blamed for not wanting it there; it's hard to have coherent discussion on an article when people are just throwing blind invective at each other. --Aquillion 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about the other off topic arguments accusing people of theft and a contination of the same by two other users? Should these remain in the record? If yes, what is the difference between one personal attack and another? I don't understand. And are you an admin, Aquillion? If not, could I have an admin's opinion here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

It's not a big difference. The difference between an admin and an experienced user like Aquillon is three extra buttons. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer any questions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

There's a clear difference between the text being removed, and the text being restored -- specifically, the text being removed is of little (if any) apparent usefulness to the goals of this project. Contrary to what some might have you believe, talk pages are not open forums for any purpose, but are intended specifically to coordinate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Comments and sections which do not further those goals can be subject to removal; that the user is or isn't an administrator (I haven't checked) doesn't seem to factor into this, either way, unless I'm missing something. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally addressing part of the problem here. I have attempted to remove accusations of theft made by several Wiki users against another user. Those sorts of statements are pure personal attacks and as you point out, have nothing to do with any usefullness to the article. Yet User:Parsecboy keeps reverting the text each time I try to remove the useless and false personal attack statements. What can be done about that? Thank you. 161.55.204.157 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text I removed was a tangential discussion, rife with personal attacks and incivility against those who disagreed with this anon, (who was Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), until he was indef blocked for said gross incivility) that did not belong on the talk page. The text this user is trying to delete is relevant discussions on links to external youtube videos. I have done nothing wrong here. Parsecboy 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text that I removed were also personal attacks, especially the ones that wrongly accused another user of theft. I would like to see ALL personal attacks removed, not just the ones that User:Parsecboy has posted. ALL personal attacks should be removed. What is the difference between one attack and another? 161.55.204.157 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon, lets stop pretending you're anyone other than Labyrinth13. Falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. The difference between what you deleted and what I deleted is that your comments, as Labyrinth13, were deliberately malicious and incivil, with no connection to the article itself. You were just telling everyone who disagreed with you to "fuck off" because you couldn't have your way. The discussions you deleted were relevant to the article. Parsecboy 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a wiki rule that says that falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. Standing by. 161.55.204.157 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, to show where WP:NPA states that accusing someone of theft (falsly or otherwise) constitutes a personal attack. Parsecboy 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, which I why I would like an admin to render an opinion here. Are there any actual admins around who can look at this dispute? I'd love to have this settled and will abide by an admin's word. 161.55.204.157 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. But you're wrong. I can't say "Here's WP:NPA, and it says right here, that accusations of theft do not constitute personal attacks". You can, however, do the opposite. Show where it says accusations of theft do constitute personal attacks, or drop your pointless crusade. And unless it's hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page, in legal print, it doesn't exist anywhere on WP:NPA. Parsecboy 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are so cute, but I'd rather hear what an admin has to say. 161.55.204.157 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are so condescendingly avoiding the argument. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What do you care about having the accusations of theft removed, anyway? Why do you feel so strongly about leaving that sort of thing there? Would you want comments accusing you of being a criminal or say, a pedophile left in a public forum? Obviously, the answer is "no" to the last question as you saw fit to remove part of the talk discussion accusing you of being a thief here. And that is not a double-standard because of what reason? 161.55.204.157 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed your rantings because they were just that, rantings. You were pissed because you couldn't have your way, and were being extremely incivil, which has no place in Wikipedia anywhere. Regardless, just because someone accused you of being a thief doesn't mean you get to blank all sections of a talk page relating to the dispute. The reason I have reverted you is because you apparently have this desire to whitewash the talk page, so there's no obvious record of the dispute. If you're going to make claims and argue your point, be a man about it and leave it for all to see. If you're ashamed of it, then you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion . . .

So, the way I read that statement above, what is or isn't a personal attack is open to interpretation, hence the reason why I have been trying so hard to get a seasoned admin who is familiar with the subject of personal attacks to answer my main question: Is accusing someone of theft on a Wikipedia talk page a personal attack?

If the answer is yes, then the statements in question should be removed. If the answer is no, then does that opens the door to being allowed to accuse people of all sorts of things, so long as it takes place within a relevant discussion? 161.55.204.157 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin does decide that accusations of theft are personal attacks, remove them. But use a scalpel, not a hatchet. My comments (and those of others who made no such accusations) should remain untouched. Or better yet, put a strike through the comments. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgile1991

Virgile1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This young user keeps replacing the current flags of the French regions with the old provincial flags from before the French Revolution. You can find an example of this here: Île-de-France (region) (check the page's history). The same is repeated across a majority of the 26 regions of France articles. This user was warned several times on his talk page that he should stop doing this. A discussion was also opened at Talk:Nord-Pas de Calais but he has refused to take part in it so far. It seems there's no way to discuss things with him, and I don't know what to do. This user's behvior forces me and others to watch and correct these articles on a daily base now, which is time consuming. Also note that this user's misbehavior is not limited to the French regions articles. I noticed he has also vandalized the Maine article by adding French as an official language in that US state infobox. Godefroy 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If they don't quit edit warring and start discussing, I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "they"? It's just Virgile1991 who refuses to discuss things and revert all these articles, despite having been asked to provide references for his changes by other users such as Kiwipete, ThePromenader, and myself. Anyway, if he continues to revert (which he'll probably do I'm afraid, given his past behavior), I'll report him here again. Godefroy 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"They" is simply a gender-free way to avoid using awkward constructions such as "he or she", "he/she", or artificial abominations such as "xir". --Calton | Talk 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request more eyes on AfD discussion

Can I ask an outside admin to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Beck? I nominated this today for failing WP:BIO, which triggered a firestorm of accusations and attacks from Oldspammer (talk · contribs), the creator of the article. Highlights are here, here, and here, for example. I took issue with some of the comments, but to no effect. Can I ask for some outside eyes on the deletion discussion, if nothing else, to keep things from degenerating further? MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me. I left a message for Oldspammer. --John 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MagicalPhats

Resolved

Trolling. See Special:Contributions/MagicalPhats. See WP:SAND history. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page discussion... Just seems like a particularly misguided user. I'll watch them. Grandmasterka 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He agrees to stay in his user space. I'm watching closely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Throwing my hands up: Nick Dinsmore

Wow, just wow. Will an un-involved administrator please review Nick Dinsmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? It is amazing what people have to put up with in order to enforce WP:BLP and related policies. Example: [89] Burntsauce 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a "last warning" regarding personal attacks on the user's talk page. There's probably more that needs to be done there, but perhaps that's a start? MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I work with the PW folks from time to time, let me have a word with Govvy. SirFozzie 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Myleslong blocked him for a week. *sighs* SirFozzie 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A week seems a bit harsh for a single incident of personal attacks, particularly without a warning. I've left a note for Myles, and I'd actually advocate unblocking User:Govvy if he would be willing to tone it down and discuss things civilly. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalism

One or more anons are repeatedly vandalizing the Mike Koplove page. Approx 1-2 times a day for the last week. They are deleting sourced reference to the fact that the ballplayer is Jewish. Despite several RVs, by me and other non-anons, and discussion of the issue with others on the talk page. They are also often inserting all-cap drivel in place of the deleted language. I requested semi-protection, but was told 1-2 deletes a day does not qualify for that, and that I should come here. I do not want to engage in more RVs, given the 3RR. --Epeefleche 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the protection, but also declined to block, the user that is removing content (I would not class it as pure vandalism) has done so around 5 times on 2 different IP's over a period of 4 days, a block seems a little punitive here - I suggest just keep on reverting until they get bored. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I had first put this up for semiprotection on the 15th. The admin then declined it, but told me "Different admins have higher levels of activity that they require for protection, there is no set standard. ... It might be better to try WP:ANI or possibly WP:AIV something for a persistent yet slow vandal." So I tried again on page protection first, and just rcvd your response. AS to your suggestion that I just keep on reverting until they get bored, I wonder whether that is really the best use of my time and that of the others who have RVd the vandal all week. Also, as to whether it is pure vandalism, I question whether the incluson of the following, not even in the comments but in the body of the article, isn't vandalism: " DO YOU THINK ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL MIKE KOPLOVE WOULD DEVOTE THIS MUCH ATTENTION TO MY PAGE? I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. STOP WRITING THAT. IT IS IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BEING INACCURATE.; Koplove is not Jewish. I know this because I AM HIM. ; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM HALF JEWISH ON MY FATHERS SIDE BUT I AM TECHNICALLY A PRACTICING CATHOLIC.; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM NOT JEWISH.; I AM SERIOUS. STOP WRITING THIS!!!! ; ACTUALLY MY RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CORRECTNESS, MY DAD IS JEWISH, MY MOM IS CATHOLIC, AND I AM CATHOLIC. ; Koplove is Jewish. NO I AM NOT! I DO READ THIS. I AM NOT JEWISH." Also, these go back nearly a month in all. Is it really the best use of our time to keep on RVing him? For how long? Thanks.--Epeefleche 23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple solution. Next time you revert him, use your edit summary to refer him to the Wikimedia foundation offices, and ask him or his agent to directly contact them about this. If it's REALLY him (and we know it's 99.9% NOT), then he can handle it that way. If there's no Office action, then a block is even easier to substantiate. ThuranX 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by Biophys (talk · contribs) and Mike18xx (talk · contribs); BLP violations and WP:POINT from Mike18xx (talk · contribs)

Problem started with Mike18xx (talk · contribs) taking personally my attempt to have the article The Intelligence Summit deleted, as it had been the previous time the article was up for deletion. The article survived the deletion attempt, so I have been adding well sourced and legitimate material to the article. Every small change I made also included an explanation of the change in the edit summary (see the change history to see the changes). Rather than discuss changes, Mike18xx (talk · contribs) began a revert war, reverting everything without explanation even though I pressed for one in talk. Much of what he did was delete well-sourced and relevant content without discussion -- basically the equivalent of vandalism (though it is obvious he sees it as a content dispute). Then he stalked me onto another article that I have been involved in, Operation Sarindar, reverting my last edit twice, explaining in talk that his action was purely a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Biophys (talk · contribs) then clearly took a cue from Mike18xx, and stalked me back to the Intelligence Summit page, reverting my last changes there (in order to team up with Mike18xx). Biophys has done this before, showing up on the Bill Oreilly page to revert my changes after we had an earlier conflict on the Sarindar page. After that incident I warned him to stop stalking me (both in my edit summary on Oreilly and the Sarindar talk page) but he has done it again today. He also keeps renaming the Sarindar page in order to avoid content problems or notability problems -- again disrupting Wikipedia to make his point. I will add that I am not the first to have noticed Biophys's stalking behavior (see his talk page for other instances; I believe it has come up on WP:ANI previously).

I think both of these users are taking every edit personally and starting edit wars over large amounts of material based on a disagreement with small portions of the material changed. This sort of thing should be sorted out in talk but instead of responding to talk they stalk me to other pages and do other disruptive things to make their points. In addition, User:Mike18xx has engaged in several BLP violations, which I warned him about and then an admin warned him about (including a "Final Warning"; see the relevant discussion here, here, and here), yet his stalking comment to the talk page on Sarindar (comment here) included another such violation.

I'd like to work constructively with these users but they have shown again and again that they will only edit in a very one-sided manner and will disrupt Wikipedia and break the rules here in order to get their way. I believe some concrete action by admins is warranted here. csloat 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I went to The Intelligence Summit because it is closely related to Operation Sarindar that I edited today (one article is internally linked to another). I have also explained my position at the The Intelligence Summit talk page [90]. Cslot simply does not want to work in collaborative fashion; he does a lot of changes on contentious issues, without trying to explain anything and find a common ground, as should be clear from today's history of The Intelligence Summit. I have made a single edit in this article today and tried to talk with other users.Biophys 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two articles is not WP:STALKing yet, although I would recommend participants not to follow the other party's list of contributions (unless simple vandalism is there). Please follow WP:DR. Alex Bakharev 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Honestly, I "met" csloat only three times. First time, I created article Operation Sarindar, and he nominated it for deletion twice. Second time, I tried to edit an article about Bill O'Relly, and cslot promised to report me here for "wikistalking" (so I decided not to edit it anymore). Third time, I edited The Intelligence Summit today, and he reported me here. Sorry, but it is Csloat who deserved a warning for intimidating other users.Biophys 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Resurgent insurgent

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR:)

Resurgent insurgent keeps vandalizing my user page User:Anber. My user page contains details about me. He should not be changing it. If he sees a problem he should develop consensus from the community asking me to change it by convention. I need assistance because I don't know how to properly report this. Anber 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(end copied text)

I maintain it is advertising and should be removed. Resurgent insurgent 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. --Haemo 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an advert to me. DPeterson^talk 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. That is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to advertise your business.--Crossmr 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as an ad. Corvus cornix 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as without doubt, blatant advertising. - auburnpilot talk 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

There is an IP who keeps removing templates from the Drew Barrymore talk page. Can someone either block the IP or protect the Talk page from unregistered users? Thank you. --David Shankbone 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. Because it is so recent, I'll take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Angel of truth

Resolved

 – user blocked

The user Angel of truth (talk · contribs) has only edits which are nominating articles for deletion which I have created, probably from my list of 150 articles at User:Moeron/Created. This is most likely due to my nominating James Stunt for deletion and the subsequent IP and user vote problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt. Can someone take a look and evaluate. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet used for wikistalking, and all edits rolled back. Hesperian 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak's behavior

I'm sick of this. Consensus was reached about removing the Russian name of Podilsko-Voskresenska Line from the article (see hist). Then Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) showed up and decided to add Russian without discussion (diff). He only started discussing it after he was reverted. However, consensus on his version was not reached and he kept reverting back to his version. I had the article protected, and started a MedCab case about it. The user, not waiting for consensus to be reached at MedCab, decides to add Russian yet again (diff). Now I don't know, he's starting another edit war. Maybe the article needs to be protected, but I'm also sick of that user's behavior. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has a history of WP:3RR violations. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking hereI wonder why the position of one user (Akhristov's) is considered consensus. Another user (dima) wrote he [doesn't] mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both. Alæxis_¿question? 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My point there was that Kuban kazak was free to discuss it on the talk page, he chose not to. He only discussed it after he got reverted. I believe it could have been considered consensus since DDima and I were the only editors to the article at that time. If it was Kuban kazak's edit I would have been discussing originally, I'd wait for his input. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)