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

User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule

Esteemed collegues:

If you examine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_chess&action=history

You will see that InfoCheck has repeatedly, much more often than thrice, inserted a link in the "See Also" section, despite the consense to leave this link off of the Gothic Chess page. This user is insisting that a chess variant that he devised is very similar to the game of Gothic Chess which has been in existance for seven years. He is therefore requesting links back to his personal home pages, his personal PDF files, and his personal analysis, none of which has undergone the peer review process common in academic circles. Gothic Chess has been so scrutinized, and has been published, in both hardback textbooks and other periodicals dealing with Artificial Intelligence. References of these published works are provided on the Gothic Chess page.

The user InfoCheck repeatedly imposes his own links, vioating neutral point of view, and violating the 3 revert rule as previously mentioned. Judge not only the history of posts, judge the two games for yourself:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Gothic Chess of which a great deal of material has been published.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Optimized Chess which has no followers aside from its creator.

It is obvious that:

1. Only the kings are in the same place, on the f1/f8 squares. This is the only similarity between the two games.

2. The Queen in "optimized chess" starts on the wrong color (White Queens are always on light squares, Black Queen are always on dark squares.)

3. The Knights and Rooks in "optimized chess" have exchanged places, not even on the same relative squares as regular 8x8 chess.

4. The Bishops in "optimized chess" can't reach the "long diagonals" (a1-h8 via being placed on b2, or j1-c8 via being placed on i2.) Placing Bishops on long diagonals is a very common motiff that chess players strive to do fairly often, and Gothic Chess players enjoy it as well.

5. The Bishop on the Queen's side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

6. The Bishop on the Kings side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

With so many obvious differences, myself and several others feel this user InfoCheck is doing nothing constructive. He is just trying to publicize a game of no interest at the expense of detracting from the Gothic Chess article.

I recommend him for banning for the 24 hour period for all of the aforementioned reasons.

ChessHistorian 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"You and several others" refers to a gang of Gothic Chess fans, about three editors here. At least equally many neutral editors are for the inclusion of the Optimized Chess link. You yourself have been violating the three revert rule at least equally much as InfoCheck. You even just deleted InfoCheck's arguments for inclusion from the talk page (accidentally, I'm sure), without an explanation. Luckily I have just restored them. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're calling the inventor of the game a fan? You're calling only one of four people in the world who won a game against the inventor (who has over a 96% win ratio) a fan? You're calling me, a reporter for two city newspapers a fan? It would be more correct to say that 2 biased, anti-Gothic Chess people, with no interest in the game, no talent for playing the game, are just trying to detract from it by playing the role of spoilers. Well, guess what? We're sick of your illogical remarks. We're sick of you sub-standard, low-achievers claiming superiority over a published artificial intelliegence researcher who has several college degrees. You can't just insert meaningless links to a well constructed page and say they belong there. That other variant is complete crap. You were asked to find ONE PHOTOGRAPH of anybody playing that game, and you couldn't do it. So drop it. Go somewhere else. You're not wanted on the Gothic Chess page. You're not needed. You're statements are biased, inaccurate, and ludicrous. But we gave you your voice, however wrong it is, you have said what you needed to say, and the the people have spoken. They said get your links off of that page. So do it.

ChessHistorian 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a noticeboard for violations of the three revert rule right here. We also have article talk pages for content discussions. This is not the place for either, and I also strongly encourage both of you to review the guidelines on civil discussion and personal attacks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Protected Gothic chess: Enough edit-warring. Discuss things on the talkpage, wait for this to expire, or visit WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC))" Please note that The Wrong Version of this article has been protected. Please do not request unprotection on my talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if chesshistorian is claiming to be the inventor of gothic chess or not, but that rant above with all the NPA and CIV vios seems to also be admission of a CoI. Anyone else reading it that way, or is it just late and I'm tired? ThuranX 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ChessHistorian is not the inventor of Gothic Chess, User:GothicChessInventor is. (PS. I decrypted the bunch of acronyms that you just threw in by adding links to them, hope you don't mind. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I am the inventor of Gothic Chess. I got a call at about 4 AM from a Gothic Chess player from Australia letting me know what was going on at the Gothic Chess page regarding these edit wars. While I did appreciate his diligence, this is not how I would like to be informed when the Gothic Chess page is being vandalized by other variant authors. ChessHistorian is a newspaper reporter from the Baltimore Sun who interviewed me a few weeks ago when the game of checkers was announced as being solved. If you perform this google search you can find him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Ed+Trice%22+%22Baltimore+Sun%22&btnG=Search

Anyway, it looks to me like the correct version of the page is protected now. Thank you for this.

If I may shed some light on this from my own observations: Gothic Chess is a very popular chess variant that tens of thousands of people play. Other variants are virtually unknown. Sometimes a person that creates a new chess variant tries to force a "piggy back" association with another variant as a means to try and "trick" people into thinking it is played much more widely than it really is. This is clearly the case here. InfoCheck is the one who is trying to mislead Wikipedia readers with his announcement of an implicit strategic alignment between my game and his.

Objectively speaking, and as cited above, of the 10 pieces in the back row of each games' setup, only the Kings are in the same location.

The games are completely different. There is no reason to have his variant mentioned on the Gothic Chess page.

Furthermore, whereas I have gone through the recalcitrant process of obtaining a patent on my game (due to its uniqueness and the potential desire for many other chess manufactures to try and get a hold of it) and had several scientific periodicals print my published analysis of artifical intelligence papers that I had written on this (and other) subjects, the person known as InfoCheck has merely created a PDF file that he has on his website, and he continues to claim that his information is more accurate, "better", more realistic, etc., than my own. When I offered to submit his paper for him to the artificial researchers I know that would review it, he then reverts his claims, and stop spewing forth his ill-found rhetoric.

So we have a clear case of InfoCheck just looking for a soapbox on which to stand and say a great deal of things that are untrue, unproven, and just plain unfactual.

He is using Wikipedia as a means to broadcast this misinformation, the highest form of treason.

The administrators have the power to positively impact the material presented herein. I have a great deal of respect for your constant vigilence in countering page vandalism. I urge you to support ChessHistorian and understand some of his retaliatory remarks are just a function of his own weariness in dealing with InfoCheck. We have people on three continents agreeing that the material submitted by InfoCheck just does not belong. We also have people who are jealous of the popularity of Gothic Chess and try to do anything to detract from it. I do not understand these people. Just by reading their comments on the History page, you can see they are nothing more than unsupported conjecture that has no basis. As one of the Gothic Chess supporters summarized:

You can call a cat a fish, but it will not swim.

That is their case in microcosm: They furnish false statements without any backup. It is as if they are trying to tell Wikipedia Administrators that cats have gills and live in the water.

In closing, InfoCheck violated several Wikipedia policies, and should be dealt with accordingly. The people whose comments on the History page are nothing more than ignoratio elenchi will be easy for the administrators to find. I know you will do the right thing and take the appropriate actions.

I thank you for your time.

Inventor of Gothic Chess, Ed Trice

GothicChessInventor 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. (by the way, I didn't do anything to protect the page, as yout talk page note seems to suggest.) Now that we've got someone claiming to be the inventor, who claims to have a clear view of the situation, I guess the only thing left to do is validate his identity to support his claims, then edit the page accordingly? thoughts? Have I oversimplified? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my position that I was baited into violating the 3-revert rule by a small gang of editors on the Gothic Chess page who were repeatedly throwing-out Optimized Chess which is indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant. These few people are zealots (not merely players) who are extremely prejudicial and unfair to other chess variants. It is significant that in tandem with this malicious action against me, a malicious attempt to have Optimized Chess, despite its established significance, thrown-out of Wikipedia is also underway.

All of these acts are financially-motivated to prevent a free game of excellent quality Optimized Chess from being available to people on Wikipedia who casually look at a commercial product Gothic Chess. This agenda violates the charter of Wikipedia to the extreme. To be sure, you are being lied to on a large scale in every paragraph by the opposition on this issue. You must spend some time and effort to discern exactly how and when.

The bizarre edit history and talk page entries at Gothic Chess and Ed Trice as well as Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess say much more than I can concisely about what honest editors go thru daily in fighting-off the actions of dishonest editors. This is where to begin to investigate in order to discover the truth.

Frankly, I am unconcerned about being blocked for a time if Wikipedia administrators are locked-in by the rules regardless of the circumstances. I did what I had to under difficult, stressful, unjust conditions. However, I am certain that I am normally a responsible, conscientious editor who acts constructively and should not be blocked. My edit history proves that.

--InfoCheck

ThuranX (and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins), please do not make up your mind on this issue based on what is said on this page only. Fully read Talk:Gothic chess starting from, say, the Number of example games section. Then see how User:Oli Filth was attacked using a mediation request which was correctly denied by the medcab people and then rightly deemed as ridiculous and pointless by a neutral third party, User:Boricuaeddie. I know all that is a lot of reading but I find it necessary to understand the extent this edit war has gone to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Please check your facts before making claims such as this. Firstly, I did not deny that request; the people at WP:MEDCAB did. Secondly, I did not attack Oli Filth. In fact, I agreed with him. Thirdly, it was ridiculous. The first party wanted to "ban" the other from editing the article; that's ridiculous. Therefore, creating a request for mediation because of this is pointless. Please assume good faith, man. --Boricuaeddie 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see we have some misunderstandings here. I admit I thought you denied the request, sorry for that. I did not say you attacked Oli Filth (and of course everyone knows you didn't), I just said he was attacked. I'm with you here, I think your judgement that the case was ridiculous is completely right. I also agreed with Oli Filth, I only used your comment to bring up the other point of view to this whole mishmash of an edit war. See, I said that the case was judged as ridiculous by a neutral third party. My point is that if a neutral party judges it as ridiculous, it must be ridiculous. If one of the involved parties would've judged it ridiculous, there would obviously be a conflict of interests and it wouldn't mean much. I've now reworded the message above to avoid any further misunderstandings. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Boricuaeddie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

InfoCheck clouds the issue. The point is, that the chess variant does not belong on the Gothic Chess page. Of the 20 pieces that are not pawns, only 2 are configured identically. The claims being made that is is a "indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant" are absurd. With only a 10% correlation of the pieces matching where they are placed, how can it possibly be related? Despite several authors asking this same question, no satisfactory answer was ever given. There is a reason for this: The games are not related at all.

We have asked the "supporters" of this extremely unusal variant to show us one picture of someone playing the game. None have been provided.

That speaks to the issue. Over 50,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold since the year 2000. There are thousands of archived games on the GothicChess.com website (for example here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php ). There is a free program for downloading at http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip that destroys every other program and player on the planet.

There are photos such as this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/GCACheck.gif

..showing someone being paid $5000 back in the year 2000 for winning a big tournament that was played at the Marshall Chess Club in New York. There are boards and pieces for sale on the website. The inventor went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

In short: Gothic Chess is not just an enterprise, it is a thriving one.

If the game that InfoCheck claims is better than Gothic Chess, how come he can't show one picture of one person playing the game? And, if his game is so much better, why wouldn't the "lowly" Gothic Chess people actively seek to have their game linked to his?

It is plain to see that the reverse is being sought. InfoCheck is desparately trying to attach his game to Gothic Chess and thereby "prove" something. I have no idea what that is. All I know is, that game he is trying to promote is worthless, nobody plays it, there is no dedicated website for it, there are no example games of it, there is just one PDF file where he claims it is the best thing out there.

You have to call it like you see it. That other variant has no followers. Even the game's creator has no photograph of him playing it since he can't get one other person to play it with him!

Compare that to Gothic Chess where they raised $15,000,000 last summer had the interest of Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer to play a match.

I ask you: How can anyone be fooled by the nonsense of InfoCheck ??

ChessHistorian 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian- If you successfully raised $15 million US, then why was the tournament that would have immortalized Gothic Chess cancelled?

Wikipedia administrator(s)- Can you imagine what it is like to deal with this caliber of nonsense upon several Wikipedia pages nonstop?

--InfoCheck

I can answer this question. First off, ChessHistorian is just a newspaper reporter. He had nothing to do with raising any money for the match. He knew nothing about Ed Trice until the game of checker was solved. Secondly, Anatoly Karpov signed the agreement to play as shown here http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg so the match was underway. Thirdly, if you read their blog at http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/ you will have all of your questions answered in time. It was a very long process to get this match put together, over two years. The short answer why it came undone: Fischer wouldn't sign anything, typical Bobby. That's all. Trice and Fischer have had contact since the match fell apart. He was there to wish Fischer a happy 64th birhday for example.

GothicEnthusiast 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicEnthusiast- While The Gothic Chess Federation was trying to make this event materialize, I read information provided by Ed Trice that Susan Polgar was lined-up as an alternate in case either Karpov or Fischer backed-out. So, what happened?

--InfoCheck

You read only what you want to read, that's the problem. Susan Polgar was not the replacement if Fischer did not sign the contract. If Fischer did not sign the contract, there was no match. Susan Polgar was the replacement if Fischer signed the contract, the match was in place, and Fischer never showed up.

GothicEnthusiast 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian, the relationship has been explained to you a few times, the latest time probably being shown in this diff. Of course, you later deleted the explanation, which could be why you have the mental image that no one has explained it to you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation is a mess. There's definitely a highly involved, tighly agreeing group working the gothic chess pages. I'm concerned by things like [[1]] this, where the owner/creator/promoter advocates letting him have more control of the images released about his own prouct. The talk page at gothic chess reads to me as thick with CoI, and not particularly willing to listen to new ideas from outside their group. Are these two ugly cousins closely related enough to be on each other's pages? Sure looks like it to me. SHould they be on each other's pages? either all of the Capablanca chess variants can cross-link freely as appropriate by article, or none of them should, instead referring readers to a list of Capablanca Chess variants. As it is unneccesarily cumbersome to avoid referencing other variants, I'd say let them be discussed freely. That a group works together to block edits ot the page by spreading their reverts around isn't ethical, it's an end run around the 3RR. When the talk page is likewise a bullying ground for a few closely aligned thinkers, it's even tougher. I don't think the 3RR Violation is blockable at this point (preventative, not punative; and editor in discussion regarding issue), I think the editor in violation should've brought the whole mess to one of WIkipedia's resources for assistance before. Probably not AN or AN/I, but maybe help desk or village pump. It's tough to hlp edit when you're hitting serious, and CoI-based, resistance. ThuranX 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I looked at [[2]] and I just don't understand the concern. What was so morally indefensible about that discussion? It's just people chatting about an image of a board. And what is "thick with Col"?? I don't understand this terminology.

By the way, many of the people you say are "unwilling to listen" are more than willing to listen. But there is nothing of substance being offered, and the people to whom this is demonstrated do not furnish backup for the things they're trying to add to the page. For example, that one nuisance who insists on claiming his chess variant belongs there.

Why does it belong?

He claims it is similar to Gothic Chess. He, the person who made it, the person was has a POV.

The following people did not merely say "it should not belong", they offered reasons:

ChessHistorian a reporter for the Baltimore Sun

Andreas Kaufmann a highly skilled variant player from Germany who is 1 of only 4 people to have defeated the game's inventor

GothicEnthusiast myself, a strong Gothic Chess player as you can see from here http://www.gothicchesslive.com/one-players-games.php?id=174 I am just one rung below Bobby Fischer on the site, which you can see sorted by rating here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php

GothicChessInventor who published several important papers in artifical intelligence, helped solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), who invented the game of Gothic Chess, and who understands the game and those that are similar to it more than anybody in the world.

Please note:

All of us agree that Embassy Chess belongs on there, as does Capablanca Random Chess. All of us agree that the other variant DOES NOT belong there, for the numerous reasons cited here and on the Talk page of Gothic Chess.

That other variant is a Capablanca Random Chess variant. It has no bearing, similarity, or likeness to Gothic Chess.

All of the other ranting and raving is moot. It's not the same. It doesn't belong.

Where does it belong? On the Capablanca Random Chess page. It is a CRC variant by the author's own admissions.

Let it stay there, where it belongs.

GothicEnthusiast 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The inventor of the game is advocating that HE be in control of the images used in the article. HE regularly monitors and edits the product for his own page. HE states that HE will take the pictures to be used, and so on. This is a CoI, a Conflict of Interest, in which a person with significant financial and commercial interest in the article is shaping the way it is written, to the level where other people's contributions are being critiqued one by one and reviewed like this is an advertisement. Finally, as described above, There is the Set of Chess. there is subset, chess variants, subset Capablanca Variants, subset Gothic, Subsets Embassy and capablanca Random. As Capablanca random is a subset of Gothic as you describe, and Optimized is a subset of Capablance random, then the subset of optimized Chess is also a subset of gothic. don't see why it wouldn't belong. ThuranX 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Trice is not saying any of those things that you mentioned. You are obviously misreading the thread. He asked people which images they liked. In effect, he called for a vote. When there was an agreement, he said he would put the image up on Wikipedia. Have you ever communicated directly with him? I have. He said he only looks at the page when he gets calls from concerned people or if he is "emailed to death" (his words) by Gothic Chess players who see something awry. Your hierarchy of sets and subsets seems off. It should be something like this

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Chess Inspired Variants (This is Gothic Chess, Capablanca Random Chess, and others)

At which point we have other branches at this level, and also below the level

Chess

All Chess Variants

Gothic Chess

Embassy Chess (Embassy was invented as a means to circumvent the Gothic Chess patent only, so it "springs from" Gothic, even though, otherwise, it would be at the same level if it was invented stand alone)

Another path would be

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Random Chess

Optimized Chess (this descends from CRC and neither Gothic nor Embassy, because Gothic pre-existed Embassy, Optimized Chess is very different from both Gothic and Embassy, and Optimized Chess came after CRC, and one can only say that Optimized Chess looks like an ordinary, random, CRC creation.)

For the above reasons, from a historical perspective (of which I am very aware) the sets you mention are not 100% reflecting the accuracy of the variants' respective chronologies.

ChessHistorian 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the subsets in terms of chronolgies, but nice attempt to recast my commentary. have to be bluntly honest here. This tactic which I've noted in the talk page there, and the AN/I here is to come back with a variant move on any ideas proposed. I address admissions of how the games evolved relative to each other, you reply that my list doesn't go chronologically, which I never implied it had. Not really an endearing behavior, but I've noticed this sort of You're talking about A, so I'll put you on the defensive by interpreting and responding to B.

To all interested parties, a related AfD is found here, regarding the Optimized Chess article, and in the discussions, the future of many, if not all of these minutely differentiated variations on the theme. ThuranX 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX how is it that this statement:

Finally, it is so well designed, it is one of only two Capablanca chess variants that has been awarded with a fault-free rating via the select CRC analysis tool.

Has you completely fooled? The guy who invented the CRC analysis tool nominated his own game for the "fault free" award. Optimized Chess has been nominated for deletion. Nobody plays the game. Not even the guy who invented it. as stated repeatedly, there is not one photograph of one person playing one game of it.

ChessHistorian 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, this condescending 'oh, look at this buffoon who's trying to get involved, yet cannot possibly be smart enough to paly OUR chess much less see that we are clearly so right nad the other so clearly wrong' attitude is getting insulting. I'm reading quite clearly. You don't like him or his game. I get it. IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for much of anything here on Wikipedia. He plays his own game, I've yet to hear or see proof he doesn't, so don't use hyperbole. Second, there's no photo of Bigfoot, yet wikipedia has an article. So, we don't have a picture to go with the article isn't a reason. Ultimately, this comes down to ' I made my game, and Iwill protect my right to advertise it on wikipedia', 'We support his right to protect his advertisement on wikipedia', and 'we all don't want that guy diluting our profit margin by adding HIS info on HIS game to our advertisement on wikipedia.'. I'm really tired of this. It's quite apparent that Ed Trice is protecting his product's article on Wikipedia, to maximize his profit. that's a Conflict of Interest. It's apparent that the chess reporter for the Baltimore Sun is going to stick up for his reporting and subject of his article in a way that's frankly bizarre, and should probably be brought to the attention of his editors. That may well be another COI. So two guys with COI problems against a guy who's also talkin about HIS game. I'm done trying to sort this mess of COI out, let an admin block all of you. ThuranX 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX your reaction is that of someone who lost a debate by a huge margin, then you just attempt a smear campaign. You overlooked something huge. The guy who nominated his own game with 0 followers for the "fault-free" award that he created is enough to embarrass anyone. Trust me, I know why you are ashamed of yourself for supporting the wrong side of the debate. Perception of condescension when there is none is a sign of an insecure person. The people who are posting remarks about the legitmacy of Gothic Chess are giants in the field of artificial intelligence, successful business owners, strong chess players, and computer science wizards. There is only 1 person backing the absurd variant trying to get his little link on the Gothic Chess page, and that is the person who invented it. There are no reasons to have that ridiculous game on the Gothic Chess page. The game isn't even played by anyone, including that game's inventor! You would think if he game is "so worthy" he could at least show someone playing it. Just one person.

The fact that nobody plays Optimized Chess is proof that is was just designed on paper. That game does not exist in the real world.

Look, we're all for it having its own little page somewhere. That's fine. Just don't say it belongs on the Gothic Chess page when that is just an absurd point of view.

I am also surprised that so many of these Wikipedia editors have such thin skins. Someone refutes your arguments, and refutes them thoroughly, and you go sulk, or try and rally support in numbers to oppose the people who are in the know about something. So what if you never wrote a computer program. So what if you never met former World Chess Champions or played games of your own variant with them and are photographed with them and had a multi-million dollar match arranged. When these topics arise, just respectfully acknowledge that maybe the posters who are supplying material to Wikipedia might know a little bit more than you on the subject.

If Wikipedia editing becomes a clique that is politically motivated to retaliate because someone who is more knowledgeable in some area rebukes someone within your circle of friends, it won't last. OK, people should use more moderate tones when offering feedback, but you more experienced writers should no better than to just gang up on these "know-it-alls".

Gothic Chess's page does not suffer from any Conflict of Interest posts. It suffers from detractors posting baiting attacks waiting for the supports to retaliate, then the baiters say "Look what they said, look what they said."

Special interest in the Senate is what killed Rome. Rome was big. Wikipedia is big. How widespread is the special interest? Time will tell.

GothicEnthusiast 05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats - please banhammer

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

Resolved

editor blocked for legal threat

Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has not retracted the threats after being informed (in reply to such threats) in accordance with WP:NLT. See [3]. MER-C 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, that diff was definitely a legal threat. Please feel free to unblock or pursue a different course, I don't want to interfere with any official action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I support keeping this one blocked, all his other edits were disruptive anyway. I have redacted the personal attacks and threats.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandal anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --BOT2008BOT 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has nothing to do with this... please don't crosspost your report into other threads.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef ban evasion?

TheInnocenceProject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strongly appears to be a sock of User:Jacksbernstein, who was indef-banned for legal threats on Richard Rossi, and who made identical edits. THF 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing pattern matches enough for a block. Indef'd. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

I think, there is a problem with cleaning of sourced info and political propaganda from a user "Revisionist"! Jingby 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help and administrative mediation in resolving the problem with vandalism by user Лилјак and some others who are constantly vandalising and spaming all articles related with Macedonia. The article that I wrote National Liberation Front (Macedonia), was moved several times, and Nazi propagandist pictures were being imputed. Also there was constant three-revert rule violation on the article National Liberation Front (Macedonia) by users Jingby and 124.168.106.129. Needed administrative mediation. Revizionist 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you both (mutually) start a case at one of the mediation groups, either Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee. If you're all willing to compromise and work towards making the article neutral, there's a good chance that nobody will have to be blocked for anything and you all end up with an article that is both neutral and informative. That'd be a nice outcome, different from so many cases where someone gets banned from the site forever, don't you think? ~Kylu (u|t) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 (talk · contribs) odd behavior

Since Matt57's participation in Elonka's recent RfA he seems to have become obsessed. First, he added articles about her ancestors to his user page calling it "Articles to clean up for Elonka" [4]. Today he's been going through some of those articles stubbifying them with claims of OR and the inability to verify references that do not host an online copy (newspapers from the 1940's so this is hardly surprising). Despite several other editors trying to reason with him and even cleaning up the articles and providing inline citations for clarity [5] he continued to revert. He's now created the sock User:MiiMiiM to continue reverting, especially since he'd reached 3 reverts on Antoni Dunin. It very telling that this new account responds "I can and I will" to me asking Matt not to remove references just because they don't have an online source (old Detroit News, New York Times etc.) [6].

I've been involved reverting his actions and cleaning up the articles, so I don't want to block him myself. Can someone take a look and help out please? He's feeling that everyone who's tried to talk to him so far is biased, so perhaps an uninvolved party can try reasoning with him before this gets further out of hand? Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped editing at 03:33 today, then MiiMiiM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was born at 03:37 and immediately began editing the same articles. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked two socks and the main account for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a few ofthe articles to before Matt57/MiiMiiM's edits, per multiple editors (across all pages) assertions that citation, not inline citation, nor online citation, is what is needed. since all articles seem mostly sourced, the use of a few cite needed tags is probably what is in order for contested areas, not rampant blankings... ThuranX 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edits of User:MiiMiis suggest that Matt57 may have been set up by one of our resident banned jokesters: this is hardly a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now semi-protected affected articles and unblocked Matt57 until the checkuser comes back. There's a credible claim that Matt didn't create the other accounts.--Chaser - T 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I stand by my reverts though, as they address the underlying problem, that Matt57 seems to be 'after' Elonka, regardless of the actual policies about citation, which will continue to be problematic, regardless of sock activity and frame-ups. that issue should still be resolved. ThuranX 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a growing issue here aside from this sockpuppetry. I would appreciate an uninvolved admin reviewing Matt57's recent behaviour regarding Elonka and articles connected to her. He seems to be alone in the approach he is taking to those articles, and willing to edit war with the numerous editors who have reverted him. In my opinion, at best he's being obstinate and heavy handed, at worse the narrow minded focus on an editor he has been in conflict with is amounting to harassment. WjBscribe 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those "sockpuppets" seem like sure set-ups, but in any case Matt's conduct falls quite soundly into his pattern of wikistalking editors that he has had content disputes with (he stalked me, SlimVirgin, and others). Essentially he has been wikistalking Elonka because she disagreed with including unnecessary (but offensive to some Muslims) pictures of Mohammad in some article. Aggressive opposition at her RfA can be expected, but going on to tear apart articles about her relations and herself is just going way too far. It is hard to assume good faith considering the previous incidents. This is definitely the most severe case of wikistalking I have seen from this editor, and it is quite disappointing that he has done this even after being warned after his past violation [7]. Editors are supposed to cut down on such behavior after receiving a community warning instead of stepping it up a notch. The Behnam 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So... week long block for him to cool off and evaluate if he really wants to continue to work on Wikipedia? If it's so upseetting to him to work with some editors, he needs to figure out his feelings on the project. ThuranX 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate response to an editor who continues such misconduct even after a stern warning. He needs to learn that he must show respect for other editors, even if he disagrees with them, if he wants to volunteer here. I've tried to think of some sort of creative alternative, such as a topical ban on anything Dunin-related, but I fear that would be more of a treatment than a cure. A traditional block seems the best next step towards a cure in this situation. The warning (the first step) was ignored. Anyway, I'll stop here and leave it to the admins to decide what is the best approach. Thanks in advance for any attempts to deal with this problem. Regards, The Behnam 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A week is way to harsh. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is a smart fellow who, I believe, has no intention operating outside of the law, so to speak. As far as I can discern, he believes he is doing the right thing by challenging what he sees as vanity material. Though for my part I assume that Elonka should have made a fine adminstrator (and perhaps will be one not too long from today,) there may be some merit to what Matt57 is doing, even if and though it is socially ill-advised - everyone is feeling bad for Elonka, Matt57 was pretty rough on her during the RfA, and now he's after "her articles"…but then the acceptance of that last connection sort of admits that there might be the very same problem here that Matt57 is perceiving. I suggest instead an RfC or similar mode of discussion on this issue, either of Matt57's behavior, or the Dunin articles, or both.

COI concerns played a significant role in the RfA, and nearly led me to oppose. The problem isn't going away on its own, and, though I see the social problem, I'm tempted to credit him for taking the initiative to bringing it to the fore. Sympathy over a narrowly-failed (and socked to significant effect) RfA isn't a good reason to maintain material in mainspace, actuall, and, given the tone of this thread, I don't think that it can reasonably be denied that this plays a role here. If Matt57 is said to be harassing Elonka, we should be able to show this without reference to the "Elonka articles" [sic.] (though naturally were he adding negative material, this would be a different story, per WP:BLP.)Proabivouac 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admire the impartiality of this analysis, it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor. The answer, I think, was that Matt had been rejecting feedback from a variety of people who were attempting to counsel him. There are better ways to resolve an issue than the methods he tried, and both the timing and specificity suggest he was personalizing a dispute rather than acting upon principle. (Caveats: I conominated Elonka's RFA and disagree with Matt's policy interpretation on Muhammad images). It's also important to bear in mind that one editor's attribution of a set of biographies as the "Elonka articles" doesn't mean she's violating any guideline or policy; she hasn't edited those pages in over a year. I don't think Matt's acting in genuine bad faith, yet one thing that makes this difficult is that an editor who did act in bad faith would choose precisely this strategy to undermine her. She's damned if she does edit, damned if she doesn't, and the community's attention gets focused around the proposal that she's doing something wrong. She can't help that she's descended from European nobility any more than I can change being descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. The latter heritage appears to be an advantage at this site. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"...it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor." No, and I don't find your analysis completely convincing. There seems to be an ironic asymmetry in the assumption of good faith we extend to new and to established users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Proabivouac's take on the situation, but I'd like to point out that Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online. Had he researched the references and removed any unsourced material (even if that material was only sourced to elonka.com), I would be more inclined to support his actions, however, this behavior steps a bit past the bounds of dealing with supposed COI issues. Choosing to edit war with multiple editors on multiple articles even while discussions and cleanup of the articles was ongoing wasn't the best course of action, but if he's agreed to stop the disruption and engage in discussion again, there shouldn't be any reason to punitively block him. Shell ^babelfish 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

"Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online."

I'm not certain which diffs you refer to here, but if he did so, that's pushing it too far: we cite books all the time.Proabivouac 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, if you're talking about this diff, that NYT article 1) is from Elonka.com 2) says nothing whatsoever about Stanley Dunin. Matt57 is right: that's spam.Proabivouac 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across Matt57 quite recently on an unrelated matter. My final conclusion was that he needed to learn how to relate to other people. He gave me orders as to what to AfD, then orders as to what to do with the time I spend online, and folllowed this up by accusing me of lying, quite out of the blue (at which I finally flipped). I was not surprised to see this thread, the message of which seems to be that Matt57 needs to learn the meaning of the word tact. Wikipedia is a project where we simply have to be able to work with each other, at least from time to time. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Probivouac: I had no idea about the RfA stuff till I read through this. I watch AN/I as a nosy non-admin. My biggest concerns with this report were the sock use, which has been resolved, at least as relates to Matt57's actions, though who's trying to 'get' Matt57 needs resolution), and the BLP/citation issue. Matt57's refusal to listen regarding both inline and on-line citation requirements for articles, and that you don't need either, so long as you have good citation is a problem to me. Then, in reading through all this stuff, and seeing that he's established a category of articles to 'get', all of which connect directly to an editor with whom he's got an aze to grind, all looks bad. I have NO clue, nor do I really feel like looking back through archives and histories to figure it all out. All I see is:

There is an editor who maintains a list of articles related to another editor, with whome the first has big problems. He regularly blanks vast portions of the articles on that list claiming they lack citation. His interpretation of lack of citation is a lack of inline citations, and/or an inability to instantly verify citations via internet links.

As such, I see a personal conflict affecting Wikipedia articles. I see blanking vandalism. (Not in the first edit, but in the reversions to blanked versions after he's been counseled.) And I see deliberate ostrich behavior regarding policy (citation). All three are problems which can result in blocks. All three together from an established editor is significantly block-worthy. If a week is too harsh, 72 hours. But to let this pass is farcical. And citing that time has passed while this was debated isn't fair either. I agree that discussion eliminated a major concern, sock puppetry. but the rest is clearly Matt57's own actions, for which he should recieve consequences, and quickly. ThuranX 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, please lay off your stalking allegations off me. If I talk to an editor about something, that doesnt mean I'm stalking them. Elonka's unreferenced articles have been a pain for her as well as for everyone else who sees them as "vanispam". I'm dealing with this now. Whats the big deal? You dont need to jump in at every excuse to try to get me blocked. I havent even talked to you in a long time so I dont know where that came from. Maybe you have me on your watchlist or something. Stop harrassing me now and try to forget about me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you might want to address the other issues raised in this thread.Proabivouac 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok about the Elonka articles? 500 friends of Elonka keep blind reverting me on her family articles, where I put in OR tags, or deleted OR. I contacted Elonka and for a week, she did not respond to my question to her of what she thought about her family articles affair. So I went and started an RfC yesterday. Sounds reasonable, right? She finally responded to something I asked her on her so I'm going to deal with all that. I dont know what big deal is here. People need to stop rushing in to "defend" their friend's family articles. If it was any other article no one would have cared. What Elonka did was a gross violiation of COI and its all still there and probably will remain there and will remain a problem for her. All I'm doing is making sure everything unreferenced goes away. If Antoni Dunin passes the test and remains the same after my investigations, I'll forget about all the other articles. Everything sounds reasonable here. As for my taking out NY Times references, I have never taken out any referenced statements. I've been fair and asked people for 3rd party opinions including the RfC, so I dont know why people are making a big deal out of this. I'm doing my best to be impartial and apply policies fairly, while people on the other hand are being defensive and jumping in to bring back unreferenced text and COI problems - who's wrong me or them? Again, there's no big deal now, inspite of 500 people jumping on me. If Antoni Dunin passes the test, I'll leave the other articles alone. If it doesnt, even then I'll leave the other articles alone, becuase I'll have proven my point that this was stuff that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia and as many people have said, it was all vanispam. If everything comes out referenced and strong in the end, ofcourse I'll accept that it belongs here. And I dont want to go on 20 pages about what I'm doing at Elonka's articles. If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles. Any other issues to respond to? And if all I wanted to do is edit war at Elonka's articles, I would still be doing it. Why am I not, people? Does the fact that I've asked for 3rd party opinions tell you anything? Please, calm down on this Elonka affair now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles."

Good advice. Looking at the relevant talk pages, I see nothing but Matt57 waiting to talk to the rest of the editors in this thread.Proabivouac 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just taken a closer look at Stanley Dunin, I've made a few changes myself. Here are the diffs.[8][9][10]

Also, I've posted on talk, in case anyone would like to respond.[11]

Several cites which mention Stanley Dunin not at all, another praiseful article which is about Elonka Dunin, mentioning Stanley only in passing…Proabivouac 04:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro's edits better demonstrate how Matt57 could have handled this situation; removing truly dubious sources, noting it on talk, and then waiting, instead of rampant blanking. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RfCU

Note: Cheszmastre (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who created Matt57's sockpuppet page, is likely a sockpuppet of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre is clearly His excellency. I have indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom harrison. Meanwhile, the checkuser is back: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matt57Proabivouac 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad that part's settled. Now about Matt 57's own questionable actions and edits? ThuranX 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, that banned trolls are successfully tricking us into blocking established editors is hardly a trivial matter; indeed, if the first post herein is any guide, that is why this thread was opened to begin with.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from Chezmastre confirmed to be from banned User:Kirbytime. As the other socks are CU-confirmed as His excellency, and Chezmastre's edit pattern is obviously reminiscent of His excellency, I'm not certain if this means that CM was Kirbytime the whole time impersonating His excellency, or if His excellency handed him the account mid-stream (why not, it's blocked?) Either way, we are looking at a coordinated attack on Matt57 from two banned trolls.Proabivouac 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I wasn't being dismissive of the frameing up of Matt57 by two banned users; I meant hat since this AN/I report dealt with two allegations: the overreaction to the Dunin articles, and their connection to Elonka, and the possible use of Socks to support such edits, and since one hd been proven to NOT be Matt57, we should now focus here on that part which applied to Matt57, as other processes were now dealing with the other part. having proved it's not Matt57's own actions, we'd divorced the socks from the tendetious, and I wanted to focus on the tendentious. I had little doubt that the RFCU would be followed up by appropriate blocks and that a note of the attacks on Matt57 would be noted. AN/I's thorough in that way most of the time. that's all I meant by that, not that I thought that problem was neglible, but that I thought it was being handled, and we should turn our focus to the other part which DID relate to Matt57. that's all. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole report is bogus because its crux lies on actions of sockpuppets which people thought were mine. Forget this incident and move on. I expect you to use talk at Antoni Dunin if you have any problems on that article about anything I did there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) NO it's not. There were two issues here.

1. Your edits against Elonka's relatives' articles, as evidenced by that list on your user page and your edit history.
2. The edits of what was believed to be your sockpuppet.

The second has been resolved, the first has not. ThuranX 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here. It is possible that this discussion will lead to an RfC. Currently, there does appear to be any situation which requires the attention of administrator.Proabivouac 04:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I've responded to the Elonka articles issue. If you have further problems, use my talk section. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I will NOT whitewash this off the AN/I. There are charges against you, and you haven't responded to them. You said 'I didn't do anything wrong, no one responded to my talk page', that's no response. You didn't start that until you knew you were in trouble. Your blatant vendetta blanking against her has managed to go unpunished, so it's clear you've gotten away with it. I have ZERO doubt that you'll start blanking her again, and point to this toothless unresolved AN/I as 'proof' that no one found wrongdoing. I did, but I'm not an Admin, or you'd have been blocked for quite some time for this. As to your ONLY comment on the matter above, I don't KNOW elonka, I'm NOT one of her 'friends', I'm just objecting to the wholesale blanking of articles to get even with her. At least one comment in this section will demonstrate that the core issue, your blanking, was unresolved. I find your canvassing to get this moved OFF AN/I to be of questionable ethics. You don't get to choose where actions against you are resolved. ThuranX 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and most of all, AGF. "blanking vendetta"? That was removal of unreferenced OR. If you have any concerns with any specific blanking I did, then use the talk pages of the articles. You're saying that I'm "canvassing" by telling people to use my talk page? Thats funny. Anyway, I'll be dealing with Antoni Dunin as my first article so if you're interested to know what I'm doing there, please keep watching that page, and I welcome your comments if you think I did anything wrong. Do see the talk page of that article and if you know of any reliable sources for Antoni Dunin than the other two we have there, please add them to the article and bring it up on talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In reality, Matt hasn't done anything wrong here, besides trying to pressure Elonka on her own talk page regarding these articles. His choice to edit those articles, so long as he does so within policy, is his right as a Wikipedian. As long as he leaves Elonka alone about it, there should be no issue. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And removing large chunks of OR from these articles is something even Jimbo Wales has had to do. [12]. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Continous anti-german POV pushing by Rex Germanus

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[13], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[14], adding a bias to existing article [15] [16], moving articles with german words without comment [17], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was going to just warn him (her), but he's got a block log as long as my arm for past similar offenses. A month's R&R for now but looks like he's barreling headlong toward an indefblock. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for a whole month with as rationale "persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc" seems however a bit too harsh for this incident, the more so as the block reason (persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc) does not match the notice (anti German pov pushing) Arnoutf 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth coming from an anon, I revoke my call for a shorter sentence, seeing the way he doesn't learn from anything and keeps being uncivil. Also, the probation thing. 82.157.149.162 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Arnout.

• Jumping from an intended warning to a 1 month block because previous blocks exist seems indeed to be a weird leap.
• An R&R block (Rest and Recuperation I presume) is certainly not going to be used as such by this user (see his sandbox article while previously blocked).

Let me clarify that by "R&R" I meant giving everyone else a rest from his behavior. Apologies for the unclear wording. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually looking at the difs provided by the IP, though the edit summaries are far from tactful, I don’t see blockable issues with the edits themselves at all. --Van helsing 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

• Why wasn’t Rex notified of this ANI post, or invited to comment on it?
• See defense by Rex on his talk page
• What happened to the "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"? Despite Rex’s history, if 84.145.203.241 has an issue with another user, why wasn’t (s)he advised to follow the WP:DR steps first, for instance: talk with the user, which I can’t see ever happened. --Van helsing 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is on parole and probation following an Arbitration case. He has 'already been through the full dispute resolution process. This noticeboard or WP:AE are appropriate places to ask that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced. Thatcher131 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be a bit confused here, but I probably have missed where 84.145.203.241 has asked "that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced". I’m particularly missing any reference in 84.145.203.241’s complain that has anything to do with the remedies devised for Rex, things like one revert per page per week or edit warring. As far as I can tell 84.145.203.241 states his/her opinion that Rex has a POV problem, which if true, is certainly unfortunate but not addressed in the arbitration case remedies, or requiring a block.

I also think it is an unwise idea to skip the steps of the dispute resolution process because one of the parties already went through it once. Especially when that party is actually the initiator of going through that process, and the new other party is an "unknown history" dynamic IP, unrelated to the original dispute. Not advising the IP to use WP:DR, but instead advising Rex then again to go through RFC or third opinion when he feels provoked, seems... odd.

Retroactively finding a new potential breach of Rex’ parole to validate the block; not related to, but initiated by the post of 84.145.203.241, doesn’t seem to address 84.145.203.241’s issue above. A "didn’t-he-do-something-wrong-anyway" edit history search, finding a new breach that actually doesn’t seem to be one, is going to irritate Rex. Helped of course by his "fans", Rex uses the unblock tag too often, upon which his talkpage is protected as well; his question unanswered.

Though I feel often uncomfortable with Rex’ edits, I feel uncomfortable with this block as well. I know Rex has a lot of blocks, I also know Rex is a knowledgeable encyclopedic writer, more often right than wrong, and I fear the actions of his "opponents" have insufficiently been taken into account when Rex collected those blocks. --Van helsing 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is already on probation and parole for one year

As some people who do not know his history seem to believe that Rex is an "innocent newcomer" or similar, I have to point out once again that according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz, Rex was placed on Probation and on revert parole for one year last November. According to "After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year", he should not be blocked for only a month, as he has been blocked 6 times since been put on probation/parole.

Since June, Rex was reported several times at ANI by several users. He got away several times, like at Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot, Rex Germanus, and Rex Germanus. In Rex Germanus user page he finally got blocked for two weeks in July. Among the first things he did after his return was stalking me [18], a habit he continued [19]. Rex Germanus' anti-German stance shows in many instances, e.g. when removing [20] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't specifically endorse blocks for "POV pushing", however, Rex has violated his 1 revert per week parole on at least two articles (moving Ethnic Germans to German Diaspora and on Dutch (ethnic group). A month block is appropriate per the previous record of blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Thatcher131 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think most of his blocks were deserved but this one seems a bit over the top. Also note that between March and the July block (which was also on a relatively minor issue compared to some of his previous blocks) he has been editing without problems. While the parole allows for a full month block, I wonder whether the punishment is not unreasonably harsh for a relaively minor breach of conduct (see reported case above), even for someone with Rex history. Arnoutf 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 3 articles he has been editing within the last two weeks and found violations of his revert parole on two of the three. If he feels he is being provoked he should attempt to address content disputes through RFC, third opinion, or by contacting the various Wikiprojects that have tagged these articles. (Frankly, if the Wikiprojects do not exist to provide expert and experienced help and guidance on the articles within their claimed "sphere", then what the heck are they good for, but that's a side issue.) A minimum of two weeks is called for as Rex has repeatedly shown that he does not or can not work collaboratively. (And that does not even address the "fuhrer" comment.) Thatcher131 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for the block was along the lines of Thatcher131. In addition to the incivility and the "fuhrer" edit summary, Rex had deleted plainly factual material from articles, such as statements that certain languages were Germanic. I'm not sure whether that's called borderline vandalism or hyperaggressive POV-pushing; either way, it's destructive to the articles and to goodwill between editors. His history shows he is unwilling or unable to modify this behavior despite blocks and parole. I'll agree to reduction of the block if that's community consensus. But how long are we willing to tolerate this behavior and the poisonous atmosphere it creates before we say "enough"? Raymond Arritt 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the use Germanic can have nasty Nazi ideological connotation in any but old history and linguistic situations. But your answer is for the rest fair enough. Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say "enough", and I'm sure there are many others who would agree. I've got the impression some already have left Wikipedia, or (try to) stay away from articles "owned" by Rex. See User:Ulritz or User:Kingjeff, or the IP accused by Rex in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. I've repeatedly paused to edit, or tried to ignore Rex's edits on my watchlist, but he follows me around, even to Piotrus' RfA. User:Molobo has been blocked for a year, how many lives and second chances does Rex get? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another case of incivility: [21] , and more in the history of that page, against kingjeff. 82.157.149.162 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Kingjeff and (especially) Ulritz have been reprimanded for luring Rex into edit warring (in the Ulritz - Rex case arbcom put slightly more of the blame to Ulritz, and recent edits of Kingjeff on Rex talk page are pretty unfair). Please do not use these editors as facts in a case against Rex. He makes enemies I grant you (Matthead probably being one of them), but it takes two sides to engage in a conflict. I have had my problems with Rex but not more than with some other editors; remaining civil and consistently discussing actions has solved these (although with a lot of effort). Rex behaviour is at its worst when other editors respond in kind to his actions sending page into a spiralling edit war; but even then it takes two to Tango. Many of the sentiments aired here (not by the blocking admins btw) seem to be those of Rex old enemies, kicking while down (also the reason why I defend him here, to prevent an unchallenged view of his enemies going on record). Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick comment, since I am somewhat of a party in this. Although I obviously do not always agree with Rex Germanus' statements, the kinds of sources he uses, or the way he uses them, I don't feel he has trespassed the revert parole in Dutch (ethnic group) as far as my contributions are concerned. I consider those edits adjustments rather than wholesale reverts, and I agree with his explanation in the second unblock request on his talk page. Iblardi 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reduction

Following the discussion here, as suggested by User:Thatcher131 I'm agreeable to reducing the block to two weeks. If no one objects, I'll do that soon (or if another admin wants to do it, I won't object). Raymond Arritt 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be commendable. --Van helsing 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As the person who reported Rex Germanus here in the first place (and not the same person who Rex accused of "revenge reporting", feel free to checkuser me) I neither will object to the reduction. Still, Rex has both a civility and good faith issue. Also knowing (and displaying) one's bias is not a permission to indulge it - Wikipedia should be neutral and consciously allowing one's bias to color one's edits (be it by rephrasing things to "paint" them in a much lighter or darker way, or any other way) is exactly what creates a venomous climate; I hope that Rex will see this as an opportunity to change his editing style - if not I can only see mediation as the next step. 84.145.247.69 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I was trying to explain to User:Digwuren that it is uncivil to revert good faith edits of established user's with the edit summaries like that or that or to remove sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda". I guess I failed. Since I have a few editorial conflicts with the user he might assume bad faith from my part.

It also seem to be a recurring problem. Recently he was blocked for a week for incivility then unblocked with the summary having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust. I do not see much of a participation in the RfC mentioned, but see other admins complaining about false vandal accusations as well as him been just under the 3RR limit on a number of articles. Can some neutral admin do something about him? Alex Bakharev 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I request that any admin evaluating this, would take a deep hard look into matters before deciding. Alex is rather biased in this matter...--Alexia Death 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex is not truthful either, claiming Digwuren was blocked for one week for "incivility", he has never been blocked for incivility as the block log indicates:[22]. Martintg 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for "tendentious editing and edit warring" which for all intents and purposes is the same thing in the context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The task is hopeless. Only the community block will solve the problem. Especially as there are scores of meatpuppets ("Tartu University accounts") who support Digwuren's tendentious activities and effectively encourage his disruptive behaviour in the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second an opinion about hopelessness of the task but, being relatively newbie to wikipedia, am not sure what community block means. From technical viewpoint, I (very weakly)support an idea that any edit from Tartu Uni IP address (or even from any user who ever used Tartu Uni's IP) must be scrutinized closely, as this group has well proven track of disruptive behaviour. But I don't put much faith in the technical measures here. Group's insistence on presenting any Estonia-related viewpoint only through eyes of Estonian commentators (as in [23] and [24] and [25]) speaks for it's organic inability to grasp the very concept of difference in opinions. And I believe that student (or former student) of Tartu University can google "proxy server"RJ CG 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Alex's request, this user is constantly disrupting a whole segment of WP. I suggest some uninvolved admins look into this matter closer. Besides, Deskana unblocked him only "to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY." and adding that one should "reblock if user abuses this trust" (see unblock summary). I believe it is the case here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That condition of the block expired along with the initial block that was for two weeks, leaving one week under this condition. Digwuren may be a bit strong at times but so are the opponents. The admin ruling on this better be neutral...--Alexia Death 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Opponents?" Gee whiz, but I thought we were all fellow editors. If you come here to fight your opponents, then you're coming here for the wrong reason. Uninvolved admins have investigated, and they blocked. This is a repeat of previous bad behavior. Geogre 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, three uninvolved administrators have blocked this account in the past, and all three did so for the same issues: such zeal to a particularly contentious and controversial point of view that it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Given the number of people blocking, this may be best handled at Community Blocks than AN/I. It would be good, though, to hear from Deskana and FassalF. Geogre 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must note that Alex's report is a bit exaggerated. I don't see clear signs of incivility but instead i do see that those edits summaries as signs of non-stop disruptive editing. It seems that Digwuren hasn't learned anything from previous blocks.

I must also note that during his block period back on July, my connected laptop faced intrusion attempts from Tallinn (i'm keeping more details to myself). If any admin (preferably an uninvolved admin) would like to see this evidence s/he'd just drop me an email. Note also that i haven't even intended to talk about this incident as i considered it part of "Digwuren being mad about being blocked" but now i see that Digwuren is still using questionable tactics to deal w/ situations here.

Alexia! Opponents? No, please have a look at WP:BATTLE. Digwuren, you stop that behavior of calling others vandals immediately or you'll find yourself on the bench again. I am afraid this time it would be hard to swallow. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of some estonian trying to hack you for the block are very strong and shouldn't be thrown around so easily. Suva 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IF your'e having a dispute with someone, that someone is your OPPONENT. Whats wrong with that? In every debate there are opponents. I don't understand what it has to do with WP:BATTLE.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you about the exact location of the intruder? No, i am sorry. I told you above that any admin is free to pursue this and verify it. I've got all the supported material. I've also told you that i had no intention to talk about this. So what do you mean by so easily? Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I want to know the exact location of intruder. AFAIK most other editors except me are located in Tartu, and I don't remember trying to intrude anyones laptop at that period of time. Also, this kind of accusation would leave pretty bad mark on someones reputation. And I don't want my and other honest editors reputation to be touched for something we haven't done. Suva 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you an admin? If yes, have you sent me a request via email? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. And, as for what Ghirla so endearingly calls us "Tartu University accounts" (always failing to give any proof whatsoever... but that is his tactic to make others look bad, I guess), I think I am the only user out of those who has a Tallinn IP occasionally.

As for Digwuren, considering what he has been forced to go though by these single-purpose POV-pushers... you really cannot condemn him. Sure, his edit summaries could be much more civil - that has been told to him repeatedly. I recommend an admin to make a clear warning about those - and then follow his edit summaries for a month, blocking or warning him as needed. Other then that, I see no difference in comparison with RJ CG behavior - except that Digwuren is not blindly pushing his personal POV, but attempts to show facts/arguments from both sides. Sander Säde 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, as none of us is an admin, it would be impossible for us to know your IP. I've told you above that i've got all the supported material. I am telling you again that these are secondary things to me. What i believe is that repetitive and disruptive editing means a block. Are you willing to go further? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawwn... Should I respond with accusation of POV-pushing too? Probably I should, at least in order to prevent any future occurence of banning on the grounds so unique and laughable some completely unrelated wikipedian ridiculed them on my talk page [26]? But this is so booring, to go through the same song in the millionth time. Instead I'll try once more to summarize my view on a possible resolution of this mess. Let's agree that we all have our POVs and we're not in a totalitarian country, where having a POV is a crime. Let's also agree that my POV may be different from yours, which is OK. I also understand that such topic as Estonia's role in WWII (fight for independence, unlike in let's say, Poland, was so interwoven with collaboration that same event can be viewed as either freedom fighting or quislingism, so to speak) is controversial by it's nature. Therefore I propose to let both POVs co-exist in an article. For example, Estonians want to commemorate Erna? Fine. But let's add the Russian position here without pro-Estonian edits. If the Russian arguments are laughable and controversy artificial, it will be evident. If they have merits, they will be assessed as such. But it is up to reader to decide. Wikipedia is neither Russian nor Estonian propaganda tool. I believe this approach (imperfectly) works for articles dealing with a Middle Eastern conflict, why shouldn't it here.RJ CG 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the recent appearance of Ptrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an SPA solely devoted to support Digwuren in edit wars. --Irpen 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Do I understand correctly that I have somehow stepped over a certain invisible border, questioning some topics or edits from people, which or who are obviously not to be questioned? My apologies for my appearance (like I see, that is considered really bad) and having opinions that are considered not acceptable. Thank you. Ptrt 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to your edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptrt]. 1st hit [27] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 2nd hit [28] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 3rd and 4th [29] hits - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. 5th and 6th hits [30] - to protect Digwuren in an edit dispute. All edits are reverts of my edits. Then one unrelated edit, bunch of reverts to protect Digwuren in an edit disputes and flurry of activity here. Grand total of not acting as stalker of yours truly and Digwuren's supporter - one. Don't you see a trend yourself? RJ CG 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing here, I'd still would like at least one of the accusers be bold enough and state clearly, what have I done wrong? Disagreeing with their views (what coincidentally did look like supporting their arch-enemy, the dreaded Digwuren)? I was thinking that Wikipedia was more about content then social network, so I have not thought very much about supporting (or confronting) of other users, it's more about their edits and content they create.
Irpen, I presume that you would like to include also me in your RfAr (as my name appears there) - but then I have to politely ask you to change the name of your case to reflect more that it's really about. This could be disappointment for you, but I'm not from Tartu, I'm never studied at Tartu University, I have never belonged to any Korp! and (last but not least) have never met nor communicated otherwise with users who seem to share these constant accusations (what is interesting: always from one certain group of users, with strikingly similar thinking and world view), almost always for "not writing like we'd like it" (sorry, but that's the only common enough reason I could find). Ptrt 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And the immediate appearance of this "new" account here should be noted too. --Irpen 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake that before starting active participation, I took some time to discover where different topics are discussed. And I'm really sorry about having found this handy watchlist thing, I now see that using something like that is also considered bad. I'll try to avoid anything like this in future. Ptrt 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (section break)

Case submitted to ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts. --Irpen 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, but I'm afraid that it's going to be low yield. The Community board may still be the best venue, given how every single person who looks seems to get sprayed with a face full of venom. Geogre 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think not. Digwuren has been a very productive editor with over 3000 edits to main space. This is in essence a dispute over the interpretation of Soviet history, related to this case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop to some degree. It is unfortunate that Alex Bakharev, someone from a Soviet background, does not see this and tries to undercut the proper dispute resolution processes to ban another editor with a similar Soviet background because their views on Soviet history differ. There has to be some attempt at mediation, and if not successful, then atleast a RFC/U first. Martintg 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation may work well for content disputes but this case is none of that no matter how hard you try to frame it as such. My statement does not say a word about content issues. It concentrates on Digwuren's disruptive conduct only. Mind boggling edit warring, attacking his opponents, accusing them of vandalism, and everything else I wrote there is unacceptable whether it is accompanied by the POV-pushing for the the theory of Global Warming, Environmental protection, World Peace, Flat Earth theory, Soviet occupation theory or Soviet occupation denialism.

Whether it is OK to run revert wars, call everyone who disagree with you a vandal, harass other editors, etc., is non-negotiable and not subject to mediation. --Irpen 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same issues were raised in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn, yet it was disqualified due to a lack of an attempt at mediation. I see no difference here. Either you or Alex Bakharev should have raised a case for mediation and dealt with these issues in an open and honest way. Martintg 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is the process aimed at finding a mutually acceptable compromise. Where is the compromise in an issue of edit warring in a bunch of articles all at once? And I am not talking about content. I am talking about edit wars. Where is the compromise between whether calling opponents vandals is allowed or not. Or between harassment and carrying a dialog like decent humans beings?

Digwuren has received a very strong message no more than 3 weeks ago about the community's stand on these issues in the form of a week-long community block. Judging from him returning to even more disruptive behavior in no time, he got none of it. I am always willing to look for a middle ground in content disputes. But I am not going to look for a middle ground on issues clearly spelled out in policies and guidelines as overall disruption.

I had no content dispute with Digwuren since I withdrew completely from all Estonia related topics in May and my attention was drawn back to this editor exclusively by encountering him as he expanded the scope of his revert-warring outside of the narrower scope of Estonia-related articles. If ArbCom says that I am at fault for not being "flexible enough", so be it. --Irpen 06:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no community block, just the unilateral action of one admin. It take two to edit war, and in the situation leading to Digwuren's 1 week block, your compatriot Mikkalai started the edit warring by blanking content on an Estonia related article while Digwuren merely attempted to restore content. Who is right? It is still content related and subject to mediation. The blocking admin himself was reported to this board by another uninvolved editor who thought the action a case of admin abuse. There are two sides in every story.

As I said, all the things which you take issue with: edit warring, name calling, etc, were detailed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn, yet it was rejected due to a lack of mediation. Do you think being called a vandal is worse than being called a Nazi? Yet that is the language Petri Krohn used. Where is his community block? Or is it the case that when your allies behave in a certain way, mediation is in order, but when your opponents act the same way, then community blocks are in order?

And if you say your "attention was drawn back to this editor exclusively", why did you also list the so-called "Tartu based accounts" in the RfA? Martintg 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unilateral action of one admin" becomes a community block when no other admin is willing to undo it. This is exactly what Digwuren got. The accusation of "admin abuse" was discussed already. You are free to start an admin abuse RfC against FayssalF or take him straight to ArbCom with this. I wish you luck in this endeavor.

You can't find an excuse for Digwuren's behavior by repeating Petri's name even 100 more times. I interacted very little with Petri and Digwuren and I am not interested in who is "worse." I saw Digwuren's behavior clearly amounting to an ArbCom. If you think Petri's has been even worse, fine, ArbCom will see to it. Try writing a statement in this regard.

I have no clue about the rest of your speculations about my "allies", "opponents", "Mikkalai", etc. If you see some conspiracy here, try to convince the arbcom of it. This board is not the place for such theories. --Irpen 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Any ArbCom requires that the RFC process will be followed first. Since you also included the nebulous "Tartu based accounts", ArbCom expects evidence of some kind of mediation process when a group is involved. I don't see evidence of either. You have been around long enough to know this, why are you wasting our time rather than attempting a genuine despute resolution process? Martintg 09:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the ArbCom doesn't require any "RFC process". They like having a preparatory RFC, especially if evidence is otherwise scanty (not the case here). Sometimes. Sometimes they don't care. Martintg, please avoid making cocksure claims about stuff you're not familiar with, as they may mislead people. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure ArbCom can decide almost anything, but I am also sure that ArbCom doesn't want to be flooded with endless ill-considered, malformed or immature requests either, that's why we have a dispute resolution process. Arbitration is the last resort, that is official policy. See WP:DR#Last_resort:_Arbitration. I don't see any legitimate attempt at prior dispute resolution here. Martintg 11:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt at mediation. 1. Contact user. 2. Contact uninvolved readers. 3. Report and ask for intervention. If all of that fails, go to RFC, if it looks like a content dispute, or to RFAR if it looks like irremediable behavior. It looks like this is #3. No doubt there is a content dispute, a hydra-headed one, but it is equally without a doubt that this is a report and attempt at resolution of editing behavior, not point of view or article fixing. Further, this argument is exhibiting some of the very same bad behavior -- tarring editors like Alex, trying to elevate "civility" to the level of golden rule on one side only ("rv vandalism" isn't an insult?), and all the rest. Myself, I think the behaviors are so unlikely to be dealt with via arbitration, due to the sliding IP's and block evasions of a group of editors, that I think the ban board is better. Irpen and others believe that arbitration is better. It's not just a content dispute. (For one thing, I care nothing about the content in question, and I can see the blanking, reverting, and edit warring. If you do care about the content and can't see those things, then perhaps you're too close to see clearly.) Geogre 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not mediation at all. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Mediation. You are also incorrect on #3, it's not RFC for content and RFAR for behaviour, it's RFC for content or RFC/U for behaviour, then RFAR if required. Where is the RFC/U? Where is the genuine effort at mediation before the RFC/U?Bishonen to her credit so passionately argued in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn#.22Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.22 that there should be mediation first. Why is there no similar allowance in the case of Digwuren? I'm not "tarring" anyone, these are legitimate questions. Let me remind you it was Bishonen who raised the issue of Petri Krohn's RFC/U as a substitute, so it is legitimate to compare Petri Krohn's and Digwuren's alleged wrong doings and compare the response of the actors involved. Alex Bakharev also participated in that RFC/U and also edits Estonia related pages so he not unfamiliar to the issues. So it is right to compare his responses in both cases. Sure, many find writing "rv vandalism" in an edit comment uncivil, however Petri Krohn went far beyond that and vilified ethnic Estonians in general over many, many occasions. The evidence is in the RFC/U. Where was his outrage and report to the notice board while Estonian editors where enduring Petri's vilification and disruptive editing to the point that thay were forced to submit an RFC/U subsequently quashed due to a lack of mediation. This is a content issue, at the heart of it is the differing interpretation of Soviet history by Russophone editors on one side and other east european editors on the other side. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop for a view of the scale of the issue. So for uninvolved editors to wade in with recommendations of short circuiting the dispute resolution process by advocating going to the ban board because arbitration is, in your words "low yeild", is wholly unconstructive. Given the emotive interpretations of Soviet history, Digwuren should be given the same leeway as Petri Krohn has evidently been given. Real genuine mediation and dispute resolution is the answer. Martintg 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Sicily

After I made some good faith restoration of deleted info on the page, I removed a section that violated copyright from http://www.bestofsicily.com/food.htm [31] and http://www.bestofsicily.com/wine.htm [32]. After which, Scipio3000 reverted, in spite of this promise he made during a previous incident [33]. He also left this response on my talk page [34]. Edward321 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and the response on his ttalk page was asking him to discuss our problems like others have told me to do, because this is the 3rd time I have had a problem with him..thats all I did I asked him to work on this together and come to a resolution he refuses to do so and instead goes out of his way to undo all my work or find the tiniest fault with what I am doing and reports me, he is constantly harrassing me! Please help me!(Scipio3000 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

NOT true, me and 2 others of Sicilian descent approved these changes we have been working on this all night and I did not get to that citation yet! I added over 10 pics and 5 new sections on the Sicily page yesterday alone. I needed a break and fell asleep before I got to do it last night, I was going to do it today, but he has vandalised the page so bad, sections are gone and others are merged, IT IS A MESS..After all this work! And he never consulted any of us. Please check the cuisine section and you will see the damage he has done! Edward321 has relentlessy attacked me constantly he thwarts everything I am trying to do..I reported him on Sunday for erasing only the sentence I worked on in the "Italian People" page, he deleted my exact line and only my line. He has no knowledge on Sicilain history nor is he sicilian, he never made any contributions to the Italian or Sicilian page before this and now the only thing he deletes is what I am doing! The page is now so messed up after what he did that the whole sport section is gone and two of the sub-sections on the cuisine are gone along with the mafia heading which now merges with my cuisine section...I spent HOURS doing this last night and had approval from 2 other Sicilians working on this. I have tried on 3 occasions to contact Edward321 and resolve our difference he refuses! I got blocked for doing at lot less than that please check the page it is now a mess!!(Scipio3000 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Do not copy text from other websites unless these other websites clearly say their text was in the public domain, or licensed under the GFDL. You are violating the copyright of www.bestofsicily.com. Adding the site as a source doesn't help much; you're copying way too much to claim "fair use" as a short quotation, and the context doesn't call for such quoting anyway. What you are doing is not acceptable at Wikipedia.

By all means, add a section on Sicilian cuisine, but use your own words. The adspeek you copied from that website isn't encyclopedic anyway. Lupo 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have attempted to explain the copyright issue to Scipio and I have explained that he must be more civil and not attack those who disagree with him. The edits can be changed to avoid copyvios but it could still be reverted if consensus agrees. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Scipio3000 for 72 hours for this diff] where he referred to an editor as a "White boy." I believe you will see in the context that this is an unacceptable racial swipe. I would encourage others to take a careful look at Scipio's user contributions and see all of the issues he has created. I have attempted to encourage better conduct but have obviously failed. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats on his talk page

He has now implied he's seeking legal action ([35], [36]), as ridiculous as that may sound. Someone please block indef until he retracts.--Atlan (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not wish to retract, by the way ([37]).--Atlan (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He only adds more and more legal nonsense on his talk page. Add to the that soapboxing about how he's blocked because of anti-Italian sentiments on Wikipedia warrants a talk page protect if you ask me, lest all these editors keep wasting their time there. It's getting out of hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 has also been editing my talk page as User:72.23.157.21. Mathsci 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction he put his remarks on my USER PAGE. No comment. Mathsci 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to protect the page until I saw this joyful comment. I've now fully protected the page for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully this is enough time for Scipio3000 to calm down. - auburnpilot talk

After speaking with Scipio3000 via email, I have removed the protection from his talk page. He has assured me he intends to retract any legal threats, but I am going to be away from the computer. If a retraction is made, feel free to reduce the current indef block to the original block by JodyB (talk · contribs) without contacting me. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So then this edit was a lie? Corvus cornix 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of users who threaten legal action do not actually intend to do so. I'd also wager the majority of those who make such statements sincerely never follow through. Lie? Maybe. An insincere burst of frustration? More than likely. - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He said that he was already in contact with legal counsel. Corvus cornix 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit and the note AuburnPilot just left here, I have taken the liberty to reduce the block back to JodyB's 72 hour one.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and RFCU

I've been on an extended wikibreak, since approximately the 17th of last month, and I returned to discover that I had been blocked for a week during that time, ostensibly for violating 3RR on a living person's article. After some discussion at AN/I, in which I did not participate, and of which I was unaware, that block was reduced, but not eliminated[38]. On returning I approached the admin who blocked me and asked him to clarify his reasons, while pointing out that the block was unjustified[39], as it was based on the assumption that anyone from all IPs in Harvard and Cambridge/Somerville editing an article about a prominent Harvard professor would have to be me, and, indeed, was pointless as I have been editing from New York for months. Meanwhile an RFCU was declined without giving a reason, and it seems I can't ask for it to be reopened. Basically, this means I was blocked for no reason, two weeks into a wikibreak, and I am denied a method of demonstrating that it was pointless, inaccurate and unfair. I'd just like to know if there's anything that can be done under these circumstances; I'd like to have something to point to indicating I did not abuse the system, given that block logs don't go away. This was my first block - indeed the first allegation that I violated policy of this magnitude - in my many years of editing the encyclopaedia, and I can imagine that it was no coincidence that it took place a few weeks into my vacation. Hornplease 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation certainly warrants discussion, but you should advise the administrators who were involved in the block of this thread, so that they can respond here. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I should have. Have done so now. Hornplease 03:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, you have to just move on. This is an adminstrator's board and you will likely find little support or sympathy about your block, whether it was justified or not. Even if administrator abuse is real (and I'm not saying it is abuse in your case), nothing will be done about it. In fact, it is dangerous to even comment on it because people are likely to attack me just for saying this. Keep editing. Look forward, not back. There are plenty of articles that need improvement. Stay away from bad tempered people, particularly if they are administrators, and you will do fine. Don't get hung up on freedom on speech because you can be right and still raise the wrath of angry admins. History, music, arts, entertainment, geography, science, games, etc. There are so many topics to write about and still stay away from controversy. Good luck!

Isn't this topic ready for the "resolved" tag! Specialjane 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Err? A little difficult to move on, perhaps, given that I haven't actually discussed it properly yet. Thank you, however, for taking the trouble to give the advice, (especially since I assume it required you to set up a new account!). Hornplease 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As Hornplease suggests, Specialjane's contribution above is her first non-userpage edit ever. Newyorkbrad 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the earlier discussion about this, User:Blnguyen's block of Hornplease was done without sufficient evidence, and was unjustified. Unfortunately, Hornplease edits in an area of Wikipedia that is fraught with conflict and infested by sockpuppets (one example in this very thread); I have no doubt that this block is going to be used against him in partisan warfare. It would be nice if Blnguyen would comment, but if he doesn't, I would simply point at this discussion and the previous one as evidence that Hornplease should never have been blocked, as there's no evidence that he violated 3RR on Michael E. J. Witzel or anywhere else; in fact, as I've already said, Hornplease should be praised for his efforts to keep this BLP from turning into a smear piece. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that:

1. Hornplease was blocked without any evidence, by Blgnuyen.
2. During the RFArb on Hkelkar2, allegations had been placed about Blnguyen's conflict of interest, and his forgiving attitude towards the accused party of the RFArb.
3. Yet, Hornplease was blocked. What does it have to do with Hkelkar? Well, Blnguyen has totally ignored to block the WP:BLP violating users on the Witzel page, some of whom were later found to be sockpuppets of banned user HKelkar.

Under these circumstances, Blnguyen's admin actions on Hornplease are totally inappropriate. In particular, Blnguyen should refrain from taking admin actions in such edit disputes, where he has been accused of favoring one side. Also, supporting sockpuppets in continuing BLP violation is very bad. Admins should be neutral. Yes, admins can and will have opinions supporting a POV, but in such cases, admin actions should never be taken to support any POV. --Ragib 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any honest and informed user would see that blnguyen has blocked Hkelkar a number of times. Also strangely enough, Nick has also been outing hkelkar as well. So, the two users "protecting hkelkar" are really not protecting hkelkar at all. The COI allegations were brought by a rogue admin who also thought there users acting on hkelkar's orders on wiki. Ragib and Akhilleus are obviously still convinced of the existence of some underground cabal. The evidence was circumstantial at best, but the similarities were uncanny, and the obvious proximity to Witzel himself makes it even more suspicious.Bakaman 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what is 'uncanny' or 'suspicious'. Please substantiate. Hornplease 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with user:Ragib and user:Akhilleus that user:Blnguyen's block of user:Hornplease was inappropriate. I note too that an apology or even an acknowledgment of the error has not been forthcoming from Mr. Nguyen.

I don't know too much about Mr. Nguyen, but recently happened upon two edits made by him, both of the graceless sophomoric variety that is the stock in trade of user:Bakasuprman. In his edits, Mr. Nguyen removed the Pakistan tag from the talk pages of Rudyard Kipling and Syed Ahmed Khan, and provided the summary, "Pakistan didn't exist then". Although, I have no idea who put the tags there, I could tell at a glance that they could be relevant, and that the proper approach would have been to leave posts on the respective talk pages. My subsequent post on Mr. Nguyen's talk page explaining that Kipling had cut his literary teeth at the Civil and Military Gazette in Lahore (now in Pakistan) and that Syed Ahmed Khan was one of the first proponents of the Two Nation Theory, went unanswered by Mr. Nguyen himself, although, strangely enough, was answered there by user: Bakasuprman. The Kipling tag was reinstated almost immediately by another editor (with edit summary, "Where else is Lahore?"). The deletion of the tag seemed very strange for a administrator to make, especially one who has no history of edits on those pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Since I realized earlier today that user:Blnguyen had (belatedly) responded on his talk page to both my post and User:Hornplease's post, I am retracting what I wrote above. I am retracting the first paragraph (about Hornplease's block), not because I think that the block was right, but because it seems more complicated than I had thought, and I do not have the time to pursue it further. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If the block is considered unfair, do admins do a 1 second good faith block or something, where they make an apology in the edit summary (which shows in the block log) to recognise that it was an incorrect block? Just curious...

Seraphim ^Whipp 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What good will that do? Blocking a user again to apologise for a previous block seems rather counter-intuitive to me. A simple talk page message would suffice.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a "reason" field when the unblock is done. Look at some block logs and you'll occasionally see notations that the previous block was in error, etc. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, Hornplease's block has already ended.--Atlan (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen this done somewhere else before. The problem with a talk page message is that it gets archived, so the point of using a 1 second block making an apology is that it is preserved in the block log...Have I got that right? If this was one of those cases, then it could be quite useful at "clearing the person's name" so to speak.

Seraphim ^Whipp 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crockspot

This thing (including its talk page) is turning into a barfight. I'm not commenting on which side is right or wrong, but is there anything that can be done other than letting it burn out? Raymond Arritt 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment there anymore. If people want to equate Crockspot with Satan cause he made some shitty comments some time back on another website, that's up to them. He'll forever be branded as something he really is not, as he made clear in his commentary and responses to questions.--MONGO 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up. Self-restraint by all concerned would be a big help at this point. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is quite unfortunate and will have make a useful contributor into a lightning rod now, and likely useless on anything controvertial in the least bit. --Rocksanddirt 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

another sock on the Crockspot RFA

Resolved

One blatant sock has already been blocked during this RFA, and seems that restore the republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also one. They have made absolutely zero edits outside the discussion. They are either a sock or a someone who was email canvassed to vote stack. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two more users who fit the mold are Runesrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hypotroph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New England ^{Review Me!} 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect from new users? OR perhaps Crockspot can withdraw and it can be closed. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not withdraw. - Crockspot 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An admin could semi-protect the page. New England ^{Review Me!} 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. It's been done before. Gracenotes^T § 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the RFA in question was mentioned on two blogs (both attacking Crockspot and acting as a call-to-arms against his candidacy) wired.com and mashable.com New England ^{Review Me!} 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Including one supporting where a picture I guess acting as evidence is now being edit warred over on the talk page. Can we force a closure or institute the semi protect please. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have formally requested a semiprotect. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And one more: comment by "Save Wikipedia". Sigh. Gracenotes^T § 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Page was S-Protected by Deskana New England ^{Review Me!} 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user disrupting my RfA from off-wiki

• I've been investigating, checking timestamps, and discussing this with Eleemosynary, and while I cannot rule User:Eleemosynary out as vectorsector, it appears just as possible that a third party could have picked up on comments of mine, put two and two together, and set both of us up. Someone like Joehazelton/WillyPeter, or an ED, WR, or PrisonPlanet troll would be possible players. So without any further evidence, I am striking my opening report. - Crockspot 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is currently serving a one week block for chronic disruption, thanks to my 3RR report, appears to be canvassing off-wiki to disrupt my RfA. This post, was written by "vectorsector". Look at vectorsector's profile. His block is due to expire in the next day, and I have been responsible for at least two of his recent blocks, so he has quite an axe to grind with me. I think he deserves a much more extended block for this. - Crockspot 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Identical message also posted here. (See "Save Wikipedia"). - Crockspot 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tentatively support extending the block significantly. I was the one who issued the block to eleemosynary, and I have had extensive troubles with him. He routinely violates 3RR, editwars and is disruptive. If support is shown, I will have no problem extending. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just extended the block to 1 month. If someone wants to go longer that is their call, but I think off wiki canvassing and disruption warrants it.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The effort this guy took to undermine an RfA puzzles me. Why would anyone go to such lengths? Is this a common occurrence around here? Sidatio 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a history of harassing and smearing me. Dragged me through a nasty sockpupped investigation a couple of months ago, in which I was vindicated. Just does not play nice with anyone who has a different political outlook, and has a particular dislike for me personally. I think he was also pissed to see my RfA open within hours of his last block. Revenge. It's better to wait until it's cold to serve, otherwise it burns. - Crockspot 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope, I have not yet seen any verification that Eleemosynary is the person behind these postings. Most of the postings are on Digg. The Digg username Eleemosynary has not been registered (as of my posting this). The vectorsector account was registered today. If vectorsector is User:Eleemosynary, you would think he would either have done a better job consolidating or separating his identities. Blocking (or extending a block of) Eleemosynary for off-wiki activities, I'm afraid, would set a very poor precedent; it would be far too easy for anyone to just go around the web canvassing or posting as any of us, just to ensure our inability to edit Wikipedia.   justen   17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I considered that this was possibly a smear job before I blocked and honestly I don't believe that to be the case after reviewing and considering his contributions here. That said, if someone wants to boldly refactor my block to extend or reduce it, I won't see that as wheel warring.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see why it was necessary to immediately extend a block without an admission, evidence, or at least further discussion. I think of a block as a last resort. Clearly, the Eleemosynary account posed no immediate threat to Wikipedia. (Also discussion on Eleemosynary's talk page, here.)   justen   17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks - there is no substantial evidence that vectorsector is Eleemosynary. The extension of the block is setting the precedent that anyone can go off-wiki, pretend to be someone on-wiki and make slanderous remarks, and the on-wiki person gets blocked for it, regardless of that person's guilt. That is embarrassing. For all we know Eleemosynary has nothing to do with vectorsector. I recommend reducing the block immediately before this gets out of hand. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I expressed similar concern since the website is anonymous, and anyone can register as any username. However I do not know enough about the user to say if they are or are not capable of those actions. Just sets a bad precedent. I do remember someone posting as MONGO on PrisonPlanet, which obviously wa snot MONGO, so this would not be a new issue it seems. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the thing -- how do you know the person posting on PrisonPlanet wasn't MONGO? There's just no way to tell. Blocking or judging someone based on off-wiki actions is just a bad idea. There's no other way to spin it. That goes both for Crockspot and Eleemosynary. We should be focusing on on-wiki activity, not off. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So that should mean all the Opposes on the RfA for off-wiki behaviour should be ignored? --Tbeatty 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignored? Absolutely not. Should the Oppose !voters focusing solely on off-wiki behavior reconsider their positions? Probably, simply because it sets a dangerous precedent. In the end, it's not my call -- I'm just making the point that we get into murky territory when we focus on anything other than building or operating an encyclopedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, there is a difference between alleged canvassing off-wiki and verified off-wiki activity. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't post to prisonplanet. The main moderator there commented about myself and Morton devonshire and his comments about Morton were just plain awful. Someone else also used my username to make edits I think to wikitruth or some similar website, but that wasn't me either.--MONGO 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. And don't get me wrong, I totally believe you, I was just using your experience as an example. What I'm saying is we can't control what happens off-wiki, and someone can easily impersonate a Wikipedia editor off-wiki (as evidenced by what happened to you). Blindly blocking someone when there is zero evidence supporting actions off-wiki is a bad precedent to set, especially with the ridiculous amount trolls out there, you know? Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While I would generally agree with you, how do you ask a person to deal with someone who they believe has spewed hate about them? I think the ability of the community to work with someone is important, and how that person is viewed is greatly important. Would you give the mop to someone who seeks to expose admins as long as they did it off-wiki? I would think certainly not, so off-wiki actions are taken into account quite often. I know I would have trouble dealing with a user who offended my race, and as such plan to avoid Crockspot from now on, some people cannot look at a user on wiki and just ignore what they know about them off-wiki. I just want to make clear, while I oppose his adminship I honestly do feel that much should have not been mentioned, but in that same token, it would have been easy to avoid it, if he didn't make it an issue himself. I do not know why you keep the RFA open, but I commend you for remaining in a mood better then I would have expected. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reduce Eleemosynary's block back down to what it was before. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Elemosynary is not so stupid. Why would he supply his real Wikipedia user-name if he was going to 'canvass'? Also tell me if the person writing the post asking for canvassing sounds like the same writing as Eleemosynary. It doesn't one tiny bit. Read his long post on Matt Drudge Link at 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (I can't find the exact link) and tell me that it sounds the same as those posts asking for a canvass. They are not the same person IMO. I suspect fakery just like when someone used Mongo's name on another board. Ask yourself what is more possible. Eleemosynary being so stupid as to use his real name in an outright canvass, or somone trying to make him look bad? Bmedley Sutler 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It read exactly like one of Eleemosynary's screeds to me. His latest block is for edit warring, after he taunted me to report him after he violated 3RR, and then continued edit warring until he was blocked. Does that sound particularly smart to you? Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of Eleemosynary's edit history, and found the IP address he was almost certainly editing under right before he registered his account - 24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . Guess where it resolves back to? Seattle. I have no doubt it was him. - Crockspot 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you're not doing yourself any favours here. It would be very easy indeed to pose as a Wikipedia user off-Wiki, in order to get them banned on-Wiki. Unless User:Eleemosynary self-identifies as that being his account, we assume good faith. Neil ム 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Crockspot must assume good faith...definitely! not only did a completely different person post that on that blog, but they even went so far as to make their editing style look exactly like Eleemosynary's....now that is some talent.--MONGO 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Another vectorsector post about this RfA, this account opened on August 14. - Crockspot 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this not be taken any farther. Crock and this user obviously have a bone to pick, but that really is besides the point. We cannot verify they are the same people, therefor punishing someone for their alleged attempt at sabotage is rather silly. I could make myself sound like another user very easily, arguing if he "sounds like him" is really semantics and waay to subjective. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this just prophetic? Because, twenty-four hours later.   justen   01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that 70 of the oppose voted appeared before that block expired. Am I counting the time wrong? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what was the real point of this thread? Because extending the block of a user on Wikipedia when he may or may not be canvassing off-wiki seems rather stupid in the light that people are saying Crock can't be judged on his off-Wiki activities. Can we just let this rest? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I struck my opening report last night. This particular act of the show is over. - Crockspot 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC at Criticism of the BBC

Folks from the BBC are editing the Criticism of the BBC page and removing negative stuff.

The following edits are from a BBC-registered url: [40] [41]

I used [42] to find this stuff.

Maybe the BBC should be asked not to remove negative information from pages about the BBC????? Bigglove 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Carbon copy of my (as a non-admin) response on the articles talk page: AFAICT Wikipedia has no power to discipline the whole of the BBC, and a quick check of other contributions shows that blocking BBC IP addresses en-masse would certainly harm Wikipedia more. Where, good content is removed, the editor concerned, should be subject to the same disciplinary procedure as any other editor.

However, the point good content should be noted. There is a fair bit of rubbish that gets put into this article sourced from sources with hidden agendas - and often put in by editors with hidden agendas. Your Evening Standard example above is a case in point - the original editor credited it as a report from The Times(given the use of "of London" I guess the person came from outside the UK) and quoted from the article, what the article what appeared to be quotes from the BBC's report - go to the actual report and this "quote" is not contained in the report. The quote that was put in here appears to be merely the opinion of the Evening Standard - a right wing and rabidly anti-BBC tabloid. This being the case and numerous other examples from DMGT tabloids makes me suspicous of a number of the other tales which use such sources - at that point I would like to see at the least a more reliable source for the tale.

Pit-yacker 09:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• An admin has already blocked one of the IPs linked to the BBC-based edits of BBC articles, so this has already gained some attention. After a cursory review I agree with User:Bigglove that a breach of WP:COI and WP:NPOV is taking place as a result of these edits. Where this is the case it's probably worth dealing with the individual editor/IP using the templates and requesting admin attention as necessary, rather than an IP-range block, as User:Pit-yacker notes. Edits can be reverted as vandalism with reference to WP:NPOV. Coldmachine^Talk 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As the talk page template has suggested, I made every, or close to every, attempt to contact the BBC to report the abuse. Cheers! — Moe ε 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. THe BBC anon IPs made many edits, mostly of a helpful nature cioncerning BBC stuff (links etc) or on random stuff that was probably of interest to BBC employees personally and which had nothing to do with conflict of interest. I only reported the stuff above, which I felt was concerning because they removed critical material about the BBC; this was conflict of interest. Bigglove 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin posting real-life name and phone number.

Can I ask someone to appropriately edit this personal attack? Four polite requests on his talk page with reference to WP:HARASS have resulted only in incivil responses. Not seeking sanctions, just remedies. THF 03:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that no one should be posting any other editor's real-life name or phone number anywhere. That invades privacy a bit too much for my tastes. If we do not respect each other's privacy, we will only wind up discouraging people from participating on this site. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That post is absolutely inappropriate, in my opinion. Oversight is really the only option on ANI, as delete/undeleting a page as large as this will cause a huge amount of server strain. Of course, since all of this is already on the 'net, you could just ignore it all together. Sean William @ 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the editor himself has continually edited under his own name, what, exactly, is the privacy violation here? That horse was already out of the barn a long time again. And "personal attack"? Please. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:HARASS: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. . . . This applies . . . . in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. ElinorD (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a comment that comments on the editor, not the edit. So, yes, a personal attack. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. That would be called an ad hominem attack. A personal attack is more strictly defined as a a comment on the editor that is derogatory. Just being pedantic... :) —Kurykh 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No one needs to go through the trouble of oversight. Redaction is sufficient. I apologize that I was naive enough to believe that one could edit a collaborative project under one's real name, but I've now had multiple instances of off-wiki harassment from wiki editors who lost content disputes with me, and have changed my username, and would simply like not to have administrators posting links to my phone number. I note that I was threatened with an indef ban when in February I inadvertently mentioned the real-life name of a user who had changed their username, so at a minimum an administrator should know better. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, you have just been trolled by the man who is the classic example of a usenet troll. Take a look at my original posting, & to the external links there; he is mentioned in an FAQ on Internet personalities -- which makes him at least borderline notable.

He only came to my attention because he was voicing a rather bizarre complaint: another user called him by his first name. The general reaction to his complaint was that since he was whining about something so trivial, other people ought to just stop doing it. My own reaction was that I couldn't believe THF was serious, so I looked into the matter a little. When I had a look at older versions of his user page I immediately recognized the name -- evidence that prevented any reasonable person from assuming good faith. However, this person's name is common enough that I could not jump to any conclusions, so I did a little research -- which further confirmed this identity. However this person has a fairly common name, so I asked him a direct question about his identity in order to remove all possible doubt. This was not a "have you stopped beating your wife?"-style question.

I expected that THF might not answer -- a lot of my questions are never answered. Or he might provide a terse response, ending all further discussion. Or perhaps he'd respond to me in email, explain the situation to me, & seek my help. Instead he removed my question, & left a accusatory & unhelpful message on my talk page under the sectionheader "WP:AGF, please".

Now two things I have noticed that all troublemakers -- whether we call them "trolls" or not -- immediately do is delete uncomfortable questions addressed to them & invoke "WP:AGF". More often than not by its abbreviations. So I restored the information to WP:AN/I with his response. Which led to an exchange between us where I told him, in effect, if he stopped making such a stink about the matter it would go away. Okay, I'm oversimplifying my side of the conversation: only my first response said that; my second one was to tell him that he was acting silly (IMHO, he was), & to leave me alone. Last I checked, commenting on someone's actions is not covered by Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Further, I believe four separate edits, all in response to his actions, & amongst at least a dozen other edits, hardly amounts to harassment. At each step, I was trying to end this matter, but he kept dragging me back into it.

So what is this link I posted that THF is so bothered about? It contains his business contact information -- which I found thru a simple Google search. I hadn't noticed it until now (because I honestly have no interest in calling or writing him). Had THF explained that at the beginning, I would have been far more sympathetic to his requests than I was -- or am now.

To assume good faith does not mean naively trusting whatever we are told, & I can't conclude that THF was truly interested in keeping his personal information private. Had that been his intent. he would have removed all personal information from his user page (he mentions his employer -- mine doesn't), he would have contacted me offline, he would not post all of his personal information on my Talk page, & he would not have been as confrontational as his posts to me were. When I have dealt with people eager to keep their personal information off of Wikipedia, these are the kinds of things they did -- & what any intelligent person acting in good faith would have done.

To repeat myself, at every turn THF had the option of letting this matter drop. At every turn I wanted him to drop it. And had he simply ignored my original question, it would have been archived off (as it was a few hours ago), & he would have gotten his wish. Instead, he's raised all sorts of commotion over this matter -- which is what a troll (in the sense of a practical joker) does. And we are here on Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia -- not to play practical jokes like this. -- llywrch 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So far in six months on Wikipedia I've had Wikipedia editors sign me up for pornography mailing lists, sign me up for dating services, and had a Wikipedia editor threaten to try to get me fired. I was forced to change my username so that I wouldn't continue to get attacked and so I could protect my personal information. So as "trolling" goes on Wikipedia, I've been a trollee, rather than a troll. So I asked for my last (not first) name redacted, and the user who repeatedly posted it did so. Two days after this was resolved, notwithstanding my edit history of over 6000 edits to over 2000 articles (more than some administrator nominees), regular participation in vandal-cleanup and on the BLP boards, Llywrch wants to call me a troll and unnecessarily posts a lot of personal information in the process.

So all I've asked is for an administrator, who should already know the WP:HARASS policy, to redact my real name and phone number and not to post it multiple times. Instead, I get this personal attack, which is not based on anything I have done on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, while multiple administrators agree that it was inappropriate for Llywrch to post my real name and link to my phone number, no one has redacted it. Do I really need to ask for oversight? I'm trying to make things easier here: I redacted it myself; I asked Llywrch politely several times to redact it, I asked here for it to be redacted without mentioning his name, and all I get for my trouble is some sympathy, some attacks, and no one acting.

Yes, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Which I've been doing. But I'd like to be able to do it without further harassment, and without administrators enabling that harassment.

So can someone please simply redact what I asked to be redacted? You can leave up the personal attack of Llywrch baselessly calling THF a troll. Just redact the personal information. Please. Does the WP:HARASS policy mean anything? I was threatened with an indef-block the first week I was here because I inadvertently mentioned an editor's real name, and here we have an administrator not only posting it twice, but defending his policy violation, and nobody doing anything about it. THF 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He decided not to wait, but went ahead & deleted the information from WP:AN/IA283. Even though it can be found in the article history. Or through a simple Google search. I could revert this vandalism & protect the archive -- but I won't. I have wasted enough time on this Troll, which all started because of his bizarre hysteria when another editor addressed him by his first name. Had I truly wanted to harass him, there are far easier & more effective ways to do it than what I have been doing -- none of which involve Wikipedia. (I leave this as an exercise for the reader.) -- llywrch 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment speaks for itself. Admins truly do have a different code of conduct than editors. Cool Hand Luke 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all of us. Llyrwch's labelling an honest attempt to remove personal information as "vandalism" is neither diplomatic or correct, as is the use of the T-word (which has been overused a lot around here recently). I have asked Llyrwch to step back, and THF to let me know his concerns and I'll deal with them. Neil ム 08:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) blocked

Per this 3RR report, I have blocked Giovanni33 for two weeks. As the reporter notes, there is no technical 3RR vio; however, Giovanni's long record of edit warring convinces me a longish block such as this is merited. In case I am wrong, I have posted this here for review. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All Giovanni33 does is edit war...how long before we can seek a community ban? He has been at 3RR at least two other times in the past couple of months...lookout for socks.--MONGO 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've consistently seen him hre on ANI about edit warring. —Crazytales (t.) 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur in the block. He's been blocked many times for 3RR or gaming thereof; he should know better by now. There may be other editors on that article who should be warned about edit-warring. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also concur, I had no idea that his block log was so large. There is value in increasing block lengths when an editor is not getting the message. At some point we have to stop wasting time on an editor, when that time comes is up to ArbCom or via community ban...but for now Heimstern Läufer made the right choice. RxS 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long, IMO! I suggest 3 days. Look who made the complaint too. Tbeatty who is guilty of censoring my proofs on the Crockspots election for admimistrator. Twice or three times he completely deleted my posts on an official board with 'BLP' claims. He is involved in a 'war' on that article, and there is no real 24 violation! If it was 4 RR in 20 hours I could understand, but to apply this penalty in this one case is unjust. IMO. Please reduce and give a warning that 24 hours doesn't really mean 24 hours. This rule is silly anyway, as it has no actual values for the hours! Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, the 3RR has always been an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is just one way to measure edit warring. Users can edit war without breaking 3RR, and when they do this long-term, they should be blocked. As for Tbeatty's faults, I'm not interested in entertaining tu quoque arguments. If indeed Tbeatty has done things worth a block, you can make a report about him. His behavior has no bearing on whether Giovanni33 should be blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has been blocked an unreal amount of times. I think that a community ban is in order. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Without casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Pablo) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors! Another comment somewhere talks about the left-right wars on Wikipedia. You better get these warriors under control! I myself withdrew from 2 or 3 (?) articles because the wars were too fierce! Bmedley Sutler 06:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no strong objections from the blocking admin, I'm going to shorten the block to two days, if by virtue of the blocking admin's own ambiguity as to this particular dispute. Also, I note that the person who reverted Giovani used "rv vandalism" as their edit summary. Thanks. El_C 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has received multiple short blocks. Is this just going to go on forever like this, with him receiving a day or two for constant edit warring? I may not know much about this particular dispute, but I do know edit warring when I see it. Frankly, I think it's for the best that I know little about the dispute, as it leaves me more objective. I don't agree with shortening this block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, that wasn't the question. I'm not going to doubt your even-handedness at this point, but would suggest closer examination is in order when imposing blocks of such lengths on established contributors. El_C 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"That wasn't the question?" You asked if I had strong objections to shortening the block. I have said that I do. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I do in fact have strong objections to shortening Giovanni's block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do as well...he has been blocked more times than almost any long term editor who is still editing here. Though most are from some time ago, he has been at 3RR some many times recently, I can't even keep count.--MONGO 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, disagree strongly, would have done it. Speaking of which, I strongly object to your block (see below for details). El_C 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern and MONGO here. This block is more than appropriate and I strongly object to it being reduced. - auburnpilot talk 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It increasingly looks like this user is being ganged up on due to his politics. No warning ,no nothing. I'm going to reduce the block to a week. I think that's a fair compromise. Let me know if you're gonna wheel war over it, though, because then I won't do it. El_C 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly is wheel-warring? Several editors and admins have endorsed this block, yet you seem determined to reduce it regardless. - auburnpilot talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reduce it, unless someone intends to reverse me, yes. El_C 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you brought your block here for "review" (whatever that means to you). I have reviewed it and found it to be excessive and rather arbitrary. El_C 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the feedback. Well, you decide what you want to do. I won't make any changes to whatever you do, but I do feel that the block is justified. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to feel it is justified, El_C. It seems that reduction would be the extreme position. --Tbeatty 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should extend a few blocks to the other rverting parties, then... El_C 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are edit warring consistantly and have a history of such, then I would agree.--MONGO 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of them, Tbeatty, reverted "per talk," just as Giovani did. The other didn't even use the talk page since June, and used "rv vandalism" as an edit summary. I don't think a two-week block was justified in this case. This dosen't seem like fair interaction on the part of Honda, nor fair interpretation as well as communication on the part of the blocking admin. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the original block stands or is reduced, I am concerned that we will simply find ourselves here again, as Giovanni is clearly a prolific edit warrior. I'm wondering what other steps toward dealing with this edit warring might be taken. For example, has there ever been a user conduct RFC for him? I certainly can't find one. If not, might that be a possible step? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the threat and I stopped reverting prior to any violation and I used the talk page to justify all my edits. I also edited the talk page prior to the edits, unlike Giovanni33. If you read the report, you would see the big issue is that Giovanni33 tried to recruit additional editors to revert the page so that he wouldn't be in violation. That is gaming the system. --Tbeatty 07:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't threat, I warn. The fact is that the other person reverting to your version did not use the talk page. You, as the filer of the unorthodox 3rr report were or should have been aware of this. Yet you did not encourage that user to participate in the talk page with both of you, instead, you reported Giavani at an3. El_C 07:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What unorthodox 3RR report? He recruited people to revert for him. He said so on the talk page. I don't really give a shit about what other editors did or did not do but I did not see a violation. I reported Giovanni when he said he was recruiting people to game the system.. He was reverting at least 3 editors. If you think that's unorthodox to report, then perhaps you shouldn't be reviewing 3RR blcoks. If you had read the 3rr report as filed, you would see that was the issue. --Tbeatty 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not "give a shit," but what you should consider of interest is that I may. In answer to your question, the one that obviously did not have a 3rr violation. As for your suggestion that I refrain from reviewing 3rr reports, well at the event, I have closed many tens and no one has seen fit to take issue with my judgment. In your 3rr report you reference Giovani block log, but fail to mention that except for a quicly-lifted block in June, it has been nearly a year since anything new has appeared in said block log. El_C 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that there are plenty of editors and admins taking issue with your judgement to reduce here. And maybe if Giovanni33's 3RR reports weren't dismissed so quickly and his blocks reduced so readily, he would stop gaming the system and stop edit warring and he wouldn't have so many people adamantly in favor of such a long block. --Tbeatty 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be, aside from the cheers coming from several of his content opponents here, general ambiguity about what is actually happening now and a tendency to go by notions (such as a 2-second glance at a block log) rather than evidence. El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll guess we'll have to disagree as it appears to me, Giovanni33 has one cheerleader and a lot of persons that oppose, are sympathetic to or apathetic to his particular ideology that simply see someone who edit wars and games the system in order to violate the letter and spirti of 3RR. --Tbeatty 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This mode of communication is becoming eliptical. El_C 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One is never enough to edit war. Except for a block in June, that was soon lifted, the last block is from September 2006, nearly a year ago. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, even a week is too much. This dosen't appear like a just block. The use of the 3rr noticeboard seems questionable as does the fact that the blocking admin consulted this, much more relevant board after issuing this irregular block. And the lack of communication by the blocking admin with Giovani also seems somewhat problematic. The reporter in this case is a longstanding content opponent. Should I go on? El_C 07:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporters are nearly always content oppponents.Proabivouac 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of course pointing to its longstanding nature. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni games the system by recruiting editors to continue his edit war. That was the complaint. It was not questionable. It states very clearly what the problem was. An admin reviewed it. Blocked him progressively based on his LONG history. He notified him on his talk page. There is no other notification requirements. What is problematic with that? --Tbeatty 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I already illustrated what is problematic with that (3rr not having been violated, other user not participating in talk page, blocklog cited but no blocks, except for the lifted one, since Sept. 2006). El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni mode of operation is to edit war and push 3rr to the limit, and sometimes over. When called on for it, make excuses and blame others, and then "promise" to do better. Here he promises to limit his reverts to only 2 in the future [[43]]. Giovanni is generally a fine editor, however he is certainly a frequently flier at 3rr and edit war gaming. Dman727 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, except for June, there hasn't been blocks since nearly a year ago. So it looks like there's been improvement. I don't think draconian penalties for surprise-2rr are fitting, nor having 3rr as one-sided venue. For my part, I have protected the page for a few days. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be crystal here: a blocklog is not an eternally damnable record (well, except for mine!), and with a gap of a year between blocks can, the block log can instead be seen as a record of improvement. ♪Accentuate the positive,♪ and so on. El_C 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel two weeks is too long. I have had very little interaction with Giovanni. In the dispute, our views were different on the matter but I felt he tries to make his case as clear as possible and argues for it. --Aminz 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long. I say three days. "Wihout casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Tbeatty) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors!" He is being ganged up for his politics! Ever since that PrisonPlanet thing some of the conservs here have been on the war-path! With this new revelation though See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA the RW Reign of Terror will be ending soon! :-) Bmedley Sutler 09:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From the record I've seen, Giovanni33 has moved from serious abuse to relative quiescence to garden-variety gaming the system. Meaning no irony, that is indeed an improvement. I'd have to agree that the ancient block log is relevant - it shows that he risks returning to old patterns - but we should acknowledge that there does appear to be a long period of improved behavior. In the last interaction I had with him, he had violated 3RR on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and self-reverted per my advice: I resolved the thread because it seemed the problem had been solved, and Giovanni33 seemed reasonable, if a little disingenuous about his supposedly naive knowledge of the rule for which he'd been blocked before. My impression was one of a person who would revert more often it if he thought he could get away with it, but was keen to stay in the good graces of the community and avoid a block. So, there is something here to work with. When I looked at the content dispute, it was impossible to really pick a side. The other editor, Ultramarine, was removing poorly-cited material, which is good, but then turned around and tried to separate this from School of the Americas, which, while I'm no leftist, struck me as a serious whitewash. I tend to disagree with Giovanni33's politics, and vaguely agree with those of his accusers, but that itself gives me pause. I don't know what to do here. As a 3rr report, it goes nowhere on its own, for there was no technical violation. I honestly haven't looked into this enough to really say what is just. My feeling is that this is an "it's about time" block supported by a lot of people who are plainly exasperated with him, and generally, a lot of people are rightly frustrated at our chronic inability to address the subjective but real problem of tendentious editing. What is missing is a serious warning that a problem was coming, instead he was let go again and again (I share responsibility for this) and now all his debts are being collected at once. Thus, two weeks seems too harsh. I think reducing the block is justified, but I'd be judicious in how much we do so. Say, to three days, with the recognition that some people are in all seriousness proposing a ban: not a good sign. Giovanni33 is advised that a non-cosmetic change in behavior is necessary, as it's the recurrance of complaints that will do him in, and we see that staying within the technical confines of the rules is not enough.Proabivouac 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Block amended per Proabivouac's investigation. As the admin reviewing the unblock request, I thank him for his extensive input and insight. El_C 10:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Pro and El C here. Well, Continued long-standing pattern edit warring applies to the other side as well. I've seen User:MONGO getting away w/ it a few times at the AN/I. I remember User:ThuranX arguing about that. I am also finding this edit of User:Tbeatty as disruptive. So was he edit warring w/ ghosts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Me getting away with what, exactly. Yeah, I remember Thuranx stating here that I was a "giant fucking WIKIDICK" and an "asshole"...and guess what, nothing happened to him. So what is your point? Block those who file complaints that are legitimate and ignore those that call people giant fucking wikidicks and assholes?--MONGO 15:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you find disruptive? It was Giovanni's third revert that day without a talk page contribution. --Tbeatty 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got much to say about this except that I feel it sends the rather wrong message that edit warring is not a big deal if you are "improving" and if others are also edit warring. I also suggest we consider making that RFC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would be a very good idea.Proabivouac 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone remind me again how the project is furthered by a series of POV editors constantly bickering and edit warring about everything? I'm not singling out any one editor here, but the names on this ANI report are repeated on at least a couple other currently active reports as well... and there are others not part of this report that are related to what appears to be a pretty constant POV war. Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to wonder at what point these editors actions are becoming more of a detriment and time waster for Wikipedia that outweighs any positives to the project from their contributions.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You typed what I have been thinking. We need to look more at the net effect of an individual's actions, and not just continually tolerate poisonous behavior because they make some positive contributions. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen. I don't have a problem with shortening the block (it seems to be a fait accompli anyway), so long as it sends a message and the edit-warring and system-gaming actually stop. If they don't, it's going to be really hard to convince anyone next time around. Supporting "liberal POV warriors" as a counterweight to "conservative POV warriors" is a recipe for disaster, for the simple reason that Wikipedia is not a battleground. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"If they don't, it's going to be really hard to convince anyone next time around."

It certainly will be.Proabivouac 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone missing the 900lb elephant in the room here? Giovanni33 is using lots and lots of sockpuppets [44] in his edit warring and vote stacking efforts? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That case is a year old. I think current behavior is more relevant. Raymond Arritt 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since my name came up, I figure I should chime in. Long term POV editing which circumvents 3RR, when substantiated, should be treated just as swiftly as a regular 3RR, if not more so for the gaming of the system, which makes the conscious awareness more evident. At least a regular 3RR can be attributed to hot tempers and zealous belief in being right but allows reflection later. Persistent reversion's worse. I also agree with Isotope23 and Raymond Arritt that there are a number of peopel who show up often on AN/I for the same stuff over and over. As for Fayssal's comment above, glad someone else is noticing this too. ThuranX 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds/MONGO

For a loong time now, these two have been yelling at each other. MONGO claims that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of a banned user (His Excellency, I think), while he denies this and calls MONGO a troll for claiming that he is. Can we solve this please? -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't keep pretending that I really think MONGO might be an innocent victim here. Yes, SevenOfDiamonds has done some bad things sockpuppet or not, but MONGO continues to implicitly declare that anyone who doesn't do as he likes is in league with trolls. But we couldn't actually do something about this, nope. -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for some sort of sanction against MONGO? Have you tried dispute resolution? I don't see what the link you provided has to do with User:SevenOfDiamonds --Tbeatty 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just ranting. I'm asking for help sorting out his sockpuppetry allegations. The link was about comments EVula removed in a flame war between the two. Even if I were, any form of dispute resolution results in "Support MONGO more against the trolls", that's happened many times before... -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow it and it looked like an IP troll was removing MONGO's comments replying User:Bmedley Sutler.[45]. If they IP troll was SevenOfDiamonds, they should both be blocked. --Tbeatty 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't either of them...Amarkov...might I ask exactly what your problem is? Didn't you file an Rfc on me recently and then ask to have it deleted...then you marched here and attacked me...now you're doing it again. You're not a mediator or an administrator and as far as I am concerned...you are harassing me, pal. Back off now...this has nothing to do with you.--MONGO 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining that you are consistently incivil to people who disagree with you, to the point of ordering them to do as you say or resigning adminship. If that is "attacking" you, then yes, I am. -Amarkov moo! 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also complaining that you repeatedly refer to SevenOfDiamonds as a sockpuppet of a banned user, without ever bothering to actually prove such an assertion. -Amarkov moo! 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice...I have an admin who deletes a comment I made in self defense and then marches over to my talkpage (after not removing another comment made to me that I am a troll) and tells me to calm down and this same admin does zero to warn the other offenders...and you wonder why I am indignant? The issue of SevenOfDiamonds being a ban evader is coming...it is in the works. I am absolutely appalled at the level of one sideness that this website is becoming.--MONGO 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The one-sidedness, I believe, is that people amass issues with established editors. When banned users are reincarnated and stir up problems with established editors, it's easy for others to project innocence upon them per AGF! and jump in against the established editor. On WR, someone suggested that people who support sockpuppets be blocked along with them. It sounds draconian and unfair, but illustrates an important point. The exploitation of disruptive socks as stalking horses is unacceptable. Even if done naively and with perfectly good intent, there should be some accountability for bad calls which negatively affect other editors and have the effect of prolonging and exacerbating their harassment.Proabivouac 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing: sitting here reading this, I thought "I wonder how long it will take MONGO to accuse somebody of harassment." Didn't take long... - auburnpilot talk 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment like that only inflames the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be true, but it's about time somebody stops MONGO's bs. Every time somebody disagrees with MONGO, he screams harassment in an attempt to discredit them. It gets tiring. - auburnpilot talk 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance to try and settle an old score with me, you alway do so.--MONGO 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a score to settle with you. I simply find you to be one of the most uncivil editors I've come in contact with, and I'm continually amazed by the excuses that are created to defend your behavior. Nothing more, nothing less; just amazed. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough...that is how I find you...to be incivil. I am continuously amazed at the level of incivility you subject me to.--MONGO 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO Mongos behavior is the most un-civil and aggressive of any long-time editor on Wikipedia, (who I have seen) and he does get a 'free-pass' (IMO) because he used to be an administrator and was attacked from some other site nobody reads. Bmedley Sutler 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what exactly do we want done here? I'm not really seeing anything actionable, though I may have missed something. This is really looking to me more like a case for dispute resolution, not ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What I want to be accomplished here is to determine if allegations that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet are valid. If he is, block him, if we decide he is not, then hopefully that will stop the accusations. -Amarkov moo! 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heinstein, In the big schema of things Mongos words and posture over the last few days is much more hurtful to 'the project' than Giovanni33s slight mistake of 3 RR, but this just shows how silly the rules can be here, and how some get a 'free-pass' (IMO). Bmedley Sutler 06:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, "Removing comments?" Like you did here [46][47] to stop discussion and squish the truth on your friends administartor election? Bmedley Sutler 06:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about with respect to this subject, but your smear attempts are very transparent. --Tbeatty 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given MONGO a formal warning for his disgusting behaviour/notice that he will be blocked if he continues it. I am yet to look into SoD's edits, but thus far haven't seen anything anywhere near as offensive was what is being discussed on MONGO's talk page. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Such warnings often make matters worse, as they give an impression that you're in authority over someone, and just make the person more angry. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So because it is an established editor we allow incivility? The rules I work by apply equally to both established and new editors I attempt to be as neutral as I possibly can. Viridae^Talk 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If a completely new editor shows up at someone's talk page with a vulgar insult, I block as an account created for the purpose of harassment. Genuine new editors probably don't even know how to find someone's talk page. If an editor with thousands of constructive edits, including featured articles, shows up at someone's talk page with a vulgar insult, I keep an eye on the situation; I try and think if there's some way of calming the editor down. I try to find some way of tactfully encouraging the editor to relax and calm down. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes...Seven is allowed to call me a troll and that is okay...I am not allowed to defend myself from the baiting and attacks. You claimed on my userpage that I had called Evula a jerk, and I did not...I asked you to provide a diff and you didn't. If you are going to threaten me for doing something I didn't do, and fail to retract the threat, then we have nothing more to discuss and your threat is going to be removed.--MONGO 06:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You call me a sockpuppet in every thread on every shared page. I call you a troll for constantly doing it. You are a troll to sit and follow me around and on a page that has nothing to do with either of us, continue to attack me. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the evidence I have, which is exhaustive, demonstrates that you have been stalking me, not vice versa. This will all be over soon.--MONGO 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. Much like that great evidence of me being Rootology. Not sure what you do not get about WP:CIVIL. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be.Proabivouac 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied to the query for a diff and pointed out that I made a mistake, but because of the 2* jerk calling the warning still stands. I really don't care what you do with the thread, I hopefully won't have to act on it. But seeing as you have seen it it may as well be deleted - I really don't mind. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now go and warn others for calling me a troll and for the other insults...threaten them with a block and tell them their edits and comments are disgusting. Please don't ever come to my taklkpage again and threaten to block me for doing something I did not do. I'll be patiently awaiting your impartial actions...I suspect my wait might last forever, so prove me wrong.--MONGO 07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I saw sunk to your level. I warned for what I saw. Viridae^Talk 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Try taking a look at this. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting I warn an unrelated editor (not SOD or MONGO) for something they said on here over a month ago? Viridae^Talk 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I suggest that when you're considering how to phrase your message to MONGO, you take into account that people have behaved a lot worse towards him, and with impunity. And then you reflect on whether there's some more tactful or sensitive or helpful way of dealing with it. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of impartiality is noted. Don't ever threaten me like you did again. This is your final warning.--MONGO 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, it would be a terrible mistake to do anything to MONGO on behalf of SevenOfDiamonds.Proabivouac 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not doing anything on the belhalf of anyone. I am simply warning MONGO that if he keeps up the ridiculous incivility, his status as a long term editor wont mean shit to me when I block him. The same applies to anyone that displays that kind of incivility, be they new or old. Viridae^Talk 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, some ArbCom rulings have indicated that it's unhelpful to hand out incivility blocks to long-term editors. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am going to remind everyone to remain calm here. This is a discussion, not a heated debate. There is no need, really, for anyone to get overly messed up over this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But, Viridae, if 7OD turns out to be the sock of a banned user who is dedicated to trolling MONGO, that would make you his unwitting accomplice, would it not? And that would not look good.Proabivouac 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we back to the theory that I created 10+ articles and revamped others all to harass MONGO? I have not been accused of being 6 editors in 3 RFCU's. At what point does someone get the picture? I particularly avoid the contentious articles other then the "allegations" one to avoid dealing with MONGO up to this point. It works well, He stopped appearing on my page with warnings of "or else" and "you will be blocked" and other chest beating means of attempting to bully the opposition. If you care to read, the RfA page in question, I made no remark toward MONGO before he started calling me a sockpuppet, who is trolling who? --SevenOfDiamonds 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes me noones accomplice. MONGO is incredibly incivil and gets away with it. Some that passed my arbitrary limit of what I deem offensive and so he was warned for it. There is no collusion, no favouritism and no accomplices. I frankly don't care who's sockpuppet he is if he is one - i rarely deal with that sort of stuff as I have no experience in the area. Viridae^Talk 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps you should care. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. If it turns out he is a sock of a banned user - good well and block this account too. However I am unlikely to be the one to find this out, and until I do find it out by whatever means, I will treat him as any other user. Too often I have seen users being branded on wikipedia as socks or immediately disruptive blah blah blah on the flimsiest of evidence. I try to assume good faith and look for a reasonable non-editing abuse explanation. At least once I have challenged the cries of sockpuppet and found to be correct (tennis editor). I don't care who he is untill he is shown to be here for bad intentions. I will treat him like any good faith editor. I will treat him like I treat MONGO and I will treat him like I treat you. Viridae^Talk 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Refusing to sanction people for incivility because a sockpuppet also wishes them sanctioned is stupid. Agreeing with a sockpuppet does not mean I'm his accomplice. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it would be stupid to not sanction an editor for incivility. It would be just as stupid for not sticking up for them when they are trolled by such people. It's even worse to allow it to continue while threatening the victim for being uncivil. Adminsitrators should be using their tools to protect the victims of trolling, not lording the ban hammer over the established editor trying only to be left alone. MONGO has a history. His heretofore unknown sockpuppet trolls don't have a history because their previous accounts have been banned. His history is a testament to his commitment, not a scarlet letter. --Tbeatty 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

His history is a testament to constant incivility to nearly anyone who seriously disputes his actions, actually. Even were it not, the "ZOMG MONGO" blindness everyone seems to have is ignoring the fact that these "trolling sockpuppet of banned editor" allegations are STILL unproven. I've been hearing it for two months, with no convincing evidence. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your history is a testament that you seem hell bent on trying to get me blocked.--MONGO 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The first ever interaction I had with you, you declared that I was harassing you. Every subsequent interaction I've had with you, you've declared that the person who dared challenge your incivility is either harassing you or not supporting you enough against the trolls. I do indeed want you blocked for that. -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck. Your flippant attitude when you filed that Rfc against me was boorish. Those kinds of things are never taken lightly and that you would do so as if it was, as you put it "I really don't care"....is most definitely harassment. That you fail to see it as such is pretty outrageous.--MONGO 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think it is very serious that you continually imply that anyone who disagrees with you is in league with trolls, and that people actually condone this. And like I told you before, I removed the RfC because you convinced me it was premature. That you continually use this against me is yet another reason I think you should be blocked and are frustrated that you aren't. -Amarkov moo! 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to bed now. I'm sure that while I'm gone, there will be more unsanctioned incivility, and more people saying that I should let him be incivil until nobody trolls him. It's very disturbing that I've seen so much of this I'm actually apathetic to being told I'm harassing someone for telling them they are incivil. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a clarification: I wasn't called a jerk (though in reading the archived talk page, it's easy to make that confusion). What was said about me was that I was actively aiding and abetting trolls by removing an instance of MONGO feeding the trolls.[48] Yes, I did only catch MONGO's comment because that was the only one that caught my attention (seeing "rvv" caused me to investigate it further and saw that MONGO was reinserting a personal attack that an anon had removed). Failure on my part to investigate further, but that doesn't make it less of an attack (or less food for the trolls). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request here. I believe SoD is Lovelight, a banned user, and I believe the IP trail proves it. I think the evidence is strong enough to stand without checkuser but we'll see where it goes. --Tbeatty 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Have fun. This will now be the 5th or so accusation from this small band of editors. And the 5th violation of my privacy. Does each of MONGO's good budies get a RFCU each before it becomes harassment? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, has anyone thought of using a checkuser to find out of the accusations of sockpuppetry are true? That would be a good start rather than playing he said she said he harassed me. DarthGriz98 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...read a few posts above. A checkuser has been requested. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that. DarthGriz98 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem that any MONGO topic faces is that when they see it, every single person who has had a problem crawls out to trot in and get in their punches. This makes it very easy to dismiss their input as 'getting in with old grudges', and it also makes it look like the same people go after MONGO again and again. Unfortunately, the flip side to that is that those old editors still don't see a resolution that satisfies, and then go off again with a BIGGER chip on their shoulders. And when they return, MONGO declares it harrassment based on an old grudge, and a failure to see resolution. Then you get a big group of 'anti-MONGO harrassers', who see themselves as either victims of MONGO, or frustrated editors watching the same act of a play over and over and over, who want to see the interlude, intermission, or next scene. Unfortunately, this gulf is going to widen. Given the pending RfCU, I doubt this will be the case that changes things, but when that case comes, it's going to be a titanic brawl. MONGO has infuriated a lot of people with his seemingly teflon edit-hat, and there are a lot of people eager to see his percieved unyielding incivility ended, by hook or by crook. This situation's only going to get worse, for two reasons. One, MONGO seems unwilling to ever defuse a situation. I don't think I've ever seen a MONGO thread in which MONGO apologizes. Two, admins seem increasingly reluctant to admonish MONGO for his actions. MONGO's not 100% to blame for any of these cases, but he WAS an admin, he knows full well the rules, and sometimes, it seems he uses rules lawyering to demonstrate why he doens't have to yield at all, instead of yielding to compromise to make peace. Other times, it comes off as just stubborn beyond belief. Further, there are enough cases where someone really was out to get MONGO that his allegations are rightly taken seriously. the problem is, though, that instead of looking at the aggregate number of 'MONGO's being a jerk' cases, MONGO's adept at steering every single case into being seen as thoroughly isolated from all other 'MONGO is a jerk' incidences. Then the individual situation either gets resolved or peters out, and we find ourselves back here again. A solution needs to be found, and 'Leave MONGO alone' isn't going to do it. MONGO seems attracted to the most hot button-y issues, and doesn't shy from fights, or frankly, the opportunity for one. Then it's back to AN/I, where we go through it again. MONGO could be changing his behavior based on numerous cases here and elswhere against him, but he doesn't. He says, well, I don't have to, but if other editors whose names repeat here over and over can be blocked or banned (one JUST happened, bu I can't find it right now), then MONGO could suffer the same. MONGO should reconsider his approaches to these things and see if he can't learn to avoid conflict a bit more. ThuranX 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so I can't call anyone a jerk, but you can call me one, as you just did...you can call me a "giant fucking WIKIDICK" (you capitalized it) and an "asshole" here (egregious comments the likes of which I have never lodged against anyone) and you claim I am the incivil one.--MONGO 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I deliberately wrote a long, thought out explanation of how complicated these things get. Since that LAST incident report where you didn't get in any trouble, I've been thinking about why it is that these cases never get solved, just fade away. I write a long thing about it, and instead of listen, you run true to type. I was summarizing the perspective of a large group of editors. You want to see anything remotely opositional to you as a personal attack, and then lump anyone who doesn't support you explicitly and holistically as a harrasser. You really should re-read what I said above. You're taking it all as a lump sum attack piece, and it's not. However, I do think I've figured out part of what's happening in a lot of these cases. You get defensive, excessively so, go after anything said against you in hyperbolic ways, distracting from the issues, and putting anyone who adds to the conversation off. Once you've put off or driven off enough editors, the case goes stale, and slides into the archives. Then it comes up again. and again. I'd like to know why you think none of these cases is ever your fault, even in part. ThuranX 06:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, may I remind you that you were not blocked for this disgusting post. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic is about MONGO and myself, please refrain from ad hominems. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's ad hominem to point out that when someone is lucky enough not to be blocked for an egregious personal attack, it's rather unbecoming for that person to show up arguing in favour of blocking someone for lesser examples of incivility. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So X is a personal attack and Y is a personal attack, but since X is worse, Y is forgiven? You are creating red herrings. Believe it or not even an arrested criminal can file charges. People are not permitted to engage in personal attacks, even against those they believe are attacking them, further I have done no such thing to MONGO. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor you alluded to as being recently banned was User:Doctor11. IIRC, he trolled MONGO, MONGO responded and was roundly criticized and the troll was banned as a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Tbeatty 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just dug through the archives for a moment. I was referring to Klaksonn, case here [49]. I was referring not to an editor in conflict with MONGO, but one who had appeared here numerous times for incivility and other issues, and who finally hit the community's patience mark. thanks for looking, though, appreciate it. ThuranX 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And Tbeatty, could you show me which part of policy states civility is only extended to those who are not suspected sockpuppets? Or maybe somewhere we have a guideline that states anyone can be rude if somebody else is rude first. Incivility is not excused when the person you were an asshole towards is proven to be a sockpuppet. - auburnpilot talk 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "excused". See Extenuating circumstances. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The principle is that administrators are not supposed to let harassed editors continue to be harassed. When they don't use their tools to stop it, the harassed editors may become annoyed enough to be incivil. Considering how many administrators still have not stopped the trolling of MONGO and then complain when he defends himself when he feels isolated is somewhat disconcerting. He is exasperated because instead of helping him stop the trolling by warning and blocking the trolls, some admins are using it as an excuse to point out MONGO incivility. MONGO doesn't feel like the admins are helping him when he is attacked and when he is warned and the troll isn't, it just adds fuel to the fire. I can't help but think that a talk page warning by an admin to an editor with as much experience as MONGO is nothing more than harassment. Send him an email. Ask how you can help or what made him so upset. But just continuing the handwringing and public complaining without actually fixing anything doesn't do anything but add fuel to the fire. These AN/I discussions are noting more than "feeding the trolls" and a lot of it is admins that are doing it. --Tbeatty 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. The fact that MONGO has been editing longer than other users does not entitle him to some preferential treatment. If MONGO's incivility is a problem, he'll be informed of that problem just like any other editor. To suggest that warning should be taken off-site via email because he has more contributions than somebody else is part of the very perception that is causing this problem. Nobody is entitled to respond "in kind" when they are attacked, or receive an inappropriate comment. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I please see this administrator intervention MONGO seeked before attacking me repeatedly. I cannot find any. Your whole premise above depends on MONGO seeking help before lashing out, this has not been the case. Further your reality of the situation requires everyone who has a complaint to be trolls. At what point does the community start asking, is everyone just uncivil to MONGO without provocation and or just reasoning? Further MONGO started appearing on my talk page, and engaging me, then attacking me. Your above statement is just another apologist statement ignoring the reality of the situation. You are engaging in exactly what ThuranX just described, attempting to lump one situation into the other to justify his behavior. Ignoring entirely the content of the individual situation at hand. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating the use of "counter-harassment." There are policies and dispute resolution, forums to seek help etc, to give users options other then being uncivil themselves. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm advocating making an effort to sort out a problem without making a trolled editor feel more frustrated. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which would be going to AN/I not MONGO attacking others. Which he has not done. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to speak on this, given my current situation, and my personal loyalty to MONGO. But I have to. MONGO does have real trolls attacking him regularly. They even organize off-wiki. That tends to make one a little paranoid and distrustful. My own experience in the past few days has made me quite skittish, to the point where I lashed out at another editor yesterday without firm evidence of their wrongdoing, and I'm a pretty patient person. I've only had a taste of what it it like to walk in the shoes that MONGO has to wear every day. I don't offer this as an excuse, just an empathetic view. I have received a great deal of moral support the last few days, and without it, I'm not sure I would have been able to maintain focus and composure. Could MONGO be more civil? Yes. Could other editors be a little more supportive initially when these situations come up, so that he is not driven to the frustration that results in incivility? I think so. - Crockspot 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sad part is that this topic was about allegations made against me, allegations MONGO has been making ever since I opposed a AfD he participated on, and continued on the talk page of all places, of a RfA. I was accused by MONGO of being a sock of 2 other users, the RFCU came back false. TBeatty, who we see is always in defense of MONGO, which a good friend is normally, then accuses me of being yet another editor. I am getting tired of the harassment of MONGO and his "friends," its in quotes because TBeatty takes friends in a hyperbolic manner to mean "cabal." The truth is the same people come to defend MONGO and like noted above the situation goes away. Every AN/I post plays out the same way since I have been here. MONGO is accused, TBeatty pops up, maybe Tom harrison (who I have much respect for), and one or two of the other people you often find on MONGO's talk page. The situation is treated like everyone is attacking MONGO and everyone is asked to stop persecuting him. Just on the RfA alone, MONGO accused goethean of attacking him, goethean asked how, and MONGO repeated the accusation. Instead of MONGO being asked to stop accusing goethean, goethean was asked to stop picking on MONGO. This is repeated over and over. I understand MONGO was trolled by an off-wiki site, we feel bad when editors are attacked in such a manner since they are here to forward this project, but that attack does not give anyone the status to then be beyond reproach. Was MONGO even asked to stop harassing me? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further how many times does MONGO have to be told to be civil, before something is done? People are incivil to MONGO, even if that was believed, it is not an excuse to be incivil back, we have channels to handle those issues that do not require counter-harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO doesn't have to be civil. All who oppose MONGO are trolls. there is no other explanation. Anyone who opposes MONGO doesn't understand that wikipedia is comprised of two people. Those who love MONGO, and those who refuse to. Anyone refusing to obey MONGO is a troll, anyone who does is a 'real wikipedian'. That's how MONGO sees it, that's how each of these AN/I threads plays out. MONGO refuses to see anything wrong in what he does, and as mentioned above, MONGO percieves any and all criticism of his actions as the work of more trolls. the fact that MONGO's been actually trolled means we get a guy who cries Wolf when it's just sheep, and sees a wolf in every sheep's clothing. I really don't think MONGO can help himself at this point. Any attack on him MUST be a troll, in his mind. Like Crockspot said, MONGO is paranoid. He really NEEDS to wikibreak. I'm sure he won't, but he ought to take a week and just walk away. It's just wikipedia, we will ge by without him, and the articles he likes will still be there. Everyone agrees he 'could' be more civil, but no one agrees he SHOULD be. TBeatty above says instead, MONGO should get extra considerations, that leaving him talk pages notes automatically constitutes harrassment. Well, if that's the case, then something's rotten in the state of Denmark. MONGO does NOT deserve our automatic support. TBeatty premises that if MONGO says somethign's wwrong, he must be right and we should help. that's unrealistic. MONGO should follow the rules, and the rules should applyto him. ThuranX 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"People should defend him more"

People do defend him. When there is truly a MONGO troll, the troll is blocked relatively quickly. The problem is that, as was the original point here, he makes accusations of being a troll without any proof, and then complains when no admin will block those people on his say-so. I support defending MONGO againt actual trolls. But such a charge needs evidence. We do not, and should not, block people just because "Oh, MONGO says they're a troll!" Merkey acted as if he had that power, and was laughed down once people realized it. Why is anyone actually supporting MONGO when he wants the same? -Amarkov moo! 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This really has got to stop. The way that SevenofDiamonds has been harassed is appalling. I'd like to hope that it'll let up now that it's been confirmed that Seven is not Lovelight, but I have to say that MONGO needs to stop his combativeness with other editors. I don't think I've ever seen a more argumentative editor on Wikipedia, and that kind of behavior makes consensus impossible. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• By the way, for those who claim that MONGO's incivility is caused by trolling, take a gander at his first twenty edits. -Amarkov moo! 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  More than 35,000 edits ago. This is really getting tiring...if you feel the need to "have something done" about me, then do what you have to do. I have the diffs to prove that you have been on a long term effort to seek some kind of retribution on me and I am sick of it.--MONGO 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  The point is not that you should be sanctioned for that behavior now. You shouldn't be. The point is that you have not changed since then. -Amarkov moo! 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "do what you have to do"? -Amarkov moo! 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Oh don't be so ridiculous, Amarkov. MONGO was a reactionary jerk in 2005. Well, IMHO he was. I opposed his RFA for the clueless way he intervened in a conflict between 172 and Silverback -- in which MONGO was guided, for my money, by nothing better than his own political convictions. That was then. Now is now. Contrary to some statements above about seeing things in black and white, I have found MONGO, since that nadir of autumn 2005, quite remarkably ready to reconsider his positions, to listen and take stuff in. I ended up removing my sincere and angry Oppose in the RFA, because of the way he took it. Of course I thought: "It's an RFA, what is that? Acting?" But I took a chance, and no, it wasn't. He regroups, it's what he does best. I suspect he remains a reactionary... but politics isn't the light he edits by now. Bringing up edits and edit summaries from 2005 doesn't make him look bad, it only makes you look desperate, Amarkov. Btw, while I can see that this edit, linked to above, is too old to block for NOW, I would really like to know what the hell happened there. Why wasn't ThuranX blocked, and how in the name of ... whatever, can anybody consider blocking anybody for personal attacks on the day ThuranX wasn't blocked for that? Let alone consider blocking the target of that attack. As ElinorD suggests, for ThuranX himself to clamor for a MONGO block after that has to be one of the most unbecoming spectacles ever to disgrace this board. (Sorry, Elinor, that's my way of talking rather than yours, but the sentiment is the same.) Come off it. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

  I fancy the concern is not that MONGO remains biased, or reactionary; the concern is that he continues to be extremely rude. My only interaction with him was on this noticeboard[50], where I noticed that not one long-term contributor not previously involved had stepped in to point out to MONGO that extending his personal POV to stigmatizing other contributors was not OK. So, simply, the above statement is incorrect: politics is the "light by which he edits", at least by whatever I have observed, and, in fact, he states as much in that exchange (Note again, I have no axe to grind, as I have never run into him in an article, nor do I expect to.)Hornplease 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Example

MONGO makes a flippant general comment [51]. Immediately a response which can only serve to troll the situation as only citing WP:DICK can do. [52] I removed the comment because it really can only explode into more heat than light [53]. An admin decides that citing WP:DICK is actually a reasonable comment in light of all this [54][55]. This is a fundamental problem. --Tbeatty 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here you once again detracting from the topic. As ThuranX noted, you are again injecting an alternate situation into this one to justify MONGO's actions. While that should not have happened, it has nothing to do with MONGO's treatment of me, his allegations which have all been proven wrong, yours as well, and the continued violations of my privacy and harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't justified MONGO's actions in the least bit. I pointed out that he is being trolled. Again. And that an admin seems to have condoned it. I don't think that has anything to do with MONGO's actions. I think it has a lot to do with how people have responded here. --Tbeatty 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling MONGO a dick is a problem. I have absolutely no argument with removing such a post. But at this point, it's quite understandable (although bad) for people to be frustrated at him and put it back in anyway, because MONGO is never sanctioned for any incivility. Ever. -Amarkov moo! 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be accusing myself and another editor of being trolls - please back that remark or redraw it. --Fredrick day 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

requested deletion of closed AfD talk page

Resolved

 – Page courtesy blanked.

Hi, I wish to draw attention to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brent Henry Waddington, and an ip which has twice blanked the page, most recently with the edit summary "As a Brent Waddington unconnected with this guy, it would be really great if everytime my employers googled me they didn't see that page. Would it be OK if we deleted it?". Since the previous blanking (without edit summary) was reverted, I kind of feel the guy deserves some sort of a response. I think it's odd that he isn't asking for the AfD page to be deleted. Note that the AfD was connected to a bunch of hoaxing apparently connected to a poetry book masquarading as a textbook in game theory, by a bunch of university students tracked down by User:Bwithh, and eventually ended with a university official requesting access to the deleted article [56]. I wouldn't like to have my name associated with such stuff, it's pretty much of historical interest only, but should a closed AfD be deleted for such a reason? My 2c says it ought to be blanked, but I think some admin input is appropriate here. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason we can't blank the page out of courtesy; I'm not familiar with general practice, here, as to whether blanking or deletion is preferred. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a 2-year-old AFD ... I don't see any real reason not to delete it. --B 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now just take a wild guess wheather this conversation will come up on Google... Renata 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pablothegreat85 erased

User:Pablothegreat85 wrote this about me "Something still needs to be done about users such as Bmedley Sutler and SevenOfDiamonds and their IP sockpuppets. They both, especially Bmedley Sutler, are accounts that used mostly for left-wing POV-pushing and trolling." I am not a troll and I have no sockpuppets. Check my edit history to see all I do tonight. Link I left a NPA warning on his page as part of 'dispute resolution', so I would not need to have to post here and bother you. I was told to try some dispute resolution first. He erased my warning and called it 'trolling'. Link I ask for a block of at least one week for thwarting my efforts to communicate as a part of disputing. He suggested a forever ban for Giovanni33 for a 3 rr. I think he needs one week or two weeks to settle down and stop his attacks and poor behavior. He is a long-time editor so he knows better. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Erasing warnings from talk page is frowned upon. It isn't a blockable offense. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not good! I'll post it again. Bmedley Sutler 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, the corresponding "policy/guideline/essay/article" reads: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." A user can remove pretty much whatever he wants from his user talk and edit warring over a warning like this is silly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring to keep unwanted content on a different user's talk page can be interpreted as harrassment and can lead to a block for the editor who keeps posting the warning. Kusma (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He attacked me, then removed my warning as 'trolling'. That is not right. If he says in his edit summary "Okay, I made a mistake attacking you, removing warning" that will be Okay. Not to label it trolling though. Not after he attacked me! Sorry! Bmedley Sutler 08:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Templating a talk page isn't an effort to communicate! I'm going to revert your revert. Try actually talking him to him instead. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of this, you are complaining about the same thing you have been doing. You have put a multitude of warnings, received on your talk page, into your archive almost immediately. Ursasapien (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are funny! I am laughing! I made one archive when my page got too long, and I didn't delete anything. Bmedley Sutler 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I could provide you with a little humor, because you come across as fairly angry. By your measure, since it can be seen in the edit history, User:Pablothegreat85 did not delete anything either. Why don't you take a wikibreak. Wikipedia seems to be getting to you. Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one laughing. You seem angry and you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days! See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA Bmedley Sutler 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What has that link got to do with Pablo?--MONGO 09:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm the one laughing." - Yes, I assumed you were laughing at my comment, hence I provided you with a little humor. "You seem angry" - How so, I don't feel angry and apparently I come across as comical to you. "you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days!" - Now this seems paranoid. Couple that with your statement: "Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions." and I would say you definitely need a wikibreak! Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making me laugh again Ursa! I didn't write that "disilluioned" sentence. What a funny joke! Bmedley Sutler 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, my first warning to him was hand written And he erased it. So I used the more official warning template. That's what I'm supposed to do! (use a template) Whats with these rules that have no lines? 24 hrs is not 24 hrs and I follow a rule and now someone tells me I'm not supposed to follow the rule of official templates! Bmedley Sutler 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh First off, I do post from an IP at times, the first instance was an IP I managed the whole time as I keep my router up 24/7. I no longer use that IP without logging in and am not aware of if I still have it, the purpose of using it was because I forgot my pass after signing up. I then created SevenOfDiamonds, previously, SixOfDiamonds, so that I could login from my alternate location. The only other time I have used an IP was to edit from a local coffee shop/lounge which I signed as myself. I do not login from public lines because I do not trust transmitting personal information over non-secured wireless networks, its bad practice. So far this "clique" has accused me of being 5, possibly 6 other users, 4 of them in RFCU's. If this harassment continues I will ask for admin intervention. However for now, perhaps Pablo can just apologize for his bad faith attacks and accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now with the last RFCU I am now asking for admin intervention, this is bordering on harassment, the same group has filed 3 RFCU's against me, alleging me to be 5 different users. This is bordering on a violation of privacy and harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I find three - which is getting excessive WilyD 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also been accused of being two other users by MONGO and one by Crockspot (he later rescinded). I agree a bit excessive, and becoming a violation of my privacy. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a notice that this topic had been brought here. The reason I felt that the warning was trolling was because I was given a final warning and I didn't feel that I deserved one. In the interest of being a good sport, I will restore the "final warning" by Bmedley Sutler and respond (even though I am in no way obligated to do so). Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:देसीफ्राल

I believe this user has been wikistalking. I encountered this user on some of the controversial topics on the white people article. However I just noticed he has reverted my edits on several other unrelated articles. For comparison

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

Muntuwandi 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the afrocentrist agenda, original research and unreliable sources Muntuwandi is forcing into articles, as well as suspected sockpuppetry and comments verging on breaching several wiki guidelines, I felt it my duty as an editor to ensure other articles were not affected by this. Sure enough though, Muntuwandi is inserting all of the aforementioned problems and pov into other articles, so I reverted. Luckily, I got there before other editors had much of a chance to edit, so negative effects to other editors' edits were minimal.

Muntuwandi needs some sort of a block ASAP. --देसीफ्राल 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If only every new user was so well versed in Wikipedia jargon and policy. They aren't, so this behavior is rather suspicious.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

this is wikistalking. What has the biology of sexual orientation, Gender differences or Estonian scientist Toomas Kivisild have to do with an Afrocentric agenda. Muntuwandi 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing for about 10 months or so, anon on here and de-wiki. Created account couple months ago and started using it to keep track of contribs, something that is hard with dynamic i.p. --देसीफ्राल 11:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And above is another of Muntuwandi's favorite tactics, picking one point of an argument, acting as if it was the entire argument and trying to discredit it. Muntuwandi, your afrocentric agenda is only one of your problems --देसीफ्राल 11:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other users have also expressed concern at this username, since it is not in the latin alphabet. But according to the user it is not in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Muntuwandi 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little gem of afrocentrism [57] being inserted into an article, which doesn't even fit with the flow of the text --देसीफ्राल 11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And a couple of current warnings on Muntuwandi's page, issued by other editors, concerned about his pushing of OR [58] --देसीफ्राल 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

X-centrist or whatever! You should stop following users to articles they edit immediately. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.E0.A4.A6.E0.A5.87.E0.A4.B8.E0.A5.80.E0.A4.AB.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2. The fact that it is "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.E0.A4.A6.E0.A5.87.E0.A4.B8.E0.A5.80.E0.A4.AB.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2" identifies the problem. THF 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is that garbage? --देसीफ्राल 11:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That "garbage" is exactly why your username is not appropriate! Please change it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with his username. The link to his username is in fact [59]. All that UTF-8 or whathaveyou nonsense is not correct. Wikipedia fully supports unicode for good reason. As far as wikistalking, stalking only occurs when there is an effort to annoy or harass someone. Merely watching their behavior or trying to address a persistent problem is not stalking, although it may not be very friendly. I would certainly like to keep things as friendly as possible because there are always ways to cause other editors trouble and for those of us who are honestly trying to improve the factual content of wikipedia it can be disconcerting. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't even see what देसीफ्राल is. All that appears to me is 8 square blocks. Usernames that have characters that are confusing should be changed. Simple as that. — Moe ε 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Still there is a noticeable pattern of reverting basically every single one of Muntuwandi's edits. That definitely looks like wiki-stalking.--Ramdrake 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is a little bit too familiar with Wikipedia for a new user. The articles edited and the focus upon Muntuwandi suggest that he may be a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650 or something. We have the standard race-related edits (white people, negro). He actually used "negro" when adding OJ Simpson's picture to the Negro article [60]. Hayden and his sockpuppets also were fond of using "negro" in the articles and their talk pages.

As for the user name itself, a Google search suggests that it is equivalent to "Desiphral" [61] . We happen to have a User:Desiphral on Wikipedia already, and Hayden had conflicts with him (over Romani people). So that may be where the user name is from. This all deserves a closer look, in any case.

In any case, it is clear that this is not truly a new user, and he is wikistalking Muntuwandi. The Behnam 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : I recently reported User:Muntuwandi for political soapboxing [62] and he was warned by an admin [63]. However, I now believe that the problem is more than that. Note his edit history, it's all about race related articles: [64] And:

1)He seems to be adding material which isnt even mentioned in the source. Ex:

• "Light skin is not unique to human populations, in fact it is the default state of most mammals." [65] (Adding the info), [66] (Adding the source). There's nothing remotely similar in the source: [67]

• "The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active." [68] [69]. Again, there isnt even mentioning of "Asian" in the source [70]. I suspect he's trying to advance his POV that albinos and east asians are also white [71]

2) Or he seems to blatantly misrepresent sources:

• "Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin. Bare skin may have become sexually attractive as a sign of health, hence sexual selection favored darker skin colors." [72] (Also note the afro-centricism)

• • Source: ""In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians" [73]

3) Afro-centric edits: [74], deletes all cited info about East Asians and North Europeans to replace with info about Africans in Human height [75]

4)Deleting HUGE AMOUNTS of cited information. [76]

I'm sure I can find more examples but I'll stop here for now...KarenAER 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Karen, this has already been raised and addressed at Talk:White People. Please be aware that what you're doing here can be construed as forum-shopping and is frowned upon by the community.--Ramdrake 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please call me KarenAER. Note that the version here is LONGER and posted MINUTES after the talk page in white people to draw attention to Muntuwandi's edits. So I'm sure blatant lying (as if I didnt like the answers in white people talk page and hence moved the discussion here...) is frowned upon too. Inability to understand why I posted these here ( देसीफ्राल claimed Muntuwandi's edits were compromising Wikipedia so he was correcting them ) may be laughed upon by the community too...KarenAER 07:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, KarenAER, I didn't lie (as I can't know your motives), I just pointed out that posting the same issue in two different places to attract more attention (even if one version is expanded from the other) is the wrong thing to do on Wikipedia, and I told you why. I didn't imply anything about your motives, just pointed out the inappropriateness of your actions. On another front, you might gain something by tuning down the hostility and refraining from personal attacks (such as accusing others of lying when they aren't), but that's just my observation.--Ramdrake 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Asking for a consensus in a completely different "venue" or section of Wikipedia, in the hope of finding more support for a failed proposal, is known disapprovingly as forum-shopping" When you accused me of forum shopping you implied that I didnt like the answers in white people talk page and moved the discussion here. The community frowns on people who dont read the policies they are quoting. And I really dont think your in any position to dictate "inappropriateness" or what is wrong. KarenAER 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I make no judgement on whether देसीफ्राल is a sock. But Muntuwandi's accusation of wikistalking is without merit. Muntuwandi is a problematic user, bent on inserting afrocentrist bias wherever he goes. There is nothing wrong with following the contributions of a user, especially if their behaviour is problematic, that's why we have "Special:Contributions". देसीफ्राल should consider changing his username as a gesture of good faith, but that has nothing to do with the complaint of wikistalking.. It appears obvious that देसीफ्राल is User:Desiphral (de:Benutzer:Desiphral). He should stick to using a single account. --dab (𒁳) 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm a unique editor, I will append my signature rather than the hassle of a name change within the next couple of days, I'l use the shortened 'Phral' to avoid ambiguity between myself and user:Desiphral --देसीफ्राल 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamming

Mattbroon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 84.68.177.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the latter signs as Mattbroon) have been spamming this message to everyone who supported User:Haemo during his RFA. He says that everyone should revoke their support because he thinks that Haemo is a paedophile. Please block for harassment. Melsaran 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped after he was warned. If it continues post here again and I'll look into it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this user's first edit was to WP:RFPP (highly unlikely for a new account, don't you think), and the user proceeded to disrupt RFA throughout the day, including Making his own RFA, and then proceeding to attempt to reopen it after it was snowball closed, as well as voting for himself (you can see records of this on his talk page), vote against editors that clearly quality for adminship because they 'don't have enough experience', even after running himeslf[77][78] and remove notes about his suspicious newness.[79] He as also broken 3RR on Margaret Thatcher [80], and this is barely beginning to talk about him. He's obviously only here to disrupt Wikipedia in any way he can find, whether he is a sockpuppet or not. --Lucid 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hard to discern any positive value in this editors actions or intentions. Seen editors quite legitimately indef blocked for less. Deiz talk 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• He's cruisin' for a bruisin'. When I see the indef-block notice come up on my watchlist, I won't be surprised in the least... EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend he is at least blocked until the end of the RfA. --Dweller 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, given that his disruption at the RfA was continuing ([81]), I've gone ahead and blocked. 1 week. --Dweller 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That works too. I didn't do a full review of his contributions when I initially replied, but yeah... there isn't much positive work there.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering I had to fully protect his own RfA because he kept editing it after it was closed, I don't think it much matters when the RfA ends. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have indefinitely blocked; I don't see one edit that adds any value to Wikipedia. Clearly a sock, with no intention other than disruption and smearing Haemo. Neil ム 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support extending the block to indef. I don't know if this user is a sockpuppet of some banned, reckless troll or a newbie that will forever be tainted by his actions and will definitely need to start anew here (if the lesson is learnt well, that is).--Húsönd 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with another admin extending the block. On the other hand, I'm intrigued to see how he'll behave when he returns. --Dweller 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The idiotic part of me that is hopelessly optimistic in the face of Reality and Facts would like to make this his final chance. If he behaves after the block wears off, great. If not, he's gone. I think the former situation is orders of magnitude less likely than the later, but I'm fine giving him the opportunity to prove me wrong (despite the fact that I never am). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser showed a reincarnation sock, User:Chatchien, which I have blocked indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Damburger and WP:NPA WP:CIVIL

"your reading comprehension" [82], "your pathetic excuse for an argument" [83], "antisocial behaviour" [84], "intellectually dishonest" [85], "is there nobody ... even slightly reasonable" "willing to read and understand" [86], "I see a lot of [ignorance]", "your nitpicking" [87], "have the decency to at least discuss" [88], etc etc etc[89][90][91][92][93]. More in his edit history, talk page, and block log.
Won't be talked out of his style of discourse because he considers he isn't attacking editors, merely their pathetic excuses for an argument[94] and several editors at once and not individual ones personally so it's not WP:NPA[95]. Any way to calm him down...? Weregerbil 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't make a personal attack against an argument because an argument is not a person. And if you want to calm me down, then I would suggest that people actually address my arguments and not a characature of them. It gets extremely fustrating when people keep repeating the same refutation of an argument that it not the one you've made. Damburger 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't post to that talkpage a lot anymore is because of the personal attacks lodged by Damburger. This is not a new thing, it has been going on for a long time.--MONGO 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the old gambit "I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your pathetic thoughts" is WP:CIVIL, or a trick around WP:NPA that should be encouraged or allowed. Weregerbil 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User has a long history of civility issues. He left this comment on my talk page for which I have blocked him for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Block endorsed (and unblock just declined by me). Nothing but incivility and personal attacks from this editor - Alison ☺ 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the WP:NPA policy is being extended to the point where one can't even criticize the ideas of others without running afoul of it. Some people around here seem to be intent to censor all criticism. *Dan T.* 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see..so you consider Damburgers commentary to be accepable? Perhaps his arguments would be better accepted if he ceased attacking everyone who disagrees with him.--MONGO 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your pleas for people to stop attacking others who disagree with them would carry more weight if you didn't have a long history of doing just that yourself. *Dan T.* 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Excuse me while I laugh up a lung. And please, now do run off and post further insults about me on the mailing list and at WR.--MONGO 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Scipio3000 Continuing to Be Disruptive

User talk:Scipio3000 is turning into a frenzy now and he continues to soapbox on his talk page as well as bash User:Edward321. Any other admins care to look at this? He is coming dangerously close to going back to an incredibly longer block but I do not want to be trigger happy with the block button.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 48 hours which will coincide closely with the expiration of his block. I have also blanked the page which contained the personal attacks, trolling and vitriol. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• JodyB just prot'd the talk page for the duration of the block, so that's that - Alison ☺ 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  Oops - edit conflict :) - Alison ☺ 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that Scipio is blocked from editing he's sending me emails. Fortunately filters can drop him in the appropriate folder unread. Edward321 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Edward321 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Need SSP report reviewed

There appears to have been ongoing sockpuppetry involving The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see especially talk page) and the associated AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Other users created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 to address this, but it appears that no one has reviewed it. I think that the evidence already present was extremely strong, and I've just added additional evidence making the connection even stronger. Could some one review this data please? I think it is pretty convincing that Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both at least socks of indef blocked Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and timing evidence between FiatLux and Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) showing the same pattern of periods of editing vs. inactivity seem to be very strong evidence of complete identity. GlassFET 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SmokeyTheCat

This user has repeatedly removed correct info from Ronald Reagan's page to give a negative slant to President Reagan, something he tried before, by starting a debate about how Reagan was a "mass-murderer." This is the third time he has removed correct info, even after a citation was provided (he just got rid of it all), and he won't stop. Please help. Best, Happyme22 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for review Erin Burnett

In the article Erin Burnett a WP:3RR will happen so I will ask for intervention. ICarriere (talk · contribs · count) is reverting [96] and starting personal attacks on the [97] talk page. A pointer to the WP:civilty page was placed on the user page but was reverted.

I am asking for Admin intervention as this will not be solved otherwise. statsone 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has explained on the talk page why he removed the quote. I quickly scanned that page. I cannot see the personal attack that you are referring to. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits are reverted while they are valid. The controversy is valid and should appear on the page. Comments are being made that are not civil (Anonymous Coward from IRS). Comments now appear on my talk page with the same lack of civility. statsone 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page. No sense in having two threads about the same thing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. For the record, still on going. statsone 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP 71.113.116.38

Was browsing and found user from ip 71.113.116.38 had made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalcedonian&diff=prev&oldid=151437298 containing pornographic images and an off-topic diatribe in an an article about the Chalcedonian theological position. I think this is vandalism but according to the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page I shouldn't report it there. I'm not very familiar with Wiki procedure so I'm posting this here in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Thanks

208.181.106.137 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I left them a warning. I'll keep a watch on their contributions in case they continue more edits like that.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Editing Pages, Please be Advised....

Resolved

Move along, nothing to see. Miranda 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.167.224.228

   Search results for: 12.167.224.228

   AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1)
                                    12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
   FOX NEWS CHANNEL FOX-NEWS73-224-224M (NET-12-167-224-224-1)
                                    12.167.224.224 - 12.167.224.255

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/15/fox-news-caught-re-writing-wikipedia-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.158.65 (talk • contribs)

Nothing out of the ordinary. We have people from CBS, ABC, and NBC editing articles here, too. In addition to government agencies. Miranda 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please rest assured we are well aware of who is editing what. There's no need for any panic, we have administrators and checkusers ensuring there is no conflict of interest. Most of these edits are generally of excellent quality, having been made by people who know the subjects they are editing inside out. Thanks for your report, however. Nick 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think between the Radio factor and the TV show Bill wouldn't have the time to contribute. I hope his edits are "pithy" ;) Rockpocket 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wired magazine online and National Public Radio in the US have had stories about a new tool that allows quick tracing of changes to Wikipedia articles to their owners. Well, none of that is news. Even our vandals know how to check WHOIS and click on the History tab. For eons, we've had, known, and politely battled against points being scored. It is the wonderful world of free information. (Dow Chem. wiping criticisms of environmentalism was the radio show's example, as well as FoxNews inserting adjectives. Meh. The real dangers are with the very fringe topics that they might munge.)

Still, thank you for the alert. If you're interested in helping out, watchlist likely articles, and you'll see the kinds of changes that occur on a nearly hourly basis to "political" articles. Geogre 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin violating 3RR on 9/11 Truth Movement

I'm[98] afraid[99] I[100] did[101]. My only excuse is that the second of the four reverts is reversion of clear, but subtle, vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AN3. Melsaran 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that this is technically a 3RR violation, because [102] is obvious vandalism. Melsaran 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see we differ on which edits were obvious vandalism. Good, then, I'm not likely to be sanctioned, even if I were to report myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is to keep the editwarring down. so, discuss on the talk page rather then repeatedly revert. Also, use clear edit summaries. --Rocksanddirt 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of IP

I've blocked User:12.167.224.228 for three months per this rather convincing list of POV-pushing by them as a corporation editing articles related to them and their rivals. Since it's been blocked for that reason before, there didn't seem much point in just warning. Does this seem correct to you? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit overzealous, IMHO. We don't often block high profile IPs, especially if they haven't done the said POV-pushing for quite a while. This IP didn't have many edits, and some of them seemed to be removing some of the problem. The thing is: either we should be blocking this for a much longer time period, or not at all. Three months is going to do little. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though if the IP is blocked or not, you should report the incident to the Communications Cmte.. Miranda 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

151.44.156.225

This ip 151.44.156.225 is editing Armenian articles with bad faith, I reverted his edits he seems to know all the rules possibly banned user previously can someone block him? --Vonones 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He's hitting from a lot of IPs, all of which I believe are dynamic IPs of net24.it. I don't know how to stop this, without semiprotecting every single article remotely related to Armenia. --Golbez 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we have to either semi protect them, revert all his edits which will cause major edit warring, or reply to his commands by adding references or anything else. --Vonones 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could you give examples of which edits you believe were made in bad faith? This just looks like a content dispute. Which user do you believe he is a sockpuppet of? I notice that no warnings were placed on his talk page, but that Golbez has already blocked him without explanation. I believe that Golbez should not have implemented the block as he appears to have been in a content dispute with the user (see [103]). Yes, the anon user violated 3RR in the same dispute, but no warning was given. I would prefer to warn the user, unblock him and keep an eye on him. - Papa November 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You could technically see it as a content dispute. However, when he started going into vandalism and racist attacks (see his edit comments), that went out the window. There's no need to defer to process to remove a simple anti-Armenian troll. He wasn't blocked for 3RR (Actually he never specifically broke that), he was blocked for incivility and trolling. --Golbez 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit summary which states "These are the standard tags which appear on articles regarding unrecognized countries, such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"? It implies POV, but I'm not sure it constitutes racism or vandalism. Thanks Papa November 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the ones by his sockpuppets. [104] [105] If you want to challenge my block, please go to RFC. I stand by it completely. --Golbez 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He also violated his block like three times. --Vonones 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has quite a history here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma. I became pretty frustrated with him a few months back, but as you can see, there seems to be some consensus for tolerating him based on his often constructive edits. It can be pretty annoying, but I have found that he responds reasonably most of the time if you very politely discuss things with him. This even includes not reacting to his less than civil style of edit summaries, and talk page comments. Hiberniantears 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Block Anonymous Address Range 209.7.28.225 through 209.7.28.254

I'm the Network Administrator for the IP Range 209-7.225-209.7.28.254. You've had issues with bad edits coming from that network range in the past. We're an elementary school and the vandalism. I'd like a permanent ban on that range for anonymous editing. If a legitimate edit needs to be made, it can be made under an account where more reliable, individual user tracking can be had. You can verify my claim by looking up the whois information for that range as well as browsing to our website (http://www.mbvm.org). If you have any questions, please let me know. Imsaguy 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to user's talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Digital Nitrate Prize

Having exhausted all of the means I know of to discuss this issue with a varying group of "editors," I would like to respectfully request some help in resolving this issue.

The Digital Nitrate Prize is a legitimate, not for profit organization that will award a cash prize for the first individual or company to duplicate high-silver, nitrate motion pictures using digital means. It is announced publically, and supported by prestigious individuals in the archival field. It is an extremely important effort in historic preservation.

A small group of individuals who are hard for me to identify, have decided for reasons that I don't understand that this is some sort of "hoax". There have been two attempts to restore this listing as suggested early on by one of the early commentors.

I'm quoting their post in full:

(begin quote)

• Hello and thank you for taking the time to create Digital Nitrate Prize. However I was unable to find any mention of it in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. You may comment on this page. This is nothing personal and I encourage you to copy the text of the current article into a text document so when the prize does exist you can create the article again. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digital_Nitrate_Prize --Mboverload 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(end quote)

Of course it IS in GOOGLE, Yahoo and ASK.Com now... http://www.ask.com/web?q=digital+nitrate+prize&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir , http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=digital+nitrate+prize&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

The most recent post is from Seattlenow and most recently Realkyhick who deleted the page before 5 days were up and is now making threats.

Despite placing the proper "hold" tags on the page, it was deleted without discussion based upon the fact that someone had deleted it before over a year ago.

Polite requests for reasons went unanswered.

Now, I'm being threatened with "black listing" for attempting to properly re-list the item.

Proper references and citations were supplied and the subject can now be Googled (which was not true a year ago because it had not been crawled yet.)

I want to do this in the most courteous and effective way possible. This process is all very complicated and hard to follow and I'm trying to follow the rules as best as I can understand them.

The intentions here are purely honorable and honest.

Thank you for your help.

"Movieresearch 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"

You're looking for deletion review here, not administrator intervention; make a short explanation on that page, and see what the community thinks about it. Admins can't really help you with what is a content dispute. --Haemo 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chatchien

Resolved

 – vote was removed as account was created on day of vote

I'm wondering if this is an issue. Chatchien (talk • contribs)'s first ever contribution at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haemo, showing opposition for lack of credentials. He/she used an edit summary and talked in an experienced way. Is this account a possible sockpuppet? LOZ: OOT 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of strange, and they created the account on the same day they voted and it was their first contribution. I'm going to strike the !vote and leave a message on the RFA. DarthGriz98 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. thank you for clering the fog for me. LOZ: OOT 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Gladboy

Gladboy has been adding huge numbers of images recently that a) don't have copyright plates, and b) would need fair-use, but don't have a rationale. He appears to be obtaining them from Youtube - I've found a case where he's encouraged another user to do ther same, see here (bottom). I have placed warnings on his page about his use of images, both STLBot and OrphanBot have been having a whale of a time - perhaps time for some admin intervention? Thanks, _TheIslander 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated - he's still avidly trying to revert any edit I make to remove his copyright violations... _TheIslander 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie editor is a little bit out of control. I've had a word and will keep a lookout on the situation - Alison ☺ 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian

To whom it may concern, I was recently trying to patch up some article disputes with the administrator Eyrian. Anyway, I see that his user page, talk page, archives, essays, etc. have all been deleted and protected. Anyway, I was just curious what gives? Was his account compromised? Has he left Wikipedia? Etc. In any case, although I disagreed with this editor, I am just curious what happened and still hope that he is nevertheless okay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea. his page is cascade-protected with no reason supplied, last edit today. He may be using his m:Right to Vanish, but should probably step down as an admin to do so. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I too hope everything is ok, however, the user talk needs to be unprotected. Navou ^banter 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried sending him an email to ask, but it seems he either does not have an email or made it so he cannot receive messages. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks who leave altogether routinely come back, including a few admins. It's OK if he remains a sysop since the developers weeded out weak sysop passwords after a few administrator accounts were hijacked. I'm not very keen on the user talk page salting either, but if he's really gone, there's no reason he needs to receive messages. ~shrug~.--Chaser - T 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable that admins who protect their pages, particularly if the protection is expected to be long term or the admin is leaving the project (short or long term), leave a brief notice to that effect be posted. I don't think anyone is saying that User Talk pages shouldn't be protected when necessary but it should be a courtesy, particularly for admins, to let others know that they're gone and can't help or answer questions. Just protecting a User Talk page, particularly an admin's, can be confusing and frustrating for other editors, particularly newer editors. --ElKevbo 05:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I left such a note and protected the talk page directly.--Chaser - T 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are several admins (myself included) who did a "right to vanish" followed several months later by a "right to return". Thus deopping people for being inactive is probably not the best approach. Also, WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 63.162.143.21

(copied from WP:AIV because that apparently was the wrong place for this report)

Anonymous user User:63.162.143.21 has a long history of vandalism. See User_Talk:63.162.143.21. Most recently he has vandalized Spencer Abraham by inserting:

On November 5, 2003 The Onion World News reported that Abraham admitted to having performed in over 50 pornographic videos from 1984-1987. Abraham's "mostly softcore" body of work includes such features as Maid In The Shade, Jism Quest, Butt Fuck Sluts Go Nuts Vol. 3, and Lady Chatterly's Sisters.

He has inserted this same text three times in the last two days, which is not technically a violation of 3RR, but is clearly a violation of BLP.

In Amy_Fisher he inserted the subject's street address, which another editor reverted as a violation of BLP.

In Human Sexuality he made a nonsensical edit which another editor reverted.

In Heather Sinclair he added gossip which another editor reverted.

On the basis of his history I am very suspicious of his other edits, e.g.:

• in The Dream Team he changed "Aquaman" to "Ramones". Is this an accurate correction or vandalism?
• in Edward Cash he changed the birthplace from Malden to Boston. Accurate or vandalism?

Complicating this case is that User:63.162.143.21 is a shared account. Some edits are vandalism, some might be vandalism, others may be legitimate.

The obvious vandalism is bad enough but will probably be caught and reverted before too long. But all of the other edits might be vandalism. Is there a mechanism to mark every article touched by this user to warn other editors to check for possible vandalsim by this user?

Is there some way to notify the owner/administrator of this IP address (apparently inside the Department of Homeland Security!) that somebody is committing vandalism and try to stop it there? Sbowers3 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn him appropriately and systematically, using template messages, from WP:VANDAL. If does not desist, then report to AIV after a final warning. A temporary block may be then placed, and hopefully this might help resolve the issue. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal information from Amy Fisher removed from page history. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I've looked over the edits and it appears there are at least three users coming from this IP. One, in fact, has done a number of useful edits. It may be worthwhile to contact DHS and ask them if this is a proxy and encourage them to have their users register accounts, especially given the new tools available in the last few days. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, I also thought there were multiple users. Some clearly was vandalism; some seemed useful - but could have been subtle vandalism. I didn't know the subjects well enough to tell if the edits were useful or vandalism so I wondered if there were a way to warn other editors to double-check the edits.

Is there some way to identify an administrative contact at that IP site and find an email address? I'd be happy to send a message but I don't know how to find an email address. I will send snail mail if there is no better way.

BTW, what are the "new tools"? Sbowers3 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV: Sixstring1965

• Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user that just came off a 48 hour block for both vandalism and sock puppetry has again ignored repeated warnings and is misquoting people by vandalizing his own Talk page, has vandalized my Talk page, added sourceless information and original research, and added sources that are unfit for an encyclopedia article after having been warned against it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Layla12275 (talk • contribs).

Moving this from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonably simple block for disruption, or is there some history behind this I don't know about? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was moved, but this user has vandalized repeatedly after many warnings, such as here, and here (this was word-changing that violated POV after several requests followed by warnings not to do so--this was the repeated change that resulted in the user's first block, and he has not stopped), here, and here (addition of sources that are not Wiki worthy after being asked not to do so).

As for this new accusation of using my "friends"--I don't know anyone on Wikipedia; these people just jumped to my defense. Layla12275 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Layla12275 is a troll and a vandal. She likes to make me look bad and uses her friends to get me blocked. If I get blocked again, Please block her as she is a serial reverter. Sixstring1965 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If she reverted edits you made via your anonymous sockpuppet, she's allowed. Any edits made by a blocked user through a suspected sockpuppet are to be reverted no matter how useful they were. Daniel Case 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is some history. Some of the users involved believe that SixString may be May Pang, owing to a similar history with MsMP a year ago on the same article.

I made the blocks for the vandalism to Talk:May Pang and the sockpuppetry; I might be doing so again soon. Daniel Case 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No Daniel, The reverts are not sockpuppet reverts, they are legit not only my edits but other users. If I get blocked, she should be too. And as I said before, I'm not Pang. Sixstring1965 04:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the comment regarding "friends" refers to. If that's me, I don't even remember how I got involved with this article. Possibly recent changes patrolling. Regardless, I have no previous involvement with the article or Layla or anyone else involved with it, for that matter. I'm the one that's dropped most of the warnings and requested the first block. It's also worth noting there have been issues with personal attacks as seen here where he refers to Layla as a "twat". Lara♥Love 04:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Case, you can take a look at my edit history and see that the only reverts I made were because of either vandalism to Talk pages (primarily his) or because information was either sourceless or poorly sourced. LaraLove was actually the person to deem his original source unworthy of Wikipedia, it wasn't me. I mistakenly called her an admin in my edit summary, and for that I apologize. I also apologize if I violated the three-revert rule, but dealing with a vandal such as this is exasperating at best. Thank you for your time. Layla12275 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can also vouch that Lara has had no previous involvement with me; she's merely been helping me immensely in defending myself against such attacks. Layla12275 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, They both sound worried. I demand that if I get repremanded again that they recieve the same treatment as I. They BOTH have been tormenting the board and sending friendly mails to each other and with that making me look bad. I didn't attach the word "twat" to Layla so you can bat that one around all you want. Layla says she "merely" helped her "emensely" (whatever that means) by helping to destroy my reputation by firing me up with the reverts and edits. The only vandal here is Layla and Laralove is helping her in the Wikipedia legal sense. Don't let them get away with this. Just look at the history.Sixstring1965 04:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, but yes, please look at the history. That should give you enough of a clue as to what's going on. His vandalism to his own Talk page is enough, actually. And he did call me a "twat", which is obvious from the link Lara provided. Sorry about this mess, and thank you for your time. Layla12275 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

She accused me of being other people (3 different people I think) and this was damaging to my screen name. That is why this thing spun out of control. I say it again, If I get reprimanded, so should Layla and Laralove. Sixstring1965 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I speculated that you were May Pang, and Mr. Case knows why, because he already stated the exact reason above. Also, it was your actions that damaged your good name, sir. The person you're addressing is the person who blocked you as a result of your actions in the first place. Layla12275 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then you should be blocked for your serial reverting... right? Sixstring1965 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "serial", but that's not up to me. It's obvious that there was an infraction every time I reverted you, but I may have gone over the limit, in which case I will accept that verdict. However, my reasoning isn't exactly covert--you were flagrantly vandalizing. A monkey could see that. Layla12275 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Please, by all means, review the history of all the pages. Reviewing all of my 5,500+ edits would reveal no previous interaction with anyone involved. I've not had even one warning on my talk page, ever. Sixstring's behavior with the article, his/her own talk page, Layla's talk page, here... it's all ridiculous. The fact that s/he's refered to Layla as a twat seems block-worthy, imo. Sixstring is a vandal, plain and simple. No intrest in working constructively or collaboratively whatsoever. Review the history, as Sixstring so politely recommended. Lara♥Love 05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a vandal because you say I am. Look at what I supposedly vandalized... MY OWN PAGE. How rediculous is that? All of my other work was constructive (look it up) and sice i've been dealing with these two buddies, I've been reprimanded. I say it again... If I get blocked again, I insist that they also get blocked for the same amount of time. Sixstring1965 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of buddies. I did a little looking myself. Hotcop2 (talk · contribs · count) popped out of no where all of a sudden to back up Sixstring. The proof is in the diffs. I have nothing to defend, so I'm not worried about a block. You, however, Sixstring, need to seriously consider your edits and how they affect the project. Lara♥Love 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, "demanding" and "insisting" tends not to work well around here. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Arritt.  :) (You're coming to my defense...we must be long-lost lovers! Kidding...I'm kidding).

And for the tenth time, Lara and I don't know each other. Layla12275 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah come to her defense. I can't wait until someone sees through you. This is all in the name of twat "The War Against Terror" of Wikipedia. Sixstring1965 05:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't come to my defense; I was kidding. And that was hardly the only thing you did. Layla12275 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i

Between 7 August and 9 August, the demographics section of Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i was vandalised in five separate incidents by five related IP addresses, all registered to USLEC Corp. of Raleigh, North Carolina: 64.24.87.54; 64.24.87.57; 64.24.87.133; 64.24.87.47; 64.24.87.35. The first vandalism (three edits, all together, by IP.54) changed the racial statistics, changing "American Indian" to "Red" with a link to "American Indian", "Asian American" to "Yellow", "Pacific Islander" to "Tan", and similar changes, calling it "fixed faulty racial categorization." Another editor and I reverted the changes each time, and the changes were reverted by .57, .133, .47, and .35 in turn, with the last calling it "Revert the violation of three revert rule and restore removal of the violation of published Wikipedia style guidelines." I warned each UP as if it were the same one, giving .47 a uw-vand4. With .35 doing it again, I decided to bring this here. Not sure what to do, but it's obviously the same person doing all of this. Nyttend 04:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk pages of these IP addresses, I see warnings of unconstructive edits and vandalism. I think this user thought he was contributing - he/she probably thought that these terms were shorter ways of saying the same thing. Od Mishehu 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, I can't really imagine that anyone past the age of 12 in Raleigh, NC thinks that "red" = indigenous American or that Oriental folks are "yellow." Believe it or not, Raleigh has decent education, and there isn't so much racism. Now, this is coming from a corp's IP block, so, if dad doesn't have Junior banging away at the machines, we're either looking at compromised security, a bogus company, or just good, old fashioned, moronia. There is no room or excuse to be made for reductive racialism or racism. Geogre 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'd say just keep reverting. Stupid people exist. Mahalo nui loa for all your help, Nyttend. --Ali'i 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's obviously the same person doing it, but because it's with different IP addresses, what — if anything — should I do at WP:AIV? As far as Od Mishehu: I gave warnings progressively: the first IP got a uw-vand1, the second got a uw-vand2, etc., but I didn't warn the fifth one because I brought it here. Nyttend 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The anti-vandal activity necessary is probably that which we would use with the AOL dilemma: short blocks, every time. The vandal is rolling around, but he or she will, we hope, get tired and bored if each IP gets a 12 hr block each time. If those pile up, then we will need to consider range blocks for an appropriate length, with contact to the abuse address at the company, if necessary. Geogre 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Death threats from suspected sock puppet of User:Joehazelton.

Please see threats like this one. This user has made several threats. Can an admin do a check-user and trace who this is? I've been warned by other editors that this individual tracks down people offline. Can we please escalate this to the highest level of review possible. I greatly appreciate your help. Propol 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked the anonymous address in question. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, someone (not Propol) takes Wikipedia *way* too seriously. :| Orderinchaos 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of decision requested

Hi, more of a procedural post really. I would appreciate it if another admin was to review those of the blocking admin and my actions in the case of Beneaththelandslide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The block, based on NPA over comments made by the user about alleged stacking at an FAC, seems to me like a disproportionate overreaction, considering that it occurred after only one warning and that the user concerned has an extensive editing history spanning at least two years which includes the creation of 5 FAs. I lowered it from 48h to 24h per WP:BOLD and my understanding of WP:BLOCK, but believe it's the community's decision and not mine to decide whether to unblock. Thanks. Orderinchaos 07:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a complete lifting of this block. He was making a valid point in criticising the FAC, and I don't see a personal attack in pointing out that many of the supporters of the FAC came from just the ethnic group the article is celebrating. Yes, ethnic "bandwagon" effects happen in such !votes, they must be countered, and editors must be free to talk about them and must not be censured for doing so. His tone may have been a bit acerbic, but nothing approaching block level. Block was invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of any kind of warning whatsoever, a length of 48 hours when no 24 hour block had been made (other than one which was rescinded almost immediately way back in February), yep, bad block. Particularly when the block was for his comments here (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II), where he seemed to be the only one to oppose the FAC of what he believed to be a "puff piece" and got castigated for daring to do so. I would personally unblock entirely, but a reduction to 24 hours is the very least that should have been done. Good call. Neil ム 08:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and reprimand admin Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for inflaming matters. He had no business placing the patronizing baiting message at the user's talk that only stirred passions and provoked the unfortunate response.

Further reprimand for non-emergency unilateral block without conferring and soliciting opinions. Unblock summary should include some sort of statement about the original block being found improper and subject to the community overturn. No wonder, content creating star editors often leave this project seeing after being baited and humiliated like this, especially when the eager-blocking admin usually goes on unpunished.

The longer the delay with the unblock, the more harm accumulates. Unblocking sooner rather than later will make this heal more quickly. --Irpen 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is excessive and needs to be overturned. Pointing out if most of the !votes are belongs to the same group of editors is usually impolite but sometimes necessary. I do not see the need to formally reprimand the blocking admin, we all do mistakes from time to time Alex Bakharev 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll do the unblock then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the block was entirely invalid, but 48 hours was definitely excessive. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My block rationale has been completely misconstrued above. The user used incivil language at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II, assuming bad faith and attacking other users. He was warned to stop such comments and then proceeded to revert the message with the edit summary rv; idiot o meter. I don't see why this is an issue, it is clearly a violation of WP:NPA and the user has been blocked for the same issue in the past.--Jersey Devil 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are far worse insults flying around Wikipedia. Incivility is all relative. All I can say is to stop being so precious Jersey. Timeshift 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I hadn't seen that edit summary, which is clearly an attack made in anger, but then, still, I don't see it as the type of situation where a block is suitable, and I'm not convinced the warning was valid in the first place. I see nothing wrong with his previous performance on the FAC discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! When an experienced FA-writing editor gets such kind of unwarranted threatening messages placed on his talk page the user reacts angrily. This is widely known and was even applied in the past to specifically provoke a response to be used as an excuse to block. I am not saying that JD had such a foul plan, but his actions were not well thought of, to put it mildly. Hopefully, the offended user would take this incident kindly, despite it leaves a permanent trace in his block log and we will all just move on. Lesson learned. But since receiving such blocks is a real humiliation, it would take a user some effort, which he hopefully can make. --Irpen 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that after the block the user continued with similar comments: Seems regardless of their ethnicity and political orientation, all Americans are indeed fools. Michael talk 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [106] It would also be nice if in the future you could at least leave a message on my talk page saying that you are going to unblock user's that I've blocked particularly after his unblock was declined by another administrator.--Jersey Devil 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a lament, not "incivility." Characterizing the speech of others in an unflattering way is simply a normal part of discourse that turned acrimonious, and that discussion had turned acrimonious. In fact, it had turned into a mobbing. I am sorry that I missed this gammon when it was fresh, as I find the block to be the disruptive bit, myself, and the assumption of bad faith, etc. Geogre 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet making disruptive edits.

User:Englandfan7 was banned indefinitely for uploading images which were copyrighted and claiming he produced them himself. Now, said user has created a sockpuppet account User:Iwualum05 and has not only personally attacked me [107] but has repeatedly inserted unsourced material onto pages [108] and [109]. Note that said user appears to be trying to engage in an edit war, which I am not going to get involved in. He has been shot down numerous times about inserting said material into the article yet refuses to acknowledge that he is in the wrong...not to mention he's a sockpuppet. Batman2005 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Said user has also began personally attacking other users [110] Batman2005 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Said user has also been highly uncivil in his edits and even more personal attacks [111] and [112]

Said user, who is a sock of a user banned for uploading copyrighted images and claiming he was allowed to use them or that he was the owner has also uploaded this image [113] to wikipedia, claiming that a friend of his took it and gave him permission to use it. With his history of image uploading and justification, this is a VERY suspect claim. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a copyrighted image, not usable by the project. Batman2005 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, incivility and attempts to justify his unsourced claims [114]. Batman2005 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The IWU sort of gives it away, doesn't it? Someone should block this sock: if Englandfan7 wants an unblock, he/she should ask on his /her own user talk, where it was being discussed.

Rank incivility continues: [115]Proabivouac 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I have tried, and succeeded in remaining civil as you can tell (which might surprise some) the aforementioned user has persisted in his incivility...this time threatening me by (falsely) claiming that he has been in contact with an administrator to investigate me for a legitimate edit to a page. [116]. How much disruption is needed? Batman2005 08:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, claiming a legitimate edit is vandalism and threatening me with being investigated. [117]. Hasn't this gone on long enough? Batman2005 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) More personal attacks, now trying to turn an entire page of editors against me for legitimate editing [118]. Batman2005 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a likely abusive sock. El_C 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Batman2005. El_C 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock removing tags

Leavepower (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) removed tags from all his suspected socks [119] [120] [121] [122] [123].

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0 for the relevant WP:RFCU report, which is still outstanding. I mean, I can understand it if Leavepower removed his own tag, but I believe it is unacceptable for him to remove the other users' tags.--Endroit 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

no evidence.Leavepower 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endroit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nightshadow28 for the relevant WP:RFCU report, which is still outstanding. I mean, I can understand it if Leavepower removed his own tag, but I believe it is unacceptable for him to remove the other users' tags.Leavepower 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endroit and Watermint are socket puppet. he double play. he enjoyed personal harassment, also, use so many 3rr warning.Leavepower 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leavepower, did I "use so many 3rr warning" against you? How many? Perhaps you're referring to this 3RR report where Bason1 got indef blocked for impersonating Bason0.--Endroit 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endroit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he continually personal harassment.[124] [125] [126] [127] [128] i am sick and tired, bcz this guy. also, he is a suspected socket puppet of Watermint.[129] he double play. and personal harassment to me. Leavepower 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm NOT a sockpuppet. Please check my contribution records and Endroit's records. Moreover, I am convinced that User:Leavepower' behavior is obvious Personal attack against Endroit and me.--Watermint 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leavepower has left this final warning on my talk page. He's obviously disgruntled and seeking revenge against us, for his other users being blocked. If none of the admins object, I will go ahead and put back the {{sockpuppet}} tags on these users like I did before.--Endroit 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. As an interim measure (one of?) the article Leavepower and others have been edit-warring over all day, Sea of Japan naming dispute, has been full-protected. I'm sure Checkuser will sort the rest of this out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello administrators. I thank you for all your works everyday. Although User:Replystay reports WP:RFCU for me and other veteran users, but I am NOT a sock of other users. Please see contribution log. --Nightshadow28 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also suspect strongly that User:Leavepower is a sock of User:Bason0. The reason which I consider so is as follows:

• User:Leavepower does characteristic wording. He uses a word of "socketpuppet" as sockpuppet.[130][131]
• User:Replystay also uses "socket puppet".[132] (Please see his editing summary) [133]
• User:Bason1 is blocked as sockpuppet of User:Bason0[134][135], and also uses "socket puppet". [136]

That is, the new users who appeared at the same time, performed the same opinion, and has repeated the same miswritten word. It is difficult to suspect this not to be sockpuppet. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana, I'm afraid it's not that simple. There are dozens of articles where Leavepower went in and made controversial edits, not just that one. Karate was controversial, because he unilaterally deleted stuff he didn't like. He deleted sourced material from Koror-Babeldaob Bridge as well. He inserted a map with the words "East Sea" (instead of "Sea of Japan") into Korea and Korean Peninsula. And the bogus WP:AN3 report he filed, and the bogus WP:AIV reports he filed. There's a clear pattern of WP:POINT violation. And just a couple days ago, Replystay (talk · contribs) did much of the same thing. And so did Bason1 (talk · contribs), just a few days before him. (Bason1 got indef blocked for suspected sockpuppetry).--Endroit 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'd blocked User:Leavepower for 3rr (1 day) prior to finding this report. As Riana says above she protected the article and check user should sort the rest out. ^Khukri 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lauder

Please could administrators review the discussion on the Talk Page for the Burgh of Lauder in Berwickshire, Scotland. I have worked diligently on the article, did considerbale research for the input and cited up to 28 sources. Another editor, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim‎, has attacked me, and virtually all historians prior to the late 20th century, as wrong incompetent, amateurs, etc., even denounces several of the ancient chroniclers, and attacks me and my input at length as though he is mightier and holier than thou and his writ should run supreme on Wikipedia. I feel he has contravened WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV; and made a nonsence of WP:Reliable sources which I believe I have correctly adhered to. If editors who wish to make genuine contributions to Wikipedia are to be constantly bullied in this manner I fear you will lose a lot of input. David Lauder 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

David, people who read the discussion will see what is going on for themselves. And, yes, everyone, I urge anyone who can to come and give it their thoughts. I've already tried to bring this topic to the attention of the Scottish wikipedians noticeboard and WikiProject Medieval Scotland, and it has helped only a little (though it brought Lurker and Ben MacDui in). I'm not sure if Administrators in particular, certainly not Incidents, is the best place to advertise this, but what the hey, it's already here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq killings

Haevy attack page posted by LEIGHGIRL, whose talk page where I posted the warnig is an attack page as well.--Tikiwont 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed your link. Either way, the article is being sent up for speedy deletion - and that other image he/she uploaded might want to go with it, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied that users user page and an image for being advertisements for a blog. Also the userpage expressed hatred towards a specific country. I think a close eye should be kept on this user. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:LyndonB.JPG

What should be done with this image? It was part of this article which I have speedy deleted as an attack page. However I can't see the image so I don't know what should be done with it. Is there any better way for me to deal with this sort of situation than taking it here? Graham87 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it now. I guess if you don't feel confident making such a delete yourself you could just slap a db-tag on it and let somebody else review it, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah that's a good idea and I'll do that in future. WP:DENY and all that. Graham87 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks by User:Lsi_john

Resolved

Lsi_john has been engaged in a long-running, low-level feud with User:Durova. I consider his last couple of remarks to be way out of line.[137][138] Other admins may want to keep an eye on the situation. Raymond Arritt 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't approach her first. She sent ME an email. It was unnecessary and unwanted. And the fact that she sent it at all speaks volumes about the situation.

I leave her alone. And if she's going to email me, given the situation, then lets not get all pointy fingered when I respond on her talkpage.

Peace.Lsi john 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, mr Raymond Arrit, sir... isn't it a bit INCIVIL of you to open this thread without notifying me? a bit of WP:KETTLE here perhaps? Peace.Lsi john 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have notified you. But I don't think that excuses your own behavior. Raymond Arritt 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone sends you objectionable email, it's best not to reply/retaliate on-wiki, for a number of reasons. Obviously, personal correspondence is not bound by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc, whereas talk page comments are. Certainly off-wiki harassment can have repercussions on-wiki, but this seems like more of a personal dispute. Honestly, I don't think any sanctions are in order for anyone right now, but Lsi john, if you're receiving email that's pissing you off, it's best to just delete it, spam-filter the sender, or if you must reply, do it via email instead of on-wiki. If you feel you're being harassed via email or off-wiki, then that's a different story, but this looks like a personal dispute that's best handled by disengagement. MastCell ^Talk 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that there are a couple of good reasons to reply on-wiki rather than off-. For one, it creates a 'paper trail' on-wiki should there be further steps of dispute resolution in the future. For another, replying to an email gives the recipient one's email address. I avoid sending email to editors I don't trust, because I don't want them to be able to send me abuse or sign me up for mailing lists and spam. (Remember, if an editor is blocked it's now possible to bar them from using the Wikipedia email-this-user function.)

I would disagree that private emails (sent to an editor using the 'email this user' button) are entirely beyond the reach of WP:NPA. If an editor is using Wikipedia's servers and tools to insult another editor, that's something about which we should be concerned. Note that I have no specific comment about this particular situation; my remarks are intended to be general in scope and tone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I agree that off-wiki harassment or personal attacks can and should have on-wiki repercussions. I often just delete abusive emails rather than reply, for the reasons TenOfAllTrades mentioned, and the email-blocking feature has been useful in that regard. On the other hand, publishing the text of emails or private correspondence, even when abusive, has generally been frowned upon. If a paper trail is important, it might be best to just hang onto the offending email instead of bringing it on-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I question whether this thread will accomplish anything. a) Durova is an admin and can take care of herself; b) Lsi John says he's left Wikipedia. c) Yes, his comments were uncivil, but not egregiously so.

Lsi John is IMO a well-intentioned editor who has had challenges in his sincere, if sometimes confrontational, attempts to fit in with Wikipedia's norms. I believe that censure (warnings or blocks) won't accomplish anything useful. IMO Lsi John has gotten seriously mired in his own quest to find two things that are very elusive on WP: understanding, and rules that are so perfectly written and enforced that they are completely fair. I think the best thing would be to wish him well, leave him alone, and hope that if/when he returns he has gained some distance and can edit articles that don't bring out his less glowing character traits. Anchoress 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized to John for the mistake.[139] Last night I was up very late starting a new article and the last thing I did before going to bed was send a friendly heads up to the editor who had inspired me to start it - or so I thought. That editor has a very similar e-mail address to John's and I was half asleep; I didn't realize the error until I woke up and logged on. John, allow me to be more explicit: I am truly sorry to have antagonized you. It was unintentional. To the other editors here, John and I are both named parties at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. On several occasions I have asked him to submit his complaints against me there as evidence. John, other sysops are unlikely to intervene on conduct complaints that relate to an outstanding arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail? E-mail? What part of that is "Wikipedia?" The contents of an e-mail are private. If some people can claim that they're allowed to call long established editors horrible names on their blog, which is open and begging for readers, and be untouchable, then surely the contents of an e-mail are not appropriate subjects for our concern, much less administrator intervention. If there are threats and stuff, then we have something legitimate, but I can't fathom the number of Evil Kineavel jumps that are necessary for someone to go from "civility" to "personal attack" to "e-mails must be nice" to "let me go to AN/I to complain about someone's tone in e-mail." I think this is a subject for laughing out of court, unless there is some indication of threat. So far as I've heard, it's just, "They're not being nice in private communication." Well, tough: it's private, it's not Wikipedia, and it's not appropriate for discussion. Geogre 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, he went to my talk page. Other people stepped in and one of them started the thread here. John didn't take this to ANI. No blood, no harm, no foul as Chick Hearn used to say. I could have deleted a couple of posts from my talk space if it had been a problem. We're both named parties at an arbitration case and we've rubbed each other the wrong way, so yeah my mistake was pretty tactless. He and I have buried the hatched over this. I hope that's something positive we can build upon. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alithien disregards request not to post on talk page

Alithien disregarded two requests not to make further posts in my talk page, this after making some postings regarding an ArbCom we are both participating in. No need for diffs, they are the latest post in my talk page.

Could someone kindly let him know not to do this? I feel he is trolling and I do not want problems. His talk page says he is in wiki leave, so I wont be giving him notice of this AN/I could someone also do this. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not post any more on Cerejota's talk page.

It is true that he asked me not to post any more and that I posted a last time anyway.

What he forgets to explain here is that, he wrote something such as :

• You are of bad faith (...), do not post any more on my talk page.
• You are a troll (...), do not post any more on my talk page.

And I only posted : "I am not of bad faith. Thank you" and "I am not trolling".

See here precise words used : [140]

Regards, Alithien 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, I was just about to write the same thing.) Sigh. Look, Cerejota, your talk page is specifically there for people to communicate with you. That's its main purpose. That is not a reason for it to be used to harass or unnecessarily annoy you, Wikipedia:Civility certainly applies, but the post you're objecting to merely says "I am not of bad faith ! Thank you." That's hardly a personal attack, especially given that it's in response to your writing "Alithien, your inflammatory, bad faith comment on me not understanding is very unproductive." No offense intended, Cerejota, but you just can't write stuff like that and then object to someone responding to it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It think you miss the point, that is not the post I object. What I object is that he posts *twice* diffs refering to an ongoing arbcom, and when I ask him not to post about arbcom outside of the arbcom (to which I have every right), he says he is not talking about arbcom. This after he misquotes me, confuses me, and then all I ask is that my wishes be respected. He questioned my good faith over me not understanding. That for me is enough evidence of non-productive trolling. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistent spamming and reverting by User:Joxernolan

Resolved

User has read policy pages regarding image use.

This user is consistently reverting and spamming content on various Tomb Raider related articles. He insists on displaying his personally uploaded images on every page (which completely lack fair use rationale) or rearranges pictures without justification. It has been discussed on various talkpages that listing level descriptions is not encyclopedical yet he continues to edit this in. His talkpage, as you can see, is flooded with bot warnings about inappropriate uploading, which he apparently ignores. He systematically refuses to solve disputes on the talkpage. He simply reverts. Seeing as he fails to react to talkpage messages, I fail to see why block warnings would be useful. I therefore request an immediate block. --Steerpike 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Handled, see User talk:Joxernolan#Account blocked. Hopefully, he'll finally notice the "You have new messages", read the image policies, and request the unblock. It's a shame to have to go that far, as he seems genuinely enthused to help the project. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet requiring a block

Resolved

 – Blocked as sock puppet of banned user ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this query at User talk:Jpgordon, BushpigsGoneWild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs), who has been permanently blocked for disrupting the project. Would someone please block? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DoneY. Good catch! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible nonsense page

Can someone check this out. I think it's either a nonsense page, or two articles rolled into one (see further down bottom of page). Note the page was created by a user who moments earlier made his first edit on a Request for Adminship page as mentioned further up this page. Davnel03 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not nonsense, but probably not worthy of inclusion either. I'd say CSD A7. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of how the article is written, but it does have a few ghits.[141]. Perhaps the article just needs to be rewritten? ~Kylu (u|t) 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Schools don't fall under A7, for some reason.(this part of the policy appears to be in transition?) Looks like advertising to me though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the page be speedy-deleted then as blatant advertising? Davnel03 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks like an ad as much as a poorly made page. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - how is it advertising? It just needs some cleanup. Neil ム 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

After clean up, it's still AfD fodder. Let's see how it fares there. Geogre 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypocritical edits/harassment

Alright, I'm here once again. Some may know that in the past couple days or so I've had a dispute with Jmfangio (talk · contribs) about... well, I don't really know what they were all about; nothing important. Anyway, on Wednesday night, I was having another discussion with him, this time at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson. At 01:37, August 16, 2007, Jmfangio posted a comment here ([142]), to which I was going to respond. But before I was able to click on "Save page," he removed the comment ([143]), resulting in an edit conflict. Note that this was also at 01:37, August 16, 2007. Now, I had already typed out my statement before I was aware that he had removed it. I felt that it was important to keep the whole discussion intact; since my comment was in a reply to the previous comment, I thought it was important to keep that comment there in the discussion so people could see what I was replying to. So I restored his comment and posted my comment ([144])at 01:38, August 16, 2007. He removed his comment with the edit summary "do not edit my comments," something I didn't do; I restored the comment because I replied to it and never edited it. I still felt that it was important to keep the whole discussion intact; because I was replying to a comment he left, and that comment should be visible in the discussion, so I reverted him, beginning the lamest revert war in Wiki-history. I later came to a compromise by striking out his comment, something which the talk page guidelines say is perfectly acceptable... but not by his standards; he reverted me again, prompting me to go to WP:3RR out of frustration.

Now, Jmfangio I know has some sort of problem with me; whenever I post a comment, I always go check my watchlist afterwards... I don't know why I do, but I do. Whenever I post a comment of Jmfangio's talk page, he deletes it before I can even get to my watchlist, so I know that he doesn't read any of my comments. One that I sent him last night during this was a very important one, which I'll get to in a bit. It's only my comments that he sweeps up like a vacuum cleaner; he deletes it way too quickly for him to be able to read it, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

Anyway, on Tuesday night, Jmfangio was blocked for a 3RR violation. There was an ensuing discussion on his talk page created by him about the whole situation that took place. During the heated conversation, Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) was quite frustrated because he, too, has been a victim of Jmfangio's behavior. He left a comment on Jmfangio's talk page ([145]), which seconds later he retracted ([146]). Jmfangio felt that the comment Chrisjnelson left was important to the conversation and decided to restore the comment ([147]) with the edit summary "...[T]his needs to be seen." So, because of this action he took last night, Jmfangio was saying that it's alright to restore other people's comments to a talk page after the commenter chose to remove them.

This is what leads to the "hypocritical edits" I was referring to in the subject heading. Chrisjnelson posted a comment, which he later decided to remove, but Jmfangio thought that it was important and should stay in the discussion. Last night, Jmfangio posted a comment, which he later decided to remove, but I thought that it was important and should stay in the discussion. However, despite the fact that Jmfangio did the same thing on Tuesday, when it was perfectly allowed by his standards, he wouldn't let me do it because it was his comment that was being restored. I explained this to him in the comment ([148]) I sent him last night, but he removed it within seconds of me posting it ([149]) so I know he didn't read my reasons.

Also, since on Tuesday it was perfectly allowed by his standards, yet I couldn't do it to him, this brought me to the conclusion that the only reason Jmfangio was doing this to me last night was to harass me. Also, per the GNU Free Documentation License, once somebody clicks on "Save page", they release their contributions to the world, where they are no longer "his" comments, and it's my interpretation that because he already submitted it, I'm free to use it however I want. All I did was restore the comment, which I don't see the harm that create. Once he submitted the comment, I am free to do what I want with it, as long as I don't distort it to change its meaning, which I didn't. It seems to me that Jmfangio is only trying to harass me, and nothing more. I don't see how there could be any other reason for not allowing a user to do something that you did the very previous night. Ksy92003(talk) 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on this dispute other then to say that it's usually common courtesy to let someone to retract a statement. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... ok, I looked into this further... and It seems that you, in my opinion, were out of line. This isn't really a matter of legality (Yeah yeah, GFDL applies). It's a matter of etiquette. He retracted his statement in less then a minute and your replay didn't have much substance in it anyway. If you still wish to make the comment I would recommend re-phrasing it so it stands on it's own without his comment for context. In either case... shame on everyone for edit waring over something so trivial. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I ended up just removing my comment, altogether, because I was so frustrated with the situation. I know that perhaps I was a little bit out of line, but to me this is just a matter of principle. I mean if he did something the night before, wouldn't it make sense that I would have every right to do it the next night? And this isn't so much a manner of context for me as it is harassment. It's not a big deal to begin with, but the fact that he took it so offensively when he reacted in an extremely similar manner the previous night really makes me think that there was no other reason for his actions than to simply harass me.

His harassment frustrated me to a point that last night I was seriously contemplate Wikipedia for good; because of Jmfangio's behavior towards me in the past week (not just this situation), by entire pattern has been thrown off... I had been creating several pages per day for baseball players, and now I can't continue that. I also no longer get enjoyment from contributing to this encyclopedia, which I haven't even really been able to do because I've been constantly having to defend myself against Jmfangio's false accusations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That combined with all the harassment and I've seriously given some serious thought to quitting Wikipedia forever... and I'm still contemplating that. If someone could just get Jmfangio to stop... that's all I ask is for someone to stop all this harassment and incivility towards me. Ksy92003(talk) 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is look at the one situation... so I can't really comment on ongoing patterns of harassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Need I provide examples of harassment towards me by this user? I can try to find them, if you wish. Ksy92003(talk) 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the most recent and long-lasting evidence of harassment was what led him to be blocked for 3RR on Tuesday. A discussion between TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), myself, and Jmfangio began at TonyTheTiger's talk page, and then was transferred to Jmfangio's by Jmfangio. I don't know why, but that's immaterial. Jmfangio was questioning TonyTheTiger for a comment he made to me, and I felt that it was my responsibility to clarify it (I won't go into specifics unless absolutely necessary). I was defending myself, as well as trying to help him understand the situation, and his response was "Please stop posting here. You are not following my points at all and I really don't care about who said what to whom and on what date. All i care about is content discussion and that people don't chime in with chirpy comments that escalate an otherwise civil process. Nuff said," which I took negatively, as one could understand. In my next comment ([150]), I had the response of something to the effect of "I'm only doing what you said to do... why are you snapping at me for that?" In this version of his talk page ([151]), which was shortly after he was blocked for 3RR on my talk page, there are a couple threats, which I actually didn't realize they were threats until just now: "I'll serve my 24hour ban - because i deserve it. But I will be removing my comments from Ksy's subpage" (threatening to continue the vandalism that got him blocked) and "Ksy - when i comeback, i'm removing the portion of my comments you have moved to your talk page," once again threatening to continue vandalize my page again... he eventually didn't, but he did threaten; also he posted another comment, "i'll be back tomorrow and we'll deal with it then" which I really take quite threateningly.

Later, I had an RfC that wasn't successful, and Daniel Case (talk · contribs) came to ask Jmfangio, since it didn't get the two signatures, if he wanted it deleted or archived. After Jmfangio's response, I came to tell Daniel Case that I didn't have any need for the RfC anymore. I feel that my opinion was perfectly valid, although it wouldn't have changed the situation anyway. Jmfangio removes it with the edit summary "not your decision anyway." I know that he can do whatever he wants on his talk page, but it just seems like Jmfangio did this only to bother me. Also, every single comment I posted on his talk page he just instantly deleted, so to me it really seems like he just wants to bother me again and again and again without even considering my opinion on the matter. He's harassed me and bothered me more than anybody else... there have been anons who have vandalised my pages that have been more friendly to me than he has. I think it wouldn't be fair if Jmfangio doesn't even get told by somebody else not to harass me, because clearly that's his only intention of having any sort of contact with me is him removing any of my comments or harassing me in all the ways he has. And I'm sure that Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) can vouch for me. Ksy92003(talk) 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock needs block

Resolved

 – Blocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin block Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Oprahwasontv created a RFCU on August 13, where he identified myself as the puppet master for Jersyko (talk · contribs), Turtlescrubber (talk · contribs), HailFire (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), and Bhwin (talk · contribs).[152] This is a standard tactic of Dereks1x. If you check the delete log for the RFCU you'll see that a previous sockpuppet of Dereks1x, Nostasi (talk · contribs), previously filed an RFCU against myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz. Additionally, if you check the history for the RFCU for Dereks1x, you'll see that Lawman8 (talk · contribs), another Dereks1x sock, has used that RFCU to file RFCU's against myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz.[153] And if that is not enough, if you check Jersyko's edit history you'll see that Jersyko has had no contact with Oprahwasontv, so the only way Oprahwasontv could have known about Jersyko was if he was Dereks1x. Side note, Bhwin (talk · contribs) is also probably a sock of Dereks1x's. His only non-userspace edit was a comment on Talk:Barack Obama[154] that is virtually identical to a comment I made to Oprahwasontv on that talk page.[155] Since this edit was made a couple of hours before Oprahwasontv submitted the RFCU, chances are the comment was made so they could mimic my wording and claim Bhwin was my sockpuppet. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. I forgot. Here's an RFCU Dereks1x filed against Jersyko, myself, and Tvoz.[156] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and endorse all of the above, and would block the user(s) myself if not for my involvement. · jersyko talk 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA, Neil Larson and Android Mouse

Recently, Majorly indefinitely blocked Neil Larson (talk · contribs) for "disruption to the RfA process, with little to no work anywhere else", based on the fact that Neil Larson was giving the same exact same oppose on quite a few RfAs. At that time, I performed a checkuser on Neil Larson, as it was suspected that he was a disruptive sockpuppet of some other account. I found information linking Neil Larson to User:Android Mouse Bot 2, including the fact that the bot stopped editing one minute before Neil Larson's block. Android Mouse later admitted that the Neil Larson account is his, and states that he has not abused our policy on abusing multiple accounts. However, if he has not, he has come very close.

• 21:10, 10 August 2007 - AM supports Crockspot RfA
• 02:30, 15 August 2007 - AM withdraws support for Crockspot RfA due to "reviewing the contributor's edits more thoroughly and reading some of the recent opposes"
• 08:20, 16 August 2007 - NL opposes Crockspot RfA

I request the opinions of others on this matter. Do we believe this is a violation of our policy on multiple accounts, an attempt at gaming the system, not a policy vio but a really stupid idea, or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this? --Deskana (banana) 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the fact he has done this on a secondary account shows he was trying to avoid getting his main account a "black mark" so to speak - a violation of the sockpuppet policy. Majorly (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the policy violation question to others, but there's no question this was a really stupid idea. What was the point? The sock should remain blocked indef and Android Mouse sternly reminded not to make quite such a fool of himself in public - at least. Moreschi ^Talk 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit hazy in my view. Given the kind of hounding that opposers sometimes get, it's understandable that someone may want to use an alternate account for this. It's not at all clear to me why opposing an RFA would be considered a "black mark". Friday (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the opposes? They're all identical. This could easily get a "black mark", as other people that have done something similar the past have done. --Deskana (banana) 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who have regularly oppose RfAs (off the top of my head Kmweber, Boothy443 and Masssiveego) aren't ever made welcome on the RfA page. They've had RfCs against them, blocks for exhausting community's patience... in my view this was preventing yet another RfA troller. Majorly (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally its all very dubious - a 'crat reviewing a close run RFA could easily count a withdrawn support as part of evidence of consensus moving away from a candidate plus Android Mouse gets an oppose as well. Effectively a double whammy against the candidate. I have no idea where the policy on this is but this was an extremely foolish action and I'm rather disappointed that Android Mouse doesn't understand why the sock account got blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug!

(ec) Alright, it makes him look foolish. I tend to see that as its own punishment, though. If stop viewing opposing an RFA as some kind of sin, perhaps people will feel comfortable using their regular accounts for this purpose. Friday (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are comfortable to oppose every RfA, or most RfAs, they should be comfortable to use their regular account. Majorly (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) This case appears to fall under the following forbidden uses of sock puppets per WP:SOCK:

• "Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail."
• "All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption." (my emphasis)

So, yes, I think that there has been a violation of our policy on multiple accounts. Sandstein 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like stupidity to me - attempting to avoid the stigma of changing from support to oppose. As I do not believe it to be loading the voting, since NL and AM are not voting for the same thing, I would have suggested the discovery and commenting was sufficient punishment for AM, except for the various identical opposes that NL made to other RfA's to (presumably) cover AM's tracks. This is/was unfair to other candidates. I feel that AM should acknowledge the potential unfortunate consequences to these individuals, and would like AM to issue an apology to them and the community. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't think a block of the main account (the sock is already blocked indef) is warranted. LessHeard vanU's suggestion should be more than adequate. Moreschi ^Talk 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A most unwelcome development. I would much rather candidates receive some feedback from an editor they might recognise rather than from a sockpuppet they won't. Behaviour an editor is unwilling to carry out on their main account should never be carried out on a secondary account, especially with a process as personal as Request for Adminship. Nick 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is clearly contrary to WP:SOCK: "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". There was no other reason for it. A very ill-conceived action on this editor's part. Hiberniantears 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition I would also like to say that everyone does stupid things [157] from time to time. I also think that blocking the sock is sufficient, and that keeping an otherwise solid editor on board with the project is the way to go. Hiberniantears 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for Android Mouse (talk · contribs) about this thread... — Scientizzle 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what AM said, I feel that the block of his other account was justified. A block is not warranted here, but an apology to the community and the candidates is enough. Singularity 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the candidates he opposed, I'm not even sure that an apology is necessary. His opposition left nothing actionable, so I doubt a beurocrat would have taken it seriously. His opposition was based around a policy he evidently disagrees with, and obviously had nothing to do with any of the editors he opposed. I find it hard to take that personally, as his issue is not about my fitness to be an admin. I also find it comical that he opposed candidates who were nominated by someone else yesterday, while another editor was opposing candidates who were self-nominated today. I guess we just can't win. ;o) Resolute 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider that the oppose vote/reason was made in bad faith, in that it appears that AM/NL was trying to legitimise an earlier oppose in another RfA (which they had previously supported and then changed to neutral) by voting similarly on others. I admire your stance toward your own candidature, but yours was not the only RfA that was abused. LessHeard vanU 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looking it over, it seems pretty clear to me that this is a pretty WP:POINTy disruption in response to the voting pattern of Kmweber (the use of a latin legal phrase, arbitrary criteria), and not an attempt to influence any specific RfA. Which is still bad, but certainly a much lower level of abuse, in my opinion. No opinion as to whether a block of the main account is appropriate. -Chunky Rice 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the actions performed by the sock account were deliberate and considered and that a further deliberate choice was made to perform them on a sock account in an attempt to deceive. That is, AM used the sock account in less than good faith. I endorse a block on the sock account. I do not, however, endorse a full block on the main account. I think a public reprimand and having your dirty laundry publicly aired is quite enough in this case. - Philippe | Talk 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I concur with those saying that the secondary account be blocked and that the primary account not be blocked. This user, despite having made a poor decision here has been a strong contributor and bot operator IMO and should not be punished long-term for what we believe to be a single infraction. I *would* feel better if the user would acknowledge that what they did was wrong, as so far he seems to be indicating otherwise. Obviously any future foolishness should be treated more severely. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Sometimes people do stupid things, I can see how this started as just a misguided attempt to have some fun. We should remember that blocks aren't supposed to be doled out just to punish people... do we really think AM will continue to do this? He was apparently a valuable contributer, so I say we give him a second chance. --W.marsh 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this "bye" means, but I do know that the blocking of AM is not necessary. Apparently he has already suffered the consequences of his actions, which were clear violations of WP:SOCK. --Boricuaeddie 00:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sock blocked = good. Nothing more need be done. — Scientizzle 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, as an aside, are checkusers really supposed to act like police detectives as seen at [158]? Asking a question to try to trap someone... that seems a bit over the top. It's also surprising that checkusers will just go fishing for alternate accounts now and just reveal that information freely... I remember in the past it was impossible to get this done even with accounts that were genuinely disruptive and obviously a sock of someone. --W.marsh 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was an intent to "deceive" the way I usually think of the word, or cover any tracks. It was either a joke, or more likely trying to make some point (not sure what point, exactly) about Kurt Weber without having to suffer any consequences. Borderline pointy, but not "disruputive", and not worth a block on NL. However, the fact that AM participated in Crockspot's RfA twice, even though technically not double voting, is a legit reason to indef block the sock, although i don't know how this affects AMBotII. Whether or not AM apologizes, I jump on the bandwagon of people who see no need for further action. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ATrollope (talk · contribs) and WP:POINT

[159] after this comment the user went and proposed deletion on about 15 articles. He's made few other edits to this point.--Crossmr 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you handled that just fine and we should wait and see if the behavior continues after your talk page message.--Atlan (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets, request for block

It has been confirmed by checkuser [160] that the user Artaxerex has resorted to sockpuppetry to evade a block. The sockpuppet accounts are Arteban, Artaban, Arteban1, and Vazgen. It is noteworthy that the user Artaxerex has already been blocked twice for sockpuppetry some while ago. I would therefore like to ask for this user and his sockpuppet accounts to be blocked from editing.Shervink 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While they are all socks, per CU... they're not doing anything that sockpuppets are prohibited from doing. There's no Wikipedia policy against having multiple accounts. You're only prohibited to use multiple accounts to get around 3RR, vote multiple times, fake a wider consensus by having multiple accounts support each other in a discussion, etc.

These appear to not have edited anything close enough together that they're abusive, at least not in the last month or two. If you can point to specifics which breach any of our policies in the logs, please feel free to. But I don't see grounds to block them, socks as they may be. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not versed in the specifics of this case, but using sockpuppets to evade a block is prohibited, and the general response is to reset the block, as well as block the socks. Natalie 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spies appear to be editing on Wikipedia

Yesterday, I alerted AN/I of a BBC News article reporting that Wikipedia has determined that the Democratic Party in the United States has been attacking its opponents on Wikipedia. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm The CIA also has done the same thing.

Almost immediately, the AN/I warning was removed. I also placed a warning on 4 controversial articles (2 about Democratic Party members and 2 on Republican Party members). All except 1 was immediately removed. This suggests that there may be spies working for 3 of the 4 politicians.

One of the articles that have potential spies working for it is Barack Obama (warning was immediately removed from that talk page.) Ophrahwasontv was writing in that article.

It seems that spies have fooled an administrator into blocking an editor who was proven not to be a sock. See RFCU clearing Ophrahwasontv.

See [6] where it says Unlikely for Oprahwasontv Collaborating with spies, even if by mistake, is bad for wikipedia. Remember, wikipedia determined that there are spies working against us according to the news article. I am shocked by the spies on Wikipedia. Orginally, I thought that there would be little controversy about the article since Wikipedia, itself, determined that there is spying.

Ophrah should be unblocked as she was blocked because of spies campaigning against her. More importantly, any content dispute should be examined for content, not number of editors editing because that is subject to manipulation by spies.

I don't care about Ophrah so much but people who reported to AN/I (causing her block) fail the duck test. They (the spies who attacked Ophrah) appear like socks and they were NOT cleared by the checkuser. The article they edit contentiously had my Wikipedia warning and the warning was removed within seconds.

The duck test is "If you complain about the spies being socks" then you must be a sock (because once a sock did make such complaint). With that flawed duck test, the spies are invincible (everyone who complains about the spies will be blocked indefinitely).

I am not so concerned about Barack Obama or Ophrah. I am concerned about the spy issue on Wikipedia. Since Hillary Clinton's article talk page still has my warning, I don't think she has active spies on her article.Warningwarningwarning 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that there are editors pushing a POV for or against certain politicians, it would be best to name them and provide edit diffs. Otherwise we can't really do anything about it. --Hemlock Martinis 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This little tool, http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/, will identify IP edits on wikipedia coming from a specific organization. seems to be down quite a bit (sever load) and slow, however its amazing what it uncovers. Happy hunting--Hu12 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. They were blocked earlier for similar behavior on politician's WP articles, promised the blocking admin they would positively contribute, and then re-started this all as soon as the shortened 24 hr block expired.

I have indef blocked on the grounds that this is disruption and a single-purpose account. Georgewilliamherbert 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Warningwarningwarning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just given himself away as being another sock of banned user Dereks1x. Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was just blocked as another one of his 30 socks. See this and above here. I would suggest that bhwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also be blocked as per this: not as a sock of myself, Bobblehead, Jersyko et al, but as another SPA sock of Dereks1x, established, again, in a lame attempt to legitimize the bogus RFCU on us. Tvoz |talk 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spies" editing Wikipedia? That's a fresh new twist on the cabal conspiracy theories... Grandmasterka 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no it's not. I heard on the radio just the other day about how government officials in the US have been tampering with the Iranian pages... Timeshift 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you don't have to just hear it on the radio, it is on the wikiscanner website, so you can see for yourself once it is back up. Not to say that the edits are bad, particularly from the CIA. Although it is a tad distressing this is how they are passing time. =) daveh4h 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about whether there is factual evidence of those edits by the CIA, other agencies, companies, etc... That's now widely known, and has been for some days now. There was no emergency or emergent situation that justified trying to plaster large sections of the encyclopedia with warnings like this. Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for the sockpuppet relation, I would say that indefinitely blocking this guy is a bit out of line. It is not unreasonable to imagine someone, not familiar with Wikipedia, hearing about this and trying to start discussion about it. I recall not too long ago a teacher being blocked because they posted a survey (about Wikipedia editing) to some user talk pages, without even getting a warning before the block. We shouldn't forget that many people will not know how we normally do things, and we shouldn't be quick to block like this. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the deciding factor for me was that they promised to change behavior to get the first block length reduced, and then immediately turned around and started the behavior once the block expired.

I am much more tolerant of troublesome editors who just don't get it than I am of ones who appear to intentionally decieve admins. There are many explanations for not getting it; there's only one for such deception: it's an account for which WP:AGF has been shown to be a mistake.

Anything is possible, and if this turns out somehow bizarrely to have been a misjudgement on my part then so be it, it can be reversed. But this person had several chances and has done pretty much the clearly worst thing they could after each one, short of outright baldly attacking other editors here.

If you want to give them another chance, I won't stop you, but I suspect you'll be dissapointed. Georgewilliamherbert 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by user 24.168.46.238

Resolved

User 24.168.46.238 has made legal threats against CyberGhostface [161] [162] [163] [164][165] and say he will 'be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' [166] .Edward321 23:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This IP was blocked earlier today. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've semiprotected his user talk page for the duration of his block (48h) to stop the trolling and threats. He said he will not be returning after the block expires. Let's hope that's true. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw he was blocked for 48 hours, but he has continued to make legal threats after his block. Edward321 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Block has been extended to six months for ongoing harrassment and legal threats. Georgewilliamherbert 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection extended to match block. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User Making Contentious edits while content dispute is in place

I am trying to leave the situation but having a difficult time actually doing this. allowing me to do this. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) is making contentious edits under the premise of WP:DATE despite the fact that WP:DATE does include a section where Sports seasons can be directly linked to (see: 1997 NFL season). All edits under the WP:DATE need to be reverted per the section where it says ". Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (1997), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."

This has been discussed in numerous places and is in fact part of a much larger dispute going on between myself, this user, and one other. Please step in and stop this so that it does not create extra work for others. The choice of display has not been discussed and due to the fact that all editors are very passionate about this, we need a "status quo" instituted. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a dispute about the edits that I was making. Here is a quote that is currently on User talk:Aviper2k7 that relates to this; this was an issue for WP:BASEBALL:

If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination.

This isn't set in stone, so there is nothing that says I can't do what I was doing; in fact, it points in favor of me removing the links. The end says "Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination." To avoid this confusion, removing the links altogether is the best way to avoid any conflicting opinions. Ksy92003(talk) 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)